Teacher strikes will be paused for two weeks while education unions and the government hold “intensive” talks over pay, workload and conditions.
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan will meet with representatives today – with discussions to continue over the weekend until Sunday.
The National Education Union (NEU), National Association of Headteachers (NAHT), NASUWT The Teachers’ Union, and Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) will all be involved in the negotiations.
The news follows the breakthrough in the NHS disputeon Thursday, with union leaders representing thousands of nurses, ambulance crews and other health workers agreeing to suspend further strikes while ballots are held on a new pay offer.
A joint statement from the Department for Education and unions said: “The government and the education trade unions… have agreed to move into a period of intensive talks.
“The talks will focus on teacher pay, conditions and workload reduction.
“In order for talks to begin and, we hope, reach a successful conclusion, the NEU has confirmed it will create a period of calm for two weeks during which time they have said no further strike dates will be announced.
“The education secretary and all unions will meet today, beginning intensive talks, which will continue over the weekend.”
It comes after an estimated 300,000 teachers walked out in two days of strike action this week, with thousands of schools at least partially closed.
The NEU and the government have been locked in a stand-off about pay for weeks, with the union accusing Ms Keegan of refusing to make offers that could resolve the dispute in previous talks.
But the cabinet minister insisted the strike action was “unnecessary” and said she would engage in formal discussions if walkouts were called off.
Doctors also ‘open’ to talks
The government is also expected to meet with leaders of junior doctors to help resolve a separate pay dispute which led to a three-day walkout this week.
The British Medical Association (BMA) has exchanged letters with Health Secretary Steve Barclay following yesterday’s announcement of a new offer to other NHS workers, but no date has been set for a meeting.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:39
Hope of NHS strikes breakthrough
Dr Vivek Trivedi, co-chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Our position has been that we are open to talk in good faith, meaningfully, at any time.
“We were ready to talk months ago. Our formal dispute started over 150 days ago and, again, that is just what I mean in that it is disappointing it has taken Steve Barclay so long to get to the negotiating table.
“I only hope that he does come with good faith and a mandate to negotiate.
“So far we haven’t arranged a time for this afternoon but there has been some correspondence between our offices so it does look like we’ll be able to set something up in the near future.”
A number of other NHS unions reached a “final” pay agreement with the government on Thursday, with most recommending members accept it.
Only Unite said the offer is not one it can recommend but it is for members to make the final decision.
The new offer amounts to a one-off payment of 2% of their salary plus a COVID recovery bonus of 4% for the current financial year 2022/23, and a 5% pay increase for 2023/24.
Ministers hope they can strike a similar deal with the BMA, calling its current demands “completely unaffordable”.
The union wants a “pay restoration” for junior doctors, saying their pay has fallen in real terms by 26% since 2008/09 and that reversing this would require a 35.3% pay rise.
In the latest headache for the government on strikes, the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union has announced a five-week walkout by its members in the Passport Office in an escalation of its long-running dispute over pay, pensions, jobs and conditions.
A woman who is under police investigation after assisting the suicide of her husband at Dignitas in Switzerland has told Sky News she has no regrets.
Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband’s death in December, as parliament prepares to vote again on legislation to introduce assisted dying in England and Wales.
Mrs Shackleton surrendered herself to police after returning from Switzerland having seen her husband Anthony die. He had been suffering with motor neurone disease for six years.
“I have committed a crime, which I have admitted to, of assisting him by simply pushing him on to a plane and being with him, which I don’t regret for one moment. He was my husband and I loved him,” she said.
“We talked at length over two years about this. What he said to me on many occasions is ‘look at my options, look at what my options are. I can either go there and I can die peacefully, with grace, without pain, without suffering or I could be laid in a bed not being able to move, not even being able to look at anything unless you move my head’.
“He didn’t have options. What he wanted was nothing more than a good death.”
The law in the UK prohibits people from assisting in the suicide of others, but prosecutions have been rare.
Image: Louise Shackleton has spoken publicly for the first time since her husband Anthony’s death
In a statement, a North Yorkshire Police spokesman told Sky News: “The investigation is ongoing. There is nothing further to add at this stage.”
The next vote on the assisted dying bill for England and Wales has been delayed by three weeks to give MPs time to consider amendments.
The legislation would permit a person who is terminally ill with less than six months to live to legally end their life after approval by two doctors and an expert panel.
‘He was at total peace with his decision’
Mrs Shackleton says she saw her husband “physically and mentally” relax once on the flight to Switzerland.
She said: “We had the most wonderful four days.
“He was laughing. He was at total peace with his decision.
“It was in those four days that I realised that he wanted the peaceful death more than he wanted to suffer and stay with me, which was hard, but that’s how resolute he was in having this peace.
“I was his wife, we’d been together 25 years, we’d known each other since we were 18. I couldn’t do anything else but help him.”
‘We need to safeguard people’
She said the hardest part of the journey came after her husband’s death.
“There was this panic and this fear that I was leaving him,” she said. “That was a horrific experience.
“If the law had changed in this country, I would have been with family, family would have been with us, family would’ve been with him. But as it was, that couldn’t happen.”
Opponents to the assisted dying bill have raised concerns about the safety of vulnerable people and the risk of coercion and a change in attitudes toward the elderly, seriously ill and disabled.
They say improvements to palliative care should be a priority.
