EXCEPTION FOR EMPLOYMENT INTENDED TO PROVIDE TRAINING IN SKILLS TO BE EXERCISED OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN (Hansard, 27 October 1976)

§ Mr. John Grant
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)
With this we may also discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 16, 21 and 23, together with the amendment to the words which would be restored to the Bill if Lords Amendment No. 39 were disagreed to.

§ Mr. Grant
I shall shortly be proposing, when we come to Lords Amendment No. 39, to restore Clause 73(1)(a) to the Bill. It will be helpful to discuss now an amendment to that amendment which is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 12.
Anxieties have been expressed in this House and in another place that the exception in Clause 6 was insufficiently clear or restrictive and, therefore, open to abuse. It was feared that, as the exception stood, it would, for example, enable an employer lawfully to exploit his employees by, say, using them as a source of cheap labour. There were also criticisms that it was unclear who had to show that the training acquired was intended for use abroad.
The Government have carefully considered the points that were made and they believe that Clause 6 is improved by the amendment now before the House which was made in another place. It ensures that the exception can be claimed successfully as a defence to a complaint of unlawful discrimination only where its use is justified.
The amendment makes sure that an employer who reserves certain training places at his establishment for persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain will be able to do so only on terms and conditions which will benefit the overseas trainees. He will not, therefore, be able, say, to pay them lower wages or give them less favourable benefits than he would provide for other employees in similar circumstances.
The amendment also makes it clear that the onus of showing that the trainee intends to use the skills acquired outside Great Britain rests with the employer who, in the event of a complaint, will seek to claim the exception. It is likely that an employer would usually be able to show this by reference to either the 538 individual employee's written contract of employment or a wider training agreement concluded with an overseas company, authority or Government. This amendment makes sure that the scope for abuse is removed.
Lords Amendment No. 12 excepts a principal from the provisions of Clause 7 where he allows one or more contract workers who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain to do work the purpose of which is to provide him with skills which he appears to the principal to intend to exercise wholly outside Great Britain. This is a technical amendment to ensure that principals of contract workers are, in the event of a complaint of unlawful discrimination, afforded the same defence as that available to employers under Clause 6 of the Bill.
Lords Amendments Nos. 16, 21 and 23 are technical consequential amendments which follow from the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 7(4).
As I said that I would be asking the House to disagree at a later stage with Lords Amendment No. 39. I now hope that the House will agree that, if subsection (1)(a) of Clause 73 is restored to the Bill, the list of exceptions it contains should include the exception we have earlier discussed in relation to contract work intended to provide training skills to be used outside Great Britain. This exception is in substance the same as the exception provided for employment by Clause 6. The exception in Clause 6 is already included in the list in subsection (1)(a).