Burnham Committee (Hansard, 1 December 1981)

§ 4. Mr. Lawrence
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will allocate a place on the Burnham committee for the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton)
As my hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 23 November, my right hon. Friend has written to the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers to say that he does not propose to grant representation on the Burnham further education committee to the association.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Why does not the Burnham committee in general, and the further education committee in particular, reflect more closely the representation of the teachers's unions and their strength in the country? Is it equitable and democratic that the National Union of Teachers, which represents only 50 per cent. of teachers, should have such a dominant voice on the Burnham committee?

§ Mr. Shelton
As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the NAS/UWT is represented on the Burnham committee, but it is the Burnham further education committee that is in question. Two criteria are applied: first, the percentage of the total number of teachers in the sector which the union has; and, secondly, whether the membership is drawn from any particular description of teachers within that sector. According to those criteria, I am afraid that the NAS/UWT has no representation.

§ Mr. Newens
Does the Under-Secretary recognise that an increase in the multiplicity of teachers' representatives on these organisations—particularly when, as he said, they do not have a membership which justifies representation—can only make it infinitely more difficult to allow the teachers to speak with one voice and reach decisions? Does he accept that, in the long run, any increase in representation from different organisations will only worsen labour relations in the teaching sector?

§ Mr. Shelton
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not entirely agree with him. What is important is whether the union meets the criteria.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Does my hon. Friend agree that those criteria are too inflexible to meet the case in point? This is an important and influential union. Does he accept that the two criteria that he adumbrated are too narrow and should be reconsidered?

§ Mr. Shelton
These criteria are in the Act under which the Burnham committee was set up. Of course, they can to some extent be at the discretion of my right hon. Friend. Should the situation change, no doubt these matters can he reviewed in future.

§ Mr. Flannery
Does the Minister realise the complete confusion in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who did not even know the difference between the Burnham further education committee and the Burnham committee? The reality is that on the further education committee—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Instead of giving information, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his words in the form of a question.

§ Mr. Flannery
I asked the Minister a question. Is the Minister aware that the majority of teachers in further education are represented by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—whose representatives will be coming to the House this afternoon—and that the National Association of Schoolmasters has few members in further education and should not be represented?

§ Mr. Shelton
I have no need to defend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has great knowledge of these matters. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers has at least 2,000 full-time members in further education.