§ (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—
§ The expression "workman" means any person of the age of eighteen or upwards employed wholly or mainly by way of manual labour, who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether the contract is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing, and in relation to a person whilst unemployed means a person who, when employed, fulfilled the conditions aforesaid;
§ Contributions made by an employer on behalf of a workman shall be deemed to be contributions by the workman;
§ Two periods of unemployment of not less than two days each, separated by a period of not more than two days, or two periods of unemployment of not less than one week each, separated by an interval of not more than six weeks, shall be treated as a continuous period, and the expression "continuously unemployed" shall have a corresponding meaning;
§ Temporary work provided by a central body or distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, or towards the provision of which any such central body or distress committee has contributed under that Act, shall not be deemed to be employment in an insured trade.
§ (2) This Part of this Act shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown to whom this Act would apply if the employer were a private person, except to such of those workmen as are serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown, subject, however, to such modifications as may be made therein by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions of this Part of this Act to the case of such workmen.
§ Mr. T. E. HARVEYI beg to move the first part of the Amendment standing in my name—to leave out the words "of the age of eighteen or upwards."
That raises the question of boy labour. It may be said that we are dealing 1989 with trades in which the problem of boy labour is not very acute, inasmuch as they are not blind-alley trades, but I maintain that, as this is the beginning of a scheme which will no doubt be extended to other trades, we hope at an early date, it is exceedingly important we should begin in the right way and not neglect the question of juvenile labour. If we are to exempt altogether from payment all persons under the age of eighteen, we may certainly be offering an inducement to blind-alley labour of youths and boys. We shall be doing that by the financial inducement which would not be a large one in the case of big firms, but which might make a considerable difference in less desirable firms. Apart from the economic question, there is the interest of the boys to be considered, and I submit that under this schedule of trades there is a real problem of youthful employment. Anyone who thinks that the engineering trade is free from what may be described as blind-alley occupations would be convinced otherwise by reading the memorandum of Mr. Tawney in a volume of the consultative committee of the Board of Education dealing with Continuation schools. An enquiry into the conditions in Glasgow shows that there is a considerable amount of unemployment there because of the blind-alley work for boys in the engineering trade. The District Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers is quoted in support of that view.
I think anyone who understands the question of boy labour must know of many individual cases of great hardship where youths who have been engaged in these particular trades have been thrown out of work through one cause or another, sometimes through the moving or failure of their employer's firms, and have been left stranded between the ages of eighteen and nineteen. That is just the time when discouragement has a very great effect on a boy's future, and when a boy might get into slack ways and take up some casual work, whereas if he could hold on a little longer, he might have kept in the skilled trades. It is important that a boy, if he falls out of work between the age of eighteen and nineteen, should have some reserve to his credit in the Fund. I am not in favour of paying out a large sum, if any, before the age of eighteen. I should prefer to see no payment before that age, and allow the reserve to accumulate for the benefit of the boy after the age of eighteen. I would strongly emphasise the point that boys under eighteen should not 1990 be left outside the Fund, and that they should be given an opportunity of accumulating this reserve which will be very valuable to them at the critical time of their lives, if they get thrown out of work.
§ The CHAIRMANIn order to save the manuscript Amendment handed n by the President of the Board of Trade, the question I have to put is "That the words 'of the age of' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. HOAREI hope the Committee will give this amendment its close attention. It is a very important amendment, but at the same time I cannot deny that it raises a considerable number of difficulties. In the first place, if you bring young persons into the scope of the Bill, you will be asking their parents to pay a very high contribution, 2½d. per week for a kind of labour that is only slightly remunerative. Added to that, you will be asking young persons or their representatives to pay contributions when, as we all know, the conditions of boy labour, up to the age of nineteen or twenty, are such that a boy is very seldom unemployed. He would therefore be paying a high contribution, and, at any rate, for the immediate present, he would be receiving no benefit, and, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, these particular groups of trades are trades which, on the whole, it is not a bad thing that a boy should enter at a comparatively early age. I am told, for instance, that in the building trade, at any rate in London, there are too few boys at the present moment engaged, and it would be a very good thing if there were more boys in it. I cannot speak from experience of the other branches of the insured trades, but I am told that in many of them the same thing applies. But, at the same time, if we allowed the Bill to become law in its present form, we should be putting a direct premium on boy labour in other trades when the scope of the insured trades comes to be extended, and in trades in streets I should think we all desire that there should be as little boy labour as possible. For it stands to reason that if boys, or their representatives, are not asked to make any contributions at all, it will be to the advantage of the employer to get as much boy labour as ever he can.
