HC Deb 09 July 1925 vol 186 cc751-7

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 2. (Kinds of service in respect of which superannuation allowances and gratuities may be granted.)

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the name of MR. GERALD HURST and other hon. Members:

In page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert the words (i) (b) service as a supplementary teacher in a public elementary school maintained by a local education authority; or.

In page 3, line 43, after the word "un-certificated," to insert the words "or supplementary."

Mr. SPEAKER

The two Amendments on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst), are out of order because they would increase the charges on the Exchequer. The same remark applies to a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville). There remains the manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Moss Side in Clause 2, page 2, to leave out Sub-section (1). This would make an absurdity of the Bill, and the Measure could not stand without the Sub-section. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. GERALD HURST

I should like to protest against the definition in this Bill of contributory and recognised service. The effect of the definition in this Bill in its narrow restrictive sense is such that it ought not to have passed through Committee in its present form, because while it was intended to be so wide as to cover all regular whole-time employés of local education authorities in those schools which are financed or assisted by public funds, the definition excludes something like 10,000 regular and whole-time employés of local education authorities. On Tuesday last the President of the Board of Education informed me, in answer to a question, that on the 31st March of this year such teachers were employed by no less than 284 education authorities in England, and that they then numbered 9,963. These supplementary teachers are teachers who, whether highly qualified or not, are considered suitable to teach young children, and in respect of every child taught by them a Government grant is received.

The definition of this class is giver in the code of the Board of Education as being teachers over 18 years of age considered suitable by His Majesty's inspector of schools and they teach the youngest children. They are employed all over the country and they are very poorly paid, and I cannot see the slightest ground on which they should be excluded from a Bill which was introduced as an absolutely comprehensive Bill to provide these benefits for all classes of school teachers in State-aided schools. The only case I have heard for this restricted definition is that this class of teacher is not highly qualified. There are two answers to that. First you cannot indict a whole class like this. The qualities required for teaching very young children are not necessarily connoted by certificates or degrees, and many of them would not be employed if they had not the requisite qualifications. But the main answer to this objection is, of course, that it is not a question whether they are highly qualified or not; it is a question of their being employed, and if local education authorities think it worth while to employ these teachers, the local education authorities ought to subscribe the 5 per cent. which they give to all their other employés, including teachers in nursery schools. I have had cases given to me of some of these teachers who are excluded from benefit under this Bill. One lady who is teaching in Manchester has 45 years' service; there is another at Warwick with 44 years' service, and there are six cases in East Ham of ladies who have been teaching for between 15 and 20 years past—whole-time service, recognised service, service in respect of which grants are given. Why is not that regarded as contributory service within the meaning of this Bill? It seems to me unjust and unreasonable, and quite contrary to what was expected by hon. Members of this House when the Bill was introduced. We were told that it was going to cover all whole-time teachers employed by local education authorities in State-aided schools at the time of the passing of the Bill, and I do not think this Bill ought to pass its Third Reading without one protest, at all events, being made against a characteristic of the Bill which no one expected, and which is grossly unfair to a large and deserving class.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON

I desire to join with the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) in offering my protest against this Bill. I have seen these teachers at work, and I know that some of them have not done exactly what the local authority would have them do, but I have seen local authorities begging and praying for these people during times of stress and strain in this country. I want to make it quite clear that I desire to have the best teachers for the children of the working classes, but, when these people have been called upon to teach in the schools of our local education authorities under due direction, it is not giving justice to these people who have served the authorities so well. Go back to the period of the War, from the end of 1914 to 1919. We were glad then to have these people to take charge of the children, and, now that they have served in their day and generation, and the teachers have returned, they are to be asked to leave what they were doing and enter into industry, wholly unqualified to take on the best situations, and obliged to take some menial kind of work at inadequate payment. I wish to utter my protest against this Bill. I do not know that I shall vote against it, but I think that a grave mistake has been made, and that these people have been very unjustly treated.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy)

I should like to answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. G. Hurst) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson). My hon. and learned Friend has said that the only argument adduced in favour of excluding these teachers is that they are not qualified. If my hon. and learned Friend had road what I said in Committee, he would know that I have never used that argument, and should never use it. The responsibility for employing teachers who are not thoroughly qualified rests upon their employers, and, of course, if you employ a teacher or any other employé in your discretion, you should not hold it up against that employé that his qualifications are not adequate. That is perfectly clear. But my hon. and learned Friend forgets what we are doing in this Bill. We are setting up a contributory scheme, and we are compelling all teachers to contribute. You cannot make distinctions between these supplementary teachers. You cannot single out the teacher who has had 30 years' or 45 years' service and say he shall have a pension, and that supplementary teachers who have only served during the War, or for two or three years, shall not have pensions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Why cannot you do that?

Lord E. PERCY

If we proposed that a certain number who had a certain length of service should be pensioned off and a certain number who had not that length of service should not, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be the first to press upon me the hard cases of teachers who fell six months on the wrong side. You have to take the supplementary teachers as a class. Their position as a class is that they are recognised as teachers in a particular school only, and if they leave a particular school and go to another school they have to be re-recognised by the Board. They have no security of tenure. They are not members of the profession. They are only recognised for the purposes of particular schools, and there have been people so recognised in the past whom the Board to-day is telling local authorities they must get rid of as not being sufficiently qualified at the earliest possible moment. Is it seriously suggested that you should compel these teachers to contribute towards a scheme when they have no security whatever. of ever drawing any benefit from such a scheme? That would be a totally impossible position. It is on that ground alone that we cannot include these teachers in the scheme. Many hard things have been said about them. They vary very much in skill and qualifications. I am sure the whole House recognises the invaluable services that very many of these teachers have rendered for many years, and I hope the House will believe it is not from any lack of recognition of that fact that they are not included.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The hon. Member and the Noble Lord have been so clear that I think the House must have grasped the point at issue. The Noble Lord says it is impossible to divide teachers into classes by length of service. But that is done in the Army and Navy with regard to pensions. There is a clear dividing line. It is true that in the Army and Navy in theory you do not have contributory pensions, but in practice you do, because part of the pay is looked upon as a contribution towards pension. If a person leaves before his qualifying time, he does not get his pension. On that question I do not think there is anything in the Noble Lord's reason. The hon. Member opposite quoted the case of the whole-time teacher with long service, and no attempt has been made to answer him. If you have these whole-time teachers with long service, why should they be kept out of the scheme? Secondly, is it not the case that these teachers wish to come into the scheme? In that case I think the Board of Education is being unnecessarily pedantic in refusing this concession, and I am disappointed with the Government's reply. It is impossible to vote against the Bill. I only hope an amending Bill will be introduced by the hon. Member next Session, and I hope he will have the support of a majority in the House.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

Before the Bill leaves this House, I should like to say that the teachers have reason to be, and they are grateful to the Noble Lord for the immense pains he has taken with this Bill, and his evident desire to do justice to all classes of teachers. When this Act comes into operation, in conjunction with the Burnham Award, we may look forward, I think, to contentment in the schools, and educational progress. I think the effect of this Bill will be to improve increasingly the class of men and women who come into our schools.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I would not think of speaking against this Bill. It is a most useful and desirable Bill, but I wish to make one appeal to the Government. This is a Bill of considerable importance, and the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) is a very important one, and there is far more in it than would appear from the short discussion. This Bill was brought on after Eleven o'Clock for its Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We had two days only in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three!"] On the last occasion the Committee met' I think there was not a quorum of the Committee present, and a very great many Amendments were dealt with. There was no notice given that this Bill was to come on to-night, and to discuss it after 11 o'clock is hardly giving the opportunity for a very important Bill of this kind to be discussed as it ought to be. I am not making this protest in any way in opposition to the Bill itself. I do not want to hinder its passage; but it is most desirable that the views of the people who may be affected by such a Bill should be fully laid before the House, and that they should be heard by the House and by the Government. It is undesirable to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for a Bill of this kind. Not a single point has been dealt with on the Report stage. My protest applies, not only to this Bill, but to other Bills, and it is made with a view to safeguarding the rights and privileges of hon. Members on the back benches. If we allow all those affected to lay their views before the House, we shall give satisfaction with the legislation we pass, but if we do not allow that, there will be dissatisfaction, and that leads to amending Bills. I approve thoroughly of the Bill, although there are many of its details which I should have liked to discuss.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.