HL Deb 27 September 1976 vol 374 cc99-114

7.30 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Age of retirement of teachers]:

Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("or the end of the school term in which he attains the age of 65, whichever is the later.")

The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment, and I hope I shall not take very long about it. The Bill as it stands makes teachers retire at 65—indeed, on the day they reach 65—if they have not retired earlier, as many of them do. This is modified to some extent so that a teacher with special responsibility can go on for another three months, and any teacher, whether he has special responsibility or not under the Bill, can go on, on a year-to-year basis, for such further period as may be decided, but he may not retain any post of special responsibility if he goes on longer than three months. I think this is the way the noble Lord explained it at the time. The purpose of my Amendment is a very simple one, and it is to insert some words at the end of line 14, where the Bill says: Subject to subsection (2) below, a teacher employed by an education authority or by the managers of a grant-aided school shall retire from the post in which he is employed— (a) in the case of a teacher the sixty-fifth anniversary of whose birth is after 1st January 1977, no later than the date of his attaining the age of 65", and then my Amendment would add, or the end of the school term in which he attains the age of 65, whichever is the later".

The point is a very simple one. It is that it is undesirable for a class that a teacher should be changed in the middle of a term. The noble Lord explained quite clearly on Second Reading that it was possible to make arrangements before the beginning of a term to ensure that the teacher would not retire; and equally, I take it, it is possible to make arrangements so that a teacher will not start teaching at the beginning of the term in which he reaches 65. But I think it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter in that form. After all, the really vital question to ask here is: Where does the best interest of the children or the pupils lie? I should have thought it was just as undesirable to change teachers in the middle of a term as it is to change horses in the middle of a stream. You do that only if you have to, if the horse or the teacher, as the case may be, cannot go any further. So I suggest that this is a simple Amendment which should make it sure that, barring, of course, fatality or serious illness, teachers will not have to be changed in the middle of a term even although they reach 65 during the period of that term. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

As I made clear at Second Reading, the Government's aim in bringing forward this Bill is to make a contribution to the reduction of unemployment among newly-qualified teachers by fixing the statutory retiring age at 65. The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, proposes, would run counter to this aim, since it would defer, in some cases by two months or more, the date on which a newly-qualified teacher could replace a teacher who has reached the age of retirement. Nor would the Amendment produce comparable benefits for all the individuals affected. For example, a teacher whose 65th birthday fell at the beginning of a term would benefit far more than a teacher whose birthday fell towards the end of a term. I think I should point out here that the length of a school term is not statutorily fixed. Education authorities are free to fix whatever terms are appropriate to local circumstances, and to vary them from year to year, provided that they meet the requirement of the Schools (General) (Scotland) Regulations 1975 that schools must be kept open for a minimum of 200 school days in a school year. So a teacher with a birthday falling at the beginning of a long term would benefit more than one whose birthday fell at the beginning of a short one. A teacher whose 65th birthday fell during a school holiday would not benefit at all.

The Government's proposal, on the other hand, is in my view more equitable in that it treats all teachers alike, regardless of the length or date of the school terms, the school holidays, or the school year. Nevertheless, the Government realise that there may be circumstances where the needs of the school or of the indivdual teacher would justify employment after the age of 65. The Bill therefore provides that a teacher may be re-employed in a non-promoted post for periods of up to a year at a time; and a promoted teacher may be retained for up to three months in the promoted post he held at the time of his retirement. This should allow sufficient time for a smooth handover of responsibilities. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept that the Government's proposals aim to give equitable treatment to all who will be affected, while leaving a reasonable amount of flexibility in the hands of employing authorities. I hope that, in view of what I have just said, the noble Lord will not seek to press his Amendment.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

May I ask the Minister a question about this? If you said that a teacher must retire at the age of 65, which might well be in the middle of term, your chances of filling that vacancy in the middle of term with somebody who wants, let us say, a promoted post are very poor. I was chairman of an education committee for years, and I know that what happened was that you could not fill a vacancy in the middle of a term unless it was a case of illness or some such thing, or you put in a temporary person, because when you are employing full-time teachers on a job they want to begin at the beginning of a term. Therefore, if you allow this provision to go through what will happen, or could easily happen, is that a teacher will be suddenly told in the middle of, let us say, the winter term, which we are now in, that he is aged 65 and he must retire. There may be somebody to follow on, but if there is not it will be very difficult to get somebody in November for a term which started at the beginning of September.

