Teachers' Salaries (Hansard, 11 April 1963)

§ 15. Dr. King
asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to announce his acceptance or rejection of the recommendations of the Burnham Technical Committee, which were drawn up in January and submitted to him on 20th March.

§ 19. Mr. Willey
asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the salaries of teachers in establishments of further education.

§ The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)
I wrote yesterday to the Chairman of the Burnham Committee to ask that the Burnham Technical Committee should reconsider the proposals they had put to inc. I sent the Committee, in confidence, some alternative proposals for their consideration.

§ Dr. King
Is the Minister aware that technical education is becoming of increasing importance and, that being so, it is vital that nothing should be done to perpetuate the idea that there is something inferior in the status of technical education? That being so, as he knew what he was to do to the Technical Committee, namely, that he was to do exactly the same as to the main Committee, would it not have been courteous to have informed it more quickly?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member says on the importance of technical education. The point is that some modification of the Technical Committee's proposals will be needed in accordance with Burnham's own principles to keep them in line with the general principles which I outlined to the Burnham main Committee for primary and secondary teachers. Consistent with the principles which I have announced earlier, I have proposed increases beyond those recommended by the Technical Committee at almost every point in the scales for 1462 lecturers and above. There is no question of treating technical teachers unfairly.

§ Mr. Willey
Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not take the steps in this case which he took in respect of the main Committee?

§ Sir E. Boyle
We can discuss all this when we have the debate after Christmas—I apologise, I should have said after Easter. It would be entirely in accordance with the principles of the Burnham Committee which has always recommended a common basic scale for teachers in schools and in further education establishments.

§ Mr. Willey
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of the profession and education generally it would be bettor to defer this until after Christmas?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I certainly regard the steps I have taken here as entirely in the interests of technical education as a whole. and I think that when hon. Members see the scales proposed they will come to that conclusion.

§ 16. Mr. Shinwell
asked the Minister of Education if he will give an assurance that, in future, after engaging in discussion with the Burnham Committee on salary scales for the teaching profession, he will not exercise a veto on what he regards as an unsatisfactory decision by that Committee.

§ Sir E. Boyle
It would not be right for me to anticipate the outcome of the discussions I have already proposed to have with all the appropriate bodies concerned about revised machinery and procedure for negotiating teachers' salaries. I am willing to see every issue, including the Minister of Education's statutory powers in these matters, fully and frankly examined.

§ Mr. Shinwell
What is the point of having the Burnham Committee for negotiations if the right hon. Gentleman is to intervene and vary its decisions? While he may have a legal right to accept or reject a decision of the Burnham Committee, where is his legal right to vary a decision? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman understood that he has plenty on his plate without interfering in matters which are not his business?

§ Sir E. Boyle
Whatever differences there may be in the House about the present situation, there is widespread recognition—and widespread recognition on both sides of the House—that the present arrangements for negotiating teachers' salaries are unsatisfactory. Views were expressed to that effect on both sides of the House in the debate which we had a week or two ago.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific question, I should like to make this plain, because there has been some comment on this subject outside the House: when I saw a deputation from the Burnham Committee, I said that I thought that we might consider some solution which did not involve legislation, but nothing I said on that occasion to that deputation was intended in any way to prejudice either the course or the outcome of the discussions to which I have referred in answer to this Question.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman discovered that there was a reason for revising the scheme relating to salary scales only after the Burnham Committee had made its decision? Had he no idea about the need for this beforehand? If he had, why did he not adopt the idea before the Burnham Committee came to its decision?

§ Sir E. Boyle
With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is asking questions which go considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper, but I will answer that because I do not want to be discourteous in any way. I made it plain in my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee that I intervened as soon as it become clear that the provisional agreement was to be ratified by a majority of both sides of the Committee. My predecessor, Lord Eccles, was blamed in 1961 for intervening too soon, and the right hon. Gentleman now blames me for intervening too late. All I can say is that I intervened at what I though was the appropriate point following my statutory responsibilities under Section 89.

§ 17. Mr. Awbery
asked the Minister of Education if it is his intention to accept the decisions of the Burnham Committee in the future; and if the trade 1464 union and local education authorities have been consulted about the changes proposed.

§ Sir E. Boyle
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I have not yet proposed any changes. I shall certainly be consulting the parties he mentions in the discussions I intend to have before long.

§ Mr. Awbery
Is the Minister aware that it is more than 40 years since the Burnham Committee was established, and that during that time it has worked very satisfactorily without interference from anyone, and that it has acted as a negotiating committee and not as an advisory committee? The Minister has now varied its decision. Will he tell it that in future it is to be only an advisory committee and not a negotiating committee, so that it will know exactly what its powers are?

§ Sir E. Boyle
It would not be right for me to anticipate either the course or the outcome of the discussions which I hope to have with all the parties concerned. However, it is a very big assumption to suppose that machinery which has existed for 40 years will necessarily, without any amendment, serve the circumstances of the 1960s, when education plays a much bigger part in the life of the nation than it did 40 years ago.

§ Mr. Willey
In view of the dictatorial way in which the right hon. Gentleman has behaved and his flagrant disregard for negotiating machinery, not only in this case but generally, and as one cannot behave like this in Britain, does he not know that it will be impossible to get proper discussions about the future of the Burnham Committee?

§ Sir E. Boyle
Before saying that again, the hon. Member should read my original letter to the chairman of the Burnham Committee, which was not dictatorial in tone. It made a number of suggestions in principle, none of which was agreed to by the Burnham Committee. It did not meet me at all, but that was its right. I therefore said that in order to get over the immediate salary difficulty I proposed to introduce legislation to end the deadlock, but 1465 that I wanted to have full discussions with everybody concerned about the future of the Burnham machinery. I repeat that in the recent debate in the House there was widespread recognition by hon. Members of the need for some change and some re-examination of these machineries and procedures.

§ 18. Mr. Awbery
asked the Minister of Education, in view of the fact that the salaries of teachers at colleges of advanced technology are now being paid out of the colleges' funds, granted directly by him, if they will continue to be governed by the Burnham scale as hitherto.

§ Sir E. Boyle
It is the Government's policy that the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology should be related to those of university teachers. A full review of salaries in both universities and colleges of advanced technology is about to be carried out by the National Incomes Commission. In the meantime certain interim adjustments are being made to the colleges of advanced technology salaries as a consequence of the adjustments made recently in the university scales This means that as from the 1st April salaries in colleges of advanced technology will not be identical with those in colleges covered by the Burnham Report.

§ Mr. Awbery
Is the Minister aware that there is some confusion among teachers of advanced technology about who is to negotiate for them in future? Will he tell us exactly what Committee will negotiate for them in future?

§ Sir E. Boyle
No, Sir. I cannot anticipate the future. The point is that the Burnham reports have not been binding on colleges of advanced technology ever since they achieved direct grant status in 1962, but Burnham salaries have been paid pending a full-scale review. We are in a new situation because of the transfer of status. The exact adjustments to be made to the salaries of teachers in colleges of advanced technology are still under consideration, but any increase will be dated from 1st April.