Burnham Committee (Hansard, 8 April 1986)

§ 4. Mr. Chope
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he remains satisfied that the representation of the teaching unions on the Burnham committee is pro rata to the size of membership of those unions.

§ 8. Mr. Haselhurst
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will institute a biennial review of the composition of the Burnham committee teachers' panel; and if he will make a statement.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am satisfied that the representation of the teacher unions on the Burnham primary and secondary committee reflects the Burnham-relevant membership of the teacher unions as at 31 December 1984, which is the latest date for which figures are available for all the unions. I do not think that it would be appropriate to consider another review until the independent panel recently appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist management and teachers in negotiations on various matters, including procedures for negotiation, has completed its work.

§ Mr. Chope
Is my right hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of moderate teachers who put pupils before politics are leaving the NUT, and have been since 1984, and are joining the Professional Association of Teachers and the AMMA? Should not those changes be reflected without further delay in the composition of the Burnham committee?

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I am unwilling, at a time when there is widespread agreement that the Government should consider shifting from the present Burnham committee arrangements for negotiations—although without much agreement on what the shift should be towards—to confirm the durability of the Burnham committee by reviewing teacher numbers. After all, the only arrangements for the audited collection of numbers is at the end of the year, so the latest numbers available would be at the end of 1984, and, soon, 1985. It will be time enough to consider this when ACAS has reported.

§ Mr. Haselhurst
Will my right hon. Friend not altogether exclude the possibility of a further review, and not confine that review simply to a pro rata arrangement, but consider the more revolutionary approach of according equal representation to all the teacher unions? That might reflect a better balance and better working within the Burnham system.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I certainly do not want to rule out the possibility of a review in a suitable form at a suitable time. I therefore heed what my hon. Friend says, but without necessarily espousing his last suggestion.

§ Mr. Flannery
Is it not true that the problems of education will remain huge and will continue to move towards the centre of the political stage, no matter how much gerrymandering is done with the Burnham committee? As the right hon. Gentleman moves the goalposts on the Burnham committee, are not teachers going back to work embittered and angry because they realise that the Government are interested not in state education but only in private education? The Government care not for the education of the children, whom we believe should be educated to the best possible standard.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
The hon. Gentleman is mischievious in his suggestions and entirely unjustified. Let him read "Better Schools" to see the practical interest of the Government in the improvement of standards in state education. The only power that I have used in reviewing the membership of the Burnham committee was given to the holder of my office by statute by a Labour Government.

§ Mr Madden
When will the Secretary of State respond to the calls of those on the Burnham committee and elsewhere in education, and resign?

Hon. Members
Answer.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a rhetorical question.