Teachers' Pay and Conditions
We come now to a statement by Jack McConnell on progress on implementing the McCrone report in respect of teachers' pay and conditions. There will be questions at the end of the statement.
I welcome the opportunity to report to Parliament the progress that we are making in finalising an agreement that will bring stability to Scottish education for the first time in a generation.
The past 20 years have been characterised by demoralisation and growing mistrust among our teaching profession. Teachers have felt undervalued and overworked while their status has diminished. Crucially, that has affected their relationship with pupils. It is therefore time for change.
There has been constant concern over pay and conditions. I recall my early years as a teacher and the bitter disputes of the 1980s, which left the profession feeling embattled and unrewarded. The legacy of years of political dogma and of Government tinkering with schools was a culture of protectionism and mistrust. Wars of attrition broke out and angry words were exchanged. The protracted negotiations, dispute and disruption produced nothing but increasing dismay. No one won—not the teachers, not the employers and certainly not Scotland's pupils.
That situation cannot continue. Every parent, every teacher and every pupil knows that the real learning in our schools—the spark that achievement brings to each child—is won through the hard work of teachers and students. That is the central relationship that produces results and gives us young people who are confident, motivated and excited about learning and who leave school ready to take their place in adult life and to contribute to their own future and Scotland's prosperity—young people who leave school with ambition.
We are taking the first steps in changing the atmosphere in our schools and in building a new culture based on mutual respect, shared responsibility and trust. In May, Sam Galbraith made it clear that we would begin that new approach by involving all the main parties in the discussions and dialogue necessary to implement the recommendations of the McCrone report. We have done precisely that. It is a measure of the progress that we are making and the changes that we are securing together that, since September, all those involved have committed time and energy to the discussions. They have stuck with the process through the inevitable disagreements and difficulties. It is no exaggeration to remind ourselves that, only a few years ago, the first disagreement would have ended the discussions in bitterness and acrimony. That is an important indicator of how far we have come.
We set up an implementation group to take the work forward. For the first time, we worked collectively to address the challenge that we faced. The Association of Head Teachers in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Headteachers Association of Scotland, the National Association of School Masters/Union of Women Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and local authority employers represented through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities all worked as equal partners, bringing together the experience and expertise of local authorities, teachers and the Scottish Executive. Our shared commitment to addressing the problems of the past and to building a new approach was as clear then as it remains today.
The implementation group met every month from September last year. Its work was informed by the weekly meetings of smaller groups, each of which drew on the practical experience of daily work in schools and education authorities. Since September, more than 45 people have applied their energy and their intellect weekly, sometimes daily, to more than 40 recommendations that were made in the McCrone report. Between the end of September and Christmas, those groups came together on more than 50 occasions. Each month, we worked through the detail of the McCrone recommendations, worked out practical ways in which to take them forward and developed new ideas to go even further than we had first thought possible. Each month, we moved closer to reaching agreement.
In November, we recognised both the progress that we had made and the amount of work that we still had to do. The job that we were doing was too important to rush and we agreed to keep working through the festive period. That was not due to crisis or panic; it was a calm, clear decision, because what we were doing was too important to lose through haste. That was a new way of working to create a new, revitalised approach to the problems that have dogged us for too many years. The result of that effort is the prospect of an agreement put together through discussion and agreed by consensus. I am convinced that that agreement offers us the prospect of a new beginning for the improvement of education and an increase in the achievement of our schools.
In recent days, there has been a great deal of speculation in the press about what the agreement might contain. From the beginning, we have worked together in the implementation group on the basis that we would create a whole package and that no single element could be agreed until all was agreed.
As members know, our discussions continue; they will understand that, at this point, I cannot provide the detail of the agreement in prospect. Members would not expect me to break the commitment that ministers gave to the local authorities and to the teacher organisations when we began our work in September.