It would be much more equitable for the children if the teacher went on till the end of any term which he had begun and then retired, as the Amendment proposes. I think you will get much more complicated situations by having to shift teachers around in the middle of a term than if you say that such a teacher can stay until the end of the term, which may well be after he has passed the age of 65. This seems to me to be infinitely more satisfactory from every point of view. The idea of switching about because somebody's birthday happens to be in the middle of a term seems to be most unfortunate, and I do not think it will work at all.

Lord KIRKHILL

As I emphasised on Second Reading, and as I mentioned again this evening to your Lordships' Committee, the principal reason why the Government have brought this Bill before your Lordships is to ease the chronic unemployment situation among young teachers in Scotland. Hence the definitive 65th birthday—which can be predicted anyway. I think authorities can foresee when teachers in their employ will reach the age of 65. The other point that the noble Baroness should keep in mind is this. Most education authorities of which I have had experience normally create their own promotion list in advance of promoting from the list to specific posts, and, of course, this is the safeguard against the fear which the noble Baroness has mentioned.

Lord HUGHES

I had thought when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that his Amendment was one that I might urge the Minister to accept, until heard the explanation of my noble friend. I do not think the difficulties which have been indicated are likely to arise. In the case of the promoted post, if the man or woman is reaching the age of 65 at the beginning or at the earlier part of the term, then, as my noble friend indicated, it is not something which is going to be a matter of surprise to the local authority; for they know the ages of the teachers and can make arrangements accordingly. I should have thought that any prudent educational authority with a man reaching the age of 65 within a short time of the beginning of the term would arrange the appointment of a successor to take effect either from the beginning of the term or from his 65th birthday.

In the other case—and here I rather thought that the noble Lord had a point—where it occurs some way through the term, it would be a disadvantage to displace the teacher at that point. But if it is a promoted post, the provision to which my noble friend drew attention, that of being able to extend the employment for a period of three months, would, I think, in almost any case enable the employment to be continued to the end of the term thereby accomplishing what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has asked for. I am not certain of the position in relation to the teacher occupying a post which is not a post of special responsibility. I think my noble friend referred to the possibility of those teachers being carried on from year to year. Would it be possible in that case for them to be carried on until the end of the term only; or must it be for a year? If the latter, that would be defeating the Government's object. It ought to be possible to carry on the ordinary post for a less period than a year if the authority want to do so.

Lord KIRKHILL

Replying to the latter point raised by my noble friend, the position is that the non-promoted teacher can have his continuing employment reviewed by the employing authority upon an annual basis. It is within the discretion of the authority for what period they continue to employ him past the age of 65.

Lord HUGHES

May I be clear in my own mind that, so far as the promoted teacher is concerned or the teacher occupying a promoted post, he can be continued for only three months at most in that post. The other one can be carried on from year to year but it is not necessary for the authority to re-appoint or to continue his appointment for the full year; it could be two months, three months or four months if they so wanted.

Lord KIRKHILL

That is so.

Lord HUGHES

In that case, Lord Drumalbyn's points are already covered in the Bill.

Lord BALERNO

I think the debate that we have heard on this point is sufficient to show that it is fairly complex and is not going to be too easily understood. But I think that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has a very strong point in his Amendment. It will make it straightforward and clear that it is the interests of the children which is primarily the concern of the education machine and not necessarily that of the teachers. The teachers must be considered, but they are secondary to the vital interests of the children. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend in his Amendment.

Lord DRUMALBYN

I was going to emphasise the point that my noble friend has just made. I would at the same time fully acknowledge the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The point really is a simple one. As I understand it, as the Bill stands the discretion is left in the hands of the employers as to whether they displace a teacher who reaches the age of 65 during the term at the point when he reaches that age of 65. They can make arrangements before or afterwards to mitigate or get over the difficulty; but they can do it. I say that this is bad for the pupils and if it is possible to avoid it should be avoided; and to make certain that any harm to the pupil is avoided there should be statutory provision for it.

I appreciate the purpose of the Bill in trying to create opportunities for young teachers, but I do not believe that this is the right way to do it. I think it is wrong to bring in a young teacher for the first time in the middle of term; just as I think it is wrong, if avoidable, to displace a teacher in the middle of term. Neither is for the benefit of the pupil. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this further. It is something which arose many years ago when I was in the Department of Education in Scotland and several changes have been made since. I still think this would be the right solution. I hope that the noble Lord will look at it again. I leave it in his hands. I will not ask for an assurance. I am sure he will look at it again.

Lord HUGHES

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I ask the Minister whether it is not customary in matters of this kind for the Department to issue not directions but administrative guidance to local authorities. Assuming that the Bill remains as it is—which makes it possible to do exactly what Lord Drumalbyn wants—would the Minister consider drawing the attention of the education authorities to the fact that they can do this; that it would be a proper exercise of the Bill to extend a teacher, promoted or otherwise, either for three months or to the end of the term in the case of the second case if this is in the interests of the education of the children?

Lord KIRKHILL

As to the latter point raised by my friend Lord Hughes, I will give some consideration to it without giving him at this time an unequivocal assurance. I can only say that I cannot add to the remarks that I made earlier. My position is somewhat different from that of Lord Drumalbyn, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.

Lord DRUMALBYN

As I know this must have been a question of negotiation with the IES and other bodies, it is rather difficult to amend without further negotiation. In the circumstances, I feel it right to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.47 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 24, leave out from ("part-time") to end of line 25.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which is a probing Amendment. It is designed to inquire of the Government why it is proposed that the extension of employment of a teacher who has to retire under the terms of this Bill can be for only one year at a time. The question of the period for a teacher in a post of special responsibility is the subject of my next Amendment, Amendment No. 3. The aim of the Bill, which was described at Second Reading and confirmed again today by the Minister, is to help young teachers to get jobs; but I suggest that it ought also to be fair to the older teachers.

There have been special schemes and appeals to suitable men and women to enter into the teaching profession late in life at the times of shortage of teachers. Some of those who acceded to those appeals have been counting upon continuing to teach up to a certain age. They have also been counting upon their pensions. The Bill permits them to continue teaching up to the limit of one year at a time; but the decision whether they should be re-employed after the age of 65 will depend entirely upon the individual employer who will, in almost all cases, be the local education authority. Unless the Government change the Bill in the sense of this Amendment, it will be the local authorities who will have the decision as to whether or not a teacher can continue after 65. Naturally, there are some teachers who are anxious about this. When the Bill has been enacted, the Government can send out guidance, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, but they cannot dictate to the local authorities what they should do.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, at Second Reading said that the local authorities would be acting in a humanitarian fashion. I am sure they will; but none the less there is this anxiety among teachers. May I give an example of where pension rights could be affected. This is the case of an older teacher who is now 66 years of age. He entered teaching through the emergency plan of the late 1940s after military service. Four years ago he decided to buy in past added years for pension purposes. If he now has to leave teaching on 1st January 1977 he estimates that he will owe the superannuation fund about £400 since he had committed himself to paying 8 per cent. of his salary annually into the fund until 4th April 1978. When lie undertook to buy those past added years, he was given to understand that he would be able to teach until at least 68 years of age.

There is an example where it looks as though this Bill could have an adverse retrospective effect upon some teachers. That teacher tells me that he would never have committed himself to paying 8 per cent. of his salary over four years ago if this possibility of compulsory retirement by the local authority at this very short notice, any time after 1st January 1977, had been known. I hope therefore that the Government will consider how they can deal with that situation. Perhaps they can consider exemption by an amendment to the Bill later so that teachers who have never been in a post of special responsibility and have less than 35 years' reckonable service, could be exempted. That exemption could last for a set period, perhaps three years from the entry of this Bill into force.

There is a danger in trying to create vacancies for young teachers of being unfair to some of the older teachers who have to retire. I have given an example; the noble Lord is aware of this because I have been in touch with him about it during the Recess. I hope he can tell us what the Government will do to try to mitigate the circumstances which I have described. I beg to move.

7.52 p.m.

Lord KIRKHILL

At present Section 16 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 gives employers discretion to retain a teacher in employment after retiring age. Section 16(2), which deals with non-promoted teachers, prescribes a retiring age of 70 unless the employing authority otherwise determines. There was no apparent limit to the exercise of this discretion, and in areas of teacher shortage I am sure that employing authorities used it widely.

However, as I reminded your Lordships during the Second Reading debate on 27th July, we are now in a situation of teacher unemployment and such unlimited discretion is, in the Government's view, no longer appropriate. Nevertheless, it is not the Government's view that no teacher aged 65 and over should be employed. The Government accept that in certain circumstances continued employment may be necessary; for example, where it is otherwise impossible to find a teacher able to teach a particular subject or perhaps to take account of the teacher's personal circumstances. But in the present situation of teacher unemployment it is important to ensure that where a teacher is re-employed after retiring age that re-employment is on a short-term basis. The period of one year proposed in Clause 1(2)(a) does not mean that the individual is limited to one re-employment period of one year. If the authority think fit and the teacher is willing, there could be several successive re-employment periods but each one must not exceed one year. The effect of this is to ensure that at yearly intervals the employing authority re-examines the justification for keeping that particular teacher in employment.

