Chamber
Plenary, 30 Sep 1999
30 Sep 1999 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Non-Executive Business: Education
To begin, I would like to say a word or two on why the Scottish National party has chosen as the subject of our Opposition debate this morning the pay and conditions of teachers. I will talk about the reasons for the overwhelming rejection by the teaching profession of the offer made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the position that we find ourselves in as a result.
There are three reasons for holding this debate. First, and most important, this is without doubt the most serious issue in education at present. From the wording of its amendment, the Executive's tactic will be to deflect attention on to other issues in education. I urge them not to do that. This issue has the potential to derail every other educational initiative that the Executive has in the pipeline. Teachers today are closer to industrial action than they have been at any time in the past 10 years. I do not want to depress the Minister for Children and Education too much so early, but—as someone who was still at school during the previous teachers' strike—I know how devastating and disruptive industrial action will be for every child in every school in Scotland.
The second reason is that the SNP's decision to initiate this debate was the only way in which the Parliament would get the chance to vote on this issue and, in particular, on the course of action adopted by the minister.
Last week, when the minister announced the establishment of the committee of inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, and detailed its terms of reference and its membership, he did so by way of ministerial statement, thus ensuring that there would be no debate and no vote. When I expressed regret about that, the minister replied:
"I am also surprised that she objects to the fact that I have brought a statement to this Parliament. I would have thought that that was part of the normal democratic process."—[Official Report, 22 September 1999; Vol 2, c 627.]
I would have thought that the "normal democratic process" demanded a full and open debate and the chance to vote on whether we thought that the minister was on the right track. That is what happened when a committee was established to look into student finance, under the
chairmanship of Andrew Cubie. On 17 June there was a debate followed by a vote on the establishment of the committee, and on 2 July there was another debate on the terms of reference and membership of the committee. Why has that not happened in the case of the committee looking into teachers' pay and conditions? Did the minister feel less than secure in his position and his arguments?
Today, we will have the debate. The people of Scotland want the Parliament to debate this issue. In the course of the morning, I think that we will see why the minister was so reluctant to have the debate in the first place.
The third reason for having the debate is the need to put the record straight on why we are in this situation and where the responsibility for it rightly rests. For the past few weeks, the education minister—in the best traditions of his predecessors, Tory and Labour—has been doing his utmost to convince the Scottish people that what we have on our hands is a straightforward pay dispute. He has implied that teachers rejected the COSLA offer because they are greedy and intransigent. He has refused point-blank, time and again, to recognise the glaring defects in COSLA's proposals, defects that would have damaged the quality of education in our classrooms. That is a disingenuous approach, and one that, frankly, stands no chance of resolving the dispute.
It is time for a bit of honesty from the minister and from the Executive. I hope that we will get that this morning. The hard fact of the matter is that the final offer from COSLA, presented to teachers on 20 August, was defective in a number of key areas. The minister should have accepted that, sent COSLA back to the negotiating table, and given it the wherewithal to compromise. If he was not prepared to do so before 98 per cent of the teaching profession rejected the offer, he should certainly have been prepared to do so immediately afterwards.
I would like to refer to a comment that the minister made in his statement last week.
"I must emphasise that this offer did not come from the Executive. We did not formulate the offer; we did not put it on the table. It was the product of discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching unions. I am here neither to support it nor to reject it."— [Official Report, 22 September 1999; Vol 2, c 624.]
The only thing that he could have added was: "A big boy did it and ran away." If that statement was not a desperate attempt to pass the buck, I do not know what is. It does not wash: the minister cannot get off the hook that easily.
There are three reasons for holding this debate. First, and most important, this is without doubt the most serious issue in education at present. From the wording of its amendment, the Executive's tactic will be to deflect attention on to other issues in education. I urge them not to do that. This issue has the potential to derail every other educational initiative that the Executive has in the pipeline. Teachers today are closer to industrial action than they have been at any time in the past 10 years. I do not want to depress the Minister for Children and Education too much so early, but—as someone who was still at school during the previous teachers' strike—I know how devastating and disruptive industrial action will be for every child in every school in Scotland.
The second reason is that the SNP's decision to initiate this debate was the only way in which the Parliament would get the chance to vote on this issue and, in particular, on the course of action adopted by the minister.
Last week, when the minister announced the establishment of the committee of inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, and detailed its terms of reference and its membership, he did so by way of ministerial statement, thus ensuring that there would be no debate and no vote. When I expressed regret about that, the minister replied:
"I am also surprised that she objects to the fact that I have brought a statement to this Parliament. I would have thought that that was part of the normal democratic process."—[Official Report, 22 September 1999; Vol 2, c 627.]
I would have thought that the "normal democratic process" demanded a full and open debate and the chance to vote on whether we thought that the minister was on the right track. That is what happened when a committee was established to look into student finance, under the
chairmanship of Andrew Cubie. On 17 June there was a debate followed by a vote on the establishment of the committee, and on 2 July there was another debate on the terms of reference and membership of the committee. Why has that not happened in the case of the committee looking into teachers' pay and conditions? Did the minister feel less than secure in his position and his arguments?
