authorities might wish to apply; because I see in this resolution constituting the first Committee, nothing about it being desirable to report for the consideration of the Board of Education or to report for the consideration of the local authorities on scales, etc. It looks here as if it was going to be mandatory, and I want to know to what extent, if at all, you argue that it was intended from the first that these scales, when agreed upon by both sides, should be mandatory on the Ministry or on the local authorities ?The representatives of the local authorities had plenary powers from their associations. They need not report to these associations before they signed the Report of the Committee. The teacher members had not such plenary powers; they were bound to report, first of all, to the Executive of the National Union of Teachers, and then, if the Executive summoned a conference, to that conference; but the local authorities panel had plenary powers in the matter. The attitude of the Board of Education at first was that it was entirely a matter for the local authorities to settle with the teachers and that the Board of Education would pay 60 per cent. or 50 per cent. in a few cases, of such increased salary as the local authority people agreed to pay to the teachers. Later on, when the financial condition of the country became acute, the Board of Education took up a different attitude and intimated that they could not agree to recommendations of the Committee except with very grave modifications, because of the financial position of the country at the time. But to begin with, it was a mandatory thing, there is no doubt about that.

16. What was suggested to me by these words was that it was, at any rate when these words were drafted, contemplated that it should simply be a matter to be arranged between the teachers and the local authorities; although I suppose there was no distinct pledge that the local authorities would conform to the scales so agreed. You indicate that that was then the intention?-Yes, that was then the intention.

17. And the Board of Education had then no feeling that they would probably have to scale down the recommendations? No. I want to acknowledge that, on the part of the local authorities, their panel and those whom they represented, everything they properly could do to bring about the success of the matter was done. With regard to the first scale, the provisional minimum scale, every

[Continued

local authority in England had adopted it by the end of September, at the end of nine months. I think there are about 17 per cent. of the local authorities now who have not adopted the standard scales. We regard the local authority panel as having amply carried out their undertakings.

18. When Mr. Fisher said, as I think he did the other day, that it could not be considered that the scales should be binding on the Government, he was saying what was quite true, if you examine the position of the Government after the Reports were made; he was not saying what was understood to be the position at the time the Committees were set up. Would you put it that way?Yes, I agree with you. Sir, entirely.

19. Otherwise one would have expected to find stated in the Terms of Reference what he said in the House of Commons, that they were merely reporting for the consideration of the Government. It was not stated at the time, and you argue that it was not understood at the time. Is that so? That is So. It was a condition required by the local education authorities and urged by the Board of Education that during the drawing up of scales (which would take a good mony nouths) and the periods for which the scales when adopted were to run, the National Union of Teachers would not press, or countenance any pressure (that is a euphemism, of course, for instituting strikes), on local authorities which adopted the scales, or equivalent or better scales, for salaries in advance of the Committee's scales.

20. But why should pressure be put upon local authorities which adopted them? I was going to say: pressure should not be put upon them for salaries in advance of the Committee's scales. It was certainly an implied condition that the fixing of salaries should improve and not in any way disimprove the position of teachers at that time. That was the very purpose of the Committee. Throughout the sittings of the Committees the existence of a non-contributory superannuation system for teachers was present in the minds of the teachers who were members of the Committee. That is the basic fact. They always understood, and they were never notified to the contrary, that if their salaries were to be improved, they were to retain their non-contributory pension system, and their pensions would go with their salaries. I put in a quotation from a memorandum, issued by the Association of Education Committees,

and Member of Parliament at the same time. He did, therefore, represent in three capacities authorities concerning this matter. He has in his possession, I understand, written evidence that one of the main arguments for the London County Council representatives refusing the £450 salary asked for by the Union was that teachers had a non-contributory pension scheme. I just mention that. You will notice, further, a remark by Mr. Thomas, a member of the teachers' panel, that the advantage of the London local scheme had gone as compared with other areas, and the Act of 1918 was now permanent institution all over the country. Again you will notice a speech by myself on the 13th January, in the presence of Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher had told us that he could not be sure of getting assent to the date of the improved scales from the 1st April of that year, and he could not be sure about the carryover. I do not know whether you understand what is meant by a carry-over.

a

26. Just tell us what it is?-In the case of a teacher shifting from an inferior scale to a superior scale, if it was not for the carry-over arrangement, there would become an immediate jump of a considerable sum, which would put a very heavy load on the local authority in one year. For example, if the increase in the case of a given teacher was £60, the local authority said to us: "We cannot afford to do that in one year," and we agreed to an arrangement whereby it was spread over two years or three years. It might be half to begin with and two quarters; it might be three thirds. Later on, although the Board of Education first of all agreed to the whole in one year, or a half and two quarters, they insisted, as Mr. Fisher was doing here, that it must be in three thirds; and there you will see I refer to the Superannuation Act as having produced a supply of teachers and that now Mr. Fisher was going back on the improvement of the scales and it would have the opposite effect. Now there are some minutes taken from the transcript of the second Committee of which I am a Member. If you need them, Mr. Dunkerley will put them in, and I believe there is a reference to the same thing in the transcript of the Technical School Teachers' Committee, which, if needs be, Mr. Abbott will put in. Now I go to page 4 of my proof.