We must therefore keep in mind that the Board of Trade will, in all probability, extend the scope of the Bill and bring in other trades in which we do not want to encourage boy labour in any shape or 1991 form. Then there comes the question: Supposing we cut out the words as proposed, at what age should we allow boys to come within the scope of the Bill? Should it be sixteen or should it be fourteen? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment dealing with that point, and I therefore will not argue it in the few regarks that I am making now. But it is an important point, and further, there are the additional points, whether if boys do come in, shall we require them to pay the contributions, or shall we remit the whole or some of the contributions, and if we do not remit the contributions, shall we allow them to be aggregated, and say, at the age of eighteen or twenty, or whatever age you may like, allow the boy to obtain larger and more extended benefits under the Bill when he reaches the time at which, as we all know, he is very liable to become a casual labourer, or to become unemployed during the years between twenty and thirty? I own that my mind is not made up upon those points, but I do think on the whole that the weight of argument is in favour of bringing young persons into the scope of the Bill. I own, as I have said, that a case can be made out against it, particularly with the present three groups of trades, but at the same time, in view of the fact that the Bill will undoubtedly be extended in the future, I do think that it would be wise to pass the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite, and also one of the subsequent Amendments dealing with the earlier age.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies to this, I should like to put the case of the textile workers in Yorkshire and Lancashire, as to what their position is under this Clause, and as to how it will be affected by the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has just moved. Under Clauses 79 and 80 of this Bill, a tremendous number of trade unions will commence to pay unemployed benefit who have not hitherto done so, and who take into their societies boys and girls as soon as they enter the mills, and these boys and girls from the age of, say, fifteen years get on to mind machinery at the same rate of wages as adults receive. It is all on the same basis of payment. That applies to Lancashire as well as Yorkshire, and there are a tremendous number of them. Under the 1992 first part of this Clause, I should like to know what their position is, and I think at any rate the least that can be done with regard to this would be for the Government to make it explicit that they will get the one-sixth of any unemployed benefit that may have been paid on their behalf under Clause 80. If not, an injustice will be done to these young persons when they are thrown out of work, and they are earning as much as their fathers and mothers. At eighteen, in the textile trade, there are hundreds and thousands of them earning over a sovereign a week, and, indeed, hundreds of them at seventeen, and it would be a pity if these young persons who show dexterity and ability of working to that extent, should be deprived of any proportion of the unemployed benefit.
Mr. BUXTONPerhaps I might deal with that point first, because it is rather apart from the general question of the juveniles. As the Bill now stands with the figure of eighteen in it, any one of the age of eighteen or above will come under the provisions of the two last Clauses that we have passed, and similarly if we reduce the age from eighteen to sixteen, they will come under the definition of workman; therefore if the age is reduced to that extent the particular young person that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be able to come under the previous Clauses. Whatever age appears in the Act, these persons above that age will be workmen, and will therefore come under the previous provisions. As regards the general question which has been raised by my hon. Friend below, the Government have very carefully considered this matter. It has been one, as my hon. Friend opposite said, of considerable difficulty and complexity as to whether in Part II. of the Act we should take the age of eighteen or reduce it below that figure. In Part I., as I understand it, practically now the line will be drawn at sixteen, and that is a great argument, I think, for bringing the two into line in respect of this matter.
I admit the position is somewhat different as to giving the contributions and sick benefits under Part I. from that under Part II., but I think there is a good deal to be said for having the two parts on the same basis, and I may say, at once, therefore, that as regards this question, I propose to move an Amendment changing the age from eighteen to sixteen. As was stated by my hon. Friend, between those 1993 ages we do not want to give the employer any inducement to employ a young person at a more juvenile age than he otherwise would, and as the Bill stands at present between sixteen and eighteen he would have had the inducement of a 2½d. a week contribution, as well as, of course, the trouble of having his cards, and so on, which might in some trades induce the employer to employ a person at a lower age instead of eighteen and above. I do not think that would apply to the trades in question here, but I agree with my hon. Friend opposite, that as regards the particular trades in question, the ones that will be in the first instance under the Bill, are not very seriously affected in respect of this matter, but as we are proposing to bring in other trades, and undoubtedly if this Act is a success a very large number of trades from time to time will come under its provisions, either under Clause 77 or by an extension of the Act of Parliament, I think we ought to provide for it in the first instance, and not consider the matter merely as affecting the insured trades proposed at present.
In addition to that, I think I had better mention at once—because I think there will be general assent to it—my hon. Friend has put a further Amendment down, that in cases where the employer guarantees continuity of employment, these boys should be excluded from contribution either on their own part or on the part of the employer, because in those cases the employer is practically guaranteeing for a certain number of years continuity of employment. As regards the boy, I think we all agree that it is an advantage that he should at an early age be drawn into the paths of thrift and insurance, even if it is put compulsorily upon him, and I think there is a great deal of force in what fell from my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, that in the case of the boys who go into what are commonly called "blind alley" industries, it is just about the age between eighteen and twenty when they are very often cast adrift, and are moving from one trade to another, or whatever it may be, and they are just at an age when it might have been a great advantage that there should have been some accumulation for that boy which would have enabled him to tide over by giving him unemployed benefit during certain times. Assuming the principle is accepted, there comes the problem, and it is the most difficult question that we have to decide, how we should carry that out. Should this boy between sixteen 1994 and eighteen come under the main provisions of the Bill, and should he, or his employer, be called upon to contribute the full 2½d. in each case, and should the boy come under full benefits, or, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle and others, should there in this case be no contribution and no benefit received during those two years? We came to the conclusion on the whole that it would be more equitable and better that there should be contributions and benefits.
Then arose the further question, Should those contributions and benefits be those which are provided in the Bill for adults and persons of riper years, and looking into it from that point of view we came to the conclusion, in the first place, that it would throw a very heavy burden on the employer if, in the case of these juveniles, the full 2½d. contribution was exacted; it would amount to something like £50,000 a year after deducting the apprentices, and there is also the point made by the hon. Member for Chelsea with regard to the low wage a boy necessarily earns at that age, that it would be a serious burden on him, especially if he was living alone, or as is the fact in so many cases, being an integral part of the support of the family, and also as far as the boy is concerned, if you give full contributions, you obviously must give full benefits, and in the case of a boy between sixteen and eighteen the benefits proposed under the Bill would really very much conduce to malingering, because a boy would be able to subsist very comfortably on his 7s. a week, or at all events it would enable him to buy his cigarettes if he is above the legal age. It would be too largo an amount for the boy to receive to induce him to look about for employment.
Taking all that into account—of course these Amendments will go on the Schedule—the Amendment I am proposing is to reduce the age to eighteen. I had better inform the Committee first what we propose with regard to it. In the case of the employer and in the case of the juvenile, instead of asking for a contribution of 2½d. we propose to ask for a contribution of 1d. per week from them, and in regard to the boy himself that in his first year he should not receive any benefit. That is not the time he is likely to want it, and in his second year we propose he should receive a ½d. at any rate, and any balance which he might, during that period have accumulated. One hopes that in most cases he would have accumulated it all. That would go to his credit and be available for him either during the time 1995 I have mentioned, or at a later time, and supposing that a boy in that case, with 1d. contribution from the employer and the workman, and of course the equivalent State contribution had been employed for forty-five weeks in the first two years, when he came to eighteen years of age he would have a claim equivalent to thirty-six weeks' full contribution. Therefore either he would be in the position of drawing on that fund if he required it, or it would continue to go to his credit for the future. We believe that that will meet the real difficulty and reduce the inducement to the employer to employ a boy at a lower age. There will still be the 1d. contribution and the trouble of the cards, so that the inducement will be reduced to a minimum and really disappear. We think that the burden on the employer and on the juvenile himself would not be unduly heavy, and it would have the great advantage of giving the latter the accumulation of his benefit when the time of pressure came. It is a transition state which we desire to bridge over. If the Committee will accept the Amendment which I propose to move, reducing the age to sixteen, other Amendments will be required in the schedule, and we can then consider whether the proposal of the Government in regard to benefits and contributions is one to which the Committee can assent. I think the Committee generally are in favour of the reduction of the age. We have endeavoured to deal with the matter so as to be fair both to the employer and to the juvenile, and also to put the juvenile in a better position under the Bill than he would have been in if it had remained in its original form.
