HC Deb 06 February 1945 vol 407 cc1942-4
The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (1).

This Amendment and the two following Amendments—in page 15, line 43, leave out whom he charges as the actual offender, and insert: to whose act or default he alleges that the offence in question was due. and in page 16, line 18, at end, insert: (4) Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer, and the officer is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the employer could establish a defence under subsection (2) of this section, the officer may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the employer. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with and, on proof that the offence was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the employer might have been charged. —are connected. The first point the Amendments deal with, is the necessity of making it clear that the persons to whose act or default the offence is alleged to be due can be prosecuted without the necessity of prosecuting the employer at the same time. The omission of Sub-section (1) deals with that point and also with the point foreshadowed in the Amendments to Clause 11 already dealt with, namely the improving of the wording. The Amendment to line 43 improves the words, as is shown. The new Sub-section (4) not only instils the improvement but also clarifies the point, making it clear that a prosecution can take place without the prosecution of the employer.

Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East)

I am not clear who is to be made responsible for a contravention of the law. In many industries there are several degrees of management. There are the manager of the concern, the overseer of a department and the foreman over a certain number of men. In some cases it might be the foreman, and not the overseer or the manager, who had contravened the law. Are we to understand that proceedings will be taken against the foreman or against the manager—the manager having the greater responsibility in such a matter?

12.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

If the House will allow me to clear up that point, perhaps my hon. Friend would look at the wording of the new Sub-section which says: Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer … that is, where there has been an offence of paying wages lower than the amount— and the officer … that is, the officer of the Ministry of Labour— is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person … that is the point which is applicable to the question in the mind of my hon. Friend—it would then be for that officer to consider the situation. If he were reason- ably satisfied that it was the default of the foreman, he would prosecute the foreman. If he were reasonably satisfied that it was the default of the manager, he would prosecute the manager. Of course, my hon. Friend appreciates that the employer remains responsible for the unpaid wages, and therefore the worker does not lose his right of getting anything which he has not received paid up afterwards. It only ensures that the person who has really been at fault, and is to blame, is brought before the court without also bringing before the court somebody who has no moral obliquity, although he retains his financial responsibility. I hope that clears up my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Naylor

I am afraid I am not quite clear even now.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has spoken once; he cannot make more than one speech at the Report stage.

Mr. A. Walkden (Bristol, South)

This may clear up the point. It has been explained to me that in some workrooms, particularly in the tailoring trade, a master craftsman tailor may employ a sort of "Man Friday" or helper whom he pays. If this master tailor is not paying him what he should, then this Clause would apply, not to any foreman, manager or employer, but to the man who is employing a special man.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 15, line 43, leave out "whom he charges as the actual offender," and insert: to whose act or default he alleges that the offence in question was due. In page 16, line 18, at end, insert: (4) Where it appears to an officer acting for the purposes of this Part of this Act that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Part of this Act against an employer, and the officer is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the employer could establish a defence under subsection (2) of this section, the officer may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the employer. In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with and, on proof that the offence was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the employer might have been charged.—[The Solicitor-General.]