- (1)As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, there shall be paid by or in respect of every teacher who was on the said first day of July, or is at any time thereafter employed in recognised service and who was not or is not disqualified for the receipt of benefits under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), by virtue of Section four of that Act, by way of contribution towards the cost of providing benefits under the principal Act an amount equal to -five per cent. of the amount of his salary for the time being.
- (2) The Board of Education (in this Act referred to as "the Board") may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules prescribing the manner in which contributions under this Section are to be collected, and those rules may provide for the deduction of the amount of the contribution from the salary of a teacher by or in respect of whom a contribution is payable, and for the collection of contributions by means of deductions made from time to time from any grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which may be applied directly or indirectly to the payment of the salaries of teachers, and for authorising the provisional collection of contributions from or in respect of teachers whose liability to contribute is for the time being in doubt and for requiring contributions provisionally collected but not in fact payable to be repaid.
- (3) Any period of service in respect of which a payment of the contribution required under this Section has not been made by or in respect of any teacher shall be treated as not being a period of recognised service.
- (4) All sums payable by way of contributions under this Section shall, so far as not recovered by means of deductions from grants, be paid to and recoverable by the Board, and all sums received by the Board under this Section shall, except in so far as they are authorised to be applied as an appropriation-in-aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the expenses of the Board be paid into the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home)I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "July" ["first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two"], and to insert instead thereof the word "June."
2108 4.0 p.m.
This Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Herbert Fisher), revives a controversy which took place when this Bill was before the House on Second Reading. The proposal in the Amendment is to alter the date upon which the Standing Committee decided, namely, that of the first day or' July to the first day of June, in order that the collection from the salaries of the teachers of 5 per cent. in respect of their superannuation may be made as from 1st June, instead of as from 1st July. The House will remember the discussion which took place on Second Reading. The Bill proposed to apply the deduction from the teachers' salaries in respect of their superannuation as from 1st April. Some discussion was raised whether there was not some implied obligation, either upon the part of the Government or on the part of the House, that the teachers should have no deduction from the salaries which had been awarded to them under the Burnham Scale, and upon a Motion which involved the appointment of a special committee to investigate the actual facts in regard to the matter, the Government were defeated, with the result that a committee was appointed to report to the House upon the question whether there was any obligation, expressed or implied, which we were breaking by what the Government proposed in the Bill. Immediately thereafter the Government brought in a Supplementary Estimate in order to provide the fund which it would be necessary for the Government to supply if the teachers themselves were not to be mulcted in 5 per cent. of their salaries in order to meet the charges in connection with their superannuation. The figure of the Supplementary Estimate, as proposed by the Government, was £575,000. That applied, of course, only to England, and it was calculated upon the basis that the fund which the Government would have to provide if the teachers made no contribution would be something like £2,300,000 in the year, or, roughly. £200,000 a month. When the Supplementary Estimate was presented there was an equally violent reaction to the previous attitude which had been adopted by the House. We were asked why it was that we were presenting this Supplementary Estimate at all. We 2109 were told that if the Committee which was to be set up reported in time it might not be necessary to find any of this money. There were upon the Paper many Amendments to the proposed Estimate and, in particular, there was one in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who proposed to reduce the Estimate by £200,000. The Government accepted that proposed alteration in the fund which the Government had proposed to provide upon this basis: It was said to us, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) who very kindly undertook the care of the Committee, that it would be possible to report within a comparatively short period. Accordingly, the Government felt justified in taking the view that it would not be necessary to provide more than a fund which would cover two months of the annual period; that is to say, that if we provided a sum adequate for the months of April and May, there was no need to provide more at that time.
It will be within everybody's recollection that we were adjured by a very large body of opinion in the House to provide no money at all, some upon the footing that we could date the proposal back to the 1st April, if we so desired, and others on the ground—I think my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took this point of view—that when matters were further developed we should see what was our obligation. In the result, the House provided by that Supplementary Estimate the funds necessary to pay the State's contribution to the teachers' superannuation during the months of April and May. When the matter came before the Committee which dealt with the Bill, the Committee evidently took the view that it would be harsh upon the teachers to make the proposal retrospective so far back as the 1st June, and they inserted the 1st July as the date from which the teachers should become liable themselves to provide five per cent. of their salaries in respect of the charges for superannuation. It is that decision by the Committee which I now ask the House to alter and to make the proposal retrospective to the 1st June. What the Committee, in effect, did was to over-ride the expressed judgment of the House.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODNo.
§ Sir R. HORNEI do not think that there is any difficulty in arriving at that conclusion. Not only did the House agree that we should only make a money contribution adequate for April and May, but I think the House, if left to itself, would have gone much further. My impression gathered from the Debate was that many Members assailed us violently for bringing in any such Supplementary Estimate at all, and said, in effect, that while we affected to be people who had a real desire for economy we were adopting a practice which was designed to waste money. I do not think it would have been difficult, under the circumstances and if the Government had taken that course, to have got rid of the Supplementary Estimate altogether. I am absolutely clear that the House was not willing to spend more money than that which the Government ultimately agreed to, namely, £375,000, and that what the Committee has done in altering the date to the 1st July has been tantamount to over-riding the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons. Upon what ground can it be said that it was fair to do that? It is said that the teachers are taken by surprise, because they are asked to pay a contribution towards their superannuation as from 1st June, and that we ought in fairness not to make the proposal retrospective to a date further back than 1st July.
I ask the House to remember the history of this matter. Early in the month of January the Geddes Committee reported that until some settled scheme was arrived at the teachers ought to provide 5 per cent. of their salaries towards their superannuation. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that that report was known to every reflecting citizen of this country. I do not think that there was any document of which more notice was taken than the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. I am quite certain that every teacher in the country knew that the Committee had reported in the month of January that they should not pay this 5 per cent. contribution towards their superannuation. I do not think anybody will contest that proposition. The matter did not rest there. I spoke in this House on 1st March on the very question with which we are now dealing in its relation to the Report of the Geddes Committee, 2111 and I stated the deliberate intention of the Government which we were going to carry out—that a sum of £2,300,000 should by this method be provided by the teachers themselves towards their superannuation. I am perfectly certain that every teacher in the country knew of that, speech. Most speeches that I make go entirely without notice or recognition from anybody, but I am sure that speech, at any rate, received the anxious attention of every school teacher in the country.
In the month of March, the Estimates for the year were laid, and there appeared in these Estimates an appropriation-in-aid of £2,300,000, which was to be obtained by levying this 5 per cent. tax upon the teachers themselves. That was shown upon the face of the Estimate. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education came to speak upon his Estimates in the month of April, he drew particular attention to this factor in the situation, and this item in his Budget for the year made it perfectly plain that it was the intention of the Government to exact that contribution from the teachers. In ail the first four months of the year, accordingly, this matter was prominently before the House and the country. It did not rest there. The discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill took place on 10th May, and the matter was brought prominently before every Member of the House, because it was the very subject with which we were dealing. Then, on 16th May, we had the discussion to which I have referred, and on 22nd May the House debated the Supplementary Estimate with which we are now concerned. I venture to say that in these circumstances it is perfectly impossible for anybody to contend that the teachers of this country were not made thoroughly aware of the intention of the Government. During these Debates in May I am sure that they were taking a very intelligent interest in what was going on in the House, and, particularly, in the Debate dealing with the Supplementary Estimate. It was made perfectly clear to everybody that not only was the Government of this mind, but the House was in a state of great anxiety, because they thought that the economy which they desired was not going to be achieved. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that nobody can 2112 be surprised that we proposed to date the teachers' contribution from the let June. All the matters of which I have spoken took place before 1st June, and most of them long before 1st June. There is only one other consideration which, I think, requires even to be mentioned. It may be said that it: is difficult retrospectively to collect what you require in this matter. Even the 1st July is retrospective, and there is really no more difficulty so far us the let June is concerned.
§ Major GRAYOh!
§ Sir R. HORNEIt is only a question how you are going to spread the contributions over the salary of the remaining months of the year. I say without fear of contradiction, although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accring-ton (Major Gray) has indicated a monosyllabic dissent from this proposition, that in practice there will be found no difficulty whatever in making this legislation retrospective to the 1st June. If there be any difficulty, there is equal difficulty in making it introspective to 1st July. I do not, however, think that there is any difficulty, because, after all, there are all the remaining months of the year in which the salaries of the teachers have to be paid, and I cannot imagine that the paymaster of salaries is going to have any difficulty, under these circumstances, in collecting the full amount which ought to be collected for this purpose. Accordingly, I venture to say to the House that that is a cogey which they need not fear. If we were to give way to what the Committee has done upon this question, then, assuming what is done for England will also be done for Scotland, the amount which it would cost the Exchequer would be, roughly, £220,000. I am perfectly certain that whatever the House desired before, they do not desire to forego an economy of that kind. We have made a considerable concession in loading ourselves with payments for April and May to the extent of £440,000. I think we should have had an excellent case for saying that since the month of January last every teacher knew what burden was going to be imposed on him. Certainly there is no case now for suggesting that the House should impose on the Exchequer a still further burden. On these grounds I move the Amendment 2113 which stands in the name of the President of the Board of Education, and it covers the three first Amendments which are on the Paper.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe right hon. Gentleman either deliberately or unconsciously misunderstands the attitude taken by hon. Members on these benches towards the Supplementary Estimates about which he spoke. A large number of people, myself among the number, considered that it would be more in accordance with practice and common sense if we discovered first what our liabilities were to be, and then afterwards voted the money. The real difficulty in discussing this Supplementary Estimate was that we did not know, we had not any information, as to whether a pledge had been given to the House whether we should be run in for £400,000,000 or £600,000. We indicated, in having to vote that Supplementary Estimate, that it was only being brought forward by the Government as a whip to chastise some of their own followers. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in putting before the House his case that the wicked Standing Committee attempted to override the House of Commons. He knew that the best way of proving his case was to attack his wicked opponents on the Standing Committee. I put the opposite point of view, that the Standing Committee, after hearing the case and discussing it exhaustively, by an overwhelming majority decided to insert July instead of April. They heard the evidence after the Supplementary Estimate, and everything else had been before them, and decided on July. I submit that it is flouting the decision of the Standing Committee and making work on Standing Committees more or less futile if, whenever a Standing Committee decides, after discussion, against the wishes of the Government, the Government are to come down on the Report stage, backed by their big battalions, and reverse the decision of the Committee.
§ Sir R. HORNEThere was a very small attendance at the Standing committee— only 21 out of 64.
§ "Colonel WEDGWOODThey were the people who were interested in education, who took the question to heart, and they decided, I hope not only for themselves, but for the House as a whole, what the action of responsible legislators ought to 2114 be towards this particular question. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this was a retrospective legislation. No one objects to retrospective legislation more than the right hon. Gentleman, and he went through all the occasions on which the Government had warned the teachers that this was going to happen, in an attempt, apparently, to justify what is a flagrant case of retrospective legislation. It is not enough to say that the Geddes Report recommended it, that he mentioned it in March, April and May, and that the teachers ought to have had notice. The teachers have no right to take any decision coming from a Minister, but must leave the matter to the decision of the House of Commons later, after the whole case has been heard.
