§ 5. Sir G. Nabarro
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science 725 whether he will now publish the terms of reference in detail for restructuring proposals by the Burnham Committee; and when he expects the publication of the recommendations, including an arbitration body for teachers' pay.
§ 8. Mr. Hornby
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sum of money he proposes to allocate for the improvement of the salary structure in the teaching profession, now that the basic scale has been settled.
§ Mr. Edward Short
The Committee itself has agreed to consider the salaries structure, and I expect the discussions to begin shortly. I have told it that the Government are committed to increases, including the interim increase already provisionally agreed, totalling not more than £42 million in 1970–71 and £84 million in 1971–72. The restructuring will be from the pre 1st April, 1970, base. There are already arrangements for arbitration.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
Is the Minister aware that, in this context, restructuring does not refer to teachers' monetary rewards alone? Having regard to the seething discontent in the profession which has led to the latest strike threat on the size of classes and no doubt on other issues, will he give the Burnham Committee some parameters or guidelines on restructuring over a wider area than salaries and pecuniary rewards alone?
§ Mr. Short
Frankly, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Restructuring refers to the restructuring of salaries, and the Burnham Committee is about to engage in a restructuring exercise extending over the next few months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that last year the biggest drop ever was recorded in the pupil-teacher ratio.
§ Mr. Hornby
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position a little further and confirm that it is Government policy, as reported in The Times Educational Supplement on 3rd April not to provide more money for teachers' salaries without a genuine restructuring of pay? Will he say whether the money is to come out of the teachers' increase for 1970–71, or will it be additional to that?
§ Mr. Newens
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the controversy about whether the £42 million for the current year and the £84 million for the following year are maxima, or whether there is room for negotiation of any further amounts? In view of the controversy, can my right hon. Friend clarify the position still further?
§ 10. Mr. J. E. B. Hill
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the recent settlement on teachers' salaries, he will propose modifications of the procedures and composition of the Burnham Committee.
§ 40. Mr. St. John-Stevas
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what modifications he intends to propose in the procedure and composition of the Burnham Committee.
§ Mr. Edward Short
I have told the Burnham Schools Committee that, if both panels wish it, I am ready to enter into wide-ranging discussions with them, from which no relevant matter need be excluded.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Will the Minister confirm that it is his policy to drop the Government representatives from the Burnham Committee and also the proposals for compulsory arbitration? Is it 727 not necessary to do this if claims are to be considered on their merits and not fall victims to the remnants of the Government's incomes policy?
§ Mr. Newens
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the provisions in the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1965, for compulsory arbitration were shown in the recent dispute to be quite useless, since there was no agreement about going to arbitration? In the circumstances, would it not be more sensible to agree to drop them?