I believe that the agreement that we have in prospect offers the following opportunities: for each teacher to be recognised and rewarded for the professional skills that they bring into the school; for each teacher to have a genuine opportunity to develop those skills and knowledge in order to keep pace with the changing demands made of them; for the skill of teaching to be recognised as more than just the work that is done in the classroom; for teachers to be relieved of the burden of bureaucracy and given the time to teach; for excellence in the classroom to be recognised; for us to attract and retain the best of our young talent in the profession; and for local authorities to be recognised as the managers of education.
We can end the feast-or-famine approach to teachers' pay that marred recent years and we can have a period of genuine stability in our schools. We can allow teachers to concentrate on the job that they do well and our young people to learn and grow. We are close to completing our task. As soon as an agreement is secured, I will place a copy of it in full in the Scottish Parliament information centre for members to consult. In the meantime, I have offered to brief the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and Opposition spokespersons on a bilateral basis.
To make and sustain the fundamental improvements that we have been working on over the past few months is no easy task. That is why we have taken the time to work through all the issues and it is why everybody involved is still committing the time needed to ensure that every t is crossed and that every i is dotted.
This afternoon, I wish to take the opportunity to make some important points clearly and on the record. This is about more than pay and conditions; it is more important than either of those. We are putting together a package of fundamental modernisation, which will place teachers at the heart of schooling and children at the heart of education.
The talks are going well, but carrying them out well takes time. Everyone involved and those whom they represent must feel confident and sure of the final package that we settle on. Everyone has to feel that their concerns and aspirations have been addressed and understood.
On pay, the offer that we have made with COSLA will deliver a 21.5 per cent increase in salaries over three years, in addition to the other investment that we will make. Such a settlement goes beyond the McCrone package.
On funding, our commitment could not be clearer. The Scottish Executive will fund all the additional burdens that arise from implementing the final agreement. Local authorities will not be asked to fund any more than they already do in supporting school education.
The education of our children is at the heart of our commitment to the people of Scotland. However, we will not be able to deliver on that commitment until we have recognised teachers for the professionals that they are and rewarded them as such.
All of us—not only ministers and members of this Parliament—are keen to reach agreement. In the teacher organisations and in the local authorities, the commitment to making this work is clear and has been demonstrated once again over the past weeks.
We have a unique opportunity before us. We have an independent report, which tackled the issues seriously and offered a way forward. We have the shared commitment and sheer hard work of all those who were involved in building on the report's recommendations. We have the hopes of parents and pupils for an end to uncertainty. We also have the prospect of an agreement that goes beyond McCrone and that offers us a way to redress the damage of the past and to build relationships now and for the future, which will restore stability and excellence to our schools.
The time for change has come. Our challenge—and our responsibility—is to keep our eye firmly on the prize before us. We have the opportunity of stability and progress, the opportunity to make a step change in the culture and achievements of our schools and the opportunity to restore the professional recognition that our teachers deserve. Those are opportunities that this Parliament was created to deliver.
I hope that we all want a modern education system and a teaching profession that is equipped and ready for the challenges of the 21st century. I hope that we can all support these last efforts to deliver just that.
I thank the minister for delivering that statement on behalf of what I am happy to call the Scottish Government.
Does the minister accept that Scottish National Party members are happy that McCrone is coming to a conclusion and that we share a wish for a comprehensive, just settlement in Scotland's schools, which will usher in a period of peace and stability?
Does not the minister find it incredible, as do the teaching unions and many parents, that—after almost four years of discussion and negotiation; after the review that was set up in May 1997 under the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education; after the negotiations that started in September 1998; after the failure of those negotiations in September 1999; after the establishment of the McCrone committee following a statement made in this chamber by the minister's predecessor, also in September 1999; after the report of the McCrone committee in May 2000; after 18 December 2000, when groups were meant to reach a conclusion and write up their reports; and after two weekends so far this year during which there has been speculation, spinning and doubt—he is still unable to come to this chamber and tell us anything at all?
All that the minister has told us—in the closing paragraph of his statement—is that he wants
"a modern education system and a teaching profession that is equipped and ready for the challenges of the 21st century."
That is not progress; it is a truism. When will the minister be able to tell the unions and the people who really matter—the teachers, the parents and the children—what is on offer and how much it costs? When will he be able to tell the local authorities whether they will be funded? When will he be able to come to the chamber to put an end to four years of discussion rather than telling us nothing at all?
