NEW CLAUSE.—(Remuneration of Teachers.) (Hansard, 9 May 1944)

§ Mr. Butler
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
According to the Government's decision, already announced by the Prime Minister, this Clause will take the place of the original Clause 82 and it is in identical terms with the original Clause! In the circumstances very few words are 1756 necessary. The Clause in fact is self-explanatory. It refers to any recommendation referring to the remuneration of teachers made by any body of persons constituted by the Minister, and representative of local education authorities and teachers. The object of the Clause is to enable the Minister to make regulations approving scales, having regard to the recommendations made by such a body and, in particular, by the existing negotiating machinery known as the Burnham Committee. I explained before, some of our difficulties with some—very few—authorities, who have not always implemented the findings of the Burnham Committee. At present the Board has no direct power to get them to implement these findings. This Clause strengthens the Board's position.
There has been some doubt whether, under the terms of the Clause as drafted, the Minister is not assuming some new positive rule vis a vis the Burnham Committee. But it is not the object of the Government to alter the present functions of the Burnham Committee. It is our object that this Committee should come to an agreement and understanding about the scales of remuneration which should be paid. The Minister is then to determine whether he can accept these proposals or which of them he can accept, and if they are accepted, make such provisions as will be agreed upon. The object is to invest the Burnham machinery with as great authority as it now possesses. The Government is very ready to listen to any point of view; it is our intention that a Clause on these lines shall form part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Cove
I can quite understand that the Minister had to put this Clause back having regard to the circumstances attached to it previously. One expects that from the point of view of prestige, the Government had to restore the Clause. But some of us still doubt whether it does not give the Minister, as I stated in the previous Debate, too dictatorial powers. We want the Burnham Committee, representative as it is of teachers on the one side and authorities on the other side, to act as a free negotiating body. When it has arrived at agreements these agreements may subsequently be approved by the Board, and it is quite clear that teachers and authorities in general will welcome the promise the Board will en- 1757 force those agreements on every authority throughout the country. The teachers and authorities in their national capacities will be perfectly prepared to see these scales arrived at by agreement and with the approval of the Board, which will then put them into force.
I hope the Minister will take these powers. In fact we want to see these powers in his hands. At the same time I wonder whether the Clause, as it stands does really restrict his powers and the purpose of that function. There is still some doubt about that. Will the Minister undertake, at some future time, perhaps after this Bill has been in another place, to say that if these doubts have some substance in them the Clause can be altered accordingly? I would also like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir Ernest Graham-Little). He apparently is conducting a campaign by circular and letters in the Press and as far as I have seen the circular and certainly those letters in "The Times Educational Supplement"—in which he is honoured to get the central page—he has completely misrepresented my attitude on this particular matter as expressed in the Committee stage. I do not want to worry the Committee with a long discussion on this, but the hon. Gentleman writes: It was unfortunate that in connection with Clause 82 of the Education Bill a Labour member speaking as a representative of the National Union of Teachers, supported the Government in its contention that it is undesirable to accept the principle of equal pay. I supported and voted for equal pay; the hon. Member did not; he was absent from the Division Lobby and apparently now comes out in circulars and letters charging me with being against this principle, when he himself never even voted. I am used to electioneering methods, but I want fair electioneering and fair representation of the position I took. I raise the matter also to say, quite categorically, as I did in the Debate, that we teachers are 95 per cent. in favour of the principle of equal pay. We wanted the Clause in for equal pay, because we felt some doubt whether the Clause did not give to the Minister dictatorial powers, which we felt might injure the negotiating powers of the Burnham Committee. That is the position. What the hon. Gentleman said completely misrepresents the attitude that I took up. I am glad the Minister does not intend this to mean dictatorial powers, but I 1758 hope, if there are reasonable grounds for some doubt, that he will indicate that he is prepared to look at it again to see whether those doubts can be removed by words incorporated in the Bill.

§ Mrs. Cnzalet Keir (Islington, East)
May I say how glad I am to see the reinstatement of the late Clause 82 for two reasons? My hon. Friends and I were never against this Clause. We always thought it was a good one. It was the principle of the Amendment on which we voted and not against the substance of the Clause itself. I am glad, in the second place, because I think it is fair to say that it was instrumental in stimulating the Government to make the very satisfactory statement that the Prime Minister made earlier to-day on the question of equal pay.

§ Sir Ernest Graham-Little (London University)
I should like to make a short explanation. I am afraid it must be inadequate because the first notice that I had that the hon. Member was raising the matter was five minutes ago.

§ Mr. Cove
The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it was coming up, because the Clause was going to be discussed. He ought to have read the Order Paper.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
When a Member proposes to name another Member it is usual for the information to be conveyed to the Member in advance of the mention in the House. I intended to support the Amendment for equal pay and I made a speech to that effect. Many Members were unaware that a Division was to take place and they were absent. The whole of my information was derived from the report in HANSARD of 30th March, 1944. This interpretation of the hon. Member's speech was conveyed in a newspaper, "The Tribune," which is very largely read by the Labour Party.