27. I think it may be argued that these references, although no doubt they may be amplified by other persons, in all th

[Continued

very detailed work of these Committees, were rather slight. Would you say that that was because people had it so clearly in their minds that it was not necessary to record it or refer to it, or what?— That is my argument, and I really put them in because Sir Robert Horne said in the House of Commons (he was evidently misinformed and he had not seen these transcripts) that there were no references of this kind in the transcripts.

28. Do you agree with me that so far as we have them before us at present, they are rather few ?-I agree that they are few, but I have given you the reason why they are few. It was so clearly understood by everybody that there was no need to keep on reminding either one side or the other side of these facts; and some of these you will find are references to an undisputed standing fact. Further, these transcripts contain no word of what went on in the panels of the Committees; they are only transcripts of the formal meetings of the Committees and of the formal statements there. So that those quotations do not by any means represent all the references that were made. At that date a superannuation system for teachers identical in every respect but one, I think-a five years' average of salary instead of a three years', as the basis for computing the pension-with the system for civil servants as remodelled by an Act of 1909, was a standing fact. It was a standing fact during all the deliberations of the three Committees, in 1919, 1920 and 1921. It is a standing fact still. As a solid and very important fact it was basic to the deliberations of the teachers' panels of the Committees. It was in mind at every meeting of the Committees, and in the minds of the teachers meeting separately in panel, when considering proposals and figures of salary suggested by the Local Authority panels. Never during the 1919, 1920 or 1921 meetings did Mr. Fisher, or any officer of the Board present at the meetings, indicate, forecast, or even hint that the Superannuation Act, 1918, would be altered. You are requested to inquire as to whether there was any undertaking. No express undertaking by the Government or Parliament that there should be no alteration was asked for, or necessary therefore, because the pension system was in esseit was the law of the land. It was even in capite, so to speak-an actual and legal right held directly from the Crown in Parliament, as given by Royal assent

to a measure proposed by Governmentby the present Government-and enacted by Parliament only 41 months ago. Can it be said that Parliament in December, 1918, intended or anticipated in the least that 41 months later this right, or any part of it, should be withdrawn? Is it not in the very nature of principal Acts concerning pensions that they shall have prospective operation over long prospective periods? Is not that particularly so in the case of absolute State pensions? Have Army, Navy, Civil Service or Old Age Pensions ever been disimproved by Bills to amend the principal Acts? They have been modified in detail, in form of benefit; they have been improved for the bénéficiares, but they have not been made contributory-the undertaking has never, I think, been impaired. I submit, therefore, that there was an undertaking by Parliament, and, indeed, by the present Government, given by the enactment of what was intended to be a permanent method of (1) inducing young persons to qualify as certificated or otherwise Government recognised teachers, and of (2) superannuating those teachers who rendered continuous and satisfactory service in State-aided schools. Thirdly, there was the other consideration, that preventing them from teaching after the age of 60, and so impairing the work in the schools. I submit that the undertaking was express, and that it was also implied in every contract between a local education authority and a teacher. I have already mentioned the case of withdrawals from London and other local systems and from particular school systems

of

superannuation. From what 18 necessarily an exceptional degree of acquaintance with the views and expectations of teachers in this matter, I can affirm and certify that they implied, not only that "the provisions of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, should not be altered while those scales remain in force," but also that improvements in the confessedly inadequate salaries of teachers would not at any date involve a charge on those salaries, in the form of a contribution to the cost of their pensions or of an appropriation in aid. I submit that they had been given the right to imply this, and that nothing done by or in connection with the Burnham Committees withdrew from them the right to imply it. At no time during the discussion and agreeing of the scales, or their submission to the Presi

[Continued

dent of the Board, was there any prospect that the pension system would be altered; nor in the interviews with the President on the scales. Sir George Lunn, the leader of the authorities' panel, and myself, saw Mr. Fisher, and saw him particularly at a time when, owing to a certain breakdown in trade and other difficulties, the financial situation was much worse than it is now. In arguing with Sir George Lunn and myself to induce us to influence our panels to accept inferior terms with regard to the date of application and the carry-over than the two panels had agreed to, even at that time, when trade and finance were in that condition, not a word was said to Sir George Lunn and myself as to altering the superannuation system at all. The Scales Reports contained no indication of any contemplation that the pension system would be altered. The conditions the Board did lay down reduced the value of the scales very largely, but contained no word or sign that the value to teachers of the pension system was to be reduced. Nobody ever suggested then that there was any moral obligation or debt of honour on the part of the teachers to pay 1s. in the £ of their salaries, or any contribution of any amount as and because their salaries were being improved.