I expect that the authorities will consider the individual circumstances of the teacher as well as the general teacher supply position in coming to a decision. The Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed would remove the obligation on employing authorities to re-examine the cases of re-employed teachers regularly, and would also leave those re-employed teachers in some measure of uncertainty. Given the present situation of teacher unemployment and the need of employing authorities to consider the circumstances of individual teachers and individual schools, the proposal in the Bill achieves the best compromise.

As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, he has been in correspondence with me about a specific case, in particular about the case of the teacher with added years for pension purposes and his need to purchase these additional years by additional contributions while still teaching. The noble Lord pointed out such service might not be completely paid for by the time the teacher reaches the age of 65 or is already over 65 by 1st January 1977. I have explained that such a teacher will not be deprived of the additional years for pension purposes, but that instead of continuing to pay for them by additional contributions, any outstanding payment will be deducted from the lump sum element of his superannuation benefits.

It would be appropriate to mention that the Educational Institute of Scotland, with whom we have been in consultation, take the view that the Government's proposals could not reasonably be resisted at a time when so many newly-qualified teachers were unable to find work. I hope that in view of what I have said the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

Lord DRUMALBYN

May I say a few words. In other vocations, when there is pressure of unemployment, it is not unusual to make arrangements for retiring older people. Is it not the case that there is always some form of compensation, some financial recognition of the special early retirement? Is there going to be none in cases such as my noble friend raised?

Lord KIRKHILL

In the terms of the question put to me, there would be no financial recompense. Within the structure of whatever pension and superannuation agreement with which the teacher is concerned, there would be full entitlement depending upon years of service and time of entry to the profession. Those would obtain.

Lord BALERNO

As the question of pensions has been raised, there are two questions (of which I have given the Minister notice) which I should like to put. First, I should like to inquire whether a teacher retired in the terms of this Bill and who is then re-employed in the terms of this Bill continues to draw a full pension as well as the remuneration for the re-employment? Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that the potential pension due to a retired teacher will not be adversely affected by a retirement at 65 instead of at 70, as in many cases at present? Looking after the young entrant is a laudable thing to do. I support the Minister in what he says and the principle of this Bill. But it must not be done at the expense of those teachers at the other end of the scale.

Lord KIRKHILL

I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving me advance notice of these questions. In reply to the first question, the answer is, No, during the period a teacher is re-employed, the pension may be abated or withheld according to the level of earnings. In response to his second question, promoted teachers must already retire at 65. For Non-promoted teachers, there could be some adverse effects because pensions depend essentially on length of service. The Bill gives scope for re-employment which could earn additional pension after retirement.

Lord BALERNO

Might I suggest to the noble Lord that with regard to the abatement of the superannuation for retired teachers when they are re-employed, this might be an opportunity to put right this long-standing grievance of the teachers in Scotland. It would go a long way to compensate for the loss of pension they would otherwise have if they stayed on longer.

Lord KIRKHILL

I am pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, acknowledges that there has been a longstanding grievance from the point of view of the teaching body. Certainly there was no compensation in 1969, when promoted teachers were reduced or retired at the age of 65. However, I could not undertake at this time to press an initiative in the manner suggested by the noble Lord.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I must confess to being a little disappointed that the noble Lord the Minister was not able to be more forthcoming on this matter. I am speaking of teachers who came into the teaching profession late in life as a result of appeals from the Government of the day to help to meet the shortage of teachers that then existed. The fact that they have only a certain number of years' pensionable service to their credit arises because they came in late in life at a time when they were very badly needed.

My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out that in many other professions there is some compensation when a change like this is introduced into a profession or business and people are asked to retire earlier. Far from there being compensation, in this case it is clear that such teachers are not going to receive all the emoluments which they had anticipated because they cannot go on for as long as they expected, though the pension rights, as the noble Lord said, are indeed protected.

Might I ask this? My understanding is that if this is going to be settled as the result of a lump sum payment and the £400, for example, the teacher I mentioned will find himself doing that because the superannuation fund is going to be dealt with as part of a lump sum. Am I right in thinking that a teacher in that position will suffer from a tax point of view more than if he had continued to teach, received his salary and continued to pay a percentage of his salary into a superannuation fund? To that extent, far from getting compensation, the teachers will be penalised to some extent as a result of this Bill. If I am right, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Government are applying their minds to that question and whether they can make any changes in the law that may be necessary to ensure that teachers in that situation do not suffer as a result of the tax situation?

Lord KIRKHILL

If I may for a moment revert to the earlier point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I should like to remind your Lordships that the special group scheme was intended primarily for applicants under the age of 45, although in practice some teachers were over 50 when they finally qualified. In publicity about the scheme, no mention was made about the possibility of remaining in post until the age of 70—and, of course, we are now dealing with the age group 65–70 this evening. The most recent brochure describes, for example, the benefits of retirement at or after age 60, with a minimum of five years' service. Other teachers who have re-entered teaching late in life may or may not have taken a refund of pension contributions when they left the teaching service. Those who did not will be able to aggregate, as we discussed, all their teaching service for pension purposes. Others, if they wish, may buy back their earlier service and thus bring their pension to a level which reflects their total teaching service. As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about the disadvantage a teacher may suffer as a consequence of a change in the tax position, I should require notice of that point. I will, of course, examine it and contact the noble Lord.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I am grateful for the undertaking given by the noble Lord, and we can return to this at a later stage. I agree with the noble Lord that in the scheme of some years ago no retiring age was stipulated, but in the case of the teacher I mentioned who entered into this undertaking to buy back added years, he entered into that arrangement only four years ago and, of course, he had no indication that he would not be able to go on teaching until the age of 68. That is the kind of teacher we need to consider, who did come into teaching late in response to appeals from the Government.

Lord KIRKHILL

I ought to say, of course, that at no time was a guarantee given beyond the age of 65. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will know from his own experience at the Scottish Office, there have been ebbs and flows in the teacher supply position in Scotland. This Bill primarily relates to a chronic shortage of jobs for newly qualified teachers and it has relevance only to those teachers who are aged 65 and above. In the circumstances I would have thought it was a most realistic Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

The noble Lord is almost saying that anybody over 65 is incapable of teaching. I am not prepared to accept that. I am saying that this is a change in the conditions of service which is unfortunately going to have an adverse effect on some teachers who had no warning that this was going to happen. It will affect the pattern of their lives over the next four years, as it is coming into effect so soon. However, shall not detain your Lordships further on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.8 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 5, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This is also a probing Amendment, because we should like to hear from the Government why the period of three months has been chosen for teachers who are in posts of special responsibility. I would suggest that it might be six, but this Amendment is moved merely to ask the Government to explain why they chose three. During Second Reading, the Minister said that the intention was to aim for a smooth hand-over and that this would be relevant halfway through a term if the 56th birthday occurred then, or if there was a special period of preparation for examinations. But if the teacher is employed beyond three months, his re-employment has to be in the basic grade post only, and we should like the Minister to explain the reason for that. I would remind your Lordships that in Scotland about 35 per cent. of teachers occupy posts of special responsibility, which is a fairly high proportion of the total of teachers. That is why it is important that we should have the Government's thinking on the subject. I beg to move.

Lord KIRKHILL

Section 16(1) of the 1969 Act prescribes a mandatory retirement age of 65 for promoted teachers, but gives employing authorities discretion to determine otherwise. At the time of the 1969 Act, in a situation of teacher shortage, it was important to allow employing authorities a good measure of discretion, but, as I have already pointed out to your Lordships, in a situation of teacher unemployment the Government do not consider that such unlimited discretion is appropriate.

As I indicated at Second Reading, the Government accept that automatic retirement of promoted teachers on their 65th birthday could cause difficulty or disruption in a particular school, especially if the 65th birthday fell during the middle of a period of preparing pupils for a special examination. That is one of the areas we have already touched on. However, in an admittedly uncertain world, I made the point in earlier discussion that birthdays can be fairly clearly foreseen, and I would expect that most education authorities would be able to arrange for the successor to such a promoted teacher to take over his responsibilities with a minimum of disruption. Nevertheless, there is a need for an element of flexibility, and the period of three months was determined as being that period which would enable the teacher to stay in post until the next following natural break in the school's activities, such as the middle or the end of a term, which would then be an appropriate time for the teacher's successor to take over.

To extend the period to six months, as the noble Lord's Amendment proposes, would allow a measure of discretion and flexibility which is not, in the Government's view, in present circumstances necessary and, indeed, could well be undesirable. As I said during the Second Reading debate, this is a time of rapid development, excitement and awareness in the world of education. It is clearly sensible that when an individual reaches retiring age his successor should take over from him as quickly as possible and with the minimum of disruption to the school timetable, and in the Government's view our proposals achieve that end. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will not feel that he needs to press the Amendment.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

I asked the noble Lord whether he could explain why, when a teacher is retained after the three months, he then has to go down to another post and cannot remain in a post of special responsibility.

Lord KIRKHILL

Because, quite clearly, a teacher in a position of special responsibility will not be able to teach beyond the age of 65 within that post. There is a need for movement as between posts at that age, and I believe that that is the thinking behind the Government's position.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

Perhaps we could pursue that at a later stage. I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.