We are told that if the House votes for July instead of June it will mean imposing additional taxation of £220,000. What it really means is imposing taxation on the teachers of this country to the tune of £220,000 in addition to what they ought reasonably have expected, if they had been forced to pay this tax, on the passage of the Bill. This extra money is going to be paid by people who, on the average, are getting £300 a year, and find it very difficult to make both ends meet on that sum. They are all being asked to pay anything from an additional £l to £2 tax. I would ask the House at the same time to compare this charge on the teaching profession with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman only a fortnight ago towards the Super-tax dodgers. They made out a case for delaying the Chancellor of the Exchequer in applying what everybody in the House considers to be a desirable change in the law, that it might affect certain people adversely, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to their honeyed accents and decided that they had a case and not only did he not made the legislation retrospective though he would have been justified, but he postponed for a year the actual effect of the legislation.
The cost, not of £200,000, but of £400,000, at a time when the Super-tax dodgers escaped retrospective legislation, is going to fall, by a change in the law, on the unfortunate teachers with £300 a year, who are getting it in the neck, for there is no mercy for the teacher. Those seem to be very sound arguments in favour of keeping the Bill as it left the Standing Committee, after consideration by the 2115 Committee, and for the House not to allow itself to be carried away by the specious pleading of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the teachers ought to have known beforehand what was about to happen, and that the Standing Committee exceeded its powers by overruling the House of Commons, when he is really asking the House of Commons to overrule the Standing Committee.
§ Major GRAYIt is quite in accordance with precedence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take charge of the Bill at this stage, for truly this is not an educational Measure but a Super-tax Measure, and I noticed that quite by inadvertence the right hon. Gentleman used the word "tax." I join issue with him at once. I believe that he misunderstands entirely the attitude of the House when the Supplementary Estimate was presented. My understanding of the House at that stage is this. They did think, or many did think, that this was a whip to chastise those who had defeated the Government a few days earlier, but we felt also much more strongly that the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate had not arisen, and it has not arisen now, and will not arise until the close of the year. My right hon. Friend has once or twice used the phrase "contribution to the superannuation fund." There is no fund. There has not been such a fund since 1918. This is not a contribution to a superannuation fund in existence or to a superannuation fund immediately contemplated. No such fund has been formed.
He contradicts himself two or three times in the course of his statement, because while he called this a contribution to a superannuation fund he at the same time remarked that this appeared on the Estimates as an appropriation-in-aid, which would be used for general educational purposes, and if there were a surplus in the course of the year it would go into the Treasury for ordinary national purposes. Whether it is April, May, June or July, the need for a Supplementary Estimate would not be apparent until February or March of next year. There has been no charge upon this £2,300,000. It remains exactly as it was, a paper entry. There is no money being used. It has not been taken for any educational purpose so far, and it is futile 2116 to suggest that the £40,000,000 odd which appears on the paper as the educational estimate for the year, is already exhausted, and that the Government must come down for Supplementary Estimates of from £300,000 to £400,000. I hesitate to join issue with one who carries so many guns as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there is nothing but a small frigate attacking him, but I challenge him to say has there been any charge up to the present on this £2,300,000 Appro-priation-in-Aid?
§ Sir R. HORNEAs I have been challenged, may I say that I do not think that the House need be misled in this matter. The State has got to provide for teachers' supperannuation. It docs not matter how you call it. A contribution of £2,300,000 is what the teachers are asked to pay in respect of the rights which they have got against the State in respect of superannuation. It does not matter how you express that in the account.
§ Major GRAYThat is a frank admission. The charges which are falling upon the State in respect of superannuation are being met from the general account. This particular item in the general account, this £2,300,000 out of the total of about £45,000,000, has not yet been infringed upon, but it might be during the course of the year, and if it were then would be the time for the Supplementary Estimates.
§ Sir R, HORNEThere are payments for superannuation.
§ Major GRAYMy right hon. Friend says that the teachers had full warning that they would be called on to pay a contribution. No one has ever denied that. If he will forgive me 'or saying so I thought the whole of that portion of his argument entirely irrelevant. What is of importance is the fact that when the Government introduced this Bill they made a blunder in making it retrospective, of which no one had any previous notice. Did any local authority or any teacher know before this Bill was printed in May that they would be called upon to make contributions in respect of April? No one knew it. The original trouble was the Government's own blunder in making the Measure retrospective, and it does not help us forward a single jot to say that the general principle was made upon the Geddes Report and was endorsed on two 2117 or three, occasions from the Treasury Bench. The whole question is whether or not it is desirable to make this proposal retrospective and collect for past months. My right hon. Friend says he sees no difficulty in collecting for past months, but the Leader of the House did recognise that there might be some difficulty in collecting for past months, and in his speech, made when the Supplementary Estimate was before the House, he said that it was necessary to provide some money lest the House should consider that there would be serious difficulty in collecting for previous months.
There are three propositions with which I want to deal. The first is this: to collect over a past period will involve some difficulty and some self-denial on the part of the teachers, who are none too well paid even now. I suppose the average salary of teachers is about £300. They are not rich. I would ask the House to recollect, in dealing with this Measure from one end to the other, that they are not legislating for a section of people who can sit down and write a cheque for £100 and in five minutes forget that they have done it. The teachers are not people who are subject to Super-tax. They are people who are just on the border-line of assessability for Income Tax. Then there is the position of the local authority which has to deduct these amounts. That process of deduction would be comparatively simple if all the salaries had remained stable during June and July. But there are rising scales, and there are different amounts. Further, some of the teachers have already left the service of the local authorities which paid their June salaries. How are you to collect their contributions? A few have departed this life. How will you collect their contributions? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are a bad debt."] They are a bad debt for the local authority, but not for the Government. The Government makes its deductions in a lump sum from the grants to the local authorities.
The Government never have realised the position of the local authorities under this Measure, the heavy expense and the large amount of labour which a temporary Measure will impose on local education authorities. Take my own local authority, with 20,000 teachers in its service, all on a rising scale. The salaries change month by month in hundreds of cases. The 2118 authority will have to investigate the amounts paid in June. It will have to ascertain whether the teacher is still in its service, and from the July payment it will have to deduct the amount for July and for June. The Committee upstairs went into the whole of these questions most carefully. There my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education trotted out this bogey of a Supplementary Estimate. He painted it in all the hideous colours he could think of and stuck it up before the Standing Committee. But the Committee looked at it carefully, and, having decided that there was no life in the animal, they did not get frightened a little bit. They said the Supplementary Estimate may or may not be necessary. If it be necessary, in so much as the Bill is limited to two years the Government would ultimately get the money. If it runs from June of this year to June of 1924, there is a two years' run. If it runs from July of this year to July of 1924, there is a two years' run. As a matter of fact, if my right hon. Friend were a modern Prometheus, looking well ahead he would realise that the longer he postpones the initial date the larger will be the sum coming into the Exchequer ultimately.
§ Sir R. HORNEI am looking ahead. I am looking to the Committee which has been set up to advise as to a permanent scheme long before we get to that date.
§ Major GRAYThat is a matter for another House of Commons and another Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with, for that will be in 1924, after the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my argument, namely, that inasmuch as his contributions are founded upon rising scales of salaries, the amount which will come in in July, 1924, is greater than the amount which will come in in June, 1924. It will be considerably more and the Exchequer will ultimately gain. It is true that the Exchequer would lose a small amount this year, but, ultimately, it would be the gainer. I put these points to the House: There is the difficulty imposed upon the teacher. There is the difficulty imposed upon the local authority. I do not believe there is any substance in the suggestion that an immediate Supplementary Estimate is involved. It may or may not be involved. From what I know of educational affairs 2119 up and down the country, I feel very confident that the total amount put into the Education Estimates this year, founded, as that amount was, upon the Estimates furnished by local education authorities of their expenditure, will not be ex ceeded, and, indeed, will not even be reached. If that be the case, the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate disappears altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the amount that he budgeted for and the amount that he estimated for. Therefore, there is no substance in the threat of a Supplementary Estimate.
There is one further argument I would use, and I would commend it to the Leader of the House. If this is to be the attitude of the Government in regard to the procedure of Standing Committees it might be desirable to abolish Standing Committees altogether. There is a great deal to be said for it. If on every occasion when a Standing Committee goes carefully into the merits of a question, and by a substantial majority, and not a party majority by any means, reaches a decision, and that decision is upset here, no self-respecting Member of this House will ever serve upon a Standing Committee. It would not be worth the labour. This question was thrashed out by the Standing Committee. The Debate was of a non-party character. The Vote was of a non-party character. I believe I am correct in saying that there were 15 to 9, and the 15 were not the ordinary opponents of the Government, but included many of the Government's friends. They voted in favour of the July date. If one has regard to Parliamentary practice, to the desirability of making Standing Committees effective, and of inducing men to give their time and thought to the careful examination of Amendments in Committee, it is wrong for the Government to rely in this House on the large battalions which are scattered within the precincts in order to reverse a decision of a Standing Committee. This proposal, therefore, cannot be justified on its merits, and it stands condemned in regard to Parliamentary procedure.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I heard his original speech in the Debate that took place when this Measure was 2120 first introduced, and also his speech on the Supplementary Estimate. I was one of those who thought it was not necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate, and I still think that if the Government had carried out the suggestions made at that time they would nor have found it necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate. The Government now wish the House to adopt the date of 1st June, instead of 1st July. Discussion of the question whether the House should negative a decision of a Standing Committee is beside the point. It is this House which grants the money and not the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee may negative the proposal of a Bill, but they have no right to grant money. With all due respect to the last speaker, I say that this House must have the last word in the matter. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that the teachers even to-day are not well paid. I, and a great many other Members think that at present the teachers are very well paid. It is true that before the War they were mostly underpaid, but to-day they are well paid and most of them admit it. As far as my experience goes with the teachers I have met, the majority of them, the sensible ones, are not adverse to this contribution.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now discussing too wide a question. The sole question before the House is whether the contribution shall be dated from 1st July or 1st June.
§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTHI hope the House will follow the advice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. The teachers have been well heard on this question. They have put their case on each occasion that a Debate has taken place. The. House should not waste any time on the matter. Although I am against retrospective legislation, yet, as in this case a very large sum of money is concerned, I think the Government should make the date 1st June. I hope the Government will stand firm and ask the House to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe hon. Member who has just' spoken has fallen into an error—an error for which he is not responsible, because it is an error which the Government have repeatedly pressed upon this House, but none the less demon- 2121 strably an error. This is not a question of economy at all. It is a profound mistake to suppose that we shall save money if we adopt the Government's proposal or that we shall spend money if we do not adopt the Government's proposal. The same amount is to be paid in any case. The pensions are not to diminish; they will remain the same. The only question is, From whom are you to get the money with which to pay the pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the question of how you raise the money has a bearing on the question of economy.
§ Sir R. HORNESurely my Noble Friend will agree that if someone else but the State provides a particular fund the State makes an economy by not having to provide it?
