CLAUSE 1.—(The Catering Wages Commission and the workers to whom this Act applies.) (Hansard, 20 April 1943)

§ Sir D. Hacking
I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert: Provided that such workers shall not include any persons employed as a manager of any undertaking and who is in receipt of remuneration exceeding four hundred and twenty pounds per annum. The House will recollect that during the Committee stage there was a rather long discussion on whether or not certain 1567 people should be included in the Bill. I moved an Amendment which showed, in effect, that many people had been left out of the purview of the Bill who were engaged in comparatively lowly paid jobs in this industry. I did not intend that result, and consequently I withdrew my Amendment. The Amendment I now move would exclude only those managers who are in receipt of remuneration exceeding £420, but that limit is not a rigid one. It is taken from the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and if the Minister proposed even to increase that sum slightly, I should not object. It is felt that these comparatively well paid managers who are in control of undertakings should not have their responsibilities obstructed by regulation of their conditions of employment. It was shown on the Committee stage that the meaning of "conditions of employment" would include hours of rest; obviously, if you include hours of rest, you control the hours of employment. It is felt by some of us that it would be wrong to control the hours of employment of people in responsible positions in hotels, etc. It seems unnecessary to bring in these managers, and it might be harmful to the proper conduct of a hotel or restaurant if they were brought in. If the Minister does not accept the Amendment now, I hope he will give the matter consideration and, if necessary, meet my point when the Bill goes to another place.

§ Mr. Bevin
I regret that I cannot accept this limiting obligation upon the wages boards and the Commission. I made it clear on the Committee stage that the Commission will have, with all the facts before them, and now with assessors, the power and opportunity to determine the scope. If the House lays down a figure of £420 above which no one should have a regulated existence or any protection, I think it would be a very retrograde step indeed. The figure £420 happens to be that fixed in the Insurance Acts and not in the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and since that was fixed, in the discussion on the question of insurance some little while ago we announced to the House that we accepted universality and that that was the definite policy of the Government in that respect. Therefore, when that Measure comes to be dealt with, the £420 limit will go entirely. To insert any limiting figure in the Bill is therefore entirely wrong. With an independent 1568 Commission and Commissioners to determine scope, and with expert advice, the matter might well be left for them to deal with.

§ Mr. Ridley (Clay Cross)
I am glad that the Minister has resisted the Amendment for the reasons which he has just expressed. The right hon. Gentleman who moved it surrendered his own case when he talked of people in receipt of £420 per annum as "comparatively well-paid managers." How can he say, in the absence of knowledge, whether they are comparatively well paid or not? They may be managers of very small restaurants, in which case a salary of £420 a year may be exorbitant, or they may be managers of very large restaurants, as to which that standard would be low. It will remain for the appointed body to decide that kind of question. I am entirely at a loss to understand why it is wrong to control the hours of duty of people who occupy higher positions. I have been associated for a long time with a trade union which has tried, with some success, to break down the idea that protecting legislation and arrangements are suitable only for people with low wages. If it is found on inquiry that the hours of duty of managers are scandalously long, as might well be, I cannot think that the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking) would not desire to have them regulated so as to conform more to standards of decency. He also said that some form of control as to wages and conditions of employment might be harmful to the running of a restaurant, but that suggestion is in conflict with experience. The extent to which conditions have been regulated in this manner has been a contribution to the more efficient running of the catering industry, and there is no better way of bringing about great efficiency.