§ Mr. Cove
Has the hon. Gentleman read my speech of 28th March? I said: I only want to say that the profession, as a whole, endorses the principle of equal pay. There is on difference about that in the profession. I realize the difficulty of my right hon. Friend but at least 90 to 95 per cent. of the profession are in favour of equal pay for equal work. Therefore I have on alternative but to support that principle.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1944; col. 1386, Vol. 398.]

The Chairman
I hope the Committee will appreciate that this is not strictly relevant. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make a personal explanation, having allowed the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to raise the matter. Perhaps he will confine himself to that.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
I repeat that I went on the report in HANSARD of 30th March, when the Amendment on equal pay was discussed.

§ Sir J. Mellor
When the Government said they would make the restoration of this Clause a question of confidence, I assumed that they had in mind the issue of equal pay, and not other issues which might arise on the Clause, and that, although they have made their position quite clear on the equal pay issue, and that cannot be reconsidered, they have not closed their mind to a possible Amendment of that Clause in other ways. Many teachers are very anxious lest minorities are not properly represented in the discussions that may take place with the Minister. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. Friend say there will be no change in the Burnham machinery. I think there is a very definite change in the proposal he has now made for the future of the Burnham Committees because in the past there have been an Elementary, a Secondary and a Technical Burnham Committee, but in future the primary and secondary teachers are all to be lumped together in the panel of one Burnham Committee. That makes a very definite difference in the Burnham constitution. Take the case of the secondary teachers. On the existing secondary panels the members of the four secondary associations have a very large majority and the National Union of Teachers is in a definite minority. Indeed, I think something like 90 per cent. of the secondary teachers are members of one or other of the four secondary associations. But, taking teachers as a whole, the National Union of Teachers represents something like 75 per cent. of them. Therefore, if teachers concerned in primary and secondary education are all to be lumped together on one panel, those four secondary associations of teachers will find themselves overwhelmed by the representatives of the National Union of Teachers.

§ Mr. Cove
It seems to me that there is to be quite a change in the structure of 1760 the organisations which will be represented on the Burnham Committee, but it will not arise completely out of the change the right hon. Gentleman is making.

§ Sir J. Mellor
That may be the case, but my right hon. Friend said there would be no change in the structure of the Burnham organisation.

§ Mr. Butler
I should not like to be misunderstood. I did not know that we were going to range over quite another subject, the reconstitution of the Burnham panel. I was moving the Clause and what I intended to convey was that the position that the Burnham machinery has taken in suggesting the remuneration of teachers should go on as before. I was not giving a detailed description of a reconstituted Burnham Committee, which would be quite unsuitable in a Debate of this sort.

§ Mr. Cove
On a point of Order. If the Debate goes along these lines, will there be a consequential Debate on the Amendments that have been put down?

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
We shall have to see what Amendments are called, but this is a new Clause and we should endeavour to keep to the subject of the Clause, and not range over the whole of the Burnham position.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Certainly. I do not think I am ranging very far, but surely what the Clause contemplates is the making statutory and obligatory on local authorities of the agreements come to by the Burnham Committee. Therefore, I do not think I am ranging very far, and I suggest that I am clearly within Order in pointing out what my right hon. Friend has proposed as the future organisation of the Burnham Committees.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Certainly not well within Order, but possibly just within Order.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I think it very material to consider whether minorities will be duly protected. There is no provision for the representation of the National Association of Schoolmasters at all. I know that they have not had it in the past, but I should have thought that, when the right hon. Gentleman is rearranging the Burnham organisation, at 1761 least he should have found some place for them. Take the National Union of Teachers, and assume that they have 150,000 members; they are given a representation of 16.

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)
On a point of Order, Would not these arguments be properly addressed to the Amendments on the Paper? I cannot quite see how we could debate these on the Clause if it is your intention not to call the Amendments.

§ Mr. Cove
I do not wish to burke any discussion, but, if we are to have a wide ranging Debate of this kind, it ought to be known in order that some of us may have a chance of replying now if we are not to have an opportunity on the Amendments.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I told the hon. Member a minute or two ago that he was going fairly far. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that, as far as the Amendments are concerned, it is not proposed to call the first three. I propose to call the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), which is a limiting Amendment to a certain extent, but I really think it would not be advisable on the Clause to discuss it quite so widely as the hon. Member apparently wishes because, if we do, it is bound to open up a large scale controversy which really does not come within the Clause.

§ Sir J. Lamb
As I understand it, my hon. Friend was raising the question of what the Minister meant when he said there would be no change. If he meant that there would be no change in the duties and functions of the Burnham Committee, that would satisfy him, but does he also include that there shall be no change in the constitution of the Committee? I think that is the point.

§ Mr. Butler
I was asked the same thing before; I intervened to say it again, and I will now say it for the third time. The question is the general position that the Burnham machinery should occupy in helping us to decide on the salaries and remuneration of teachers. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has done a service in enabling me to make that quite clear. I should not have thought that this was an occasion when 1762 we could with profit go into the exact constitution of the future Burnham Committee though it is, of course, in Order to raise the question of minorities on any Amendment which you, Sir, may select which will come after the general discussion.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I was resting my point on the word "representative." The new Clause provides that the Minister shall discuss the matter with a body which is representative of local authorities and teachers, and only in the last month or so he has announced the new arrangement of the Burnham panel. I was therefore just indicating what the new arrangement was and drawing a contrast between the National Union of Teachers getting 16 members on the panel and the National Association of Schoolmasters none at all. I think I am entitled on the word "representative" to complain that such an arrangement is not representative and to say that the Clause does not provide proper protection for minorities.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is exactly where I think the hon. Baronet must stop. It is a new Clause, and I do not think it is possible, in discussing a new Clause, to say all the things one might have liked to put in. I think we had better leave that alone.