§ Lord R. CECILThat is the kind of thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always saying. I have never in my life heard a cruder fallacy enunciated. He says the State is not to provide the money. What is the State? The State is the taxpayer, and the money is just as much provided by the State whether it is paid by one set of taxpayers or by another set. This is the particular fallacy which sometimes hon. Members behind me are reproached for uttering as the crudest error in political economy. So it is. If you are going to say that the State provides money, then you are, indeed, on the way to a bottomless pit financially. Of course it is not the State. The State has not a farthing. The only question is, What set of citizens of the State are to provide the money? It is not a question of money at all.
§ Sir R. HORNELet me ask the Noble Lord this question. Supposing, instead of Jetting the people pay the cost of running the railways through their fares, the State provides the money—the taxpayer, to use the Noble Lord's phrase— is that an extravagance on the part of the State, or is it not?
§ Lord R. CECILNo.
§ Sir R. HORNEIt can only pay from taxes.
§ Lord R. CECILThe question was perfectly well put, and the answer is quite the same. It is no economy to transfer the burden from one person to another.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe teachers get the pensions, do you not see?
§ Lord R. CECILThe economy consists in not spending the money—that is the point. It is a perfectly sound point, and the right hon. Gentleman really ought to know these very elementary principles. Just consider what you are going to do. You are going to say that the State—I use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase— is going to make a less contribution to the local authorities in respect of education, with a direction to the local authorities to recoup themselves by raising a certain amount of money out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
§ Sir R. HORNEWho will get the benefit?
§ Lord R. CECILThat is the operation. Supposing you said that, instead of raising it nominally by deducting so much from their salaries, you would give them authority to put an Income Tax on the teachers, it would be exactly the same thing. There would be no difference whatever. It is an Income Tax on the teachers. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is an economy. Of course, it is not an economy; it has nothing whatever to do with economy. The amount of money you are going to spend will remain the same. The only way you can economise is by diminishing your expenditure. Until the Government realise that elementary fact, we cannot hope for economy from them. That has been the fundamental mistake underlying the whole of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a history of what happened on the last occasion. He went very elaborately into it, but the conclusion he drew seemed to me to be altogether at variance with the facts. He said that the House insisted on further investigation as to whether a pledge had been given to the teachers. Quite true. Anyone who has read the Report of the Committee will agree that the House was absolutely right in insisting upon that investigation. Evidently, the matter is one of very considerable doubt, and it would not be right for me to go into that at length now. In that state of things, while the inquiry was still proceeding, and nobody knew what the result was going to be, the Government, in a fit of temper, came down to the House and demanded a Supplementary Estimate for 2123 £575,000. That is the fact. There was not the slightest ground for that Supplementary Estimate.
§ Sir R. HORNEThat is your view.
§ Lord R. CECILI am putting my view; I am not putting the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Sir R. HORNEI was only objecting to the Noble Lord saying it is a fact.
§ Lord R. CECILI say it is a fact. If anyone had observed the demeanour of the Lord Privy Seal, he would have seen it was the fact. The Government were very much annoyed at having been beaten, and came down to the House to have it out of somebody. They could best have it out of somebody by insisting on a Supplementary Estimate, so as to be able to tell the country how wicked the teachers were and how grasping they had proved themselves in the House of Commons. Some of us objected very strongly to a Supplementary Estimate on those terms. We said that the case for a Supplementary Estimate at all was not proved. No one knew whether any such Estimate would be necessary, and we demanded that the matter should be adjourned until we knew what the real facts were, so that we should know what Supplementary Estimate, if any, ultimately proved to be required. The events of this afternoon show how right we were. Here is the question still, and the House, in its wisdom, will decide on the date, either of 1st June or 1st July.
Leaving out, for a moment, the very interesting argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray), and assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right—in this respect, I admit, it is a very dangerous assumption—that a Supplementary Estimate is necessary, we still do not know what the Supplementary Estimate ought to be until the House has determined what date ought to be in this Bill, either 1st July or 1st June. Of course, we were right when we resisted the Supplementary Estimate. But to say that because we resisted it, and the Government, in order to avoid a defeat, hastily accepted an Amendment which made it practically impossible to vote against them—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will surely remember—to say that because that happened the House solemnly decided 2124 then, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to persuade us, that they were only going to do this for two and not for three months, was the widest travesty of the facts. There was no thought of deciding that fact at all; no one suggested it. There was no thought of deciding as between two or three months. No such issue was presented to the House at all. The Bill went up to the Standing Committee. I think it is a most disastrous thing for the Government it to call on the House to reverse a decision arrived at in Standing Committee when it offends the bureaucratic mind. The whole point of a Standing Committee is to get a, decision on merits without very much reference to the Government Whips. You get a decision, also, by the men who have heard the Debate and not by the Smoking Boom vote. That is the great evil of the decisions in this House: and everybody knows it is the great evil. Hundreds of hon. Members come in who have never heard a word of the Debate, and they vote merely according to the way the Whips tell them at the door.
§ Sir R. HORNEI wish they had heard this Debate.
§ Lord R. CECILI should be very glad indeed for them to hear it, so we are both, in agreement in that respect, except that the right hon. Gentleman will not be gratified, and it he reverses the decision of the Standing Committee it will be by a body of hon. Members in this House who have heard every word of the Debate and the whole discussion at length. It is disastrous if the Government should use its power in this House to reverse the decision of the Standing: Committee on a matter of this kind—a matter of detail. The matter was examined in the calm atmosphere of a Standing Committee, and it is now to be reversed on the dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For my part, I shall certainly vote in support of the decision of the Standing Committee.
Mr. T. THOMSONI wish to support the point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) with regard to the effect the decision of the Government will have on local authorities. It is all very well for the Government to decide in Whitehall that this money is to be collected, but it is quite another thing to throw on the local 2125 authorities the onus of acting as the Government's debt collectors. While there is no mechanical difficulty in the matter, there is a moral difficulty. The effect will be disastrous on the local education authorities, which will have to get a refund from their teachers of the sums they have paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that this would be retrospective, whether the date were 1st June or 1st July, and that the difficulty of collecting retrospective sums would be as great on either of those dates I do not agree. I put it to him that the July salaries have not yet been paid; therefore if this Bill passes through all its stages at an early date, before the end of July, it is perfectly possible for a local education authority to deduct from the July salaries the amount which the Government decide has to be paid as a contribution toward the so-called Superannuation scheme. It is, therefore, a sound contention that you will avoid the difficulties of retrospective action by accepting the decision of the Grand Committee and not by reversing it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested.
With regard to the question of the Superannuation Fund, surely the Government are not on sound ground. If you turn to the Civil Service Estimates, Class IV, dealing with the cost of the pensions, which it is estimated will be required to be found by somebody in the coming year, you see the figure of £ 1,860,000. That is the actual sum which, according to the Government's own showing, will be required in order to find the money to pay for pensions during the year. If that figure be sound, there will be no loss, and no need for a Supplementary Estimate if the right hon. Gentleman makes the reductions suggested by the Committee upstairs. According to the Chancellor's own figures, 5 per cent. on the total amount of salaries paid to teachers during the forthcoming year would amount to £2,272,000. This is without including the contribution which will come from technical teachers and art teachers, and that sum will have to be augmented to a certain extent. The right hon. Gentleman says it will cost £200,000 to make the concession granted by the Committee upstairs. Taking that sum of £2,272,000 you have a net loss of over 2126 £'2,000,000. Yet the total sum required, according to the Civil Service Estimates, Class IV, for pensions during 1922–23, is £1,800,000. Therefore, I submit that there is no loss whatever on the pensions account if it is treated as a payment by the teachers for the pensions they are going to receive during the forthcoming year, and the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be out of pocket if he makes the concession which the Committee upstairs have ordered. It is altogether fallacious to raise this bogey of a Supplementary Estimate when more than enough money will be received to pay the claim made against the right hon. Gentleman during the coming year.
On this ground, and more particularly on the ground that you will be placing an onus and a responsibility on the local authorities which will not make for good feeling, I hope the Government's proposal will not be accepted, When the local authorities proceed, as they frequently have, to revise salaries, and when possible revisions ought to be adopted, you cannot find any case where they make the action retrospective. This is a matter which causes very considerable heart-burning and disaffection. At a time like the present, when feelings have been aroused on this question by teachers which it was hoped on Second Reading would be assuaged, it is very foolish indeed to seek to continue this trouble, when you had practically an agreed Second Heading, by going back on an undertaking which was understood, if not actually implied, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before we go to a Division, will carefully consider whether it is actually necessary to have this retrospective legislation. Whatever he may say, this is retrospective legislation, because if you have to make this deduction from the men's pay at the end of July for June and July, you will be making two months' deduction from one month's pay. I know, having served the Crown for many years on very small pay, and having subscribed to a pension fund all my life, how much I personally should have disliked such a policy. I did not quite follow the great financial ideas put forward by the Noble 2127 Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I presume that when, in this new party he is going to start, he is Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall see some very funny figures and weird things said in the House. I do not quite understand the form of economy the Noble Lord was going to suggest. Did I understand that he was not going to give pensions at all?
§ Lord R. CECILI thought my hon. and gallant Friend would have understood my argument, and I am sorry if I did not make it plain. I thought it was quite plain to say that economy consists in saving money and not spending it, and
§ that it is no economy to transfer the burden of the money you have spent from one back to another. That is the point.
§ Sir H. CRAIKTransfer it to the people who get the benefit!
§ Lord R. CECILIt may be a good thing or a bad thing to make a new plan of your taxation. That is a different matter; but you do not economise by rearranging your taxation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think this point had better be further debated in the Smoking Room. It does not arise on the Amendment before the House.
§ Question put, "That the word 'July ' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 197.
2129| Division No. 230.] | AYES. | [5.3 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hayday, Arthur | Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Hinds, John | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hogge, James Myles | Robertson, John |
| Banton, George | Holmes, J. Stanley | Rose, Frank H. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hood, Sir Joseph | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hurd, Percy A. | Sexton, James |
| Barrand, A. R. | Irving, Dan | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Jephcott, A. R. | Spoor, B. G. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Jesson, C. | Taylor, J. |
| Briant, Frank | Johnstone, Joseph | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Bromfield, William | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Cairns, John | Kenyon, Barnet | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Kiley, James Daniel | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Lawson, John James | Waterson, A. E. |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster) | Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lunn, William | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Wilson, James Dudley) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Mason, Robert | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Mosley, Oswald | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Grant, James Augustus | Myers, Thomas | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hallas, Eldred | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Kennedy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Brown, Major D. C. | Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Croft, Lieut. -Colonel Henry Page |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. | Butcher, Sir John George | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Carr, W. Theodore | Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Casey, T. W. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Dockrell, Sir Maurice |
| Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J, A.(Birm.,W.) | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring |
| Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. | Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Edge, Captain Sir William |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Elveden, Viscount |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Farquharson, Major A. C. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Cohen, Major J. Brunei | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Ford, Patrick Johnston |
| Briggs, Harold | Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Foreman, Sir Henry |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Forrest, Walter | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Seager, Sir William |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Macquisten, F. A. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Moison, Major John Elsdale | Stewart, Gershom |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Gwynne, Rupert S. | Morrison, Hugh | Sugden, W. H. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas M. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Hall wood. Augustine | Murchison, C. K. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W.D'by) | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Neal, Arthur | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Waddington, R. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) | Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Waring, Major Walter |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Percy, Charles (Tynemouth) | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Houfton, John Plowright | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Hudson, R. M. | Perkins, Walter Frank | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Perring, William George | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Pratt, John William | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Kidd, James | Rae, Sir Henry N. | Winterton, Earl |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Wise, Frederick |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ramsden, G. T. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Remer, J. R. | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Lorden, John William | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Younger, Sir George |
| Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Rodger, A. K. | |
| Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith) | Rothschild, Lionel de | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| M'Connell, Thomas Edward | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | McCurdy. |
| McLaren, Robert (Lanark. Northern) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
§ Word "June" there inserted in the Bill.
§ Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1). leave out. the word "July" "until the first day of July"], and insert instead thereof the word "June."
§ Leave out the words, "said first day of July." and insert instead thereof the words "first day of June nineteen hundred and twenty-two."—[Mr. Fisher.]
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher)I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1),to insert the words
or, in the case of a teacher who is, by reason of sickness, receiving less than full salary, the amount which he is actually receiving by way of salary for the time being.The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the amount on which a teacher shall pay his five per cent. contribution when he is receiving less than his full salary owing to sickness should be the amount he is actually receiving and not the amount he would have received if he 2130 were not sick. This Amendment is technically necessary if the teacher is to pay a contribution on the amount—
§ Mr. AMMONOn a point of Order. I beg to submit that there is an Amendment to Sub-section (1) which should take precedence of that just moved by the President of the Board of Education.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI beg pardon. The hon. Member (Mr. Ammon) has handed in a manuscript Amendment, but it is not one which I should propose to select at this stage of the Bill. The point was debated in Committee and on other stages, and I do not propose to select it on the Report stage.
§ Mr. AMMONI beg to submit that we have just considered an Amendment which was carried in Committee, and which, I should have thought, raised a far more vital point than this.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay I point out that there is a very large feeling that the five per cent. tax on teachers' salaries is in excess of what is needed to 2131 provide the actual pensions proposed? Indeed, the estimate is only £1,800,000, while the amount collected in taxation is about £2,300,000. It is to bring out that point, and to find whether the Government have any reasonable excuse for collecting in taxation far more than the benefits expected that we ask permission to move this Amendment, and that, if not 2½ per cent., some percentage should be carried more nearly comparable to the amount of cash received in benefits.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat consideration was present to my mind, and I have heard it put forward and discussed a good deal on the earlier stages of the Bill. I had that in my mind when I came to my conclusion on the matter.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. I think the Bill has proceeded to this stage on the basis of a 5 per cent. contribution.
§ Mr. FISHERI have very little to add. I think this is an Amendment which will commend itself to the sense of justice of the House. It is clear that it would be a hardship on teachers if they were required to make a contribution upon salaries which they were not actually receiving. The Amendment does introduce some complication into the Act, because while the teacher contributes on less than his full salary he is pensioned on his full salary. No doubt the Committee which is to consider a permanent system of superannuation will direct attention to that point.
§ Major GRAYWhile I warmly appreciate the object which my right hon. Friend has in view in moving this Amendment, I want to put this point, if I may, to him. He is providing here that the teacher who is receiving sick pay at a less amount than his normal pay, shall pay the contribution upon the amount actually received. So far, so good. But the right hon. Gentleman has a further Amendment upon the Paper providing that where the salary of the teacher does not exceed four-fifths of the amount which he ought to receive, that teacher shall be altogether exempt. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman this suggestion, that the teacher who, through illness, is receiving, say, only half pay, is in a worse position during that period than the teacher who 2132 is receiving four-fifths of the allotted salary, and it appears to me only just, that if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared, as the Amendment on the Paper shows, to exempt from contribution the teacher whose salary does not exceed four-fifths of the proper amount, he might well exempt from contribution the teacher whose sick pay is less than four-fifths.
§ Mr. FISHERI think that is precisely the effect of my Amendment. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Paper, he will see that if my two Amendments are adopted—the Amendment relating to sickness, and the Amendment relating to the four-fifths—the Amendment which he has himself placed on the Paper becomes unnecessary.
§ Major GRAYI am afraid I do not quite follow that at the moment. I hope that it may be so. I gather from my right hon. Friend's intervention, that he would be prepared to accept my proposition, namely, that the teacher who is only receiving half-pay should be altogether exempt from contribution. Am I to understand that?
§ Mr. FISHERI think that automatically follows from my two Amendments, if accepted.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong As the Bill stands, the man is only exempted in so far as his pay which he docs not get is concerned. But he pays five per cent. on all the salary he gets, although that salary may only amount to half.
§ Mr. FISHERThat is perfectly true, if you consider this Amendment alone, but if you take this Amendment with the Amendment which I propose to move subsequently with reference to the four-fifths, it will be seen that the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is already covered.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIf that be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, it is all right.
§ Mr, FISHERPerhaps it will be convenient to deal with that when I move my next Amendment.
§ Mr. ACLANDI agree with my hon. and gallant Friend here, and with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, that the next Amendment only relates to salary, and not to what the 2133 teacher may be actually receiving. The salary of the teacher will always be taken to be that in which it stands in the books of the local authority, and not be determined by what he is actually receiving. However, if the Minister really wants to do what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, it undoubtedly can be done, and when we read the Bill as it comes out of this stage, we shall see whether it carries that out. I do not think it will, but it clearly can be made to do so. It is only a question of seeing that the wording of the Clause carries out the intention.
§ Major GRAYMay I be allowed to say that, unfortunately, this is our last opportunity of revising the phraseology of the Bill? If we were on the Committee stage, and could look forward to the Report stage, I should not be greatly disturbed. I merely rise to ask whether, if it he found that this point is not properly covered, the Minister will make an effort in another place to get the necessary alteration, because I am very much afraid that the words—
§ Sir OWEN PH1LIPPSAre we not on the Report stage, and is more than one speech allowed?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The hon. and gallant Member prefaced his remarks by saying, "If I may be allowed." I do not think he wishes to enlarge upon the subject, but to elucidate a point.
§ Major GRAYI am not proposing to pursue a long argument, but there has been a sort of general conversation arising out of the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, and all that I want to point out is that this word "salary" will be interpreted by the local authority as the fixed salary for the year. A teacher with a salary of £500 a year, say, might be absent for three months on full pay, and then for another three months on half pay, but he would still be spoken of as enjoying a salary of £500, whereas he was only receiving £250.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWould not the matter be very easily settled to the satisfaction of my hon. and gallant Friend if, instead of the words "salary of the teacher," you inserted the words "salary paid to the teacher"?
§ Mr. FISHERWith all respect, all these objections are already met in my Amendment, which, I think, makes the point perfectly clear. But I am perfectly willing to give the assurance for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, and if it should prove, when we read the Bill after it leaves this House, that an ambiguity still remains with reference to this, and that my intention is not given effect to by the terms of the Bill, I will see that, as far as I can, effect shall be given to it in another place.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. FISHERI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
provided that the contribution shall not exceed the amount, if any, by which the salary of the teacher exceeds four-fifths of the full salary which the Board would be prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant.This Amendment is designed to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the House when this Bill was considered on Second Reading. It was pointed out in several quarters of the House that it would be unjust not to take into consideration the case of those teachers who were receiving salaries less than those which they would be entitled to receive under the scale allocated to their locality by the Burnham Committee. Accordingly, when this Bill went to the Standing Committee, I moved this Amendment. To this Amendment an Amendment was moved by my light hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), substituting a proportion of nine-tenths for the proportion of four-fifths mentioned in my Amendment, and that was carried against the Government. As I pointed out on that occasion, the acceptance of my right hon. Friend's Amendment would involve an additional charge of over £130,000, and consequently, when the Amendment, as amended, was put to the Standing Committee, it was defeated, on the ground that its acceptance would involve a Supplementary Estimate of over £130,000. At the same time, I gave an undertaking that I would introduce again on Report the Amendment which I put upon the Paper when the Bill was in Committee, and I implement that undertaking now. The House will observe that there is no explicit allusion to the Burnham scale in my Amendment. I speak of "the full salary which the 2135 Board would be prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant. "The reason of this is that the standard adopted is not the Burnham scale, but the Burnham scale with certain alterations, mainly alterations in respect of carry-over, which the Board would be prepared to recognise for the purposes of grant.The effect of this Amendment is, that any teacher who is getting 80 per cent. or less of this standard salary pays no contribution under the Amendment. Teachers getting 80 per cent. or over will pay only such contribution as will still leave them with exactly 80 per cent. The way in which the Amendment will work out in practice is, that teachers who are getting 80 per cent. will pay nothing. Teachers who are getting from 80 to about 84¼ per cent. will pay a reduced contribution, and teachers who are getting 84¼ per cent. or upwards will pay the full contribution. There may be some misapprehension in the House as to the exact position of teachers who are not receiving the allocated Burnham scale, but who are on what is known as the "provisional minimum scale." The average salary of teachers in elementary schools was £104 in 1918, when the Superannuation Bill was introduced, and when the Burnham scales are in full operation it will be £261; in other words, there will be an increase on an average salary of, approximately, 150 per cent. If we take £100 as the standard salary for 1918, £250 becomes the standard Burnham salary, and £200, or exactly double the 1918 salary, is the salary on which a teacher begins his contribution. Consequently, as a matter of average, we may say that no elementary teacher will contribute, under this Amendment, unless he is getting double the salary which he was getting in 1918. That is a very important point to bear in mind
We will pass from the position of the elementary teachers to the position of teachers in secondary schools. Their position is somewhat different. The average salary of a secondary school teacher in 1913–14 was £173. I have not got the figures for 1918. The ultimate position of that teacher under the Burnham scale will be £400: that is, approximately an increase of 131 per cent., and, as a matter of average, a secondary school teacher will not begin to contribute 2136 until his salary is 84 per cent. in excess of the 1913 figure. When this matter was being discussed in Committee, it was stated that averages were deceitful things, and what was important was the case of the individual. I quite agree that is the important thing, the individual teacher. We are very anxious not to inflict hardship upon the teacher. The ground upon which this matter was discussed was, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, the great increase in the salaries of teachers which has taken place since the Superannuation Act was introduced. I think it would be unreasonable to ask for a contribution from any who have not received a considerable increase of salary since the date at which the Superannuation Act was fixed or whose salary conditions in 1908–14 were not of an exceptionally favourable kind. I think the Amendment meets the criticism founded upon the general deceitfulness of averages.
The Burnham scales are not based upon averages, but are applied at different rates to individual teachers, and the proposition inherent in the Amendment is that there is no hardship on the teacher who is getting 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale in contributing the 5 per cent. It is quite true there are many individual teachers who are not now enjoying a salary of 100 per cent. or 84 per cent. in excess of the salaries which they enjoyed in 1918. I speak in the light of the facts as regards the elementary teachers, and—from 1913—the secondary teachers. There are many teachers who have not, within that period, had additions to their salaries, or so much as these figures would indicate. What does the amount indicate? It indicates that the salaries of these teachers were on a more satisfactory footing in 1918 and in 1913 respectfully than the average salaries enjoyed by elementary and secondary school teachers. I do ask the House to agree with me in holding the view that no special consideration ought to be given to the case of teachers simply because they have not had the average rise in salary between 1918 and 1922; on the contrary, they enjoyed a higher rate of salary than the general body of teachers.
I submit to the House that this Amendment will cover the hard cases under the Bill. Under this Amendment no elementary teacher will he required to pay a contribution whose salary is not 2137 double the average salary which existed in 1918, and no secondary teacher will be required to pay a contribution whose salary is not very largely above the average salary of 1913. When this Amendment was being discussed in the Standing Committee, objection was taken on the ground that the estimated cost of the Amendment, on a rough estimate made by the Board, was about £20,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) thought that that consideration was hardly worth introducing. I think £20,000 is better than nothing. In any case, in framing this Amendment I had not in view the figures as to how the Amendment would work out. I had in view the arrangement under which it appeared to me the hard cases could be met, and I believe the hard cases will be met in this Amendment.
It is perfectly true that the Amendment is not costing more than £20,000, but the moral I draw from the figures is not that the Amendment is not needed, but that the hard cases are fewer than I expected they would be. The small amount involved clearly shows how small is the hardship, and how few there are who are not getting 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale, and who, therefore, are not enjoying salaries almost double those which prevailed in 1918. The suggestion of the substitution of nine-tenths for the four-fifths, as suggested by an Amendment on the Paper, as I have pointed out, would involve a Supplementary Estimate of £120,000 in respect of the elementary school teachers, and a further sum in respect to the secondary school teachers. I earnestly hope the House will accept the proposals of the Government as being as fair as they can be to the hard cases which may arise under the operations of the Bill.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "four-fifths," and to insert instead thereof the word "nine-tenths."
This Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Members of the Labour party. To listen to the Minister of Education, one would imagine that the Committee upstairs had never come to a decision on this point, and yet one of the most notorious defeats on this Gov- 2138 ernment Bill was that fateful morning when the Committee struck out "four-fifths" and inserted "nine-tenths" as the considered opinion of the Committee.
§ Mr. FISHERThey reversed it the next day.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODYes, by the ignominious process of running away from their own Amendment. But whether or not they reversed it the next day, after the Whips had got to work and the big battalions had been summoned, I think we are justified in saying that a ease can be made out, even in the whole House of Commons on Report for an Amendment which, after consideration by experts, was carried in Committee. To listen to my right hon. Friend one would imagine that the insertion of "four-fifths" was really of some benefit to the teachers.
§ Mr. FISHERTo the secondary teachers.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODBut not at all to the primary teachers. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when he was addressing the House on this very question on the occasion of these Supplementary Estimates, told us that special consideration would have to be made in respect of those teachers who were not getting paid on the Burnham scale. It was one of the concessions that he made then—either on the Second Reading or the Supplementary Estimates, I forget for the moment which— but it was the Lord Privy Seal who pointed out that special consideration was essential in the ease of these elementary school teachers. In this Amendment of the Government there is no consideration whatever shown. This Amendment upstairs was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne, who has a human and hereditary interest in the education question, and is an expert on the subject. I do not propose to-night to forestall the speech he will make on the question, but I do wish to make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as the elementary school teachers who are at present paid on the Burnham scale are concerned, this Amendment is quite valueless.
The facts, which really I do not think the House properly appreciates at the present time, are that the salary which the Board recognises for grant, and of which four-fifths are to be taken, is far 2139 lower than the salary which is actually being received by the teacher. So that when you come to take four-fifths of the salary which is allowed by the Board for grant you will find, in the case of every elementary school teacher, so far as I. can discover, that that four-fifths is less than the pay the teacher is at present getting under the provisional minimum scale. So far then as the elementary teachers are concerned, this Amendment is simply camouflage—nothing else! It is intended to catch the eye as meeting the case of the elementary school teachers who are not paid on the Burnham scale. In fact it does nothing of the sort. Let me give the House two or three figures. They have been sent to me by one of the teachers in my own constituency, and that teacher says she has gone through them very carefully so that there may be no mistake. Mistresses at the minimum get £170 per year under the Burnham scale. Only £163 of that is what the Board allows for grant. Four-fifths of that is £130 per year. That is class mistresses, not head mistresses.
§ Mr. FISHERAt the beginning?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODYes, at the beginning of their career. I am taking the same case right through. £170, £163, and £130, the four-fifths I have mentioned under the provisional minimum scale. She has already got £150, so that she is already getting £20 more than the four-fifths scale.
§ Mr. FISHERWhat does that show?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt shows that the proposed concession in the interests of teachers paid under the Burnham scale is quite illusory. That good lady getting now £170 a year is required to pay £7 10s. annually in that four-fifths contribution. I think it is monstrous that a person getting a salary so small as that 6hould be asked to contribute in this way. But take the uncertificated teachers. These are the ones I really am most sorry for, because you find that uncertificated teachers are predominant in numbers, especially under those local authorities which are not adopting the Burnham scale. Take, I say, the uncertificated teacher. Take one woman in this case at the maximum, not the minimum, at the end of her career. She has £182 per year salary. Of that £171 2140 is the basis upon which you estimate the grant. £137 is four-fifths of that sum. She is already getting, under the provisional minimum scale, £150. Here, too, there is no advance at all. You are calling upon them to pay £7 10s. in taxation in spite of the fact that at the end of their career they are only getting £182. Did you really intend when you brought in this Bill to make no distinction whatever between these teachers, who are paid on the Burnham scale and those not so paid? Then, of course, the teachers and this House would have had no reason to complain, and we should not have fought it and been beaten. But when the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House both came forward with specious promises to the teachers who are not getting the Burnham scale at present; when you find the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not making express promises but implied promises to look after the teachers' grievances, and when those concessions come to be examined it is found that they mean absolutely nothing whatever to these unfortunate elementary school teachers, we have a right to complain of the attitude of the Government, and we understand better the attitude of a Standing Committee upstairs which accepted this Amendment, and recommended that it should be embodied in the Bill. This involves a sum of £130,000. As the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment stands it involves £20,000, which does not go to the elementary school teachers at all, because it is reserved entirely for the secondary and technical school teachers who are not being paid under the Burnham scales.
§ Mr. FISHERSome of it will go to the elementary school teachers.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am glad to hear that statement, but we should like some examples as to how some of it will go to those teachers. I know their hopes were raised very high, but they have now been dashed away, and they do look to this House to do them a certain amount of justice. I ask hon. Members who backed the Government in the last Division to really consider this case. When this Amendment was first brought in they imagined that something was going to be done for the non-Burnham scale teachers. The whole House agrees to it in sympathy, 2141 and it realises the hard eases of these teachers who are not being paid the same salaries as other equally efficient teachers are getting. Are you going to allow these people to be let down in order to save £110,000 a year? They are to be taxed to the tune of 1s. in the £ on their salaries in order that the President of the Board of Education may be able to face the anti-waste brigade below the Gangway. I am certain that this is not merely a question of salary or of £110,000 a year, but it is a question of whether you are going to instil into the minds of one in eight of the teachers of this country a feeling that they are not being fairly dealt with, and if you instil into their minds the feeling that they are being unjustly treated, then you are not going to get the same treatment of the children, because you will never get the best educational results from a body of teachers who feel that they have been let down by the Minister of Education.
§ Sir F. YOUNGDoes nine-tenths cover the cases which the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned in his speech?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt will cover about half the cases, and the rest of them will have their tax diminished under the scheme of this Amendment. Really the Government are making money out of this scale because, while their grant ceases, the grant to non-Burnham scale teachers is less, and they are getting more than the reduction from them in the grant paid to the local authority, because the teachers are getting less salaries. Under the Burnham scale the Government contribute half. If they are not on the Burnham scale, but below it. the Government still contribute half. The result is that actually these teachers not working under the Burnham scale authorities will contribute more than the Government will be granting to the local authorities in order to pay their salaries.
§ Mr. ACLANDI bog to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I make no quarrel that my hon. and gallant Friend moved on Report the Amendment which I moved and which was carried in Committee. May I say that I am not very much moved by the figures which the President of the Board of Education gave as to the increases of present salaries compared with the salaries paid in the ease of elementary 2142 school teachers in 1918, and secondary school teachers in 1913. Before we can see the real meaning of those figures there are certain things we should bear in mind. The chief thing is that, in the main, the increases in salary, which were overdue to the teachers before the beginning of the War, were postponed in very many cases until after the end of the War, and the teachers are only now obtaining the increases of pay which in most other walks of life were given during the War.
In all the years during which the agricultural labourer, and still more the engineer and the coalminers were getting increases to correspond more or less with the increase in the cost of living, the teachers were getting nothing. At the beginning of the War the teachers were on the point of striking because their salaries were so far below what they ought to have been. That strike was at once called off, and they Had to wait for years. I think they deserve, just like other people, two or three years during which they shall have something to correspond with their proper salaries, and something in addition to pay off the large debts which they have accumulated during the War by reason of the fact that their salaries were not attended to properly for some years after the enormous increase had taken place in the cost of living. I do not think it is putting the matter in the fairest light when the right hon. Gentleman simply refers to the large percentage of increase in the salaries compared with the old scale without showing the other side of the picture.
I think the Committee ought to have some idea as to the number and the proportion of the percentage of teachers affected, and then the different proportion of percentage of relief that is going to be given. About 5 per cent. of the secondary teachers will be affected. With regard to the elementary teachers it is much more difficult because, although you have 44 per cent. of the authorities which are definitely paying on a lower scale than that allocated to them in the Burnham Report, you have 12 per cent. who are paying on the provisional minimum, and we have only an imperfect knowledge as to what those authorities will do when the date comes when they ought to pass into their proper position in the scale. So far as one can gather, I think it will be found that somewhere about 8 to 10 2143 per cent, of the total number of teachers in the schools will be getting less than the allocated amount under the Burnham scales when they are fully in force, that is, when the day of the provisional minimum has passed by. I am led to think that by the figures given by the President of the Board of Education in which he stated that the total amount involved by accepting 90 per cent. instead of 80 per cent. would be £130,000. That probably means the total amount involved if you make no deduction at all, when the salaries come below the Burnham scale, which would be something like £200,000, which is about 9 per cent. of the total reduction.
It is on that sort of reasoning I gather that about 8 per cent. are likely to be affected by this proposal. It is proposed to deal with these cases by an Amendment which will involve less than 1 per cent. of the total deductions. Therefore, you are dealing with an admitted grievance affecting from 8 to 10 per cent. of the teachers by a method which will only relieve them of 1 per cent. of the total deduction which is going to be made from their salaries. I think that point has been considered by the Government, because the Minister has admitted that for practical purposes this will only affect the secondary teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has slightly revised that statement because he has said that some of the elementary teachers may be affected. I very much doubt whether, if he sticks to his 80 per cent., we shall find that this admitted grievance, which he said he was going to meet in a definite way, will really make a difference of as much as has been stated out of the £1,750,000, which is going to be deducted from the salaries of elementary school teachers. In Committee I moved 90 per cent., and that was carried one day, but by a little oversight, of which I do not complain, the Amendment as amended was not inserted in the Bill, and consequently we were caught napping, and it was omitted. I think the more this question is looked at the more the House will conclude that if my right hon. Friend cannot accept the 90 per cent. which is now proposed, he ought to accept something in between, say 85 per cent. instead of 80 per cent., so that the teachers who are 15 per cent. below their proper place on the Burnham 2144 scale would at any rate get some relief and would not have to pay the extra 5 per cent. tax, as it has been described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
6.0 p.m.
