|
NewsConference 2007 Speeches: Motions Session II: Wednesday 1 August 2007
Date: 01.08.07
Speeches (where available) for Motions Session II
Voice Annual Conference 2007
Motions Session II: Wednesday 1 August 2007, 1045?1130
Conference speeches are the personal opinions of those making them and may not necessarily represent current Voice policy. Motions that are carried will go to Voice?s Council (the policy-making body) for consideration.
Check against delivery
2. Conference is appalled at the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to give a remit to the School Teachers? Review Body to reopen pay negotiations and calls upon him to honour the conditions of the reopener clause set out in the STRB?s 15th Report.
Proposed by: Caroline Carver
Chairman, Colleagues, Since 2003 it has generally been agreed by all involved in pay negotiations that a pay deal covering two years would be advantageous to Local Authorities and schools, as it would provide them with a degree of certainty and stability in their forward financial planning.
But there is a major disadvantage, which the STRB highlighted. I quote from their fifteenth report:
(3.48) "A drawback with multi-year awards can be uncertainty about future changes in the economy, particularly levels of inflation. This is particularly pertinent, given that we are making recommendations on teachers? pay in October 2005, ten months before the pay award takes effect and with an end point that is nearly three years into the future. This requires us to put in place arrangements to protect all parties from unexpectedly high or low levels of inflation.
(3.49) ? We have concluded that the pay award for 2006 and 2007 should be subject to a review mechanism. In considering the appropriate mechanism, we have taken into account forecasts in inflation? and the degree of shifts in inflation that would be significant enough to warrant consideration of a review of teachers? pay.
(3.50) It is important that the review mechanism should remain independent and command the confidence of consultees and other interested parties. If inflation goes beyond the specified boundaries, our view is that any of the consultees should be able to approach the STRB. We would then consider the case in the light of both inflation and the labour market situation and, if convinced that a review of teachers? pay was necessary, seek a remit from the Secretary of State to that end."
Their recommendation was:
"that should the average rate of headline inflation for the twelve months preceding April 2007 or April 2008 fall below 1.75% or exceed 3.25%, any of the consultees can ask the STRB to consider the case for seeking a remit from the Secretary of State to review teachers? pay."
That could not be clearer - could it?
By April the Government?s inflation targets had been exceeded to such an extent that the triggers for the re-opener clause had been met. The unions approached the STRB, who gave careful consideration to all the factors, decided that the conditions had been met and therefore wrote to the Secretary of State to ask for a remit to re-open that clause. As you will be aware The Secretary of State refused to give that remit.
In his response, Alan Johnson wrote the following: "By April 2007 we were only 7 months into this 24 month award."
He went on to state his belief that "the best course would be for the STRB to consider these concerns??.when making recommendations for the next pay award."
He continues: This decision is based on the expectations of inflation over the whole pay-award period, on the fact that the pay award for teachers this year already represents a better outcome than that envisaged in the government?s pay policy for public sector workers, and given the proximity of the new remit for the next pay award."
Now wait a minute - didn?t he just say that we are only seven months into a 24 month award? Yet, suddenly he is referring to the proximity of the next one!!!
*** All this is, of course, in direct contravention of the terms of the re-opener clause to which his predecessor had agreed some 19 months earlier. Yes - 19 months had elapsed since the percentage increases had been agreed - slightly different from the 7 to which Alan Johnson referred!
There can be absolutely no excuse for reneging on such an agreement. The Review body is not given to making frivolous decisions. It would not have asked for a remit unless or until it had studied all the evidence very carefully and convinced itself that the conditions required to re-open the clause had been met.
This decision is as insulting to the review body as it is to teachers. The re-opener clause should be activated NOW.
I urge you to support this motion with a unanimous vote. 2. Conference is appalled at the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to give a remit to the School Teachers? Review Body to reopen pay negotiations and calls upon him to honour the conditions of the reopener clause set out in the STRB?s 15th Report.
Seconded by: Ruth Taylor
Chairman, Colleagues,
What is the point of our professional officers and the STRB negotiating for fairness in pay reviews when the Secretary of State refuses to honour agreements? The STRB sought to be fair to both teachers and the Government in the matter of the re-opener clause. I suspect, if inflation had fallen, that the re-opener clause would have been used fairly swiftly.
Some statistics from the Government?s Web site show that the headline rate of inflation rose above 3.25% in June 2006 to 3.3% and has steadily risen to 4.3% in May 2007 (Office for National Statistics). Even a downward turn in the rate at the same % change per month would take a further year and there is no such forecast, rather a continual rise is predicted. This covers virtually the whole of the pay period so perhaps we have been patient for a reasonable amount of time.
To quote our General Secretary: "The re-opener clause gave reassurance to teachers that a multi-year pay settlement was in their best interests. In order to retain that confidence it is essential that the current two-year pay settlement be reconsidered in the light of steadily rising levels of inflation. A failure to take these inflationary pressures into account and maintain pay levels would make it extremely difficult to consider multi-year pay deals in the future."
Some of the effects on our teaching colleagues:
1 It will affect pensions, especially for those retiring before December 2008.
2 Salaries will be eroded and fall behind other degree professions, especially those in the private sector. This could lead to the see-saw of recruitment of high quality students tilting downwards.
3 Certain areas of the country may have difficulty recruiting due to unaffordable housing. It was reported in one area on the south coast that although low-cost housing was being built, teachers were highlighted as a group that could not afford them.
4 There will be a lack of confidence in any further negotiations for pay, workforce reform, even consultations on curriculum matters, if the Government are dismissive of agreements. I am sure there are other effects but time is speeding on. Wesley would sum it up from Luke 10 v7: "the labourer is worthy of his hire".
What prospect does this situation hold out for our non-teaching colleagues so hopeful of gaining a national pay scale? If the Government will not honour agreements with teachers and the STRB, can other sectors have confidence in pay negotiations? I don?t think so.
On a more positive note we do have a new regime in Westminster. I am informed that the new Secretary of State has made some positive, may be even encouraging, statements. Also the latest meeting with the STRB indicated that they were going to raise the matter again and seek a separate settlement for what has been lost ? so watch this space. Clearly for teachers to have confidence in the pay negotiation forum and a multi-year pay deal the Government must honour their agreements and re-open pay negotiations.
I urge you to support this motion.
Proposed by: Debe Lawson
|