§ Mr. M'CALLUMI think we must all be satisfied with the statement now made by the President of the Board of Trade. If we look upon this question from the standpoint introduced by the Member for Leeds, one knows by experience that it is easy to get boy labour from fourteen onwards; but if a boy can earn 10s. at fourteen years of age and eventually get £1 at eighteen, there is a very great difficulty in getting that boy to leave at a sufficiently early age to learn a proper trade. I think the suggestion now made will help to rectify that difficulty. The boy will have something to encourage him to go away at sixteen to get into a proper trade instead of being a labourer at eighteen and finding that he cannot get more than a labourer's wage because he is too old to go to a proper trade. That is one of the difficulties which 1996 will be an advantage if we can remedy it. The contribution of 1d. will be quite within their power and many of them could pay more.
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move "That the Committee continue to sit after four o'clock." I hope the Committee will allow us to get the new Clauses, so that we can begin the schedules to-morrow.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENMay I at this stage raise a point in connection with the sittings of the Committee? The right hon. Gentlemen knows that it will be very inconvenient for Members on this side to be present to-morrow. We all expect to be somewhere else. I do not want in any way to interfere with the arrangements of the Government as regards the Bill, but if the Committee could sit on another day instead of to-morrow, it would be a great convenience, not to me personally, but to a large number of Members who really cannot attend to-morrow or Friday.
Mr. BUXTONI am afraid it is very difficult. I had suggested that the Committee should sit four days this week, but I think they would be prepared to finish in another day. Friday will probably be even more inconvenient than to-morrow. Would it meet the hon. Member's difficulty if we met at 11 o'clock to-morrow instead of 11.30? That would give us substantial time, I think, to finish the Amendments, and we should then have the Schedules to deal with, which we could probably do before we lost the pleasure of the hon. Member's company.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am not speaking for myself. I could be here until 2 o'clock, so that 11 o'clock would be convenient to me. But many of my hon. Friends cannot be here at all to-morrow.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThey are leaving London to-night or by an early train to-morrow and could not possibly be here. I would not interpose any difficulty in the way of the Government's getting the remaining Clauses to-day. Is it not possible to take the Schedules and the new Clauses on Monday or Tuesday? I do not anticipate that they will take more than a day. As far as I am concerned I think we could undertake that they would not take more than a day.
Mr. BUXTONI am extremely anxious not to press the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will appreciate that we have done our best to meet the convenience of the Committee throughout. I think we really must finish the Bill this week, because of the Report stage. As the hon. "Member knows, we have several questions of some importance to consider, dealing with matters raised on both sides, and, as he can understand, we have had and shall have no opportunity of considering them until we are through Committee. I have looked very carefully through the Amendments that remain on the Schedule, and I do not think they raise any matters of great principle; therefore I hope he will allow us to sit to-morrow.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot stop you.
Mr. BUXTONI hope he will acquiesce in the suggestion that the Committee should sit to-morrow. I understand from the papers that there has been some political crisis which may interfere with the attendance of hon. Members here, and I very much regret that there should be any inconvenience; but if the Committee agree we will meet at eleven o'clock.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really wants to take the new Clauses to-day. Many of us have been sitting here pretty regularly, and it will be extremely inconvenient to me personally, at any rate, if the new Clauses are taken to-day. I have an engagement from which I cannot escape at 4.30, but perhaps he could take only Government clauses.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has done his very best to meet us, and I quite appreciate his difficulty. I suggest that we should finish the Clauses to-day and the new Clauses, and meet at 11 o'clock to morrow.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLThe Government's new Clauses?
§ Mr. DENMANI do not think we want unnecessarily to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. We are grateful for the concession made to us, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of us who feel very strongly on this matter, and although the condition of boy labour in these particular 1998 trades is relatively satisfactory, we view with some alarm the possibility of extending the Act to other trades. If the President will undertake to insert some provision allowing the Board of Trade to reduce the age under Clause 77, if it is recommended in a special order, I think we should be prepared without further discussion to accept his suggested Amendment with some gratitude. Otherwise I am afraid we must resist the insertion of sixteen and adhere to our Amendment.
Mr. BUXTONI can only say that if my hon. Friend puts down an Amendment to that effect I will carefully consider it. I do not propose to put it down myself, but it is a matter for consideration, and if he puts the Amendment on the paper I will consider it. I cannot give any promise about it.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'of the age of' stand part of the Clause."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, proposed by Mr. Buxton, is to leave out the word "eighteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "sixteen." I think the Committee have already discussed the question of "eighteen" and "sixteen." I permitted a very general discussion on the understanding that the whole question was being gone into.
§ Mr. HARVEYThe President of the Board of Trade was the first in the discussion to mention the age of sixteen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, is the only person who has spoken since, so that there can scarcely have been a general discussion on that point. I would ask that we should hear a little more of the opinions of the Committee as to the possibility of carrying out the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and whether when the Act is extended to other trades it may be possible for the Board of Trade in a Special Order to make arrangements for reducing the age.
§ Mr. HOAREI am most grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for the alteration that he has made in the Bill. I feel certain that he is fully conscious of this, that when the Act comes to be extended to other trades, it may be necessary to reduce the age of sixteen to the age of fourteen, or the age of exemption from attendance at a voluntary school. I am quite contented with the assurance he has given that he will favourably consider any Amendment that might tend to 1999 carry out that idea. I do not propose my Amendment to reduce the age to fourteen, although I still think fourteen would be better, but in the meantime I am prepared to rest satisfied with the concession the President of the Board of Trade has made.
§ Mr. DENMANI think it is a little hard on the Committee that, although these Amendments have been down for some time on the Paper, we are now, at the last moment, confronted with an Amendment to substitute the age of sixteen without any possibility of considering it adequately. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, we have no definite assurance that he will take power to reduce the age when the scheme is extended to other trades.
Mr. BUXTONWhat I said was, that if my hon. Friend, or any of those interested, desire to raise that point, and put it down in the form of an Amendment, I will give it very careful consideration, but I cannot pledge myself at the present time to undertake to accept it. It is quite clear that the stage at which it must necessarily come forward is on Report, because we have passed Clause 77, under which it would come.
§ Mr. HOAREAs I understand the Bill the Board of Trade will be enabled to make certain modifications. Would the reduction of the age from sixteen to fourteen in certain branches of trade be one of those modifications that the Board of Trade could make without any special Amendment of the Bill?
Mr. BUXTONNo. In Clause 77, we put in modifications of rates, contributions and benefit. I think it must be raised as a clear issue. I am quite prepared to consider it as a clear issue on the Report stage.
§ Mr. LEACHI want to express my sincere gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade for changing the age from eighteen to sixteen, and to express my concurrence with all that has been said about discouraging boy labour. We should serve the interests of the boys and of the Nation by keeping them at school as long as possible. At the same time, I have in mind those parents, and I say this without meaning offence, who are victims of economic circumstances, and are obliged to look upon their children to contribute towards the family income. At 2000 the same time, we should consider the welfare of the children, and I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for reducing the age to sixteen.
Amendment made: Leave cut the words "of the age of eighteen or upwards," and insert instead thereof the word "sixteen."—[Mr. Buxton.]
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle seems to be covered. He proposes to leave out "of the age of eighteen or upwards." "Eighteen" has been left out, and "sixteen" inserted.
§ Mr. DENMANThe rest of my Amendment, which is to insert "other than an indentured apprentice," is still outside the Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is in order if the hon. Member for Carlisle desires to move it, but the right hon. Gentleman says he has Amendments carrying out the objects of this Amendment which he proposes to move immediately.
§ Mr. DENMANI did not understand there was a subsequent Amendment to meet this.
§ Mr. DENMAN"Other than apprentice" are the words I propose to insert.
§ Mr. J. WARDMake it "indentured apprentice," as you have it in your Amendment on the paper.
Mr. BUXTONI think it is better to leave out the words "or apprenticeship," and afterwards to insert "but does not include indentured apprentice."
§ Mr. DENMANI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HOAREThat is the Amendment standing in my name. I am glad to find that the President of the Board of Trade will accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HOAREThe next Amendment that stands in my name raises the point of the indentured apprentices, and I am glad to think the President of the Board of Trade is going to meet the Committee on that point. It also raises a further point. I am 2001 anxious that even where there is not a legal apprenticeship indenture, favourable treatment should be given where the Board of Trade is satisfied that the boy is being educated and instructed in the principles of his trade, and that that trade is a permanent and regular trade and not a "blind alley" one. I quite acknowledge that the extension would be difficult to define, but, at the same time, I do want the Board of Trade to be empowered to give favourable treatment to such cases where the boy really is being properly instructed in his trade, although there may not be a legal indenture. I therefore beg to move after the word "employer" ["apprenticeship with an employer"] to insert the words "except a duly indentured apprentice or a workman under the age of eighteen employed in such a manner as to satisfy the Board of Trade that he is being instructed in the principles and practices of a regular trade."
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. Member for Chelsea has taken so close and sincere an interest in this part of the Bill, that I am sure the Committee is very much obliged to him, but I suggest to him that what he is now proposing goes too far in one direction, and not far enough in another. To take the employer's point of view first, it really does not give to the employer from one point of view all that it seems fair to give him. The Government proposal would be not merely that you exclude from the obligation to contribute in respect of young persons under eighteen, who are apprentices, but of a higher age. I cannot see any reason why the employer should not have the benefit of the exemption for the period of the apprenticeship deed. Then the hon. Member proposes that we should extend the privilege in the case of young persons not under any apprenticeship deed at all, but who satisfy some vague conditions. Here the lawyer comes in, and you have to make up your mind when you are dealing with a person under twenty-one, if you want to bind that young person so that there is a binding contract, which he can insist on, and his employer, you must have an apprenticeship deed, and there is no means known to the law by which you can make a bargain which binds a person under the age of twenty-one to a contract of service, unless it be under deed any more than you can bind an undergraduate to pay for his fancy waistcoats except under deed. Therefore I am afraid we cannot extend it to anything except to apprenticeship deeds, and in extending it 2002 to apprenticehip deeds, I propose that the employer should be given the benefit of it whether the workman is under eighteen or not.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEI think I realise that the object of the hon. Member for Chelsea is to give the power to an employer to allow his youths to attend technical classes if they like. I think that is at the back of the Amendment.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEThat is my chief argument in supporting the contention advanced by the hon. Member. By a benevolent compulsion you wish to give general encouragement to the employer to let his apprentices get that training by its being to his advantage to do so. A direct encouragement given to young persons to qualify themselves fully in their occupation, and to employers to encourage and allow them to attend these classes, is the kind of thing I would gladly see carried out, and, if possible, made statutory by this Bill.
§ Mr. J. WARDI must certainly support the view of the Solicitor-General in reference to this proposition. We have got enough half-baked workmen about at the present time as it is, without trying to increase the number by Act of Parliament, because that seems to be what the result of this Amendment would be if it was carried. Without these words, there is nothing to prevent an employer giving an opportunity to a lad to attend technical schools—in fact, plenty of enterprising lads, whether the employer likes it or not, do attend technical schools, and sometimes become thoroughly accomplished in trades in which they are not actually employed, and I think you only ought to recognise exemptions in the case of apprentices properly indentured. You could not have an age limit for that, because up to sixteen or seventeen, the boy may be apprenticed for four, five or six years, as the case may be, and, therefore, you would go long beyond the age of eighteen, and where the employer is prepared to give an indenture of apprenticeship to a lad, and promises to teach him thoroughly his trade, I think he ought to be exempted, as far as possible, from the duties and responsibilities under the Act. I think it is a very good proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to insist upon indentured apprenticeships, and to facilitate and even help the employer who is prepared to execute indentures.
§ Mr. HOAREI fully recognise the difficulties in the way of the extension of this Amendment, and beg to withdraw it. Should I be in order in moving the first sentence of it?
§ Sir. J. SIMONIt will not be necessary, because we are going to deal with that later.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BUXTONI move, at the end of the Clause to insert the words "but does not include an indentured apprentice."
I think that meets the general views of the Committee, although it does not quite meet my hon. Friend. May I just thank the Committee for the very kind reception they have given to the proposals of the Government in this matter.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: After the word "period" ["treated as a continuous period"] insert the words "of unemployment."—[Mr. Buxton.]
Mr. BUXTONI beg to move at end of Sub-section (1) to insert,
A workman shall not be deemed to be unemployed whilst he is following any remunerative occupation on his own account.A workman shall not for the purposes of contributions be deemed to be employed in any period in respect of which he receives no remuneration from his employer notwithstanding that he continues during such period in his employment.
§ Mr. GOLDMANIn considering this Amendment, might I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give some explanation of the Sub-section itself, which is not perfectly clear to me? Am I to understand that a man who has been in an insured trade loses his employment and does not come on the unemployed fund, but receives and accepts temporary work under the central body, and when that work is completed he again is out of employment, I should like to know whether during the period be is so out of employment he is to receive any contribution?
§ Sir J. SIMONPerhaps I may just give the hon. Gentleman the explanation he 2004 asks. The Committee will see that we are really dealing with two matters. The question which has just been put deals with the first of them. The second part of the proposed Amendment deals with a separate point that I will refer to in a moment. Take the first of the two parts of the Amendment. It provides that a workman shall not be deemed to be unemployed whilst he is following any remunerative occupation on his own account. It is necessary to have some such provision, or else, every workman, who has hitherto been working for an employer, and who gives his work up and sets up on his own account, would be within the definition of the Bill unemployed, because we describe him as employed or unemployed according as he is, or is not working under contract with somebody else, and, therefore, we must stop that hole in the Act. But while we want to do that, there are probably cases where a merely trifling occupation for quite unimportant periods ought not to be regarded as disqualifying a man from coming on the Fund. Our general view is this, and if the Committee agree we will endeavour to carry it out on the Report. We think that if a man is claiming money from the Fund, and is at the same time following a remunerative occupation in an insured trade, be really is not entitled to come on the Fund at all.
On the other hand cases may be expected to arise where a man is out of his work in his own trade, who claims to go on the Fund, and is entitled to do so. We think it would be very hard that he should lose his right to the Fund merely because he gets some casual and slight employment quite outside his ordinary work. Supposing it is election time, he may get half a day's work carrying round sandwich boards. It would be very hard to deprive a man of unemployment benefit simply because he was engaged in that extremely remunerative occupation. Therefore, when we come to the report stage, what we suggest would be to qualify the provision to this extent. We would go on to provide in effect that a workman who was engaged in an occupation outside his insured trade and was not earning in the week from that occupation more than the amount of the unemployment benefit should not on that account be treated as disentitled to unemployment benefit. The maximum case would be that of a man getting 7s. from unemployment benefit and it might be 7s. from casual work. I think the Committee will see that that is fair. To save time I 2005 will explain the second proposal. The second part is designed to provide for a case where a workman remains in the employment of his employer for, let us say, a week when he takes a holiday, and when he does no remunerative work. For instance, in Lancashire there is a customary holiday of a week at Whitsuntide. During that week it would certainly not be reasonable to ask that the employer or that the workmen should pay contributions, for the latter does not get any wages. But though he does not get any wages, he none the less might be regarded as being in the employment of his employer. It is for that reason we put in the second provision. Both provisions are designed to carry out the general intentions of the Committee.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI think we are all agreed that these provisions are a great improvement on the Bill, and personally I shall support them.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made,
§
At the end of Sub-section (1), insert at the end of the Amendment last inserted the words:—
(2) In determining any question as to whether any trade in which a workman is or has been employed is an insured trade, regard shall be had to the nature of the work in which the workman is engaged rather than to the business of the employer by whom he is employed.—(Mr. Buxton.)