§ Sir J. Mellor
As the Clause stands, I do not regard it as providing proper protection for minorities and I hope the Amendment will be very seriously considered.

§ Mr. Storey (Sunderland)
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, at the end, to add: () Such body shall not be deemed to be representative of teachers, unless it includes a due proportion of representatives of teachers' organisations, the members of which are not otherwise represented. I wish to see representatives of minority bodies included on the Burnham Committee. I particularly have in mind the National Association of Schoolmasters, which has no fewer than 10,000 members, of whom 4,000 are serving overseas. They represent a somewhat different view on certain matters from those of the dominant union, and it is only right that they 1763 should have an opportunity of putting that view forward when matters vital to their interest are being considered. This is an old question and it is one on which former Presidents of the Board of Education have shown extreme weakness. Their attitude has been that if the alternative is to be the continuance of the Burnham Committee as now constituted or the withdrawal of the largest body of teachers, they would chose the former alternative. I hope that the President will now take a stronger line. He has shown great power in persuading opposing interests to sacrifice much in order to secure a sound working compromise, and I hope that he will see that fairness requires that the National Association of Schoolmasters shall be represented on the Burnham Committee.
I suggest that it would be hot only fairness but sound policy. The Bill will require a great increase in the number of teachers, and it is desirable that we should attract many more men to the profession. It is unlikely that we shall get the right type if we deny them expression of their views in any discussion of matters which are of great concern to them, particularly when the association which I have mentioned holds principles considerably divergent from those of the National Union of Teachers, which is so dominantly represented on the Burnham Committee. It is said that the grant of this request would open the door to other organisations and make the teachers' panel unwieldy and disunited, but so far as I know there is no other body of teachers which is comparable. Anyhow, the number which the National Association of Schoolmasters ca n expect to have on the Burnham Committee is so small that it would leave the National Union of Teachers as the dominant voice on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will, therefore, accept the Amendment and so make possible minority representation on the Burnham Committee.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
I beg to second the Amendment.
Anybody who has seen the reports of the various teachers' conferences which have been held during the last few days will know that the position of teachers is difficult. Something has gone very wrong with that position. We have just had the very valuable report of the McNair Committee, which stressed the bad con- 1764 ditions and the inadequate remuneration of teachers. I do not think that adequate remuneration will be secured unless teachers' representation is much more effective than it has been in the past. One cannot understand how the scales which the Burnham Committee have adjudicated can have become possible except that the teachers were not properly represented. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. A. Morrison) made a remarkable speech on this subject. He said that no self-respecting young man or young woman would wish to come under the control of local authorities, but that is what the Bill enacts to a large extent, and this may explain some of their present restiveness. We have had prominent opposition to the principle of equal pay, but something will have to be done in that matter in order to make teachers confident that their claims are not going to be set aside in every possible way as they have been in the past. I suppose that my constituency has more teachers in it than any other, and I can say confidently that that is the feeling of teachers. I could quote one instance of the wholly inadequate pay allowed by the Burnham scale, in the case of uncertificated women teachers—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We cannot discuss teachers' salaries or any of the details of them. We can only discuss the representation of teachers by the Burnham Committee. The hon. Member is completely out of Order.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
The present position is that the McNair Committee has described teachers' conditions as unsatisfactory and their pay inadequate, and has said that these matters ought to be attended to at once. The first step towards that amelioration would be to give the teachers a much more adequate representation upon these committees. Representation ought not to be through one body, as it is at present.

§ Mr. Cove
The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) must be a very successful electioneer. He voted the other night for equal pay—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
But to-day the question of equal pay is quite out of Order.

§ Mr. Cove
—while to-day he moves an Amendment which is pleasing to the National Association of Schoolmasters.

§ Mr. Storey
Why should I not?