I wish Mr Russell a happy new year, too. I welcome our joint approach to the improvement of Scottish education.
It is incredible that, after four years of difficulties, we have made so much progress in four months. After those four months, it is worth taking four more days to reach a positive agreement. I do not share Mike Russell's dismay at the situation. Efforts have been made over recent months to reach an agreement. It is important that that agreement is transparent and understood by all the parties to it, and that it does not fall apart in six months' time because we did not take two or three days to agree the costings and the detail that will reassure individual teachers that the package will ensure the professionalism in the classroom that they want.
I confirm that the details that I have always believed the unions would require will be provided to them for their committee meetings over the next week. I also confirm that I have written to Norman Murray, the president of COSLA, spelling out the financial provisions in some detail. I hope that that statement will be clearly understood on both sides and that we proceed on the basis of it. I hope that the arrangements will be put in place this week. I am confident that the time that we have taken has been very well spent.
I have already given the minister my best wishes and tidings for a happy new year. He knows that he will not get such a frosty reception from me at this point.
Is that Brian Monteith's new year's resolution?
Indeed—well spotted.
I thank the minister for making a copy of the statement available in advance.
I do not want to dwell on the minister's embarrassment at being unable to give us the details of his proposals or tell us that the negotiations have concluded. We wish the minister well in concluding the discussion. It is important that a resolution is achieved that will build a modern education system and restore morale to teachers.
However, the lack of detail in the statement raises a number of questions, which I will run through quickly. If the minister cannot give the detail today, I hope that he will do so in a statement when the negotiations are concluded. I wonder why no details are available to us, given that they have already appeared in the Daily Record and other journals and that the minister is able to quantify the cost of the agreement and say that he can meet that cost. There is surely something that we could discuss, although it is not before us today.
Will chartered teacher status involve any assessment of teachers or simply their attendance? How will the replacement for the SJNC be an improvement on that body? Finally, how can the morale of teachers be restored if the deal is portrayed, as some people are already doing, as a cut in the hourly rate for teachers? Those are questions to which we should receive answers. I accept that negotiations may mean that it is difficult for the minister to give answers today, but I would appreciate a further ministerial statement on which there would be a real purpose in asking questions.
As ever, I will be happy to report to Parliament in whatever way that the parliamentary authorities agree that I should—I have always been happy to work on that basis.
Much as it may please Scotland's largest-selling newspaper to get the credit for publishing the report, I believe that it was one of our broadsheets that published its version of the report. However, the report is not yet agreed or complete and people should be cautious about accepting everything that appears in the public print at this stage.
I repeat what I said in my statement: as soon as an agreement is reached, it will be available in SPICe and members will be able to access it. I will be happy to answer questions on it at any time thereafter.
In response to the two specific points that Brian Monteith raised, I want to make it clear—although it is not a great secret—that the new negotiating machinery will improve the situation in our education system. At a national level, the machinery will involve the Scottish ministers and their representatives as well as the local authorities and the teacher organisations. Local and national negotiations will be split and there will be local responsibilities to be negotiated between the local authorities and the teacher organisations. That can only be good for Scottish education locally and nationally.
My view is that the vast majority of Scotland's teachers already work in excess of the hours that will be in their contracts. It is right and proper for professionals to work such hours—I did so when I was a teacher. However, the pay scales and contractual arrangements that we are proposing and the conditions and support that will be available in schools will, at last, recognise those excess hours and will ensure that people are rewarded for the professional efforts that they put in. I hope that teachers will welcome those measures when they see the package that will emerge, I hope, over the next few days.
I welcome the minister's positive tone, his commitment to succeeding in the negotiations and his recognition of the massive importance of the negotiations. Success is vital for the future of our education system.
For Liberal Democrats, almost nothing that we do in this first parliamentare session will be more important than securing for our pupils the services of a highly paid, well-motivated and well-resourced teaching profession. As the minister will recognise, the Liberal Democrats have constantly made it clear that the package must be properly and fully funded by the Executive.
