I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out paragraph (c).

This paragraph is entirely valueless so far as teachers are concerned. It provides that if a teacher is in contributory service when he is called up to do his period of National Service, his period of National Service will count for pensionable service. In point of fact, no teacher will be in contributory service when called upon to perform his period of National Service. The teacher does not come into contributory service until he has left college, and has become a qualified teacher. The Minister of Education has laid it down recently, by regulation, that intending teachers must do their period of National Service before entering college. The position outlined by this paragraph will, therefore, be as follows: that women, who do not have to do National Service, and men who have been rejected on physical or other grounds for National Service, will enter college at the age of 18, will leave at 20, and enter into contributory service.

At 60, they will have completed 40 years' service, and will be entitled to draw their full pension under the various Teachers' Superannuation Acts. But the young man who is accepted for National Service will not enter on that service, as the regulations are at: present, until he is 18 years and nine months old. He will not complete his National Service until he is 19 years and nine months old. There is bound to be a waiting period between the termination of his National Service and the time he enters college, so even in the best of circumstances the intending teacher who has done his period of National Service will not enter college until he is 20, perhaps 21 or, in some cases, 22. He will not have completed his 40 years' service until he is 61, 62 or 63. He will lose one, two, or three years' pensionable service as a result of the wording of paragraph (c) of this Clause.

Intending teachers are being penalised because they are tendering a National Service. I pointed this out at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill when, in reply to the arguments that were adduced, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education said: … inasmuch as I am responsible for the policy which has been entered upon, whereby young people take their training before they enter college, I am prepared to give an undertaking, at least, that the point will be looked into, and that we will see whether it cannot be dealt … with when we reach the Committee stage.… Inasmuch as women teachers form part of the superannuation scheme, unless something can be done to help forward this suggestion it might give rise to rancour between the sexes in the ranks of teachers, which is the last thing we want in the education service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 2327–3.] That seemed to be a definite assurance; at least, we so regarded it, and I was surprised to find, when the Committee stage was reached, that no Amendment embodying this assurance had been put down by the Minister of Education. Accordingly, my hon. Friends and I, on the Committee stage, moved another Amendment, asking that if a teacher had passed the qualifying examination for entrance to college before taking up his National Service, his period of National Service, and the waiting period between the termination of that service and entering college, should count for pensionable purposes. That seemed to be a reasonable Amendment and, again, we had an assurance from the Minister, who said: I ask my hon. Friends to withdraw the Amendment. I promise that it will receive further consideration between now and the Report stage.… I ask my hon. Friends to withdraw it, on the undertaking that between now and the Report stage we will see what can be done in the matter."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16th March, 1948; c. 6–7.] That was the second definite undertaking given by the responsible Minister. To our astonishment and sorrow, however, we did not see anything at all On the Order Paper which had been put down by the Minister of Education for this stage of the Bill. It looks very much like a breach of faith. I am not accusing my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, although he gave us two definite assurances. I am quite aware that both my right hon. Friends, like the assassins whose daggers stabbed Caesar, are honourable men. I rather suspect that they have done their best behind the scenes to give effect to the assurances which were made on two different occasions, and that there is some sinister influence, unknown to me and my hon. Friends, at work in this matter.

2.15 p.m.

We are entitled to have an explanation. We are entitled to know why teachers have been singled out for special penalisation. The rights of civil servants have been fully guarded. The Bill states that if a man has passed the examination for a Civil Service appointment before taking up National Service his period of National Service will be counted for pensionable purposes. Further, most local Government employees are safeguarded by the Bill, because they enter such employment at the age of 16, and come into contributory service before they go into National Service thereby satisfying the conditions laid down in Clause 1.

I and my hon. Friends, and teachers throughout the country, expect an explanation of the Government's action. There is nothing invidious in making this concession to teachers. It does not affect other bodies of men and women in the country. The ordinary industrial worker does not have to serve 40 years as a teacher does before he enjoys his full pension. He will enjoy it at the age of 65 if he has 10 years' contributions on his insurance card. I realise that it is now too late for anything to be done—