HC Deb 06 December 1955 vol 547 cc329-41

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1946, and so much of the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1939 to 1953, as relates to superannuation and to the employment of teachers over the age of sixty-live years, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—

  1. (1) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums authorised or required to be so paid by virtue of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session (including any increase attributable thereto in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other enactment) being provisions—
    1. (a) increasing the rate of contributions payable by teachers and employers under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1946, and providing for supplementary contributions by employers;
    2. (b) altering the scale of any allowances to be granted under those Acts, and providing for increased annual allowances in return for surrender of additional allowances;
    3. (c) amending the law with respect to the periods of recognised or contributory service, and the salary and average salary, to be taken into account for the purposes of allowances and other benefits under the said Acts, the age and other conditions governing eligibility for such allowances or benefits, and the deductions which may be made from such allowances or benefits on account of service which qualifies for other superannuation purposes;
    4. (d) providing for the payment of pensions to widows, children and other dependants (including widowers of married women), being pensions supported by contributions satisfied by the reduction or refund of additional allowances, death gratuities or returnable contributions, and making further provision for the allocation of benefits to spouses or dependants out of annual superannuation allowances;
    5. (e) enabling teaching service (including past service) other than recognised or contributory service to be treated as contributory service for the purposes of the said Acts, and providing for the restrospective recognition of certain teachers for those purposes, and for the payment or repayment of contributions in connection with the matters aforesaid.
  2. (2) The remission of any sums recoverable under the Education (Scotland) (War Service Superannuation Act, 1939
  3. (3) The payment into the Exchequer of any sums to be so paid under any provision of the said Act of the present Session, including any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment—[Sir D. Eccles.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I was hoping that we would have some explanation from the Treasury Bench in support of this Financial Resolution, either from the Minister of Education or from the Leader of the House. I regret that there does not seem to be any representative of the Treasury in the Committee at the moment. Hon. Members opposite may not like it, but we seem to be drifting into a deplorable state of affairs when the Government think that they can push a Financial Resolution of this kind through the Committee without a word of explanation of any kind, particularly after they have suspended the Rule, apparently for the express purpose of enabling the Committee to say a few words about this Financial Resolution. I am very worried indeed about it.

It may be that the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill, but everybody will be aware that we shall seek drastically to amend it in Committee. This is our only opportunity of inquiring from the Government whether they have drawn the terms of the Money Resolution in such a way as to enable my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to put down those Amendments which we want to put down. I will take a specific illustration, which I am sure will appeal to the Minister of Education. As he will be aware, my hon. Friends are particularly concerned to see that the Bill is improved to include a proper widows and orphans pensions scheme. I want the Minister to tell us whether in his view the Money Resolution—and particularly sub-paragraph (d)—is drawn sufficiently widely to enable us to put down Amendments to incorporate in the Bill a proper widows and orphans pensions scheme.

After all, I understand that the Minister has expressed himself as being favourably disposed towards such a scheme and has done what he could to persuade local authorities to adopt it, so far without success; but we live in hopes. It may be that with the Minister's good will it will still be possible to persuade local authorities to make the necessary contribution so that teachers could have a satisfactory widows and orphans pensions scheme. If that is the case, it is eminently desirable that we should be able during the Committee stage to put down the appropriate Amendments to Clause 8, which deals with that matter. So far as I can see—and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that I am wrong—the Money Resolution is so tightly drawn as deliberately to exclude Amendments of that kind. If that is so, it seems to me a very significant comment on the Minister's integrity that he claims that he is anxious to be able to persuade local authorities to introduce such a scheme.

There are no doubt other questions which will occur to my hon. Friends about other Amendments which they may want to put down. Before we part with the Resolution, we are entitled to a specific reply to my question from the Minister himself.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I should like to mention one point concerning happenings somewhat earlier in our proceedings today. Earlier I raised the question with Mr. Speaker as to what course the debate would take and whether or not the Minister of Education was suitably equipped to deal with the Scottish aspect of the Bill. I was asked to wait and see how the Minister performed in his speech.

I listened carefully to his speech, and I can certify that, I think on two occasions, he mentioned the word "Scotland" but here was no guidance at all about the effects of the Bill on Scotland. Then we came to the summing up by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and that, as far as Scotland was concerned, was not only a summing up but also an introduction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am building up to the point I want to make. It is a financial point. If hon. Members opposite will be patient I will come to it.

We anticipated that from the Joint Under-Secretary of State we would hear something about Part II the provisions of which apply specifically to Scotland. We heard nothing at all about them. The hon. Gentleman may have been saying something, but he spoke so softly that I could not hear him from where I sat. This is the point on which I should like guidance. We are now making provision for the money to meet the cost of the Bill. The whole of Part II has not yet been dealt with in the House by either of the two Ministers. Is it in order—

The Chairman

Whether it has been dealt with or not, the whole Bill was given a Second Reading a few minutes ago, and therefore we cannot discuss it now.

Mr. Rankin

That is the trouble. Wt. have been guided all along, and definitely guided wrongly, because neither the Minister nor the Joint Under-Secretary dealt with the provisions for which we are asked to vote money. Can we vote money for provisions that we know nothing about? I feel that the Committee cannot dispose of money in that reckless fashion. I suggest that we ought to have some idea how much of this money will be used in carrying out the provisions of Part II which apply to Scotland.

I suggest that either the Minister on whom I depended today—he failed me; he never said a word about Scotland—or the Joint Under-Secretary, who surely should know something about Scotland, should tell us what part of the money which we are now in the process of voting will be used to carry out the provisions of the Bill which apply to Scotland. Does he know?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely, it is quite impossible for us to vote money to people who do not know what they are going to do with it. I am appealing to either of the Ministers—

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

To their good nature.

Mr. Rankin

Yes, to their good nature—I thought for a moment the hon. Member was talking about me, because I have been very good natured. I have been here since 2.30 p.m. and this is the first time I have spoken today. Only one Scotsman on each side of the House has been called—

The Chairman

We cannot discuss what happened during the Second Reading debate. It is entirely in the hands of the Chair as to who was called, and it does not matter whether they were Scotsmen or Welshmen or Englishmen.

Mr. Rankin

Yes, Sir Charles. But I think it a fair point to put to either of the Ministers. I do not mind which of them answers, but will one answer my question: how much of this money is to be used in carrying out the provisions of Part II of the Bill which apply to Scotland? Can anyone on the Government Front Bench answer that?

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I wonder whether you can give us your guidance, Sir Charles, about this Money Resolution. My point is that if we pass this Money Resolution as it stands, does it prevent Part II of this Bill from being remitted to the Scottish Standing Committee for consideration?

The Chairman

That has been settled by the House.

Mr. Willis

I did not hear that reply, Sir Charles. If we pass this Money Resolution, does that preclude the remitting of Part II of this Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee for consideration?

The Chairman

I was not in the Chamber at the time when the Bill was given a Second Reading, but when that happens a Bill automatically goes to a Standing Commitee.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Which Standing Committee?

The Chairman

It is Bills which apply only to Scotland and certified by Mr. Speaker which go to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Willis

I think it is within your recollection, Sir Charles, that on previous occasions when a whole part of a Bill applies to Scotland that part has been sent to the Scottish Standing Committee.

The Chairman

In any case, this Committee has nothing to do with that matter.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

We have now reached a stage in the discussion of this Measure where we should, indeed we are obliged, concentrate our argument on the main issue of the Bill. In view of the terms of the Money Resolution, I am wondering whether it bears any relationship to arguments deployed during the Second Reading debate. I propose to speak to the Money Resolution, in which it states that there shall be devoted: out of moneys provided by Parliament … Had you been in the Chair, Sir Charles, during the Second Reading debate, you might have wondered whether these payments were to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Money Resolution lays it down quite clearly that they are not to be paid out of teachers' contributions, or by local authorities or out of the contributions of employers or any other funds except moneys provided by Parliament.

I submit that whatever else may come out of the discussions on this lamentable Bill, at least they have carried public opinion a little further along the road towards an intelligent and contemporary view of retirement pensions. It is becoming increasingly accepted that salaried professions, such as the teaching profession, and indeed a wide range of other employments, should carry a guarantee of a retirement pension. Many attempts have been made over the years to provide for these pensions out of contributions, and here at last we have the admission in this Money Resolution that such schemes can come to fruition only if they are met by moneys provided by Parliament.

Public opinion, the teaching profession, and all those who are helping in different ways to work out some method of adding to the retirement pensions provided by the State, expect that when these pensions eventually become payable they will bear some proportionate relationship to the salaries earned at the time of retirement and also to the cost of living. All the discussion about what has happened to these contributions in the past has been largely irrelevant. I do not want to develop that point. We have had various snatches of teachers' biographies. As an ex-teacher, the only little contribution I wish to make is to say that when, three or four years ago, I fell upon evil times, I was constrained to withdraw from what was called the fund—to withdraw from the Ministry of Education contributions which I had paid towards a pension many years before.

The interesting thing was that those contributions did not buy very much for me compared with what they would have bought at the time I was constrained to pay them in. Today, in response to a Question from an hon. Member opposite, the Treasury Bench gave some information which was of great interest in connection with this Money Resolution. The questioner asked for a comparison between the purchasing power of the £ in 1924 and today, and he was told that the 1924 £ buys only 8s. 4d. worth of goods today. That is what happens to these contributions. When these matters are being negotiated, the only principle which is really established is that the teachers shall have a retirement pension scheme. In exchange for that they have to make some sacrifices out of their annual salary.

The Minister seemed to be thinking along those lines himself when he airily said that if the teachers did not like this 1 per cent. increase they were quite at liberty to take the matter to the Burnham Committee, which, he reminded us, was sitting and ready to deal with their claim. In other words, this is merely a matter of bargaining. It means that whoever fixes the rates of salary will fix them in relation to the work done by the profession, as if there were no retirement pension, and then, if there should be such a pension, something will be knocked off.

The second part of the Money Resolution says that there shall be paid into the Exchequer—under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and so on—all the moneys paid under the scheme. It would be out of order for us to discuss what sort of decisions are likely to be made as to the way in which this money shall be invested, but we know what happens to it. Year by year it all goes to pay for the below-the-line investments of the Government. The £1 which I paid at the beginning of my teaching career went, with those of everybody else, to pay for some perfectly good capital investments, which have not lost their value—schools, hospitals and the various forms of Government expenditure authorised at that time. They were part of the loans. They have not lost their value.

It comes to this. After all our discussion, all we have done is to establish a little more clearly that, however hard we try, we cannot cope with the problem of inflation. The actuaries, however clear and ingenious they are, cannot produce for us a formula which they can guarantee to operate fairly over a period of years. We might just as well admit, quite frankly, as the Money Resolution says, that the pensions themselves will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament and that the contributions which are extracted from the teachers will be handed over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have the greatest doubt whether that is in line with the arguments which have been deployed by hon. Members opposite today, and I wonder whether, even in the Government's own interest, we should pass this Money Resolution. I think that we should ask the Government to think again. We have had a general debate upon teachers this afternoon, and we can have quite a sensible discussion upon the best way to run a retirement pension scheme in this debate upon the Money Resolution.

10.30 p.m.

One other thing remaining, however, is that, for no conceivable reason at all, the Government have chosen to inflict this token reduction in teachers' salaries at this time, and that is why we on this side of the Committee are predominantly so bitterly and irrevocably opposed to the Bill, and why I am opposed to this Money Resolution, unless it means what it says, that it is in a sense a confession by the Government that all the rest has been shadow boxing and talk, and out of mere habit they have slipped this in. The Government have imposed this token reduction in their salaries, but if they really meant that in all their schemes for retirement pensions in the future they wanted to accept the real facts of the situation as summed up in this Money Resolution, then I begin to wonder whether, although bitterly opposed to the Bill, I ought not perhaps to abstain from voting on this Resolution.