That is, by the member.
No, as I am not in the Executive, although I am a member of an Executive party.
Mr McConnell was right when he said that this is not a straightforward pay deal—it is the start of a modernisation process that will not be delivered overnight. The process is more long term than that.
Although I accept that the minister cannot go into details about the negotiations, I seek from him an assurance. I ask him to make it clear that, over and above the 21.5 per cent salary increases that he alluded to, the Executive will pay, in the long term and on a continuing basis, for the extra good things that are in the conditions package, such as the extra teachers who will eventually be involved, bursars, additional classroom assistants and continuing professional development. The Executive must recognise that the package requires a continuing commitment on a larger scale than a simple salary agreement would. The Liberal Democrats expect to hear him say that the package is to be fully funded.
I welcome the importance that the member attaches to education. On the specific point on long-term funding, I made it clear today in my correspondence with the president of COSLA that, in addition to agreeing—I hope—the costs for the first three years today or later this week, we will monitor those costs as the agreement is implemented in a phased way, in order to ensure that the original costs were correct. I also made it clear that, before the end of this year, we will agree the costs that would fall as additional burdens on the Executive in year 4 and beyond. We are determined to get this right. We do not want the agreement not to work in practice because the initial costings were wrong. We will get it right, and COSLA and the Executive will work closely together in order to achieve that.
I welcome the minister's positive contribution. He spoke about the burden of bureaucracy. In recent years, many teachers have indicated concerns not only about pay and conditions but about the massive increase in bureaucracy and form filling, which acts against much of the work of the classroom. Will the minister expand on how he will deal with bureaucracy as part of the overall package of addressing issues of motivation in the education sector?
That is an important point, which Donald Gorrie raised when we first discussed the McCrone report during the debate in Parliament last June. I do not consider that it is necessarily part of the pay and conditions package, so I hope that colleagues on the implementation group will not mind if I say clearly that the Executive is firmly committed to implementing the bureaucracy audit that was recommended by McCrone. In fact, we will go further: we have agreed with teacher organisations and local authorities that the bureaucracy audit will be organised in the schools rather than being organised from our perspective at the centre. We will measure not the material that we send to the schools, but the material that appears in the schools—we will measure to whom it is going, from whom it is coming, the time scales for its appearance and whether those time scales are appropriate. I am absolutely determined to reduce the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that schools and teachers have to endure week in and week out. The bureaucracy audit will be a major step towards achieving that.
The minister will be aware of the growing problem of teacher shortages; I believe that a further 685 teachers were lost to the profession this year. That means that some pupils are not receiving teaching in the basic and fundamental elements of their education. An allied problem is that the average age of members of the teaching profession is getting higher—only 29 per cent are under 40. Given that and given that no comprehensive offer is yet on the table, what kind of message does the minister think that he is giving to young graduates who, I suspect, will remain reluctant to enter the profession because of the continuing uncertainty?
The minister has twice mentioned his correspondence with COSLA. Does he intend to make that correspondence publicly available?
I am happy to make the letter that I sent to Councillor Murray available to SPICe this afternoon; I suspect that he is already handing it out down the road at Rosebery House.
The Executive is concerned about the recruitment and retention of teaching staff. One of the reasons why we are working so hard to get the details of the pay scales right is that it is vital that the starting salaries are right, so that we can recruit people to the profession. It is also vital that the salary scales at the top of the grades are right, so that experienced people feel able to continue their careers and believe that they are being properly rewarded for doing so. The details are important, which is why we have spent extra time on them.
I believe that the package will reward people in a way that not only improves recruitment and retention but attracts some people who left the profession back into it. The additional parts of the package—the extra support staff, the clarification of hours and so on—will help to improve the working conditions of teachers and the working conditions of schools as a whole, to ensure that teachers can teach and that, when they are rewarded, they are rewarded for doing the right sorts of things. On that basis, I hope that the potential for recruitment in the years to come is strong enough to secure the extra numbers that the package will promise.
I share the minister's aspirations for a permanent settlement to these issues. I was a young teacher in the late 1970s and I well remember the bitterness against Labour Governments.