§ Mr. Cove
I presume that by to-night the hon. Member will have the men teachers and the women teachers on his side—unless they quarrel. As a matter of fact, the attitude of the hon. Member illustrates the impossibility of accepting his Amendment. The women have on their side a small body compared with the National Association of Schoolmasters. It is impossible for them to sit on this Committee and conciliate, and to arrive at an agreement. If these bodies are together on the same Committee, they will destroy the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is setting up and prevent it functioning. On one side there is complete adherence to the principle of equal pay, while on the men's side there has always been fundamental opposition. That is the reason why Presidents of the Board of Education have not seen fit to give these bodies representation on the Burnham Committee.
It would be wrong of me to say that I know the exact position of the authorities, because I have not been in touch with them in recent weeks, but I know that up to now the authorities have not been favourable to separate representation on the Burnham Committee. They want to be able to negotiate with a body which is, in common parlance, able to deliver the goods. It is impossible to accept the Amendment therefore, not because the right hon. Gentleman is intent on crushing out numerical minorities but because of the fact that representation of bodies which have fundamental differences would make a negotiating body completely inoperative. If there is to be conciliation between local authorities, the teachers, and the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman must see that there is a reasonable chance that the people on the Burnham Committee represent the profession and will not be at each other's throats like Kilkenny cats, but will agree to scales which the other side are able to accept.
I could deliver a long speech on this subject, but I will limit myself to one point with which, I imagine, the right hon. Gentleman will agree. It is essential to the successful working of this Measure that we should have a united teaching profession, but that will not be achieved by the representation of quarrelling 1766 minorities on the Burnham Committee. Let the teachers get together outside. Let them merge themselves together and work out their own differences. Let them find conciliation and accommodation among themselves. I believe that will add to their strength, influence and prestige. Then let them meet the Minister as a united profession. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is going along the right lines to get a united profession behind this Measure and is taking a step to make the Measure more successful than it otherwise would be.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I support the principle which underlies the Amendment and the intention of the hon. Members who put it down. That principle is the representation of minorities. I agree that we have to decide what is a minority. A tremendous number of very small minorities would make representation impossible. As it stands, the Amendment does not give the Minister the right to decide in favour of a minority which is too small to justify representation. If we left it to the Minister I think it would be satisfactory. I could not support the Amendment as worded, as it might be applied to a multiplicity of minorities who would want representation because they happened to be minorities, and the Burnham Committee would become unwieldy. Nor do I agree with the suggestion that all teachers should be in one organisation. That is what is usually termed the closed shop. A minority must be reasonable in number and sufficiently large to be deserving of representation.

§ Mr. R. Morgan (Stourbridge)
I oppose the Amendment. I have to do so very carefully because of the Rules of Order, but I think the Committee ought to be informed of what is at the back of this Amendment. It is obvious from the speakers who initiated the discussion that it is an attempt by a body of schoolmasters, called the National Association of Schoolmasters, to force their way on to the Burnham Committee. I venture to say that a certain subject which you, Mr. Williams, have ruled out of Order, is the very reason for the existence of this body or association. The very inception of their being was that they were opposed to the policy of equal pay. If that is recognised by bringing them on to the Burnham Committee, it will, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said, 1767 continually bring there a question which is not an educational question but one which ought to be dealt with outside the purview of any Education Bill, on a much larger scale, and treated in its broadest aspect after investigation by a Royal Commission. This Amendment is a plea for minorities. I can only think of two minorities concerned, one which, irrespective of educational aims, opposes the principle of equal pay, and the other, an organisation of women teachers which upholds the principle of equal pay. These two secessionist bodies cancel each other out. I think we would be very unwise to do anything to bolster up these two bodies, which are really very small after all, and whose inclusion would only impart a disturbing influence on a body which is functioning satisfactorily to the vast majority of the teaching profession.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
I am a little doubtful about what is in Order and what is not in Order on this Amendment. I was also baffled by the last three speakers. I did not understand the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who was full of human kindness and all that, and who said, "Let the teachers all come together into one organisation." What is stopping them? What is proposed by those who resist this Amendment is that teachers should be forbidden to come together in any but one particular fold. It does seem to me we are going a little far, if we are to pass an Education Bill which puts the management of most education, and the ultimate control of all education, into the hands of one single Government Department, and at the same time we are to put the management of, and the ultimate control of, all teaching and professional matters into the hands of one, and only one, union, and that a union in which, I gather from the hon. Member below the Gangway, there is a great majority of persons distinguishable from the minority, because the great majority belong to one sex and the minority to another. That is a distinction fairly easily observed, and it is a little hard on one set of people—whether the line drawn is a racial line, or one of the colour of hair or sex or whatever it is—to tell them that they have to go into a union, where there is a large majority of the other side, and that they are not 1768 to be allowed to form any union of their own.
It does seem to me we are getting a long way towards what, in any other matter, would be regarded as excessive centralisation. I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier—I am very sorry to be so uncomprehending to-day—and who was afraid of the Burnham Committee being swamped with excessive numbers. The Amendment talks of "a due proportion," and if that were the only difficulty the Committee saw, it would not be very difficult to say that no organisation should count unless it had a minimum number of members. I think the words "a due proportion" should probably do for my hon. Friend. I understand the immense administrative convenience of having to deal with one organisation and only one organisation, but to pretend that that kind of administrative convenience is necessary in the interests of liberty, or education, or any of the other boss words which continually obfuscate a discussion of this sort, seems to me to be wholly uncandid.

§ Mr. Lipson
Like the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) I was rather surprised at the sources from which support for this Amendment has come. I always thought it was a sound Conservative doctrine not to make any change unless there were convincing reasons for doing so. Anyone conversant with the working of the Burnham Committee knows that under its existing constitution—

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I was not aware of this conspiracy to which my hon. and educational Friend drew the attention of the Committee. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway referred, is not familiar with the organisation of the Burnham Committee?

§ Mr. Lipson
I am not sure to which organisation the hon. Member is referring.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I do not quite see where it has any relevance as to whether some outside organisation knows how the Burnham Committee works. It seems to me that we are getting rather far from the Amendment.

§ Mr. Lipson
I think it is generally agreed that under its present constitution the Burnham Committee has functioned satisfactorily, and I would remind the Committee that the Burnham Committee does not represent teachers on all matters associated with their work but only in salary negotiations. I feel that for that particular purpose it is desirable to have one body which speaks for the overwhelming majority of the teachers. It works well, and has worked well. I believe it will continue to work better if it is allowed to go on on these lines, than if the teachers proposed by the Amendment are brought in.

§ Sir J. Mellor
The hon. Member has stressed that it has worked well. To some extent that may be so, but I do not think that the National Association of Schoolmasters would agree. There is this point. In the past the secondary teachers have had their own panel. In future, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Clause, they are to be lumped together with the primary teachers, on one panel. That makes a tremendous difference.

§ Mr. Lipson
It is quite obvious that the Bill must make some changes in the teachers' associations. No doubt my right hon. Friend will take this into consideration, but it has been perfectly clear from the speeches made that the sole purpose of this Amendment is not really to implement the high sounding principle, of minority representation, which the Committee accepts, but really to serve the interests of a particular body and to secure its representation [Interruption]. My hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment said that the McNair Report showed how poorly teachers were paid, but it is not the fault of the Burnham Committee that teachers are not better paid. As a result of the work of the Burnham Committee many teachers are better paid than before the Burnham Committee was constituted. What the McNair Report does stress as the great need of the teaching profession is that there should be unity. I hope that nothing will be done by my right hon. Friend which is likely to interfere with that great principle, or that he will hold out to separatist bodies any hope that if they form themselves together in this way they will be able to obtain representation on a purely salary negotiating Committee. It seems to me that 1770 would do a great deal of harm to the unity of the profession. I hope that for these reasons the Committee will reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. Butler
We have now read for the second time the Clause on the Order Paper and are considering an Amendment raising a question, which has been before my predecessors for many years and is familiar to us and to many Members of the Committee. Before I come to deal in detail with points which have been raised, let me say that if there are any points in the Clause as moved on the Second Reading that we consider we could meet such as, for example, the point put forward by the hon. Member for. Aberavon (Mr. Cove), we shall certainly look at them in another place, and I will examine carefully what has been said.
Coming to the Debate on this Amendment, I should like first to put before the Committee the whole attitude to education which this Bill should engender in our minds. We must be quite clear, as has been recognised from the benches opposite, that we are envisaging a new set-up in education, a primary phase and then a secondary phase of many facets. Therefore, the whole nomenclature and structure of education is radically altered from what it was before. We have also just received the McNair Report on the training of teachers, and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) is in any way depressed I hope he will take heart from that Report to which the Government intend to give their most earnest consideration, with a view to carrying out any of its findings which we are able to implement. We see envisaged, therefore, not only a new set-up of education but a new attitude towards the teachers who form such a vital part of that new educational system. Let me say at once that nothing in my remarks is intended to derogate from the dignity or independence of any association of teachers. We shall need their help, and the more united teachers are to face the problems of the future, the better it will be for us all.
The statement of the position put by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not, I think quite accurate. We are not trying to centralise the administration under one single 1771 Government Department. Education is a partnership of the Board, or the future Ministry, and the local authorities, and there is probably no case of a Government Department working more closely with the local authorities. That must be the case and there is no question of centralisation. Perhaps this will comfort my hon. Friend's mind. It is also the desire of the Board to work with the teachers, our other partners in the administration of the education service. Therefore, if I have given any false impression earlier which I hope I have not that we wish education to be centralised for the purpose of administrative convenience, let me make it clear to the Committee that no questions of administrative convenience alone have guided us or will guide us in doing anything in so human and living a matter as education.
Coming to the question before us in the Amendment, the position as I see it is this: We are dealing with the range of teachers described before the passage of this Bill as elementary but which will, in future, include primary school teachers and teachers in certain sections of the secondary system. The present position in regard to these teachers is that they are represented on the Burnham Committee by one main union to which reference has been made to-day. When the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) suggests that my predecessors have been weak in dealing with this matter, I would say that they have shown considerable strength in answering questions on many occasions in the last 20 years. How does it come that the matter has always been decided in the same sense by my predecessors as I propose to decide it, with the help of the Committee, to-day? It is for the following reasons. If I dilate for a moment upon them it will be because I wish to do justice to this question, to do justice to the hon. Members who have raised it, and to do justice to the teachers' associations, who are so important to us at the present time. It arises partly from the history of the case, and partly from the method of operating the Burnham machinery.
Taking the past history of the case, which I can summarise quite shortly, I can say that in the early days after the last war my predecessors took the view that the committees which originally got 1772 together to form the present Burnham machinery were responsible for their own constitution. Such bodies as the National Association of Schoolmasters, when they approached the Board, were in those days referred to the Committee, which at no time from its constitution was prepared to grant them admission to its ranks. Later, my predecessor Mr. Lees-Smith, as President of the Board, agreed to accept the responsibility for determining what bodies should be entitled to appoint representatives. The number of representatives to be appointed by each body rested, in his view, with the President. He indicated that he would not be disposed to consider any variation in the existing constitution of these self-constituted bodies unless after hearing the views of the Committee, he thought a variation desirable.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
Is not the National Union of Teachers self-constituted?

