HC Deb 27 January 1944 vol 396 cc962-6
Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, to leave out "or a relationship similar thereto."

I have put this Amendment down on behalf of the County Councils Association to get some clarification of the meaning of the Clause. Do these words refer to the traditional relations between master and servant, or master and apprentice and, in the case of master and servant, will they apply to the police? The police are officers of the Crown, generally speaking, but it has also been stated that they are servants of the local authority. Into which category do they come? Are they to be treated as officers of the Crown or as officers of the local authority? Then there is the case of teachers under the education authorities. Teachers serving in non-provided schools are the servants of the managers of those schools but they are paid actually by the State and they may be considered as servants of the local education authority, through whom the State pays them.

The Attorney-General

These words "or any relationship similar thereto" follow on the words "master and servant or master and apprentice." I will tell the Committee why we put them in. Take the case of a master and an articled clerk, or a master and a learner, which could not be held to be technically apprenticeship within the ordinary meaning of the word. I think it is right that these general words should be in because they are relationships which might be regarded as those of master and servant or a master and apprentice. I have not had notice of the other two points but it may be that the police are not regarded as "servants" either of the Crown or of the local authority. They are officers. I am not sure that the question of teachers arises but my right hon. Friend will look into the point and perhaps he will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Messer

As the police will come under the definition of officer, will that also include officers of the class who come under the Superannuation Act, 1937?

The Attorney-General

I could not answer that question without notice. I am told that the police will not come under the Bill because there is not the relationship of master and servant, which are the ruling words of the Clause.

Mr. Messer

In the Act to which I refer there are the servant class and the officer class. Local authorities have both classes. They have servants and officers.

The Attorney-General

We shall have to look into the point.

Sir J. Lamb

I apologise if I used the word "servant" for "officer." I have "officer" on my notes.

Sir H. Williams

Would this Amendment cover a case in which a number of people worked in a form of partnership where, collectively, each is the employee of the other? That is often the case with theatrical companies which work on a partnership basis, each member being employed by the collective community of which they are all members.

The Attorney-General

I could not possibly give an opinion on a rather unusual form of association without seeing what it is.

Sir D. Thomson

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult with the draftsman and put in some such words as "or either thereof" to make plain what is really meant?

The Attorney-General

I will certainly look into that. The class of case that we had in mind was that of master and apprentice but it seems to me that the words probably cover both. I will consult the draftsman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (5).

I have read the Sub-section several times and I cannot in the least understand its effect. I hope the Attorney-General will make the meaning clearer than it is.

The Attorney-General

The idea is this. There may be a contract, for instance, for taking on a non-registered employee when the employer is below his quota, which would be in contravention of the Act. The penalties of the Act, as far as they apply, would apply to the employer. We want to prevent any argument that, because the contract is illegal in the sense that it amounts to a contravention of the Act, the man with whom it was made should be deprived of any right to move to enforce it. Obviously he will be a completely innocent party. He has taken the job. He did not know that the employer was below the quota and it would be wrong that he should not be able to enforce his rights under the contract. That is the purpose of the Clause. It preserves the rights of the parties as between each other, and it is put in to prevent anyone suggesting that, because it was in contravention of the Act, therefore it was illegal and unenforceable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger

; I should like to ask what Sub-section (4) really means. I should have thought that anyone employed would be covered by an earlier Clause. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an example?

The Attorney-General

The example we had in mind was this. Suppose a man is an employer in the ordinary way of more than 20 people in his factory. The Bill will not apply to him in that capacity. If he is, in a fiduciary or a trustee capacity, the manager of a school and, as such, in law the employer of the employees in that school, it would be wrong that the employees in the factory and in the school should be treated differently.

Sir H. Williams

Is Sub-section (5) intended to be retrospective? Many of us have received a circular about two former employees of the Post Office whose employment was terminated on the ground of their condition of health. Both have now served with distinction in the Armed Forces and their health is presumably all right, but the Post Office refuses to reemploy them. It seems to me that the Sub-section has some bearing on that peculiar situation. The Post Office is acting in complete opposition to the principles embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Rhys Davies

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I have asked a Question and got an assurance from the Post Office which is contrary to what he says. He is usually up to date, but not on this point.

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)

This was not a question of disablement at all but of not coming up to the medical standards of the Post Office.

The Attorney-General

The Clause is not retrospective and I am not the Postmaster-General.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.