HC Deb 08 May 1934 vol 289 cc1026-8
Mr. HUDSON

I beg to move, in page 27, line 28, at the end, to insert: 'Period of compulsory elementary instruction' means the period during which under any enactment for the time being in force, other than local bye-laws, parents are under an obligation to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction. The object of the Amendment is to carry out a promise made in the Committee stage in respect of the potential credit of contributions for all children who remain at school after the age of 14. In order to make clear a position about which some doubt was expressed during the Committee stage, it is proposed to insert these words. I am advised that these words make it clear that even in the by-law areas where children are nominally compelled to remain at school until the age of 15 they will be credited with contributions as though they were required to stay at school until 14 only.

Amendment agreed to.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

I beg to move, in page 27, line 38, at the end, to insert: (3) For the purposes of determining whether an insured contributor has exhausted his benefit rights in his last preceding benefit year, if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that he has not made an application or claim for benefit in respect of any days in that year in respect of which he would have been entitled thereto if he had made an application or claim therefor, the insured contributor shall be deemed to have received benefit in respect of those days unless there is no reasonable cause to believe that his omission to make the application or claim was with intent to avoid the necessity of proving the matters set out in paragraph (ft) of Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act.

This Amendment is proposed in order to meet an anomaly which has recently come to light. It was brought to our notice by a Member of the party opposite who called our attention to the fact that no fewer than 16 of his constituents were, under the existing law, getting round what had been the intention of Parliament. Where a man was out of work for more than 156 days in the year, he only claimed benefit for 155 days, thereby evading the necessity of having to qualify for benefit in the succeeding benefit year by paying a further contribution of 10 stamps. Obviously that was a loophole, because by claiming only 155 days benefit in this year he became entitled in the following benefit year to another 156 days, and by again only claiming 155 days benefit, he could go on to the succeeding benefit year and so on almost ad infinitum. It is in order to close that loophole that we are inserting these words, but I would point out that the Sub-section will only come into operation where the insurance officer is able to prove to the satisfaction of the court of referees that the man concerned was acting with the intention of evading the law.

Mr. TINKER

Then if the law remained as it is at present we would have continuous benefit for our people—which we have been agitating for—but now that is to be taken away. Would it not be better to let it continue?

Mr. LAWSON

I understand it is intended that the insurance officer will have to prove that a man has been taking this course with the object of evading the law. I suppose that the man in such a case will have a full opportunity of being represented in the ordinary way and of putting the other side of the case, because it is always possible to misjudge these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I beg to move, in page 27, line 39, to leave out Subsection (3).

I move this Amendment in order to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Among the powers and duties which can be exercised by education authorities under the Education Act, 1921, is the power of providing meals for school children. We are very anxious to know whether those in receipt of unemployment benefit or attending instruction courses will be eligible to benefit by the exercise of that power, which education authorities possess in respect of children below 14. I do not know what will be the answer of the hon. Gentleman, but I think I could give a shrewd guess at it. If the answer is to be in the negative then I shall be glad to know why these young people are to be precluded from participation in the benefits of the Education Act of 1921. The case has been argued already more than once, and I do not propose to argue it again. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that the powers referred to in this Sub-section include the power relating to the provision of meals for those attending instruction centres?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I ought to make it clear to the Committee that the Sub-section which the Amendment proposes to leave out would now be Subsection (4) and it is that which commences with the words "The powers and duties of education authorities."

9.21 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

I understand that the subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to insert the words "including the provision of meals" would be out of order and therefore I imagine that it would be out of order for me to discuss at any length the question of the provision of school meals. I think I explained during the Committee stage in answer to a question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) that the higher education authorities had not got the power of providing meals for children at junior instruction centres and that this Sub-section did not give them that power. The object of the Sub-section is to enable them to apply a great number of their existing services and in particular the school medical service to children at junior instruction centres. The existing services which they do use for children attending junior instruction centres will rank for grant from my Department. The Sub-section however, does not enable them to provide meals for children at the centres. The House will remember that I suggested that the appropriate body to do that in any cases where such assistance was obviously required in order to enable the children to take full advantage of the instruction at the centres would be the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.