§ Mr. Butler
I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the position. I said that the original Burnham machinery was constituted by a body, which I can now describe in more detail—the Association of Education Committees and the National Union of Teachers. I then described how Mr. Lees-Smith assumed for the President the responsibility of nominating representatives to this body. He intimated that he would not be prepared to consider variations in the existing constitution unless, after considering the views of the Committee, he thought variations desirable, or unless the Committee formally represented that a change should be made. The position is the same now. No request has been made by the Committee that a change should be made, and it is not, in our view, judging by the excellent record of the Burnham machinery, desirable that a change should be made. This bears out what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has said. There is no doubt that there has been less trouble in the teaching profession over this question of wage negotiations than there has been in perhaps any other branch of our national life. I attribute that largely to the Burnham machinery. It would be a mistake to make any change in the machinery, in view of that excellent record. Past history would make me feel that it was unwise to cause any alteration to be made in the present constitution of the Burnham machinery, not only because 1773 of its original constitution but because of the attitude taken up by my predecessors without exception.
We come to the question of method. If I may discuss the present method, I think that the House of Commons would be with me in feeling that it would be wiser to let it go on as it is at present. The first point made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was that when you have two sides, the authorities and the teachers, the teachers should speak with one voice. If there is discussion between the teachers, let that precede the final negotiation. Otherwise, it would be impossible to reach agreement. I agree that it would be more desirable if every form of minority teachers' association were, according to our British view, on the committee, but, in my view, the National Union of Teachers represents the preponderating mass of the teachers involved in this category—the preponderating number of the women, and the great majority of the men. I agree that the minority have a case: I do not wish to offend them in any way; but if I depart from the principle of working with the largest of the organisations—which has done an extremely good job in this regulation of wages—it will be very difficult to know where to stop. The number of different teachers' organisations is very considerable, and if I concede one I shall have to concede another.
We have a particular difficulty in the question of the National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Union of Women Teachers, to which no reference has been made hitherto. The National Association of Schoolmasters stands aloof from the N.U.T. on the ground that the N.U.T. has too many women members, and the National Union of Women Teachers stands aloof from the N.U.T. on the ground that the N.U.T. is not sufficiently feminine, so we find that the claims of these two organisations cancel each other out. To add extra piquancy to the situation, I find that we are all in so forgiving a mood that one of those Members who took particular interest in the question of equal pay has himself moved this Amendment, proposing that the body which is against equal pay should become a member of the Burnham machinery. The situation is becoming rather Gilbertian. That shows what is likely to arise if, in an effort to defer to all minorities, we include other organisa- 1774 tions on the Burnham machinery. It would be better to adhere to the existing working of the machinery for this purpose. I hope that the Committee will take that view, which is a commonsense one. It is not entirely logical; it has elements which can be described as unjust; but, unless you get the teachers speaking with one voice, you will not get a satisfactory machinery.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
Does that mean that the N.U.T. will be the only body consulted by the Minister?

§ Mr. Butler
Not at all. It is not a case of being consulted by the Minister, but of working on the Burnham machinery. There are other bodies, representing headmasters and so forth, of which I can send my hon. Friend a list. The question arises of how members of different organisations can represent their case and be heard. It is right for me to indicate what method I think the National Association of Schoolmasters or the National Union of Women Teachers, for example, should adopt. My predecessors have at all times been ready to receive deputations or representations from these bodies. I have myself received them, and not only on matters affecting their welfare. I have received useful representations from them on the subject, for example, of the education reforms when they were in the embryo stage. The duty of these organisations would be, first, to associate with other teachers' organisations, and to work with them, because it is most important that the teaching body should be as united as possible. If they found that more difficult than is desirable, they should reserve to themselves the right of making direct representations to the Board, and in any case where they desire to represent their case to the Board, their case will be considered. If it is a question which affects their wages, as apart from other questions of welfare, it will be the duty of the President to forward it to the Burnham machinery as at present constituted. It is the case that there is no desire by His Majesty's Government to override these teachers' organisations. We recognise the good work they are doing. We recognise the bona fides of Members who have put their case to-day. But, for commonsense reasons, it is desirable to adhere to the present system, which has worked so well. I, therefore, recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I regard the reply of my right hon. Friend as extremely thin. There is, clearly, room for one representative of the National Association of Schoolmasters, on the primary and the secondary Burnham panel, on the same numerical basis as that given to the N.U.T. The N.U.T. has 16 representatives for 150,000 members, and the National Association of Schoolmasters, with 10,000 members, is clearly entitled to at least one member on the panel. I cannot see anything in what my right hon. Friend has said as a reason for depriving the Association of that clear right. He has said that it is most important that, in the new set-up of education, justice should be done to teachers, in order that the new scheme should start with general good feeling and understanding. He has not started with justice to the National Association of Schoolmasters. He is perpetuating the power of these self-constituted bodies. He said that, in the first instance, they were self-constituted; but he is going to accept the existing situation, for the sake of convenience. He denied that it was for the sake of administrative convenience, but I do not think that he brought forward any argument of substance to substantiate that denial. He said that it was most important that the panel should speak with one voice. If all the teachers who were represented on that panel were unanimous, they would speak with one voice, but I really think that what will happen if my right hon. Friend persists in his attitude is either that we shall have a greater cleavage than ever existed before in the teaching profession, or else that they will all be driven into one big union, and I do not think that anybody on my side of the House wants to see that, however welcome it may be to some Members of the Labour Party.

