§ Mr. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any communication from the Retired Teachers' Association of Scotland, drawing attention to the injusice done to teachers who retired prior to April, 1919, by the Superannuation Act of that year; and if it is proposed to amend the Act so that teachers who retired before 1919 shall have the full benefits of the new scheme?
§ Mr. MUNROMy right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received a communication of the nature indicated in the question. In view of the additional provision already made in the superannuation scheme of 1919 for the teachers referred to, I do not propose to introduce legislation authorising the further expenditure suggested.
§ Mr. S. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers have had pensions awarded them under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, although they had given up teaching long before the Act was passed: what is she average length of the periods that had intervened between the withdrawal of these teachers from teaching and the passing of the 1918 Act; what is the gross annual amount of pensions awarded to these teachers under the 1918 Act; and what is the gross annual amount of the pensions which would have been due to them on reaching the age of 65, according to the Acts of 1898 and 1912, under which their service was rendered?
§ Mr. FISHERI cannot undertake the calculation involved by the last part of the question, but I will see whether, without a disproportionate amount of labour, I can abstract information on the first three parts. If so, I will send it to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. S. SAMUELasked the President to the Beard of Education whether he is aware that applications for extension of service made by some teachers on reaching the age limit (65) during the two years ended 31st March, 1919, were granted, and that the applicants were 1499W thus made eligible for and admitted to the benefits of the new Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, while applications for extension made during the same period by other teachers of the same age and having identical claims were refused, and that those applicants were thus debarred from the benefits of the new Act; what, if any, was the principle on which such differential treatment was based; and what steps does he propose to take to compensate these latter teachers for the loss they have sustained as a consequence of their being refused the same extension of service as that granted to their fellows?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).
§ Mr. S. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of the teachers now living who, having been retired prior to April, 1919, under the Acts of 1898 and 1912, were excluded from the greatly improved benefits of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, and left to subsist on a pension of about £40, average amount; how many of these teachers received any increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920; what is now the average amount of their pension after being increased; what is the number of the rest of these teachers who were debarred from any increase at all under the 1920 Act; on what ground was the increase withheld; and what action does he propose to take to remove the unjust treatment of these pioneer teachers cast out on a pre-War pension, of about £30 with its reduced present-day value, many of whom rendered 40 years' service or more, and were heads of some of the largest schools in the country?
§ Mr. FISHERThe number of current pensions under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 and 1912, is 3,405 (age), 2,364 (disablement), and the average amount is £41 6s. 8d. (age), £31 6s. 6d. (disablement). 4,539 pensions were increased under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, the average amount of the increase being £17 5s. per annum. 1,188 pensioners did not apply for, or did not obtain, an increase because the conditions of that Act were not satisfied. I am unable to introduce legislation to impose on public funds the1500W charge which would be involved by giving the benefits of the Act of 1918 to all the teachers who were pensioned under the earlier Acts.
Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education on what grounds were some teachers approaching the retiring age of 65 granted an extension of their certificate, thereby qualifying them for the benefits of the 1918 Act, while in other cases to teachers similarly circumstanced no extension was granted?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).
Mr. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers who were retirable at 65 under the Acts of 1898 and 1912 have retired before reaching 65 under the 1918 Act; what was the average age at which those teachers retired; what is the gross annual amount of their pensions under the 1918 Act; and what would have been the gross annual amount of their pensions at 65 under the Acts of 1898 and 1912?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).
Mr. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that applications for extension of service made by some teachers on reaching the age limit (65) during the two years ended 31st March, 1919, were granted, and that the applicants were thus made eligible for and admitted to the benefits of the new Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, while applications for extensions made during the same period by other teachers of the same age and having identical claims were refused, and that these applicants were thus debarred from the benefits of the new Act; what, if any, was the principle on which such differential treatment was based; and what steps he proposes to take to compensate these latter teachers for the loss they have sustained as a consequence of their being refused the same extension of service as that granted to their fellows?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).
1501W
§ Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether applications for extension of service made by some teachers on reaching the age limit (65) during the two years ended 31st March, 1919, were granted, and that the applicants were thus made eligible for and admitted to the benefits of the New Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, while the applications for extension made during the same period by other teachers of the same age and having identical claims were refused, and that these applicants were thus debarred from the benefits of the new Act; what, if any, was the principle on which such differential treatment was based; and what steps he proposes to take to compensate these latter teachers for the loss they have sustained as a consequence of their being refused the same extension of service as that granted to their fellows?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 3rd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills).
§ Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he realises the unequal and differential treatment disclosed by the operation of the new Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1918, inasmuch as all teachers who have retired or will retire during the 20 years commencing 1st April, 1919, are teachers who have been rendered eligible under this Act for pensions ranging from three times to eight times the pensions for which they contracted and were eligible under the Acts of 1898 and 1912, whilst their colleagues who were retired prior to 1st April, 1919, have been excluded from the benefits of the new Act and left to subsist on pensions under the Acts of 1898 and 1912 of about £40 (average amount); and what steps he proposes to take to remove the harsh and inequitable treatment of these pioneer teachers?
§ Mr. FISHERI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2nd March to the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn).