HC Deb 02 May 1934 vol 289 cc371-7

6.16 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from the second "to," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert : attend school unless there is some reasonable excuse. This and the two following Amendments which I shall move are substantially drafting Amendments. When we were in Committee the fear was expressed by more than one hon. Member that a child in a by-law area might not receive the same credit of contributions as the child in an area where the school-leaving age was 14. It was always the intention of the Bill that the crediting of contributions should begin at the age of 14 in all areas, and, in order to make sure that the intention is carried out, I am moving these Amendments. The second Amendment is consequential on an Amendment made in Committee to the application to Scotland Clause which was the old Clause 32. That Clause, as amended in Committee, would not require any consultation with the Scottish Education Department regarding the crediting of contributions. It is in order to ensure that when necessary we shall have such consultation that the Amendment is being proposed.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

We welcome these Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman referred to by-law areas, and I am not sure that the House conceives what that means. It means, I understand, that where local education committees have used their power to raise the school age to 15 the children will be in a position of being credited as they would be in other areas where the age is 14. We are glad the right hon. Gentleman has clarified this point, for it was a matter of doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made : In page 2, line 15, after "Education," insert "and the Scottish Education Department."

In line 17, leave out from "which," to "have," in line 20, and insert "the period of compulsory elementary instruction ends."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

6.20 p.m.

Mr. HICKS

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert : (4) For the purposes of this Section a legally indentured apprentice shall be deemed to be a person in receipt of whole time education. I hope the Minister will regard this Amendment sympathetically, because an excellent case can be made for it. The present position is that the employers of indentured apprentices are liable for the payment of contributions, but the appren- tices are not able to receive benefit any period of their apprenticeship. During recent years there has been a partial decay of the apprenticeship system. It is not possible to argue now the reasons for and against apprenticeship in this machine age, but there are a number of excellent arguments in favour of rescuing the system from further decay and possibly of restoring it to the position it once used to occupy. In many trades the decay has set in owing to the fact that those who have entered a trade have not had adequate training. The period and intensity of the training has been insufficient, and that has later reflected itself in the craftsman's skill. Industry is bearing a great responsibility, and, if it could be relieved of contributions when the apprentices are not entitled to receive any benefit, it would react favourably on the apprenticeship system. There is a tendency for employers, when they have to pay contributions for unemployment insurance for lads who will not be able to receive benefit, not to accept the responsibility for continuing them in employment, but rather to take them on under some sort of agreement as against an indentured apprenticeship.

I would ask the Minister to regard the training of craftsmen as education. It is not the type of training boys would receive at a training centre or camp, but it is a definite training in industry. The Government should encourage the restoration of the apprenticeship system, and they might do it by relieving employers of contributions in respect of indentured apprentices. I know there are instances in which lads have received an indenture for apprenticeship where the employer, owing to some reason or another, has gone out of business, and it may be argued that because of that possibility the Government are not able to accept my suggestion. I think, however, that the percentage of those who fail to meet their obligations to their apprentices is very low, and it might be possible to meet the position in other ways. It might be done by a rebate at the end of the year if the business has been carrying on unproductively, so that the apprentice would not receive any check in his education during the year. There may be other ways of meeting the difficulty, but, in any case, employers should be relieved of liability for contributions so long as the indenture is honourably carried out. In view of the fact that there has been a tendency for the apprenticeship system to go down and of the desirability of restoring it, I would urge the Government to do everything that they can to encourage it.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

When I first saw this Amendment I was not sure exactly what the hon. Member had in mind, but I now see from his speech that he would like us to consider exempting indentured apprentices from the payment of insurance contributions, and he would like us to regard apprenticeship as an alternative form of whole-time education. That is why he has suggested that contributions should be credited to an apprentice in the same way as they are credited to a child who remains voluntarily at school over the age of 14. I do not dissent from what he said about the desirability of encouraging apprenticeship, but I rather doubt whether this is the right way to go about it. It is not quite accurate to suggest that no apprentices get unemployment benefit. The only circumstances in which apprentices who are unemployed do not get benefit is when the indentures are so strictly drawn that the employer is under a definite obligation to pay an allowance to the apprentice. In the ordinary ease, an apprentice who falls out of work would be entitled to benefit. Therefore, to make the alteration suggested would not be in the best interest of apprentices generally. It might be in the interest of apprentices whose indentures do not allow of suspension but not in the interest of the majority of apprentices.