Today, we will have the debate. The people of Scotland want the Parliament to debate this issue. In the course of the morning, I think that we will see why the minister was so reluctant to have the debate in the first place.
The third reason for having the debate is the need to put the record straight on why we are in this situation and where the responsibility for it rightly rests. For the past few weeks, the education minister—in the best traditions of his predecessors, Tory and Labour—has been doing his utmost to convince the Scottish people that what we have on our hands is a straightforward pay dispute. He has implied that teachers rejected the COSLA offer because they are greedy and intransigent. He has refused point-blank, time and again, to recognise the glaring defects in COSLA's proposals, defects that would have damaged the quality of education in our classrooms. That is a disingenuous approach, and one that, frankly, stands no chance of resolving the dispute.
It is time for a bit of honesty from the minister and from the Executive. I hope that we will get that this morning. The hard fact of the matter is that the final offer from COSLA, presented to teachers on 20 August, was defective in a number of key areas. The minister should have accepted that, sent COSLA back to the negotiating table, and given it the wherewithal to compromise. If he was not prepared to do so before 98 per cent of the teaching profession rejected the offer, he should certainly have been prepared to do so immediately afterwards.
I would like to refer to a comment that the minister made in his statement last week.
"I must emphasise that this offer did not come from the Executive. We did not formulate the offer; we did not put it on the table. It was the product of discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching unions. I am here neither to support it nor to reject it."— [Official Report, 22 September 1999; Vol 2, c 624.]
The only thing that he could have added was: "A big boy did it and ran away." If that statement was not a desperate attempt to pass the buck, I do not know what is. It does not wash: the minister cannot get off the hook that easily.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
The first item of business this morning is a non- Executive debate on motion S1M-172, in the name of Mr Alex Salmond, on education, and amendments to that mo...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
To begin, I would like to say a word or two on why the Scottish National party has chosen as the subject of our Opposition debate this morning the pay and co...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab) rose—
Lab
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I will give way in a minute, Hugh. The Executive is the third party in the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education, albei...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Will Ms Sturgeon tell us whether the SNP recommends paying in full the demand from the teachers' unions for an 8 per cent pay rise this year? Is the SNP prep...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
No, Mr Henry, I believe in the continuation of the SJNC and that this year's pay dispute is a matter for teachers and COSLA to deal with through the SJNC. Th...
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
Will Ms Sturgeon inform the chamber whether the SNP councils represented on COSLA supported COSLA's proposed offer?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I will do better than that; I will read from a motion that was passed by SNP- controlled Clackmannanshire Council. The motion says: "This council notes with ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Before I call on the Minister for Children and Education to reply and move his amendment, I wish to remind members that yesterday's opening speeches overran ...
The Minister for Children and Education (Mr Sam Galbraith):
Lab
I will try to keep to time. I was pleased that the SNP spokesman, Nicola Sturgeon, mentioned children—at least in her speech. One of the striking features of...
Nicola Sturgeon rose—
SNP
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
No, I have just started. Please sit down. I welcome this opportunity to set out again the clear and positive thinking behind the Executive's decisions on the...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Which individuals and bodies did the minister consult before taking the decision to set up the independent committee of inquiry? Will he justify his decision...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief.
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
Ms Sturgeon has already made her speech and she should be content with that, be a bit patient and let me deal with the matters before me. As part of our cons...
Nicola Sturgeon rose—
SNP
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
We need to consider why the process of discussion and deliberation, which took so long, led to such an outcome. We need to consider how we can deliver the ki...
Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West):
*
Will the minister give way?
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
No thanks.My job is to raise teachers' salaries to the highest possible level. Like the Prime Minister, I see no reason why some teachers cannot be paid as w...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
I do not know whether the fact that the minister has given way is an indication of favouritism. He was asked a question on the committee of inquiry, which I ...
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
The member forgot to point out that representatives of the teaching profession are involved in the committee. Two head teachers, one from a primary school an...
Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
I will give way, but for the last time, as I am trying to keep to the time limit.
Michael Russell:
SNP
I hear the minister's point. Will he, however, respond publicly to the official letter that he received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress? The letter s...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Order. I have no friends.
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
It is a principle of mine always to respond privately to letters that are sent to me. I suggest that the member does the same, rather than, as he always does...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Mr Galbraith:
Lab
I am winding up.Nevertheless, we have acted decisively and positively to show the way forward. Our approach allows the existing machinery of the SJNC to deli...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Both front-bench speakers have kept within the time limit, which is a new record for the Parliament. I call on Mr Monteith to do likewise and to move amendme...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
I am pleased to take part in today's debate, because it is important that someone tries to bring the two sides together. In these days of cosy consensus poli...