HC Deb 01 March 1956 vol 549 cc1352-3

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

28. Mr. G. THOMAS

To ask the Minister of Education, whether he will issue a White Paper concerning the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to a widows', orphans' and dependents' pension scheme for teachers.

Mr. Thomas

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I ask the Question, may I ask for your guidance? This Question was in the first instance addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who decided that it would be better if the Minister of Education answered it. I then withdrew the Question and addressed it to the Prime Minister, who thought that it would be better if the Minister of Education answered. I then decided that perhaps it would be better if the Minister of Education answered the Question; but in view of the fact that it is the vagaries of the Minister involving other Departments that I desire to question, what recourse is open to me in order to get this Question put to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker

It is for Ministers themselves to say which Minister should answer Questions addressed to them. The best advice I can give to the hon. Member is that he should ask his Question and listen to the Answer.

Sir D. Eccles

The Answer is, No, Sir. I made a full statement on this subject during the discussions on the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. The Government consider, and I fully agree with the decision, that the financial repercussions of a scheme additional to that provided for in Clause 8 of the Bill and to which employers would contribute, cannot be accepted at present.

Mr. Thomas

Is the Minister aware that the statement which he made during the Committee stage was completely different from the statement he made during the Second Reading debate? In view of the fact that the statement he made during the Committee stage has been thoroughly denied by the National Union of Teachers in a statement it has issued, does not the Minister think that he owes it both to himself and to the teachers to clear up the whole question?

Sir D. Eccles

The hon. Gentleman and, I regret to say, the National Union of Teachers have misrepresented very seriously what I said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. On Second Reading I made it perfectly clear that there were four circumstances: first, the local authorities objected to such a scheme, secondly, the Government sympathise with the local authorities; thirdly, my personal view was that a more generous scheme would have to come, but could not be got into the Bill; fourthly, I was prepared to try to negotiate an advance towards that scheme. When we came to the Standing Committee—if the hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory by looking in column 413 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see this—I was completely convinced that the financial repercussions of introducing such a scheme right across local authority employees were greater than could be borne at present.

Mr. M. Stewart

In view of the complaint of misrepresentation by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not help to clear up the matter if he adopted the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and published a White Paper containing in parallel columns his own view on this subject a few weeks ago and in December last, and the view of the Government on those two dates?

Sir D. Eccles

Any hon. Gentleman who chooses to study the OFFICIAL REPORT will see that there is no confusion at all. The confusion has arisen mainly because the National Union of Teachers saw fit to publish only part of my Second Reading speech, cutting out very important words.

Mr. Thomas

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.