Without going into details, as I do not read the papers as assiduously as he obviously does, could the minister tell us whether the talks that are under way cover the so-called rule of 85, which in principle gives teachers the same rights as other local government employees—to retire not with enhancements but with the entitlements that they have earned up to the point when their combined age and period of service reaches 85?
That is asking for a very specific detail—the kind of detail that might land me in problems with colleagues if I was reported as giving it.
Early retirement is not the right phrase, but it is important that we create opportunities for people either to leave the profession at a certain age or perhaps to move gradually out of the profession in a way that means that their skills, experience and expertise is not completely lost to the school. Again, it is no great secret that we have been discussing how older teachers can, rather than taking full early retirement at an age when they still have much to contribute, perhaps move to part-time work and use their skills in the classroom and with young teachers as mentors and in helping with classroom management. More of that will come out as the agreement—I hope—is signed off. I think that Mr Tosh will welcome what we are suggesting and I will clarify the specific point on the rule then.
I welcome the minister's ambition, as shown in his statement, for an agreement that leads to motivated staff and pupils. As someone with recent classroom experience, I know that that is very important.
I have a specific question that I will ask in a general way and perhaps get a general answer. Will the minister confirm that a successful agreement, if it is reached, will lead to a significant increase in preparation time? That is sometimes known as non-class contact time but, as the minister knows from his days in the profession, it is preparation time and it is vital.
That should be the case. I do not want to comment on specific hours, but the proposal is for more time to be available for preparation and marking, particularly in primary schools, outwith the time when a teacher is with a class. The efforts that we must make to reduce the burden of other administrative duties on teachers to free up time for preparation are also particularly important. That is why the whole package is important. It is not just about hours, the contract, conditions and pay, but about everything that is going on around that to make schools the kinds of places where people carry out the duties for which they are really responsible, with teachers teaching and others carrying out other duties that give teachers the space to teach.
The minister made a number of references to the need for transparency and fairness. Would he accept that if he were back in the classroom now he would find it less than satisfactory that the way in which the current discussion has been promoted has been less than honest on the 21.5 per cent wages deal? What is being talked about over three years is really a settlement of around 7 per cent. Would it not be more appropriate in terms of transparency and fairness for the Scottish Government to talk about that settlement, rather than parading the 21.5 per cent as though teachers are going to receive that in the next 12 months?
No. I do not think that anything that I or anybody associated with the talks on any side has said since Friday would imply that, if the deal is reached, there will be 21.5 per cent over any time scale other than the three years. If anything, people have perhaps got the impression that the pay deal may not be 21.5 per cent and that the 21.5 per cent refers to the increase in the total budget, including all the other things in the package as well as the increase in teachers' pay. That is why I made it clear in my statement that the pay deal is 21.5 per cent over three years and that the other costs will be additional to that and will be funded separately by the Executive or, in cases where those costs are already part of local authority budgets, by local authorities.
Frank McAveety asked about bureaucracy. The minister's reply was very welcome and I look forward to his putting his talents and political will to work on his own department, which produces a great deal of the bureaucracy that was referred to. We may in due course be able to anoint him anti-bumf tsar. Bureaucracy is one aspect of the way in which teachers feel hauden doon by over-regulation. The national department and local government keep producing more and more regulations and teachers feel that they are not treated as adult professionals who can get on with the job. Will the minister tackle the over-regulation of teachers as well?
I have been called many things, but not until now an anti-bumf tsar. I welcome the challenge.
The regulation of what teachers are doing in the classroom is not part of the discussions or the agreement, as members will know. However, the discussions that I have had with teachers since I was appointed Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs have shown me that the level of guidance and demand that is placed on them in relation to the curriculum and assessment—now stretching into primary schools as well as into secondary education—at times competes with their professional judgment on the interests of the children whom they teach. I will continue to discuss that issue with teachers over the coming months.
That concludes the statement and questions. I thank the minister and all those members who participated for keeping within the set time—a practice that the Presiding Officers are keen to establish. It is a good start for the new year.