REPORT. No. of Paragraph. I. PRELIMINARY. 1 2 3-16 17-20 II-SCOTLAND. III. SUMMARY OF THE TEACHERS' EVIDENCE. IV. EVIDENCE OF LORD BURNHAM AND EDUCATION AUTHORITIES. REPORT. Q. 263. Appendix E. THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider and report whether in fixing the present scales of salaries for teachers in grantaided schools any undertaking by the Government or Parliament was given or implied that the provisions of The Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1918, should not be altered while these scales remained in force, have agreed to the following REPORT: 1. Your Committee have held five meetings and have examined 11 witnesses. II. SCOTLAND. 2. We have thought it right to hear evidence from Mr. D. M. Cowan, M.P., on behalf of the Scottish Teachers. It is true that the School Teachers' Superannuation Bill, 1922, does not apply to Scotland, but we are assured that the passage of the Bill into Law will affect the superannuation of Scottish Teachers. Moreover, the Departmental Committee which is to be set up to enquire into the whole question of School Teachers' Superannuation will not confine its Inquiry to England and Wales, but will have to consider the position of Scottish School Teachers. We print as an Appendix to this Report correspondence relating to the question of Scottish School Teachers' Superannuation, and we hope that the fact that we have taken Evidence on behalf of the Scottish School Teachers and have published these documents may, perhaps, obviate the necessity of the appointment of a second Select Committee to enquire into the question of superannuation as it affects these Teachers. III. SUMMARY OF THE TEACHERS' EVIDENCE. 3. We first set out, in paragraphs 4 to 16, the general argument which may be made for the teachers. Their case was presented by Sir James Yoxall, Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, and was supplemented by other Members of the Teachers' Panels upon the Burnham Committees, representing teachers in elementary, secondary and technical schools. 4. That the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill of 1918 was brought forward not mainly as a benefaction to the teachers, but as a Measure necessitated by national interests in order that there might be proper recruitment to the teaching profession. That though of undoubted benefit to the teachers it contained some elements of consideration given by them in return for the benefits, in that: (a) Lower ages for retirement were fixed in normal cases than Q. 99. had been the rule previous to the Bill being passed. (b) The Treasury obtained a higher rate of interest on the funds Q. 206. transferred to them than was needed in order to provide the pensions for which liability was undertaken. (c) Teachers, particularly in Secondary Schools, were induced to Qs. 282, 353 give up pension schemes which in some cases contained et seq. extremely favourable elements, on the strength of their belief that the non-contributory scheme would be permanent. Though the Bill now before the House provides that compensation shall be given in cases where the previous schemes are more favourable than the position which will arise on the passing of the Bill, this will not cover the actual cases in which, for instance, a teacher dies during service and leaves a widow who would have been provided for under the previous scheme but will not under the Act. 5. That in bringing forward the School Teachers (Superannuation) Q. 81. Bill, 1918, Mr. Fisher not only did not suggest that teachers might be asked to contribute towards the pension fund, but gave most cogent reasons why a contributory scheme was undesirable and impracticable thus giving the teachers a right to anticipate that the basis of the scheme would not be changed. 6. That an Act of Parliament setting up a pension scheme is, in its essence and according to all former precedent, an Act which implies permanence so far as the beneficiaries who come within its scope are concerned: That such an Act must be held to imply permanence and, therefore, to be an implied pledge of permanence, Q. 86. unless the contrary is expressly declared. 7. That the settlement of the pensions question by the Act of 1918 Qs. 21 et seq., was thoroughly well known to both panels of the Burnham Committees, 292. was at times referred to in their discussions, and must be held to have been a material element in the settlement of the scales. That no suggestion that the basis of pension could be altered was at any time made by anyone to the Burnham Committees, and that had it been supposed that a contribution of 5 per cent. of salaries would be called for towards pensions, the teachers claim for salaries would Q. 603. have been greater, and would, probably, in part have been acceded to. 8. That as in some cases the Burnham scales were less than the Qs. 28 et seq. previously existing scales of Local Authorities, the teachers' representatives on the panels had difficulty in obtaining acceptance for the scales, and repeatedly used, as an argument for acceptance, the fact that the pension question was permanently settled on a non- Qs. 47, contributory basis. 48. 9. That the existence since April, 1919, of the Burnham scales, Qs. 207, 331. side by side with a non-contributory pension scheme has been a material inducement to people to join the teaching profession, and that the inducement and, therefore, the recruitment to the profession would have been sensibly less had it been realised that the pensions were to be made contributory. That in some cases men have been led to refuse offers of positions outside the profession which Q. 358. would have been accepted had it been believed that the basis of pension could be changed. 10. That Mr. Fisher, when it was found necessary to make modi- Qs. 28, 32, 33. fications in the Burnham scales, particularly as to the mode on which the old scales would pass over into the new, negotiated these modifications with the teachers and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 37401 A 3 Q. 295. Q. 78. Q. 207. Q. 37. Q. 28. Qs. 81-83. in the belief and expectation that while the scales lasted no cut would be made in them as a contribution to pensions, or for any other purpose. 11. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in assenting to the scale of the Board of Education's grant towards Local Authorities' expenditure on salaries, must have had in mind the existing and prospective burdens upon the Exchequer on account of pensions; did not contemplate that these burdens would be relieved by a five per cent. contribution from salaries; and had he thought that he was very soon going to be able to recover five per cent. of what he was agreeing to give, he might not have had to whittle down the scales as he, in fact, did. 12. That until the Geddes Committee reported no person deriving any authority from the Government had ever suggested to the teachers the possibility of asking them to contribute out of salaries towards their pensions, and that, in fact, such statements as had any Government authority were in a contrary direction, as is shown by leaflets and circulars issued by Government Departments, both before and after the First Report of the Burnham Committee had been presented, drawing attention to the advantages of the teaching profession, and referring specifically to the fact that the Superannuation Act of 1918 provided a scale of allowances and gratuities on Civil Service lines no contributions being required from teachers. 13. That if this possibility had occurred to the teachers they would before assenting to the Burnham scales have asked for an assurance from the Minister of Education on behalf of the Government, that the Government had no intention during the continuation of the scales, of taking back five per cent. of the salaries as relief to the Exchequer either on account of pensions or otherwise; and that this assurance would have been given, and would have amounted to a pledge within the meaning of the Committee's terms of reference. 14. That the facts that the teachers felt so secure of their noncontributory pensions that they at no time raised the question of the possibility of their modification, and that had they done so they would have received official assurances that this step was not contemplated, establishes a definite understanding, tantamount to an implied undertaking, that no contribution from salaries towards pensions would be asked for during the short time for which the scales were to remain current. 66 15. That Mr. Fisher has stated on January 26th, 1921, that: "He "did not contemplate (subject always to the authority of Parliament) 66 an alteration in the formula for the calculation of the substantive grant," and on February 25th, 1922, that: "The Government will "preserve its engagements with the teachers, for that is a matter of public faith." As he has stated also that the Government had no contract with the teachers, but only with the Local Authorities, engagements with the teachers can refer to pensions only. On the assumption, however, that it was not intended to refer to pensions but to salaries, the statements imply that it would be a breach of faith with the teachers, or the Local Authorities, or both, for the Government during the currency of the Burnham scales, either to require the Local Authorities to reduce them so as to reduce their own contribution, or themselves to make a direct reduction of their contribution. It would therefore admittedly be a breach of faith, during the currency of the scales, for the Government to require a surrender to the Exchequer of the public moneys now agreed to be devoted towards salaries. It must, therefore, also be a breach of faith to require such a surrender for the special purpose of pensions, for, assuming the amounts to be equal, the financial effect, both upon the teachers and upon national funds, is precisely the same. 16. That the settlement of pensions by the Act of 1918 and of salaries (for a short period of years) by the Burnham scales are component parts of a single settlement between the State and its teachers, the scales fixing the actual pay, and the pensions the deferred pay. That the scales are accepted by teachers and local authorities alike, subject to all the ordinary changes and chances that may be reasonably anticipated, such as, for instance, variations in taxation or in the cost of living. But just as there is an implied willingness to accept probable and natural modifications, so there is an implied pledge by the Government that no modifications in the position should be introduced by them of so improbable a nature as never to have been thought of; and that it is, therefore, just as much a breach of an implied pledge to reduce salaries, as it would be, without increase of salary, to halve holidays or double hours of work. IV. EVIDENCE OF LORD BURNHAM AND REPRE- 17. The Committee had the great advantage, after hearing the teachers' case, of hearing Lord Burnham, who attended by permission of the House of Lords, Mr. F. J. Leslie, who was Secretary of the Local Authorities' Panels on all the Burnham Committees, and Sir Cyril Cobb, K.B.E., M.V.O., M.P., who represented the London Education Authority on the first Burnham Committee. 18. Lord Burnham had no doubt that the recent settlement of the pension question by the Act of 1918, and the absence of any expectation of a change, were essential factors to the pro- Qs. 419, 432. blem before his Committees. He considered that a Pension Act contains a definite element of permanence, and that it is contrary to all precedent and, from the point of view of morals, a little Q. 418. shabby to alter a scheme enacted as the 1918 Act was enacted. He held that the fact that during all the negotiations neither by word of mouth nor by letter were the Committees informed that any modification of the pension position was contemplated, did undoubtedly create an understanding, "though I do not say it "established a contract." He stated finally that for the State. to withhold during the currency of the Burnham scales a proportion of the grant which it had agreed to give to Local Autho- Q. 438. rities, in order to relieve national burdens for pensions or otherwise partook of the nature of sharp practice. He could not say what would have been the result upon the deliberations or upon Q. 460. the results of his Committees had the instability of the pension settlement been realised during their sittings. 19. Mr. Leslie was able to inform us of how the recent settlement of the pensions question affected the Local Authorities' Panel. "It was," he said, a constant matter of conversation Q. 598. "in the panel that the panel might be rather more strict than "otherwise they would have been in meeting the teachers' "demands because there was this non-contributory scheme of pensions behind them which they had just quite recently 61 37401 A 4 |