HC Deb 27 March 1922 vol 152 c939
50. Colonel BURN

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that up to the time of the Training of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, 1918, all applications from teachers under the London County Council for extension on reaching the age of 65 were refused, and the applicants compulsorily retired under the age limit regulation of the council, but that after the new Bill appeared all similar applications for extension were granted and the applicants thus made eligible for, and admitted to, the benefits of the new Act, while their colleagues whose application for extension had been refused were debarred from its benefits; will he say on what principle was such differential, treatment based; what compensation does he propose to give to those teachers who sustained heavy loss by being refused the same extension of service as that granted to their colleagues; to how many teachers under the London County Council was extension of service granted during the year ended 31st March, 1918; and to how many during the year ended 31st March, 1919?


I understand the hon. and gallant Member's question to refer to the action of the London Local Education Authority in a matter which was completely within their discretion, and in which I cannot intervene. The number of teachers in the employment of the London County Council whose certificates were extended by the Board on the application of the council was, in the year ended the 31st March, 1918, 56, and in the year ended the 31st March, 1919, 135.