CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT (Hansard, 3 November 1976)

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16 at end insert— '(3A) This Act shall expire on 1st March 1980, but may be further extended to 1st March 1982 by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament'. While many hon. Members accept the need for a Bill of this sort to try to help 1466 to deal with teacher unemployment, many in the profession and outside the House are unhappy about the way in which teachers' retirement age is shoved up and down according to teacher shortages.
The Bill should not be a permanent measure but should last only until 1980 with the possibility of an extension of a further two years by order. That is what the amendment proposes. Between now and then it would be possible for a proper survey to be conducted into the appropriate age for teacher retirement.
It is wrong for the ages to be put up and down depending on the employment situation. I hope that by imposing a date for the expiry of the Bill it will be possible to introduce more objective criteria for teacher retirement. If the economy improves and a Conservative Government are returned, there may be extra demands for teachers because we shall improve standards in our schools. We could be restricted by the Bill, which puts curbs on local authorities.
I hope that the Government will accept this sensible amendment, which will provide for more flexibility and time to consider the appropriate retirement age for teachers.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
I, too, am not very keen on this kind of Bill. I do not favour compulsory retiral dates. In the best ordered society people should be allowed to work for as long as they want and are able, and not be compelled to give up at a predetermined date. But I was more than puzzled by the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), not for the first time. He suggested that we should have a survey to establish objective criteria for when it would or would not be appropriate for teachers to retire. I do not believe that any such survey is possible, because I do not think that objective criteria exist. I do not want any more surveys than we already have.

§ Mr. McElhone
The one certain fact among the many matters disputed this afternoon is that we shall not have a Conservative Government for as long as anyone can foresee. That is evident from the Opposition's conduct, especially this afternoon.
1467 The amendment provides that the Bill should cease to have effect on 1st March 1980, though it might be continued to 1st March 1982 by an order approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is not acceptable because it would mean that after 1st March 1982, at the latest, there would be no statutory provisions governing the retirement of teachers employed by education authorities or by the managers of grant-aided schools.
Since the Second Word War there has been only a very short period—from 1st February 1969 to 1st August 1970—when there have been no statutory provisions about the retirement of teachers in Scotland. Provisions about such retirements were reintroduced in Section 16 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 following requests from the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association.
The amendment has probably been prompted by fears that the provisions of the Bill would no longer be appropriate if the present teacher unemployment should change back to a position of teacher shortage. Such fears are groundless. Although the Bill has been prompted by the recent change from a teacher shortage to a teacher surplus, the reduction of the retiring age of unpromoted teachers from 70 to 65 is in no way a temporary measure. The upper age of retirement for teachers in England and Wales is 65, and very few employees in the public sector in Scotland have any higher retiring ages.
Moreover, the drafting of the amendment is defective, because it makes no provision as to who should make the order which may be approved by Parliament. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
The Under Secretary has nut a convincing argument against the amendment, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. McElhone
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
I am glad that we had such a reasonable approach from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 1468 the last amendment. I hope that his colleague, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), will adopt a similar approach later. We should then soon get on with our business.
This amendment leaves out the conventional subsection added in another place to avoid questions of privilege. It is purely formal, and involves no issue of substance.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
We are glad that the Government accepted a major amendment removing what we had regarded as a real injustice in the Bill. We are glad that they accepted our arguments and extended the date for the coming into effect of the Bill from 1st January to 1st March.
I hope that the public, particularly unemployed teachers, will not expect too much of the Bill. Although it had been indicated that several hundred jobs might be involved, it is clear that many of those who are over 65 will not be retiring immediately, that some will not retire at all, and that some are not eligible for retirement. It is also clear that the removal of some, as they are part-timers, would not provide a full-time equivalent job. In those circumstances it is important that we should not wrongly raise the expectations of the unemployed teachers, and we are grateful for the Secretary of State's apology on the question of the figures.
It would have been helpful to have from the Under-Secretary an indication of how he saw the teacher employment position in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) said that he was very worried because estimates could always go wrong, and he asked whether forecasting could be improved. If the Government do not have a rough idea of what the effect of the Bill will be, it must be difficult for them to forecast.
1469 It was discouraging that the Under-Secretary said that the teacher surplus was likely to continue for a considerable time. Can he give us any indication of precisely what he meant by that? Can he give an assurance that the measures which we understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shortly to introduce will not result in additional teacher unemployment in Scotland?

§ Mr. McElhone
I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Although this is a small Bill, it is important. Many points have been made about how many teachers we can employ next session, but the important point is that the Bill is not just for one year. We hope that over the years it will help significantly in reducing teacher unemployment.
The Bill has been debated very fully. Whatever reservations the Opposition may have, we believe that it will help to bring unemployed young teachers into jobs. We have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is unemployed. We are taking steps to help young teachers and those who came under the special recruitment scheme.
I thank all those who took part in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State displayed his usual flexibility. I hope that the Opposition will accept his generous concession, made in response to the many requests from both sides of the House, as an indication of his attitude in trying to help the House in all matters concerning legislation. I hope that we can proceed as swiftly with the legislation with which we are to deal later today.