§ Mr. HOAREI beg to move, after Sub-section (2), to insert,
(3) This Part of this Act shall only apply to workmen employed by or under the London County Council in the same manner and to the same extent as it applies to workmen employed by or under the Crown, and accordingly it shall be subject to such modifications as may be made therein by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions thereof to the case of such workmen.
I cannot help thinking that in justice workmen in the insured trades who are on the permanent establishment of the London County Council should be treated in exactly the same manner as workmen on the permanent establishment of Government Department. The Amendment does not refer to a large number of workmen. There are not a very great number, at any 2006 rate in the insured trades, on the permanent establishment of the County Council. But I think it would be altogether illogical that in regard to those who are on the permanent establishment you should ask for contributions under this Bill. They are in every way in the same position as the workmen on the establishment of Government Departments. Their employment is regular, they cannot be unemployed, and they get pensions. Therefore I hope these words will be inserted.
Mr. BUXTONIn principle and substance we are in accord with the hon. Member. That is to say, that where under a local authority there is an employé under contract of service which renders him eligible for a pension and, therefore, practically guarantees him perpetuity of employment, he should come under the same provisions as men in the service of the Crown. The words proposed are somewhat cumbersome, and I think the matter ought to be dealt with when defining "workmen." If the hon. Member will rest content with that assurance, we will on Report put in words at the proper place to meet his objection.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENBeing a member of the London County Council, I was interested in this Amendment. We have a certain number of men who would come under the Clauses of this Bill, but who are on the establishment, in absolutely regular employment, get pensions, and so on. They ought certainly to be dealt with in the manner suggested. The only point is whether we ought to limit the proposal to the London County Council. There may be other large authorities who have men in a similar position. As far as I am concerned, I accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. PRICEWill that apply to all corporations? We have men in similar employment in Edinburgh. It would not do to limit the proposal to the London County Council.
Mr. BUXTONI can quite understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite should think that the London County Council was the only important body, but there are a few other small towns like Glasgow and Edinburgh where similar conditions obtain. We shall certainly propose for the goose what we apply to the gander.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENWhich is which?
Mr. BUXTONThe proposal would be that where employees are under contract of service which entitles them to pension and give them a guarantee of perpetuity of employment they should be excluded. The only reason I cannot accept the Amendment is in connection with the drafting, but on Report I will bring up any necessary words.
§ Mr. HOLTThe right hon. Gentleman will realise the great competition there will be amongst towns to be reckoned as geese in consequence of what has been promised. He ought really to include all public authorities.
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not arise on the present Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI want to say a word in reference to the subject we have just been debating. I hope the Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade, when they are carrying out of the promise which they have just given, will be very careful, for these bodies carry out large public works where men are engaged only temporarily. They may be engaged a few years—four or five years, as the case may be. I want to see these men safeguarded, otherwise they are going to be excluded from the Act, if they happen to work under public authorities.
Mr. BUXTONThe men I had in mind are those who are pensionable, and are, therefore, in receipt of a perpetual salary. I am not putting the Amendments down now because we are anxiovs to have them carefully drafted on Report.
§ Mr. PETOBefore we leave this Clause, I should like to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to introduce some words in his Amendment which will define what remunerative employment is. That seems exceedingly wide and vague.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Member was not present when we discussed this point. The Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government explained what we proposed to do if the hon. Member would kindly read the report, and if on reading it he is not satisfied, I should be very glad to have his views.
§ Question put, and agreed to.