§ 3.2 p.m.
§ Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What effect they consider the proposed new redundancy regulations will have on the supply of teachers in schools.
§ The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)My Lords, the proposed new regulations will reduce the number of teachers leaving the profession before their normal retirement date and will increase the number of experienced teachers available for employment.
§ Lord Dormand of EasingtonMy Lords, I disagree with the Minister's main point. Is he aware of the anger that has been caused to teachers by this proposal, particularly the lack of proper consultation and the Government's failure to phase it in, which seems to me to be the sensible thing to do? Can the Minister say how many applications for early retirement have been received since the announcement was made? Further, what proportion is represented by senior teachers? Finally, as the financial burden arising from this new regulation will fall on LEAs and governors, how does he expect those bodies to find the extra money to pay for it?
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, in answer to the latter point, the employers, whether they be schools or LEAs, will be making smaller contributions. Therefore, if they manage the early retirement policy properly they will probably make savings. We believe it is right that the schools themselves should have a proper incentive to look after the early retirement of teachers. Even the noble Lord will agree that there is something wrong with a system in which four-fifths of teachers are allegedly unable to work up to 60. I do not believe that the noble Lord accepts it is right that such a high proportion of teachers should take early retirement. There has never been any right to early retirement just for teachers. They can take early retirement if their health so requires. We expect schools and LEAs to act sensibly rather than allow a rush of early retirements at Easter. For that reason we have a rather long consultation period. It started in October and will continue until Friday of this week.
§ Baroness Perry of SouthwarkMy Lords, is my noble friend aware of just how blatant the abuse of the early retirement system has been on the part both of employers and of teachers and lecturers? Is he aware that, particularly among further education lecturers, the commonly used expression is "early 190 retirement with contract", on the basis of which a teacher takes early retirement and goes on to half-pay as a pension and then returns on a half-time contract, thereby earning exactly the same as before for half the work?
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that possibly this scam exists. There is evidence of teachers who take early retirement on Friday and come back as supply teachers on Monday. The key principle underlying our proposals is that employers should be made accountable for the cost of decisions on premature retirement. They are now not so accountable and we believe that they should be.
§ Lord MarshMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the worrying aspect is that such a lunatic system was allowed to develop in the first instance? The whole purpose of early retirement is either to allow people who are ill to retire in a civilised fashion or to let people go whom one does not wish to stay? To have a situation where four-fifths of teachers decide to go—many of whom are the very people one least wishes to—calls into question the individual who was responsible for this idiot situation in the first instance.
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I regret that I cannot make the political point that I might otherwise have made. I can tell the noble Lord that the teachers' superannuation scheme goes back to the 1920s. I am not quite clear who was in charge of it at that time. But I believe that the noble Lord is right to point out the defects in the system that have allowed such an excessive amount of early retirement. For that reason we believe it is right to make employers properly accountable for the scheme. They will then take proper care of it.
§ Lord Morris of Castle MorrisMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the comment attributed in the press to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the Government do not believe that four out of five teachers are incapable of teaching until the age of 60? If he did say that, should he not be told that the 11,000 teachers now queuing up to beat the March deadline are only a fraction of those who are desperate to get out of a profession which his Government have made underpaid, under-resourced and undesirable?
§ Lord HenleyMy Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord has said. Teachers' pay has done better than most others in the public sector. It has risen by 57 per cent, in real terms since 1979. We have made it quite clear that we believe teaching to be an honourable profession. The Prime Minister was quite right to point out that there was something pretty odd about a scheme 191 which encouraged four-fifths of teachers allegedly to say that they were incapable of working up to the age of 60.
§ Lord Dormand of EasingtonMy Lords, I should like to ask the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He will have observed that the 30 minutes are up. We have all been beaten by the clock.