Let us see what the position was. The teachers were in genuine doubt as to the line they should take, and at least they said that, on the whole, they would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, provided certain things which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Gray) made very definite were done, and with regard to which the President of the Board of Education made a really favourable and ready response. The first was with regard to the Bill lasting only for two years, which the Minister of Education promised at an earlier stage. The main point, however, was with regard to those teachers who were not getting their proper place on the Burnham scale. We all know that at that time the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the elementary teachers predominating in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had had some difficulty with his colleagues, and he had advised his opponents that they should desist from their frontal attack, and that there should be something in the nature of a generous attempt to meet the case of the teachers who are not getting their proper place under the Burnham scale. It will be in the recollection of the House that the Minister got up and said, "It is difficult, but we will do all we can to meet that point." To-day he has to admit that, with regard to these elementary teachers, the actual figures under this deduction will not exceed £1,000 out of a total of £1,500,000 to be deducted from the elementary teachers under this Bill. He is not doing anything whatever in fact to carry out the general impression he then conveyed to the House that he was going to meet the worst of the elementary cases as well as some of the secondary cases. With regard to his claim that this will mean a Supplementary Estimate of £120,000—he says he can manage his own miserable sum of £20,000 without a Supplementary Estimate, but that the 90 per cent. will mean £130,000, or £110,000 more than his figure. I understood him in Committee to state that the total cost of the 90 per cent. would be £130,000, whereas now he suggests it will be £150,000 odd.
§ Mr. FISHERIt is a very rough estimate.
§ Mr. ACLANDI want to give some other figures and to try and make a suggestion to the House that will lead hon. Members to the conclusion that it is extremely doubtful whether it will be necessary to have anything in the way of a Supplementary Estimate if the 90 per cent. is conceded. The Department took £2,300,000 for Grants-in-Aid in the Estimates. Let us see what this estimate of £2,300,000 was based upon. The only exact figures I can find are those which were worked upon by the Geddes Committee—£2,277,823, or only £27,000 short of £2,300,000. That was the figure representing 5 per cent. of the elementary school teachers' salaries for the year ending the 31st March, 1921. That figure did not include the technical and art teachers, and it may be a consideration whether what is likely to be received from them may not bring the figure of £2,273,000 up to £2,300,000. This estimate was made a year and a quarter ago, but we all know quite well that the teachers in many cases have had two increments on the carry-over since then. Their salaries are higher since that time, and therefore the 5 per cent. on the salaries is going to bring in a larger sum than the Government has estimated. The elementary teachers' salaries have, I believe, gone up £12 10s. and the secondary teachers' salaries £15 since that date. There was only a gradual carry-over from the old scale in 1921 to the new scale paid in the current financial year, but it is quite certain that higher salaries by a considerable amount are being given this year than when the estimate was made, and therefore, according to my argument, the Government will receive more from the 5 per cent. than they have estimated.
They will not only receive more but they will have to pay less than they have put down in their Estimates to the education authorities, and, therefore, they will not have to come, in my opinion, to the House with a Supplementary Estimate. Again, the Board of Education is making great attempts to ration the education authorities during the present financial year with regard to grants. They are cutting them down. Further, many local authorities have given notice to their teachers, since these Estimates were framed, that they intend 2146 to cut down their salaries. The County of Devon authority has given notice of a 15 per cent. cut, to come into operation next October. The diminution in the salaries paid by the local authorities has its effect a certain number of months later with regard to the payments from the Board of Education on account of those salaries, and my submission is, that during this year, either by the direct operation of the Ministry of Education in reducing the grants, or by indirect operation, owing to the actual amount of the salaries being reduced and the 60 per cent. contribution being reduced accordingly—first the greater amount received from the teachers and, secondly, the lesser amount paid by the Board than was estimated when they framed these Estimates in January, as a result there will be a balance which was not anticipated when the Estimates were framed, and, therefore, there will be no necessity for bringing in a Supplementary Estimate, even if this 90 per cent if agreed to. There is a stronger argument, even, if the right hon. Gentleman remains obdurate, for accepting a mid-way figure, say, 85 per cent. I do not think he can possibly face an audience of teachers ever again if he does not carry out what he said on the adjourned Second Reading Debate about his desire to meet the claims of teachers coming under the allotted amount under the Burnham scale. He is really only offering 1 per cent., when we take the secondary and elementary teachers' cases together.
§ Major MOLSONI am in broad agreement with this Bill, but I would like to bring before the President of the Board of Education one particular class of cases to which I do not think his Amendment will do justice. It will not give any relief whatsoever to them. I wish to refer to the case of elementary teachers in my own constituency. They are under the Lincoln County Council Educational Authority, and they are receiving at present the lower scale—the provisional minimum scale. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he wishes to assist those who are most hardly pressed in the way of salary, and I suggest that the particular class of cases I am referring to are among those who ought to be relieved. Some time ago the elementary teachers in the Lindsay educational area asked for Scale 3. The educational authority first offered them 2147 Scale 1 and then Scale 2, but, as no agreement was reached, both parties asked the Burnham Committee to sit in arbitration on the matter. The Burnham Committee allocated Scale 2, but I am informed that that scale has not been paid, and these elementary teachers are still receiving the provisional minimum scale.
I have been given certain figures, and as far as my arithmetic enables me I have been trying to verify them. I cannot find any case that will receive any relief by means of the President's Amendment. Four-fifths will not give relief in a single case, and nine-tenths will only give relief to a very few. I think that as this particular class of elementary teacher went before a Court of Arbitration and a decision was given in their favour their case ought to be considered as a special case altogether. I do not think either of these Amendments will help them fairly, and I should like earnestly to ask the President of the Board of Education to consider their case separately. Some of the teachers assure me that if they were paid according to the scale recommended by the Burnham Committee they would willingly and readily pay the five per cent. I am sorry to say, from various letters I have received, there is a very strong feeling of soreness amongst this class of teacher. The President of the Board of Education has been very generous in all his dealings with the teachers, and I think he would like if he can to get rid of any sense of injustice amongst even a small proportion of them.
§ Mr. FISHERI quite grasp the hon. and gallant Member's point. As I understand the Lindsay teachers have been allotted Scale 2 by the Burnham Committee and they are in receipt of salaries more than 80 per cent. of Scale 2 already. Consequently they would not benefit under this Amendment.
§ Major MOLSONI do not know the exact figures. I only understand that both sides accepted the Burnham Committee's arbitration, that the decision was that the teachers should be put on Scale 2 and that they are now being paid only the minimum provisional scale. It seems to me that when both sides agree to arbitration both sides should honourably abide by it.
§ Mr. GEORGE BARKERI rise to support the Amendment; moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I understood the President of the Board of Education to say in his opening remarks that the average increase in the salaries of teachers was 84 per cent. above the 1914 standard. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is exactly the increase in the cost of living, and, therefore, these teachers have really had no increase in salary at all, bearing in mind the purchasing power of money. Nevertheless, these teachers are called upon to make this contribution on the basis of four-fifths. Some figures have been supplied to me to-day by a teacher in my constituency, which show that 18 different classes of teachers would receive, on the average, under the Burnham scale, £350 per annum. Those teachers, however, at the present time are only receiving £300 per annum, that is to say, they are, on an average, £50 below the Burnham scale. I take it that the Burnham scale was set up as a fair and reasonable scale of salaries for the teachers, and it was considered by the Committee that they would not have to pay for their superannuation. The President of the Board of Education has, however, gone right across the Burnham Committee's recommendations as to salaries, and, although these teachers are on the average £50 per annum below the Burnham scale, he still insists that they should pay for their superannuation.
Some of these teachers are very wretchedly paid. I was surprised to hear it said by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) in the early part of the Debate that (he teachers vere very handsomely paid to-day. I do not think he really understands what the teachers are paid. There are some teachers to-day, women, who are uncertificated, who are paid as low as £90 per annum; there are some men, uncertificated, who are paid as low as £100, under what is known as the provisional minimum. Those teachers have to pay their 5 per cent., and the abatement that they get under the arrangement as to four-fifths is nil. Quite a number of these cases have been presented to me by a representative teacher in my constituency, so I take it that the figures are absolutely authentic, because they come from the teachers themselves. 2149 I should like to join in the appeal that has been made to the right hon. Gentleman not to reverse the decision of the Committee. I think it is most derogatory to Parliamentary procedure to reverse two decisions in one afternoon.
§ Mr. FISHERI am adhering to it.
§ Mr. BARKERThe right hon. Gentleman is adhering to a decision which, I think, was obtained entirely through a misapprehension. At any rate the decision was originally given in favour of nine-tenths, and then, by a little strategy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, it was reversed the next day. I think there is a very strong case for this Amendment, and, as it does not involve such an enormous amount, I think the Government might very well concede it.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) made a very strong case for reconsideration of this matter, and I have quite independent evidence that he is right in thinking that the Board of Education has exaggerated the cost of giving better treatment to the elementary school teachers, who will get no benefit whatever under the present scale. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will concede the 90 per cent., Realise I believe that otherwise a very burning sense of grievance will be caused. The limitation of four-fifths is going to be no concession whatever in the case of the teachers who are getting the smaller salaries. The whole case for this Bill seems to be based on the generosity of the full Burnham scale, and it is only on that condition that I feel it possible to support any reconsideration of the teachers' position until the stated time is reached. The President of the Board of Education has admitted that there is a strong claim for special treatment in the case of those teachers who are not getting the Burnham scale, but are only being paid the provisional minimum scale. That admission having been made, it is really not fair that this concession should, when it is examined, prove to be absolutely illusory. The elementary school teachers are paid less than the secondary school teachers, and these elementary schools teachers will get not the slightest benefit from the alleged concession which the Minister has put forward this afternoon. I do not grudge 2150 the treatment which he is giving to the secondary school teachers. I think they have been in a very different position, owing to their small numbers, in regard to bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities: but I do think that, after the promises of the right hon. Gentleman that he would give special consideration to these elementary school teachers who have not reached the Burnham scale, it will be looked upon, certainly as not giving justice, and, perhaps, almost as a form of trick, if this large class of teachers is to get no benefit at all. The teachers throughout the country, certainly in my part of the country, where they are not getting the scale, have behaved, it seems to me, with great patriotism and fairness. They have not insisted on the fullest interpretation of the scale, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman not to stir up discontent in this important class, or drive them to extreme courses by failing to implement what was supposed to be an agreement that these men who were only on the provisional minimum scale would get a special and very real concession.
§ Major GRAYI cannot bring against my right hon. Friend the charge of reversing the decision of the Committee here, as I did with regard to the first Amendment, because I frankly admit that he was a little smarter than we were on that occasion. We got his Clause amended, and then neglected to get the Amendment added to the Bill. He brought up a few friends the next morning—nothing very much to boast about, because, although we had beaten him by two to one with regard to his Amendment, he only managed to get it rescinded by a majority of two. I only mention the figures to show- that the Committee did go into this matter carefully, even though, with next morning's round-up of the supporters of the Government, they just managed to get through with a majority of two. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right.