“I think that we need to safeguard people,” said Mrs Shackleton. “I think that sometimes we need to suffer other people’s choices, and when I mean suffer I mean we have to acknowledge that whilst we’re not comfortable with those, that we need to respect other people, other people wishes.”
Anthony, who died aged 59, was a furniture restorer who had earned worldwide recognition for making rocking horses.
“I think the measure of the man is that nobody has ever said a bad word about him in the whole of his life because he was just so caring and giving,” his widow said.
‘This is about a dying person’s choice’
She said she had chosen to speak publicly because of a promise she had made him.
“I felt that my husband’s journey shouldn’t be in vain. We discussed this on our last day and my husband made me promise to tell his story.
“He told me to fight and the simple thing that I’m fighting for is people to have the choice.
“This is about a dying person’s choice to either follow their journey through with disease or to die peacefully when they want to, on their terms, and have a good death. It’s that simple.”
A former Labour MP who quit the party over Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership has welcomed the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman as a “victory for feminists”.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the “lack of clarity” that has existed in the politics around the issue “for years”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
How do you define a woman in law?
The judges were asked to rule on how “sex” is defined in the 2010 Equality Act – whether that means biological sex or “certificated” sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell – who said the court “failed to hear the voice of a single trans person” and that the decision “lacked humanity and fairness” as a result, she said: “This ruling doesn’t affect trans people in the slightest.
“It’s about women’s rights – women’s rights to single sex spaces, women’s rights, not to be discriminated against.
“It literally doesn’t change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually.”
However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was “concerned” about the impact the ruling would have on trans people “and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now”.
Image: Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland celebrate after the ruling. Pic: Reuters
“One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services,” she said.
“We know that over the last few years… their [trans people’s] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:12
‘Today’s ruling only stokes the culture war further’
Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.
Image: Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court. Pic: PA
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.
“This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate.”
Asked whether she believed the judgment could “draw a line” under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: “Today’s judgment only stokes that culture war further.”
And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment “doesn’t prevent things happening”.
Apple Podcasts
This content is provided by Apple Podcasts, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Apple Podcasts cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Apple Podcasts cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Apple Podcasts cookies for this session only.
“It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened,” she said.
She also warned some groups “aren’t going to be satisfied with today’s ruling”.
“We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further – they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004,” she said.
“I think today’s ruling just emboldens those views.”
Arsenal have reached the semi-finals of the Champions League after a dramatic victory over holders Real Madrid in Spain.
The north London side, who became the first English team to win twice at the Bernabeu following their triumph there 19 years ago, will face Paris Saint-Germain in the last four after the French side beat Aston Villa on Tuesday.
It is the third time the Gunners have made it through to the semis of the top club football tournament in Europe, and the first since 2009.
Arsenal went into the second leg of their quarter-final clash on Wednesday with a 3-0 lead.
Backed by a raucous home crowd, Madrid tried to get off to a strong start and Kylian Mbappe scored after two minutes. However, the goal was disallowed for a clear offside.
Arsenal had the chance to go ahead in the 13th minute but winger Bukayo Saka missed a penalty.
The Spanish hosts were awarded a penalty of their own about 10 minutes later when Mbappe stumbled under pressure from Declan Rice in the box – but the decision was overturned by VAR.
More on Arsenal
Related Topics:
Saka atoned for his tepid penalty as he chipped the ball past Madrid’s keeper Thibaut Courtois when put through on goal by auxiliary striker Mikel Merino in the 65th minute.
But Arsenal were pegged back just two minutes later as Vinicius Junior caught William Saliba dawdling on the ball and fired Real Madrid level.
Arsenal’s resolute defending kept the home side at bay until Gabriel Martinelli made a late break through the home side’s defence to put his side 2-1 ahead three minutes into injury time, as the Gunners made it 5-1 on aggregate.
Image: (L-R) Arsenal’s Declan Rice and Mikel Merino celebrate after the defeat against Real Madrid. Pic: AP
‘We knew we were going to win’, says Rice
Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice has insisted his team are intent on winning the Champions League after their victory in Madrid.
Speaking to TNT Sport, Rice, who was named player of the match, said: “It’s such a special night, a historic one for the club. We have the objective of playing the best and winning the competition.
“We had so much belief and confidence from that first leg and came here to win the game. We knew we were going to suffer but we knew we were going to win. We had it in our minds, then we did it [in] real life. What a night.
“I knew when I signed, this club was on an upward trajectory. It’s been tough in the Premier League but in this competition we’ve done amazingly well.
“It’s PSG next, who are an amazing team.”
‘We have to be very proud of ourselves’, says Arteta
Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta told TNT Sport: “One of the best nights in my football career.
“We played against a team with the biggest history.
“To be able to win the tie in the manner we have done, I think we have to be very proud of ourselves.”
He added: “The history we have in this competition is so short. The third time in our history of what we have just done and we have to build on that. All this experience is going to help us, for sure.”
Real Madrid were seeking their third Champions League title in four seasons.
Mbappe twisted ankle
Their forward Mbappe twisted his right ankle during the game and was jeered by part of the crowd when his substitution was announced after a lacklustre performance.
The French star, who is still looking for his first Champions League title, was replaced by Brahim Diaz in the 75th minute following his injury. He was able to walk off the pitch by himself, but was limping slightly.
The other semi-final will be between Barcelona and Inter Milan.
The first legs are set to be played on 29 and 30 April, with the second legs on 6 and 7 May.