§ 18. Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Education what annual pension a schoolmaster and teacher retiring on full basic pension in 1945, in 1950, in 1955, and in 1960, respectively, would now be receiving; and what percentage of the 1961 basic maximum salary these pensions represent.
§ Sir D. EcclesAs the Answer contains sixteen figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. SymondsWill the Minister bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the great hardship which these persons are undergoing at present owing to the smallness of their pensions? Will he bring it to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that he may deal with it when he introduces his Budget in April?
§ Sir D. EcclesMy right hon. and learned Friend has to consider the needs of a great number of pensioners, and he always has them in mind.
Following is the information:For a woman teacher employed outside London who retired on 31st August after forty years' service the figures are, respectively,£262,£286,£284 and£436 per annum. These pensions represent 22, 24, 24 and 37 per cent. of 1515 the maximum basic salary for a two-year trained teacher under the 1961 Burnham Report. The corresponding figures for a man are£324,£352,£354 and£470 per annum, and 28, 30, 30 and 40 per cent.
§ 22. Mr. Wadeasked the Minister of Education why, under his regulations, Mr. M. B. Spence, of 65, Crosland Road, Oakes, Huddersfield, who is due to retire from the teaching profession at the age of 65 years, will have two years less pensionable service to his credit, the facts being that he was engaged on war, service in the years 1917–19 and that he could not gain acceptance for admission to a recognised training college during the 1914–18 war because of his liability for war service.
§ Sir D. EcclesMr. Spence did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the rules governing the treatment for pension purposes of 1914–18 war service done by intending teachers. The rules are statutory and I have no power to waive or vary them.
§ Mr. WadeWill the Minister look into this case to make quite sure that there is no mistake? In a letter from his Ministry to the local education committee, a copy of which was sent to me by Mr. Spence, it states,
According to information before the Ministry Mr. Spence left school in 1919.In view of the fact that he joined the Army in 1917, that cannot very well be correct.
§ Sir D. EcclesI have looked into this and I have found that Mr. Spence was a pupil teacher before joining the Army.
§ Dr. KingIs the Minister aware that for nearly ten years we on this side of the House have been trying to persuade him and his predecessors to take the power which he has to change the rules which at present penalise some old teachers merely because they served this country in the First World War? As these men have now reached the age at which they are drawing their depleted pensions, will he not again give his consideration to the point?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe answer to that supplementary question is the answer to the next Question.
§ 23. Mr. Wadeasked the Minister of Education whether he will introduce legislation to provide that teachers who, 1516 owing to war service in the 1914–18 war, were prevented from being admitted to or accepted for admission to a recognised training college until after the termination of their war service, shall for the purposes of calculating their superannuation benefits, be placed on the same footing as those who had been admitted, or accepted for admission, to a recognised training college.
§ Sir D. EcclesNo, Sir. Under the present rules, which were accepted by the teachers' representatives in 1926 as final, teachers are more favourably treated in this respect than other public servants.
§ Mr. WadeIs there not an anomaly? A man whose desire always has been to go into teaching applies to be accepted for admission to a training college in 1916. He is told that if he is fit for war service he will not be accepted. He is passed as fit, joins the Forces and serves from 1917 to 1919. He then goes into the teaching profession, and he has been there ever since. Now, when he is about to retire, he is told that his pension rights have been reduced because he was not accepted for admission before joining the Forces.
§ Sir D. EcclesIt is an established principle of public service pensions schemes that account should be taken of war service only when this occurs after a person has entered pensionable civil employment. That rule was stretched for teachers, because when they entered a teacher-training college they were allowed to count that part of their training towards their pension.
§ Mr. WadeIf he had been accepted for admission, even though he had not actually entered a college, his pension rights would have been retained, but his rights are reduced simply because he could not be accepted because they would not accept him if he were fit for war service. Surely that is ridiculous.
§ Sir D. EcclesI do not see how we could put everybody back in the position he would have been in if there had not been a war.