§ Mr. Cove
I happen to know something about the working of the Burnham machinery. Although I have not been on it for some years, I was on it for a considerable period. When we come to agreement, each side has got to go back to recommend that agreement to a conference, which, on the teachers' side, represents all the teachers up and down the country. The teachers' representatives, having agreed with the local authorities about the scales, say, "We are going back to a conference representative of the whole 1776 body of teachers, and we will recommend this agreement." If you have on that body representatives of the N.A.S. and N.U.T., what will the women's representative do? If there is a question of equal pay, what will the N.A.S. representative do? He is bound to go back to a conference of the organisation and say, "Do not accept the agreement; have nothing to do with it, because there is equal pay in it."

§ Sir J. Mellor
On a point of Order. I gave way for what I thought was an interruption. The hon. Member will no doubt have a chance of speaking when his turn comes. So far as I understood his point, it appears to be a point against the Burnham machinery altogether. I am not going as far as that. What I am saying is that it does not appear that the Burnham machinery is going to afford sufficient protection for minorities. It is all very well to say that it has worked well in the past, and I hope my right hon. Friend will still deal rather more fully with the point that, in the past, it has worked fairly well, because the secondary teachers have had their own separate panel. They are now very anxious about the future, because they will no longer have a separate panel, but will be lumped together in one panel, with the primary teachers. That, of course, does not touch the point about the representation of the National Association of Schoolmasters, and I have not yet heard one word said in all these discussions that can possibly justify their total exclusion, which appears to me to be due to pure prejudice. I think this Committee ought to insist upon some words being included in this Clause which will amount to a direction to the Minister that that association of schoolmasters, with 10,000 members, should have at least one representative, to which it is fully entitled, on a numerical basis.

§ Mr. Cove
I am afraid my hon. Friend has not grasped the point. If this Burnham Committee is ever to arrive at an agreed scale—agreed on the side of the teachers and of the authorities—how can that agreement ever come out of that Committee if there are representatives of bodies whose views are directly opposed and are incapable of accommodation? That is the whole issue—that they are completely incapable of accommodation. You cannot accommodate the N.A.S. to what the N.U.T. stands for. One body 1777 stands, quite clearly, against equal pay, and the other stands, quite clearly and definitely, for it. In a body which has to arrive at an agreed scale, which it has to recommend the President of the Board to accept, I suggest that the majorities will smash the minorities, create great confusion throughout the profession and give the President of the Board an awful problem to solve. On whose side will he come down? Supposing the agreement embodied equal pay. Would the N.A.S. decline to accept that scale? We do not want—

§ Sir J.. Mellor
Will the hon. Member say what is the proportion of men to women in the N.U.T.?

§ Mr. Cove
The profession has an over- whelming number of women in it, and I should say, speaking offhand, that there may be two women for every man. The National Union includes within its ranks the vast majority of men teachers. The National Association of Schoolmasters does not represent a majority of men teachers; it represents a relatively small minority of men.

§ Captain Cobb (Preston)
But will the hon. Member remember that it is a growing minority, which may, in due course, become a majority of men teachers?

§ Mr. Cove
I cannot peer into the future. What I can say is that it is a minority, but we shall have to get the exact figures. The point I am making is that the success of the Burnham Committee is that it has been able to negotiate agreements—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think it would be better if we had one speaker at a time. A lot of these interruptions tend to bring the discussion out of Order.

§ Mr. Cove
These scales have had to be approved by the President of the Board, and, I suppose, accepted by the Treasury. The difficulty must be to get agreement, and that agreement can only be arrived at if you have, within the body, some common basis for reaching common agreement.

§ Sir E. Graham-Little
Will the hon. Member say why he considers that the Burnham scales have been so highly successful, in view of the McNair Report, which, after long consideration, points out how absolutely ridiculous the situation 1778 with regard to teachers' remuneration has been?

§ Mr. Cove
I agree with the McNair Report that the remuneration should be considerably increased. I will say this, in answer to the hon. Member, that I once held a position in which my pay was 30s. a week.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
As I have said, the matter is getting out of Order, and this has nothing to do with the question.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
I listened to the Minister saying that he admitted that there was something illogical in supporting the present Burnham Committee and that a measure of injustice was being done. I cannot, for the life of me, see how there is injustice being done to anybody. This Committee is not a representative assembly for carrying on general discussions. It is a Committee for getting a job done. [Interruption.] What would be the attitude of the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little), who made an appeal on behalf of a minority, if it was suggested that a minority should try to get into the British Medical Association? What would happen if any minority suggested that they should get into the field of the legal profession? There are many committees functioning and doing good work on which all kinds of minorities might claim to be represented, but are not represented. I say to the Minister that he presented a very logical argument for retaining the Burnham Committees and encouraging them to carry on the useful work they are doing in regard to wages.