I can add very little to the arguments which were submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), who stated the case very fully, and, as far as my knowledge goes, with absolute accuracy. On the Second Reading, speaking with a sense of very grave responsibility, I put forward the question of special treatment of teachers in the non-Burnham areas as 2151 one of the main considerations justifying the teachers in withdrawing their hostility to this Bill. I recollect that I ventured to ask the Government, through the President of the Board of Education, not to give the usual reply of an anaesthetic character, that the matter should be sympathetically considered, but to reply to the effect that he would do something substantial for teachers in those areas; and I am bound to say that I gathered from his words and his demeanour that he was prepared to do something substantial in the way of relief for them. On those grounds I refrained, certainly from hard words, and did all I could to secure an early Second Beading for the Measure. The position now is most disappointing. I should like the President of the Board of Education to find, if he can, a single elementary school teacher in the non-Burnham areas who will get a single penny. My right hon Friend opposite is prepared to give him £1,000 if he can; I cannot give him a penny.
I do not know whether we understand each other in these matters of figures, but I have had a set of figures worked out for me, and I will give the actual pounds, shillings, and pence, and not these very illusory percentages and averages. When my right hon. Friend talks about the salary of a teacher being increased by 100 per cent., I am afraid that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends think that the teachers must, therefore, be living in a state of luxury; but if the 100 per cent, is on a beggarly wage before the War, it has not brought them up to much. I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, although I have such a deep interest in this work. I recognise that I must not become a nuisance by speaking too frequently. Here, however, is a case where the Burnham allotted scale is known as Scale III, and a local authority is paying the provisional minimum. Let me take the actual minimum salary of a teacher under that scale. £182 10s. is what he should receive, and the amount which the Board recognise for grant purposes is £175, four-fifths of which is £140. The man is actually receiving £160, and, therefore, he is £20 in excess of the four-fifths to which my right hon. Friend refers in his Amendment. As a result, he gets no relief whatever.
2152 It is a sufficient disappointment to the man to know that he is so far below the Burnham scale. He is nut being paid the scale which the Burnham Committee regarded as just, and which my right hon. Friend himself approved. Do not let us forget, in talking about these Burnham scales, that, before the Burnham Committee was allowed to publish its schedules allotting scales to different areas, they were submitted to the Board of Education and held up for some weeks, while the Board carefully scrutinised them, to ascertain whether they were the right amounts which should be awarded to the different areas: and not until they obtained the approval of the Board, and the consent of the Board was given to pay its quota of Parliamentary grant, were the schedules ever published and teachers and local authorities made aware of them. Therefore, although it is a Burnham scale, it is a Burnham scale with Government approval. Moreover, I know that not merely did the Board of Education carefully scrutinise them, but the Exchequer carefully scrutinised these figures, and knew what the financial responsibility would be.
I have shown that the men on the minimum scale get nothing. The maximum of that scale is £380. the amount recognised for purposes of grant is £353 6s. 8d., and four-fifths of this is £282 13s. 4d. The salary actually received—and a larger amount that man cannot. get in the year, let him labour all his life long—is £300 a year. It may be that. it is an increase of 100 per cent.; I do not know, but if it be an increase of 100 per cent. it comes up to the magnificent figure of £300 a year— not much to keep a family in respectability. What relief does he get? Nothing. The Scale II areas also pay, I take it, a provisional minimum and maximum. No relief is given. The Scale 1 area paying the provisional minimum—no relief to the elementary teacher, neither one receiving the minimum nor one receiving the maximum salary, and needless to say nothing in between. Take a Scale 1ll area which is paying Scale II—the same result. Nothing. A Scale IV area paying Scale III, result nothing. All my researches have gone to show that I cannot find, under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, a single elementary school teacher in the non-Burnham areas who will get a single 2153 penny of relief. Is that in accordance with his pledge? He says, "I found on inquiry that the grievance was not as great as I thought it might be." But whatever the grievance was, and he admits there are some grievances, I take it his pledge was to give some relief to that grievance. Let the grievance be large or small, he would do something to alleviate it. He does nothing.
I have had worked out for me the effect of the nine-tenths. Some people would imagine that large sums will be given to individual teachers if the nine-tenths Amendment were adopted. Let me take the first set of figures. The elementary school teacher receiving nothing under four-fifths, the man on the minimum, would receive relief of £5 10s., and the man on the maximum a relief of £15. In the next group the man on the minimum with nine-tenths would get nothing, and only £9 10s. if he be at the maximum scale, and there is not throughout the whole system a single case where the amount exceeds £15, and only one where it reaches £15. So the amount of relief in money as a charge upon the Exchequer is not great, but when you are considering salaries as small as these the relief to the individual is considerable. I think it would be the experience of all of us here that small injustices irritate more severely than a large grievance which has in it an element of justice. Where a man is already suffering under what he considers to be unjust payment for his services, unjust in the opinion of the Board and in the opinion of the Burnham Committee, and then you call on him to make the same, contribution as his more favoured brother in another area receiving the full allotment, can you be surprised that the feeling of irritation and resentment becomes deeper and louder? I am deeply disappointed. I had looked for something better from the large words and sympathetic demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman. After all his labours he produces this miserable little mouse. I do not begrudge the secondary school teachers. As far as I can ascertain practically the whole of it will go there. It is well earned and it is well deserved and I would even that it were more. But let him not delude himself or deceive the House. As far as the elementary school teachers are concerned,, I think probably something like 15,000 of them, there is not 2154 one single penny of alleviation of their burden in the Amendment. I suppose this is the last word which can be said on the subject. No alteration can be made anywhere else. I want to refrain from saying anything which I might afterwards regret, but I tell my right hon. Friend I do not think the Amendment is a full, fair, or even an honest fulfilment of the pledge he gave on the Second Reading.
Mr. J. W. WILSONI wish to add my word to the appeal which has been addressed to the Minister. The teachers have accepted the position, having agreed in fact to recede from the position they took up in the first instance, without any very definite promise from the Minister, in view of that promise whilst public opinion would not support apparently the teachers who are on the Burnham scale, yet where they were receiving less than the Burnham scale that concession should be made. That understanding having been come to I feel that in every way, from the policy point of view and from the justice point of view, it can hardly be worth the while of Parliament to aggravate and intensify the feeling which evidently exists in the ranks of the lower paid teachers that they expected to receive some relief, that Parliament accepted the idea that they should be differentiated upon in that respect, and actually working out the terms of this Amendment, do not get it. It will cause friction and irritation out of all proportion to the amount of money that is saved by the Education Department. Both from the present and the future point of view and from that of the mutual relations between the Board of Education and the education authorities and the teachers themselves, I ask the Government, having decided to make this concession, to make it with both hands instead of with one hand.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSI was very much impressed with the speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) and subsequent speakers. I should like to ask the Minister of Education if it is a fact that under the Amendment none of the worst paid elementary teachers will receive any consideration at all. Certainly that is not what I understood was to be the arrangement. I certainly understood they were to get some benefit under this Amendment. The sum involved is very small. The irritation 2155 would be very great and a sense of injustice would prevail. I hope if I am not right, and these elementary teachers will receive something, the right hon. Gentleman will say so. I have no desire to vote against the Government, but if all the speeches which have been made on the subject are correct and they will not receive anything I shall be reluctantly compelled to vote against them.
Mr. T. THOMSONIt is significant that every speech which has been made on this Amendment has been in favour of it. No one has risen to support the attitude which the Minister foreshadowed when he was moving his own Amendment. The reason the Minister gave the Committee upstairs, which he has repeated to-day, for refusing a more sympathetic consideration for the proposal of the Amendment was that it would require a Supplementary Estimate. Is that really the case? The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has demonstrated that there is a considerable margin of possibility that the estimates which the Minister submitted will not be verified. But apart from that. may I repeat some figures I gave earlier, which the Minister did not refer to in his reply, with regard to the actual cost involved. Reference has been made to this as being a superannuation scheme. I think we ought to get out of our heads entirely the idea that it is anything of the sort. There is no superannuation scheme at all concerned in the matter. In the past grants have been made from the Exchequer to pay the teachers' pensions as they have fallen due. That will continue during the next two years until the Committee has reported upon a scheme which is to be a superannuation scheme. What we are considering to-day is merely a temporary arrangement which is to carry on the system of pensions which has been in existence for a series of years until a proper superannuation fund has been established on a sound acturial basis and therefore the figure which the Minister has already shown in the Civil Service Estimates, requiring a contribution to meet pensions which will have to be paid in the forthcoming year, a sum amounting to £1,860,000, will be more than met by the 5 per cent. which he is going to get on the salaries to be paid to the teachers and he can well afford to make this concession, even though it be 2156 £120,000, and still balance his account. That is to say, that the £1,860,000 which he will have to pay to the teachers, according to his own figures, during the coming year in the way of pensions will be provided for by the 5 per cent., which is £2,227,000 less the £130,000, which we ask him to concede on this Amendment. He will have over £2,000,000 to meet a charge of £1,860,000, and therefore it is not really correct to say that he will have to come for a Supplementary Estimate, because the sums he will collect from the teachers will more than provide for the sums he will pay the teachers, even if he makes this, concession. I join with others in making the appeal that the sympathetic words which he gave on the Second Reading, words which enabled the Second Reading to be carried almost unanimously, shall be implemented by tangible proof, by consenting to the Amendment, whereby elementary teachers who are at present practically excluded from the benefit of the Amendment he has foreshadowed will receive something, and will realise that his sympathy is not merely words but is something tangible.
§ Mr. AMMONAs a member of the largest education committee in the country, the London County Council, and a member of the Teaching Staff Sub-committee, which has to do specifically with administering teachers' salaries, etc., I shall be very much relieved and enlightened if the Minister can show us, even in London, how the elementary teachers are going to benefit one penny by the Amendment he has moved. If that is so, it is evident what will happen in the smaller areas. It has been pointed out already that there is not a superannuation fund in the right sense of the word being formed. Now we are offered opportunity of relief, which in fact gives no relief whatever to any single teacher in the London service, and if it does not do that, it is not going to do it in any other education service. Surely that is wholly at variance with the speech the right hon. Gentleman made from (hat Box a few-days ago. We are getting a little tired of telling the Government "this is another broken pledge." We expect right hon. Gentlemen to 6tand by their words and substantiate the statements they make. We have had speeches from hon. Members who are members of education com- mittees and know first-hand the adminis- 2157 tration of the Act, and in not one instance has there been any evidence forthcoming that there will be any relief whatever under this Amendment to teachers in elementary schools. Surely, if that is the case, the right hon. Gentleman could concede this small point and honour his own promise that he gave only a few days ago. I hope that, regardless of party, hon. Members will demonstrate their disapproval of this sort of thing, and show that they expect that promises made will be honoured in the act as well as in the word.
