TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL. (Hansard, 23 May 1933)

§ LORD IRWIN

My Lords, this is a small Bill, and, I hope, entirely non-controversial. It is, however, a little technical, and therefore, perhaps, you would like me to give a word of explanation of its purpose. The main object of it is clear enough—namely, that where circumstances render it expedient it is designed to facilitate the employment of British teachers in schools in a foreign country. Your Lordships will be aware that the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1925, provided for the payment of superannuation allowances and gratuities in respect of teaching services in England and Wales, by payments made out of moneys provided by Parliament, but the 988 contributions that are required from teachers and employers which go to the Exchequer are calculated to be sufficient to support the benefits payable in respect of the periods of service to which the contributions relate.

By the 1925 Act a period of absence from service was allowed to count for benefit if the teacher paid a double contribution—namely, his own and that of the employer. The maximum period which was allowed was one year, normally, but that was extended to four years if the teacher was absent on teaching service in any part of His Majesty's Dominions abroad. That extension to four years originally granted to absence in any part of His Majesty's Dominions overseas was applied by the Superannuation Act of 1928 to service in a foreign country, in a school that was maintained primarily for the education of the children of British subjects, and it is now proposed in the present Bill that the four years extension should also be applied to service in a foreign country in a school in which, for whatever reason, it is expedient to facilitate the employment of British teachers. Your Lordships will, I have no doubt, readily recognise that if British teachers are to be employed at 'all in such cases, it is desirable that as good British teachers as possible should be employed, and that they should be under no prejudice in consequence of rendering that kind of service.

It is, perhaps, worth mentioning that at the present moment in Egyptian schools there are some 200 British subjects employed, and they are at present employed only on short-term contracts. They are not eligible for Egyptian pensions, and therefore are under some disadvantage. From the point of view of the teachers themselves the proposals of the Bill would be a considerable improvement, since they would, under it, be able to remain in Egypt for four years instead of merely the one year under which, at present, they are entitled to maintain their rights; and from the point of view of the broad interests of this country I think, as I have already suggested, that the change may be expected to attract better qualified British teachers to apply for such appointments. Accordingly, Clause 1 of the Bill re-enacts the Act of 1928, with the further extension that is now proposed. Clause 2 makes the neces- 989 sary application to Scotland, and Clause 3 (2) formally repeals the Act of 1928 in order to avoid the very obvious inconvenience of having upon the Statute-book two Acts which make very similar amendments in the original Act of 1925. The Bill will, of course, result in some increase of allowances and gratuities paid from the Exchequer to teachers, and for this reason it was necessary to get a formal Money Resolution in another place in connection with the Bill. But it is expected that the contributions to be paid by teachers in respect of this period of absence on foreign service will be suffi3ient to counter-balance the increase in the payment of pensions and gratuities, aid that accordingly no additional charge will fall under that head on the Treasury. I beg to move.