Mr. G. Thomas

I intervene in this debate only because the Money Resolution could have a terribly cramping effect upon the Amendments which we shall seek to put forward during the Committee stage of the Bill. We have been assured earlier by the Minister and by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that certain suggestions made from this side of the Committee, and I believe from the other side, in the course of the Second Reading debate, could be considered in Committee. I am anxious, because I feel that paragraph 1 (1, d) of the Resolution will make it impossible for us to seek to advance a scheme for widows' and orphans' benefit with additional benefit on the additional contributions. If that is so, then we realise how much airy-fairy nonsense there is in the Government saying, "We believe in a pension scheme, but you cannot have it yet."

I want to know whether the Money Resolution will prevent the concession for which I asked the Minister earlier, that young teachers who are called up for National Service training, and who will therefore be two years short in their claim for pension, from being dealt with in Committee on the Bill. The Government must let us know these things, because if the Money Resolution is framed so badly that we cannot do what we want during the Committee stage of the Bill, then we ought to vote against this Resolution tonight. The Committee stage will be farcical if this Money Resolution prevents our seeking these concessions on behalf of practising teachers. This Money Resolution is unusual in that it does not name a global amount. It is worded widely, I believe, but I hope that the items to which I have referred will not be ruled out if it is accepted by the Committee.

There is one further question to which I wish to refer, and that is pension being paid monthly to teachers instead of quarterly. That might well mean a certain additional cost to the Ministry of Education. I do not say it need do, but that appears to be the argument advanced by the Ministry. If this Money Resolution is accepted, will it be impossible for us, in the Committee stage of the Bill, to seek to amend the Bill in a way which will enable pension to be paid monthly? Further, will it be possible for us to ensure that all contributory service is counted fir pensionable service?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State called these little points. Of course, all points are little, except to the people concerned, to whom they are very big. These are points of major interest to the teaching profession, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education will be able to say a few words on them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I am not sure whether there should not be two Money Resolutions before the Committee. Certainly I have not been convinced that I should support this Money Resolution until we have had a much clearer explanation of how far it applies to education in Scotland. The Scottish Education Estimates are considered by the Scottish Grand Committee, and I submit that there is point in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that Part II of the Bill should be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee. It should be remembered that in Scotland we have our own education system.

The provisions of the Money Resolution are rather involved and intricate. In fact, the financial provisions of the Bill relating to Scotland are so confused that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) did not understand them, and I understand that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has gone home in complete confusion.

The provisions in this Money Resolution are such that, so far as they relate to Scotland, they need to be considered in great detail by the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why the Scottish Grand Committee was set up. As the Scottish Grand Committee considers education in Scotland, I submit that the present Money Resolution should be withdrawn and replaced by two Resolutions, so that one relating to Scotland may be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)

The Scottish Grand Committee was not set up at all to consider matters of finance. It was set up originally, about fifty or sixty years ago, to consider Bills which had received a Second Reading in this House.

The Chairman

Order. That is nothing to do with the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Hughes

I am sure that the hon. Member's intervention adds strength to my argument that a Money Resolution relating to Scottish education should be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Estimates for Scottish education are examined in detail in that Committee, and that a whole day is allocated for their consideration?

I hope that we shall be able to resume this debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I think it will be generally agreed that Parts I and II of the Bill should receive very careful consideration, and I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who understands the complexities of this matter, to give us an assurance that he will earnestly consider remitting to the Scottish Grand Committee Part II of the Bill, which has had such inadequate and scant consideration in the House today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper)

Like the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), who has now left the Chamber, I had no opportunity of making a speech in the Second Reading debate, but I have no intention of working my Second Reading speech off in this Committee. I am aware that I may not anticipate the Committee stage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) thought that a statement should be made by the Government, but I think he would agree that, if any questions are raised on the Money Resolution, it is customary for them to be dealt with.

The terms of this Money Resolution are comparatively lucid and, I assure the Committee, will permit reasonable amendment of the Bill. The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) said he failed to understand the terms of it, but I hardly—

Mr. Parkin

I think they are extremely plain, but I could not see what relevance they bore to the discussion we had this afternoon. It seemed that the Money Resolution merely says that we affirm that the pensions scheme shall be paid for out of moneys provided by Parliament and that any money we get from the teachers is to be thrown into the general kitty.

