§ Amendment made: In page 8, line 23, after "statutory," insert "minimum."—[Mr. Bevin.]
§ Sir D. HackingI beg to move, in page 8, line 37, at the end, to insert:
on the provisions of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940, relating to the payment of wages in current coin of the realm and of the statutory or other provisions whatsoever that would restrict a wages board in authorising such benefits or advantages.In the Amendment as printed on the Paper are no less than three mistakes, for which I must accept some measure of responsibility. I move the Amendment in its correct form.1570 I am not a lawyer, and have little knowledge of the law. Consequently I am particularly doubtful as to how the Truck Acts will operate in respect of the decisions taken by the wages board from time to time. This whole subject could have been debated during the Committee stage had the Chairman selected the Amendments on the Order Paper. In point of fact, there was no discussion at all in respect of this matter. I would only ask whether the Law Officer would be good enough to clarify the position now.
I do not want to make a long speech about all the difficulties one foresees. I would only just mention one case on which I would like to receive a definite reply. I would ask him whether it is certain, under the provisions of the Bill as at present drafted, that if a meal is counted as a wage or part of a wage the employer will be completely clear of any conflicting obligations, or of penalties under the various Truck Acts which have been enumerated? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will answer that question, and possibly other questions which may be addressed to him. If he could give a general picture of the effect of the Truck Acts in connection with the decisions of the wages board, if he could tell us that there is not likely to be any conflict between the decisions taken by the wages board and Acts of Parliament, I think it would relieve the minds of many Members of this House.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am very happy to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and to the best of my ability to put the relevant provisions of the Track Acts before the House and explain how they are affected by the Bill. My right hon. Friend appreciates that the present position of the Bill, if I may start from that, is that under Clause 10, Sub-section (2), where such things as meals or board are supplied by an employer to a workman in a manner which is forbidden by the Truck Acts, they cannot be treated as benefits or advantages for the purposes of that Clause. That is what we start from, and so the point which hon. Members might consider worthy of attention is whether the matters which are forbidden by the Truck Acts ought to be cut out or not.
The position with regard to the Truck Acts is this: First of all, it is only a 1571 very small problem in regard to the catering industry. The Truck Acts do not apply to domestic servants, and the decisions as to what is a domestic servant have brought the position to this stage, that servants in boarding houses, hotels, and public houses would be clearly domestic servants and therefore clearly outside the Truck Acts. With regard to cafes and restaurants, the kitchen staffs and cleaning staffs and waiters and waitresses would also be within the definition of domestic servants, and would therefore be outside the Truck Acts. The Truck Acts also do no apply to manual labour of a certain kind; it is the kind that is like that of artificers and people of that kind. Again, it has been the subject of decisions with which I need not worry the House, but the effect of which is that a large amount of manual labour is outside the provisions of the Truck Acts to-day.
That is the negative aspect of the matter. If I might put the positive aspect to my right hon. Friend, the Truck Acts would apply to a man who is employed, for example, in unloading or packing provisions in a catering establishment. I think they ought to apply to such a case. I agree it is a limited case, but I personally would not like to be a party to abrogating the value of the Truck Acts in regard to any worker in industry to whom they apply to-day, and I think they ought to apply. What is the effect? The general provision, as my right hon. Friend is probably aware, is that a contract to remunerate a worker for his labour partly by payment in kind is illegal, and is null and void. That is the effect of a number of Sections of the old Act to which my right hon. Friend has referred in his Amendment. There are two provisions which form exceptions to that. In the first case Section 23 allows an employer to make deductions for medicine, for rent and for victuals prepared and consumed on the employer's premises—that is probably what the right hon. Member has in mind—provided the workman has signed a written agreement for such stoppage and deduction. We consider that that provision ought to apply and that if anyone acts in contravention of that provision, the effect of the Truck Acts should still be maintained.
In addition, an older Act of 1896 contains elaborate provisions with regard to 1572 deductions in respect of fines and damaged goods and materials supplied. My right hon. Friend has told us that he really wants his Amendment for the purpose of having the matter ventilated, but if he really wished to press this Amendment, the effect of it, putting it in other words, would be this, that notwithstanding an employer providing a worker with meals in a manner expressly forbidden by the Truck Acts, and which, in fact, constitutes an offence under those Acts, nevertheless for the effect of Clause 10 he should be allowed credit in respect of those meals. That is a position which my right hon. Friend and I cannot accept. The effect of the provisions which I have endeavoured to explain to the House is that if appropriate action is taken under Section 23 and a workman signs a written agreement allowing the deduction, that is, that everything is in order under the Act, then in those circumstances the wages board can take the matter into consideration. I think it is a vital distinction. It is one thing, and in my view a bad thing, to pay a worker 70s. and an allowance for his meals which are valued at so much. On the other hand, if according to what has been practised for over 100 years, a worker is paid 80s. and then signs a formal document, which has always been demanded by the Legislature, that he will accept a deduction of 10s. as being the value of benefits received, that is a practice under the Truck Acts and a practice which no years of industrial legislation has shown us is sound. That is what we want to maintain. In those circumstances—and I think this answers the right hon. Gentleman's question—there would be no harm in, and nothing to prevent the wages board from, taking it into account under Sub-section (2) of Clause 10. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but the right hon. Gentleman asked me to clear this up.
§ Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill)Is the hon. and learned Gentleman very definite that waiters and waitresses in cafés—in big and small cafés—are defined as domestic servants?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralYes. If my hon. Friend would care to see the decisions—I obviously cannot take the House through reported cases—I will show him, at greater length any time he cares, that from a careful examination of the position that is the view I have formed.
§ Mr. DavidsonI am really interested in that reply. I do not want to detain the House long, but in some of the very large cafes where there are large numbers of waiters and waitresses, running into hundreds—in London particularly—one finds rather a staff of supervisors. Those men are black-coated workers who supervise each floor and are termed floor supervisors. May I ask the Solicitor-General whether those floor supervisors come under the heading of waiters or are they exempt?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThey will be exempt, under the Truck Acts, as being non-manual workers.
§ Sir D. HackingMay I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and to say how much I appreciate the explanation we have had from the Solicitor-General?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.