I would remind the hon. Member that apprentices have only been subject to-compulsory insurance since 1920. Before then contributions were not payable in respect of them, and one of the main reasons why they were included in the scheme was the widespread complaints on this point which were prevalent before 1920; and it was at the definite request of those interested in extending appreaticeship that apprentices were brought into the scheme. If that was the experience in the past, when apprentices were not insured, I am inclined to think that it would be a retrograde step now to expose them to the evils to which they were subject before 1920. I think the hon. Member will realise, although we both have the same object in view, that this Amendment would not achieve what he desires, and I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. HICKS

May I explain that I am distinguishing between the apprentice who is an indentured apprentice, with his employer accepting full responsibility for work or pay during the whole period of the indenture, and other apprentices who are working under an agreement rather than an indenture. I want to see a lad enter upon a period of systematic training, with the employer accepting responsibility for him, rather than that he should engage himself under the looser form of apprenticeship under which the employer temporarily engages him, calling it training, and discharges him when there is no work. Employers who accept the additional responsibilities which accompany indentured apprenticeship might be relieved from paying contributions when neither they nor the apprentices get any benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Does an employer pay for a boy if the boy is not eligible for benefit?

Mr. HUDSON

I will find out the answer to that question. I quite appreciate the distinction which the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) wishes to draw between ordinary apprenticeship and indentured apprenticeship, but it would put the Ministry of Labour in a very invidious position if we had to decide in each case whether the indenture was a satisfactory one or not. The Department would have to go into the question whether the employer would give the boy a proper training, and whether he was in a satisfactory position financially to carry out his contract for five years There would be a whole series of questions like that, and it is our opinion that we are not the proper Department to go into those matters.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

For another reason I want the House to be careful before accepting this Amendment. These legal indentures of apprenticeship are different from the ordinary agreements under which a boy is bound apprentice for a period, say, of five years, but which are frequently set aside should certain cir- cumstances arise. With a legal indenture the employer accepts responsibility for the period of the apprenticeship, and neither the boy nor the employer is allowed to break it except in the case of death, illness or the bankruptcy of the firm. One reason why I do not want exemption from paying insurance contributions in respect of these boys is that that would give the employer some sort of subsidy. Such apprentices would become a form of cheap labour. Apart from that, I am not in favour of the indenture system. It is a form of slavery. A father comes to an agreement with an employer to take his boy at the age of 16 to serve an apprenticeship to the trade for seven years. The boy is 23 before his time is up. The indenture is entered into when he is a boy, but before his time is up he is a man. The person who enters into the indenture is not the boy but his father. Long before he is 23 years of age the boy has a totally different idea of things, and very often rebels against the indenture. His parent has imposed on him at 16 what he regards, after he becomes a man, as a kind of slavery. My own trade has been concerned more than most trades with these apprenticeships and in many cases they have worked very harshly against the boy.

Another objection to this Amendment, in my view, is that if a boy enters into an indentured apprenticeship he will not have to pay insurance contributions, and that puts him at some advantage over the boy who is not indentured. Earlier in the proceedings to-day we have been supporting Amendments to bring more people into insurance; here is an Amendment to keep some outside insurance. Even if this Amendment were carried, the boy would be credited with only 20 stamps and not the full 30. His employer would have paid nothing, and he would have paid nothing. I would prefer that the boy should be credited with 30 stamps, so that when he was finished with the job he could get benefit, even if he had had to pay for it. My chief objection to the Amendment, however, is that I dislike any proposal that an employer is not to pay contributions in respect of some particular employés, because that employer is placed in an advantageous position over other employers, and to that extent the position is a danger to other workpeople.

Mr. HUDSON

May I, by permission, answer the question which was put to me a moment or two ago by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)? I understand that in an apprenticeship where money payments pass, contributions are payable in respect of the apprentice, but where there is no money payment, no contributions are payable.

Mr. BUCHANAN

That means, in effect, that everyone pays, because at some stage between the ages of 16 and 23 the boy, obviously, will receive some wages.

Mr. HICKS

I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment, but, in view of the explanations he has given, I do not propose to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.