Mr. Vosper

The terms of the Money Resolution cover the terms of the Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading. I do not think the Committee wishes me to detail those terms to any extent. The only relevant point is in paragraph 1 (d), to which reference was made by the hon. Members for Islington, East and Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It covers Clause 8 of the Bill, which enables my right hon. Friend to establish a scheme for widows, orphans and dependants in return for a reduction of the teachers' lump sum or death gratuity. It also covers Clause 9.

The point which both hon. Members put to me was whether it would cover a second scheme, as desired by the teachers' associations, and as raised in the Second Reading debate. I am always loath to disappoint the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, but I have to inform him that the answer is in the negative. It would not be in order for me to repeat the arguments advanced on the Second Reading, but the scheme is not possible at this moment. It is not part of the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading and therefore I am advised that it is not covered by the Money Resolution.

A scheme of that nature would involve an entirely new principle and a heavy charge on the Exchequer. For those reasons it is obviously not possible to include it within the terms of the Resolution. My right hon. Friend said in the earlier debate that he would continue his efforts to find a way but that he could not see his way to include it in the Bill. That, I am afraid, is the answer to the question.

10.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised one or two other points. He asked me whether the counting of contributory service to include part years would be covered by the Money Resolution so as to be capable of amendment in Committee. I am informed that the Money Resolution covers that particular point. He also asked whether the buying-in of service, to cover National Service, for instance, would be covered, but the Money Resolution does not cover that aspect, which is rather wider than just the issue of National Service. I am advised that the Bill and the Money Resolution do not cover that issue.

The hon. Member asked, as I thought he would, about quarterly pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart) did, in the closing sentences of his speech, refer to this issue and say that my right hon. Friend would be looking into it, but he did not have the opportunity of saying that it entails making about 900,000 payments a year in place of the present 300,000. I think that all hon. Members will appreciate that that would involve considerable increase in staff, and an additional charge on the Exchequer. I do not think that I can hold out any great hope that any easy solution will be found. For that reason, at the moment, the Money Resolution would not cover an Amendment to enable that to be done, but I can assure the Committee that, should my right hon. Friend find a solution, a suitable Money Resolution would be moved at the appropriate time.

I should like to assure the Committee that there is no intention of restricting debate in the Committee stage of the Bill, but regard must be had to public expenditure. Nothing, therefore, which is not as a matter of principle included in the Bill can be included in this Resolution. It does—as I hope the hon. Member for Islington, East will agree—measure up to the requirements stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in a similar debate a fortnight ago. I think he will find that, in respect of its main Clauses and principles, it is capable of reasonable amendment.

The House, three-quarters of an hour ago, gave a Second Reading to the Bill to restore solvency to the superannuation scheme for teachers. I hope that, on this less controversial issue, the Committee will pass the Money Resolution and enable the many benefits which are in the Bill to be implemented.

Mr. Willis

This Money Resolution, when passed, will apply to England and Scotland. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government intend to send the very large section of it which deals with Scotland to the Scottish Grand Committee?

The Chairman

The Minister cannot answer that; it does not concern us now at all.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

The Committee is indebted to hon. Members who have put pertinent questions, and to the Parliamentary Secretary whose replies, if not always congenial, were always clear and lucid. I think he will agree that, in the end, the decision as to what this Money Resolution means, and what Amendments will be in order, will rest with the Chairman of the Standing Committee. The utmost the Government can do is to tell us in good faith what they believe the Resolution means. It does not necessarily follow that their view will prove to be correct.

Although I do not at present wish to develop the argument, the wording of paragraph (1, d), would not appear to support quite so narrow an interpretation as that suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary but we are glad to have his assurance that, in general, it is not the Government's intention to try to restrict debate and that scope will be given for reasonable Amendments to the Bill. There may be the usual differences of opinion as to what a reasonable Amendment is, but that always happens.

In view of that, I think the Committee would be right to approve the Money Resolution. Much as we dislike the main principle embodied in the Bill, the House having decided that principle, we now have to recognise that some of the minor Clauses of the Bill which contain advantages to teachers could not have effect unless this Resolution were carried. That being so, I trust that the Committee will approve it.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow.