§ 11. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what instructions she has given her representative on the Burnham Committee with regard to making an additional offer in the teachers' salary negotiations.
§ Mrs. ThatcherNone, Sir.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the right hon. Lady aware that virtually the whole of the teaching profession is fed up to the teeth with the Government and the Department of Education and Science because of their attitude to the justifiable pay claim which has been submitted and their fear that the Department is trying to do another Post Office job?
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe negotiations in Burnham reached deadlock, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the independent chairman advised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to set up an arbitral body. Later Questions appear on the subject, and they will be reached shortly.
§ 12. Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a further statement on the teachers' pay negotiations.
§ 15. Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a further statement on the progress of the teachers' pay negotiations.
§ 24. Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the latest position with regard to teachers' salaries.
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe management panel of the Burnham Committee has complied with the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to nominate a member of the arbitral body. The teachers' panel has not so far done so. My right hon. Friend has now invited all the associations represented on the teachers' panel jointly to meet him.
§ Mr. TuckIs the right hon. Lady now prepared to think along the same lines as her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), and do away with compulsory arbitration as laid down in the Remuneration of Teachers Act and get rid of direct Government representation on the Burnham Panel? If not, why not?
§ Mrs. ThatcherBecause I am not prepared to consider changes while the system is in operation and the negotiations continue.
§ Mr. BarnesIs the right hon. Lady aware that the verdict of the Committee of Inquiry into Post Office workers' pay can only confirm the teachers' worst fears about the extent to which the Government are influencing so-called arbitration at the present time? Does she appreciate that many teachers are not against arbitration as such but feel that arbitration must be on a fair basis and should consider the amount of the award rather than the question of structure?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI hope the hon. Gentleman is not reflecting on the arbitration in the case of Post Office workers, because if he is, it is not a matter for me. Representatives of the teachers' associations will be seeing my right hon. 1622 Friend shortly. I have no doubt that they are very well able to put their own views to him.
§ Mr. ArmstrongIs the Secretary of State aware that her declared support for the management proposals—that is, for a completely new structure for teachers' pay, a structure which will divide the profession, widen the primary/secondary differential and abolish the basic scale—is resented bitterly by the majority of teachers, and as—contrary to what she has said this afternoon—the Government have more direct control over the amount of and the negotiations for teachers' salaries, does she agree that such a fundamental change in payments to teachers ought to be the result of negotiations and ought not to be imposed by any arbitral settlement?
§ Mrs. ThatcherMany teachers are as anxious to have a structural settlement as I am. The terms of reference and scope of the arbitration body, as referred to my right hon. Friend by the independent chairman, included structure and level.
§ Mr. MaudeWould my right hon. Friend confirm that in the situation which she inherited from the previous Government, once it reaches the stage when the matter is referred to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment she has no authority to interfere in the teachers' pay dispute?
§ Mrs. ThatcherThat is correct.
Mr. ShortDid the right hon. Lady mean, when she replied to an earlier supplementary question, that once the present negotiations are concluded and out of the way, she will be prepared to consider abolishing compulsory arbitration and will be prepared to look at the machinery generally?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI have told the teachers' representatives that I will not consider any of these things until after the present negotiations are out of the way. After that, if they wish to make representations to me, I shall hear and consider them.
§ Mr. LeadbitterIs the Secretary of State aware that the fears of the teaching profession regarding arbitration are real, sincere and based upon experience? Would she not agree, in the circumstances, 1623 that teachers are being deprived of what might be called collective bargaining, and that this is a projection of Government policy to provide an incomes policy on a basis of keeping the public sector down while they can do nothing about the situation elsewhere? In those circumstances, while she may be unable to interfere with the arbitral processes, will she agree that it is imperative to bring confidence back to the profession, and give an undertaking that there will be a full review of teachers' pay in future?
§ Mrs. ThatcherWe should all prefer a settlement as a result of negotiation. When negotiations break down, the arrangements for arbitration inherited from the previous Government are automatically put in train. They are still in train, and my right hon. Friend will be seeing the teachers' associations shortly. Art the moment I have no authority or standing, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out.
§ Sir G. NabarroHowever a settlement is reached, would not my right hon. Friend agree that 9 per cent. is both salutary and agreeable?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI do not think I should make any comment upon that particular sum, nor would it be advisable for me to do so at present.
§ Mr. SpearingWhatever the right hon. Lady has said about structure, would she not agree that there is genuine mystification among many teachers about the five proposed new scales? Would she not agree that to attain her objectives it would be possible to modify the present compound basic scale?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI wish that many more teachers had more information about the proposed scales. From my knowledge, I think that some of them would be quite pleasantly surprised.