§ Mr. D. HERBERTI have pledged myself, as strongly as I ever pledged myself to anything, to support this Government on measures of economy, and if they had, in the first instance, declined to given any concession, although I think it would have been rather unfair, no doubt I should have supported them. What is the position in which some of us who represent parts of the country where the Burnham scale does not apply are placed? We have been able to tell these teachers that they are going to get a concession and relief in these particular cases. I am told by the teachers, and it has been repeated by Member after Member to-day, that under the Government Amendment that is not the case, that it is a, mere empty form, and that it is giving no concession whatever. So far as I am concerned, that is a great strain upon my loyalty, and unless the Government are able to prove substantially that this is going to be a real benefit to the bulk of those who are not receiving the full Burnham scale, I shall, with the greatest regret, have to vote in favour of the Amendment moved from the other side of the House.
§ Mr. FISHERPerhaps it may be desirable that I should offer a few observations upon the Debate. In the first place, let me say a few words in the subject of the Supplementary Estimate. I have been assured by optimists on the other side of the House that the acceptance of the nine-tenths Amendment will not involve me in a Supplementary Estimate. I wish I felt equally confident. I have been told that we are taking already more money in the shape of superannuation levy than will be needed to meet the current expenses of our superannuation scheme in the financial year. It is true that we are budgeting for 2158 an Appropriation-in-Aid originally of £2,300,000, and the Estimate of the Board was formed upon the supposition that that £2,300,000 would be required. Now I am told that the £2,300,000 is in excess of the cost of the administration of the pension scheme during the current year. It is true that the cost was originally estimated at £1,860,000, but since that estimate was made, owing to accelerated retirements, we have to provide another £200,000, and we may still have to provide another £400,000. I am by no means confident as are the critics that we shall not require that Supplementary Estimate.
Therefore, when we consider the question of the nine-tenths, we must act upon the hypothesis that it is more likely than not to land us in a Supplementary Estimate of £150,000. I cannot pledge myself to that figure. It is possible that economies may be effected in other parts of the Bill; but acting upon my responsibility as President of the Board of Education, and after having received the best advice I could get, I am advised that we ought to look forward to an additional Supplementary Estimate of something like £120,000 if we accept the Amendment which has been moved from the other side. That is, therefore, the first proposal which ought, in all fairness, to be put before the House. Is the House willing to take a course which will probably land us into an Estimate of that dimension?
Everybody admits that there was no formal pledge, but I quite acknowledge that I did tell the House that I would investigate the case of these teachers and see if I could not bring forward some proposals to meet their case. We gave the best thought that we could to this problem, and it is not a very pleasant problem. In the first place, we wanted to put forward a proposal which would be easy to work, which would not involve us in great administrative difficulties, and, in the second place, would not be too costly, and, in the third place, would deal with the hard cases. When the four-fifths proposal was first made, I own that I thought it would be more costly than it has proved to be. What is the reason why this four-fifths proposal has not cost more, and what is the reason why it does not bring what is called relief to the great body of teachers in the non-Burnham scale areas. The reason is that there is 2159 a very small interval between the Burnham scale salary which ought to be paid in those areas and the salaries of the provisional minimum scale which are paid in those areas. I have made a calculation in respect of 39 areas which are on the provisional minimum scale, and if you take the average salary which is now being paid to teachers in those areas you will find that it amounts to £211. If you take the average salary which would be paid if the allocated scale was in operation, it would amount to £233. The difference on the average salary is £22 between the salary on the allocated Burnham scale and the salary which is actually being received.
I am told that no relief is given, and the case of London has been cited. It is said that no relief is given in London. Is the House certain that if my Amendment is accepted no relief will be given to London teachers? The London salaries are due for revision next year. Are we certain that the scale will be maintained; Are we certain that there may not be, in fact, a divergence? Are we certain that the scales will not be lowered in other parts of the country? Therefore, does not this method give a very valuable guarantee to teachers that they will not, in that event, be called upon to make a contribution? I am not very much impressed by the argument that this Amendment does not actually put money into the pockets of elementary teachers in the affected areas. I am relieved in a sense to find that it does not, and for this reason, that it shows very clearly that the salaries in those areas are higher than one would reasonably expect. It shows very clearly that the divergence between those salaries and the salaries on the allocated Burnham scale is slighter than might be expected. I still maintain that the concession which I have offered does cover the hard cases, and if it is not found so valuable as might be expected at the present time, it may very well
§ prove to be of great value to elementary teachers before the two years are out. That is a consideration which ought not to be left out of account.
§ Finally, I do think that when we consider this Amendment we ought not to consider it from the point of view of the money which it is going to bring to the teachers in those areas. We ought to consider, first of all, the question of what salaries the teachers are actually receiving in those areas, how far those salaries have been increased since: the Super annuation Act was passed, what is the divergence between those salaries and the salaries under the allocated Burnham scale, and when the whole of these facts are considered it will be seen that the Government is making a very fair con cession. I claim that since I have been at the Board of Education I have shown no lack of consideration for the interests of the teaching profession. My first act on going to the Board was to revise the system of grants for the express purpose of enabling the local education authorities to pay adequate salaries to the teachers. I believe that sound educational policy demands that the teachers should be on an altogether higher scale of pay than was the case previously, and the result of the policy pursued by the Government in the last five years has been that the teaching profession has been raised out of the pit, and has been placed on an altogether higher level of comfort and prosperity than they had ever before experienced. I do not think that when the House looks at the Government proposals as a whole, in connection with what has already been achieved, that they will come to the conclusion that the teaching profession has been treated ungenerously, or that the teachers have any substantial grievance against the Government.
§ Question put, "That the word 'four-fifths ' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 171: Noes, 93.
2161| Division No. 231.] | AYES. | [7.0 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. | Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. | Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Birchall, J. Dearman | Carr, W. Theodore |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Casey, T. W. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Brassey, H. L. C. | Cautley, Henry Strother |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cayzer. Major Herbert Robin |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Briggs. Harold | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Brown, Major D. C. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Prescott, Major Sir W. H. |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Rae, Sir Henry N. |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Raid, D. D. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Johnstone, Joseph | Remnant, Sir James |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Kidd, James | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lloyd, George Butler | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Seager, Sir William |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lorden, John William | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Lowther. Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith) | Simm, M. T. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | W'Connell, Thomas Edward | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) |
| Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Elveden, Viscount | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Stewart, Gershom |
| Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Macquisten, F. A. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Sugden, W. H. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Harbert A. L. | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Moison, Major John Elsdale | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Forrest, Walter | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Morrison. Hugh | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Murchison, C. K. | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Neal, Arthur | Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. |
| Gregory, Holman | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Williams, c (Tavistock) |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Winterton, Earl |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nield, Sir Herbert | Wise, Frederick |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Perring, William George | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Pratt, John William | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hallas, Eldred | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Ammon. Charles George | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Armitage. Robert | Hayday, Arthur | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Astbury, Lieut,-Com. Frederick W. | Hayward, Evan | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Banton, George | Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hills, Major John Waller | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwichl |
| Barrand, A. R. | Hinds, John | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hogge, James Myles | Robertson, John |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Holmes, J. Stanley | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Briant, Frank | Irving, Dan | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund |
| Bromfield, William | Jephcott, A. R. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Cairns, John | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Spoor, B. G. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Kenyon, Barnet | Swan, J. E. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Lawson, John James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Davison. J. E. (Smethwick) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Waddington, R. |
| Doyle. N. Grattan | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edwards, G. {Norfolk, South) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothlan) | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham. S.) | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Mosley, Oswald | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Rossi | Windsor, Viscount |
| Glanville, Harold James | Myers, Thomas | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | O'Grady, Captain James | Colonel Wedgwood and Mr-Kennedy. |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
2163§ Mr. SPEAKERThe next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
Provided that the contributions shall not exceed the amount, if any, by which the salary of the teacher exceeds nine-tenths of the full salary which the Board would he, prepared in his case to recognise for the purposes of grant"—deals with a matter already settled. A further Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to add the wordsProvided that recognised service for the purpose of the principal Act and of this Act shall be deemed to include such qualifying service, if any, as a teacher may have previously served in State-aided schools in Ireland "—is out of order. It would impose a charge, because it would bring a new body of persons under the principal Act. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray)—in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to insert the wordsProvided that in the case of a teacher, who by reason of sickness is receiving less than four-fifths of his approved salary, no such contribution shall be required"—has already been settled.
§ Major GRAYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words
Provided further that no contribution shall be required from a teacher who, before the passing of this Act, has given notice to his employers, in accordance with the terms of his contract of service, of his intention to retire from the teaching service in order to accept the benefits of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918.I wish to provide that no contribution shall be required from a teacher who gives notice that he proposes at once to leave the teaching profession and to draw his superannuation allowance. This would operate, in regard to elementary school teachers, in periods of one month or three months, whether the man be an assistant teacher or a head teacher. In the case of secondary school teachers, it would operate for a period of one term. It is very undesirable that those who are about to leave the teaching profession at once should be called upon to make this contribution. I am bound to admit, 2164 however, that in moving the Amendment I have another object in view. I am very anxious to accelerate the rate of retirement amongst the aged teachers, in order to absorb a large number of young men and young women who, having been coaxed into training colleges, now find themselves without employment. It would be to the advantage of the personnel of the teaching profession that this should be done. The Amendment does not involve a very large expenditure, and it seems undesirable to collect three or four months' contributions from these people and then to return them. I submit that the Amendment ought to meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval.
§ Mr. WATERSONI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. FISHERAlthough it is perfectly true, as my hon. and gallant Friend has observed, that this is not a costly Amendment, nevertheless I hope that on consideration he will not press it. What is it that he proposes? The proposal, as I understand it, is that the teacher who gives notice on 1st June, let us say, to terminate his employment on 31st August, on the ground that he will be pensionable on 31st August, should pay no contribution in respect of the period from 1st June to 31st August. Why should such a teacher be relieved from the obligation of paying for that period? He will be receiving a salary during those months, and that salary will be pensionable salary. Why, then, should he be exempted from the duty of paying contributions? My hon. and gallant Friend has suggested that retirement would be accelerated if the Amendment were accepted. I quite agree it is very desirable to find employment as soon as possible for the young men and women coming out of the training colleges. It is a matter giving me very earnest consideration, but I can. assure him that retirement is being accelerated very greatly; in fact, so greatly that already our Estimate for expenditure on account of superannuation for the current financial year has been exceeded by £200,000. Consequently, I do not think that any fresh filip is necessary to secure this end. If you look at the position of the teacher himself, it is the old teacher, who is just about to retire, who will be receiving the greatest proportionate benefit in respect 2165 of his contribution. He is, from that point of view, the very last teacher who should be exempted from making a contribution in respect to his superannuation benefits. I hope, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. SPEAKERA manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raff an). That, also, is out of order, because it would need a Money Resolution, and would impose a charge.
§ Mr. RAFFANOn a point of Order. I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the Amendment simply proposes that the teachers should receive back their contributions.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not what the Amendment does. It proposes that a woman may retire at an earlier age than is provided under the original Act. Clearly, that would bring a larger number at an earlier period upon the Exchequer, which provides the superannuation. In that way it must impose a charge.
§ Mr. RAFFANI do not wish to argue the matter, but, as I understand the object of the Amendment, it is not that the teacher should be able to claim a pension at the age of 55. At present she may retire, with the consent of the local authority, and she then receives back her contributions. My proposal would enable her to retire at her own option.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe words of the Amendment are
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the principal Act any teacher being a woman may, at her option, retire at the age of fifty-five.Those words are either superfluous, or they impose a charge.