29. I am rather struck by what you have said as to there being so little mention of the pension schemes in these negotiations about salaries, and that tells to some extent in your favour in so far as there was, as you suggest, no indication that the pensions would be cut down; but it also a little bit tells the other way in that I imagine you cannot refer to any statement by Mr. Fisher or by yourself in which, in arguing with the teachers that they should be willing to accept the scales as modified by the Board of Education, by the carry-over or in other ways, there was any reference to the fact that the Pensions Act was in existence and that of course it would not in any way be interfered with or be made contributory and that therefore the teachers should have that solid advantage in their minds in assenting to some scale, it may be, which was lower than their representatives had urged or than they had been led to expect?-I propose to give evidence upon that point so far as the teachers are concerned. First of all, I say that no intimation was given to us by Mr. Fisher or by the Board

that any change would be made; certainly I say that, relying upon that fact, never dreaming of anything else, in our negotiations with the teachers who were our constituents, so to speak, we did use the argument of the continued existence of the non-contributory pension scheme as a reason why the teachers should not pitch their hopes and their claims too high.

30. Have you any evidence of that in reports or speeches made by yourself or by other representatives of the teachers? -I refer to two conferences of the union, three in all, but two special conferences of the union, which were private conferences, and private from the Press. We had to keep them private from the Press, because at that time, although we had permission from the other panel to lay the proposals before our members, the Report of the whole Committee had not been fully made known. There are reported brief references to the decisions taken at those conferences, but the long speeches by myself, laying the whole situation before the members in the frankest possible way, were not reported at all. What I say is that at two special conferences for the sole purpose of considering the Scales proposed, the teachers could not have been brought to accept the Scales if they had supposed that the pension system was to be altered.

31. But just to complete my point: you cannot refer us to any statements, say, by Mr. Fisher, or other representatives of the Government, saying practically to the teachers. "You must remember that you have got your non-contributory pensions and there is no chance of those being altered," or anything of that kind? --I can refer to statements made by Mr. Fisher as to the existence of a non-contributory pension system, but I cannot refer to statements saying there is no prospect of that being altered.

32. Can you refer to the argument having been used by him as a justification for the action that he was taking with regard to the carry-over, or on any other pertinent matters, that it should be borne in mind that the pension scheme existed-which, I think, would convey the assumption that it was not going to be altered at all, or at an early date?— Mr. Fisher was very anxious indeed as to the effect of these proposals upon public opinion as to the position of teachers. It was at that point that he again and again referred to the existence of the non-contributory pension scheme.

[Continued

The very fact that he did argue: "Your claim must be lessened with regard to Scales, because you are already in a favoured position with regard to your pension scheme ".

33. Did he argue that? He did argue that. Again and again he referred to that when I saw him at the Board of Education. The very fact that he did state that, because of the effect upon public opinion as to teachers, they should be very reasonable in respect of the scales and the carry-over, particularly because they were in a favourable position already with regard to pensions, indicates, I think, indirectly, that there was no idea in his mind at that date to change that system.

34. We do not, of course, in any way dispute or question your statement of what Mr. Fisher said, and no doubt if he comes before this Committee he will readily confirm it; but so far as the point goes, you cannot point to anything stated in public which could be alleged to be something in the nature, if not of a pledge by him, that the pension scheme should remain non-contributory, at any rate, which would be a reference by him to the pension scheme or indicating that, so far as pensions were concerned, the teachers had been put in a thoroughly satisfactory position?-You see, Sir, the Terms of Reference to this Committee are restricted along the line which you are now asking. I am anxious not to regard the Terms of Reference of this Committee as not completely covering our case; but I do say this. We have a right to ask Mr. Fisher to prove that he or any member of the Government at any time during the contemplation or the endorsement of those scales, intimated to us that there would be a change in regard to our pensions.

35. I do not think there is any question in dispute, only of course your case now, that in the absence of any indication that pensions might be made contributory, it must be assumed that it was intended that they should continue as they were, and from that, the argument that it was an implied pledge that they should continue as they were, would be stronger than it is (I quite see the force of it; I am not disputing its force) if you could point to any reference by Mr. Fisher or other members of the Government to the fact of the pension as an element in the salaries settlement?I submit that the onus of proof is not I8 upon us, but upon the other side.