§ Major-General Sir Alfred Knox (Wycombe)
I am not at all surprised that the representative of Communism in this House should agree with the Minister's explanation, for a very prominent Russian politician once said—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am sure that what a prominent Russian politician said could not possibly be in Order.

§ Sir A Knox
Under some political parties, we should be in prison, and that seems to be the idea here. I have never heard a more totalitarian statement than that given by the Minister to-day. Why should not these 10,000 people have a representative on this Committee? Surely, there is no fear that one man would be 1779 able to override the 16 members of the N.U.T.? Why not give them what they ask? The Minister seems to advocate that we should turn all parties out except one.

§ Mr. Woods (Finsbury)
I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister, which I think is not consistent with his generally sympathetic approach to these problems. It may be that we all desire that everybody should be agreed, but the world has not been made like that, and, with the best will in the world, those who want an all-inclusive union to cover the teachers, have not succeeded, though the N.U.T. is the most authoritative, because it represents the overwhelming majority. But a section of the women teachers felt that an organisation specially catering for women was the proper vehicle for them. Subsequently, some of the men felt that they had a grievance and that there was a function for a union exclusively for men. So you have the N.U.T. and these two other bodies. I think the Minister himself has an uneasy conscience about it, because he has said that this proposal has the appearance of being unjust and is not logical. Surely, these organisations, whether they have representation or not, will continue to exist, and probably the fact that they are refused representation will be an added incentive to them to go on increasing their membership so as to redress their grievances. The Burnham Committee, whatever else it may deal with, deals primarily with the things that matter most to employed persons—salaries and conditions—and if they are excluded from the Burnham Committee, it seems to me that you have altered the right of the profession to deal with salaries and conditions and so forth.

§ Mr. Butler
There has been betrayed a great ignorance of the Burnham Committee. It does not deal with conditions at all, but with the fixing of salaries. What I have said frequently in these Debates, in the interests of the teachers, is that, if they speak with more than one voice, they will not get such good terms as if they speak with a single voice, and, as I have explained, I think it is better in the interests of the teachers for the Minister to take the line which I have taken rather than follow an alternative line of inviting every different association to join in this 1780 machinery until, when they come in front of the authorities, the teachers spend their time arguing with one another and not getting the better rates which they seek.

§ Mr. Woods
I do not think it would do so at all. Whether the machine, as it is at present, functions satisfactorily, the results are very meagre indeed.

§ Mr. Gallacher
No, they are not.

§ Mr. Woods
We can differ on that.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I do not think we had better go into that. It would not be in Order to argue the results of the Burnham Committee in the past.

§ Mr. Gallacher
In view of the statement made by the hon. Member, about the wages of teachers in the past, and the developments being relatively—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is not the point.

§ Mr. Woods
I agree that there has been an improvement, but there is still widespread dissatisfaction, and I do not see what is achieved by merely excluding these people from the negotiations. If the Minister is so tremendously concerned about having this one group of teachers represented, I think he ought to make a further concession, with an assurance that consideration of salaries will not be excluded from these organisations. If the Burnham Committee could only function, if there was unanimity and they had to come to agreement, it would be making the position very restricted. There are all the other interests which are efficiently organised.

§ Mr. Gallacher
And represented.

§ Mr. Woods
I do not know why my hon. Friend is so concerned about it, as it is a position in which the principle of the recognition of minorities is concerned I should have thought he would have had some sympathy with the minority organisations. I appeal to the Minister, if he is convinced that this would in any way jeopardise the machinery to make some gesture to these organisations.

§ Mr. Butler
I said so.

§ Mr. Woods
I agree that the right hon. Gentleman made some statement but it 1781 does not seem to be satisfactory. If I were in their position, I should feel that the statement made by the Minister was not entirely satisfactory. I should like to feel that the Minister was adding to the negotiating machinery, by giving some assurance that representation on matters appertaining to the profession, would be accepted and would receive adequate consideration in addition to the machinery he is so anxious to preserve.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I am persuaded by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that this is not a representative Committee, but the body for getting the job done. It is clear that that is the line. The Minister talked a great deal about partnership and unity, but to say that the only way to get a set of people to speak with one voice is by excluding all those who do not agree with the majority throws a rather lurid light on the earlier half of the argument. There is another point in the remarks of the Minister to which I would draw the particular attention of the Committee. That was the Ministerial argument—" The thin end of the wedge. I cannot add 2 or 3, because if I add 1, 2 or 3, what about 4, 5 and 6? If I invite another association, am I to invite every other association?" I ask the Minister and the Committee to consider whether that argument should not now be forgotten for good by the Front Bench. A little later on in our consideration of this Bill we are to come to points about delegated legislation and Ministerial discrimination. When we come to that subject we are always told that Ministers are honest and intelligent persons, with admirable advisers, and that they must be left to draw the line, and that the House of Commons cannot, beforehand, see where to draw the line between 2 and 3, or between 51 and 52. If they cannot trust themselves to draw the line between associations that are substantial and considerable and those that should be included merely for the purpose of being included, I cannot see why we should exclude representation of substantial associations of schoolmasters or school mistresses.