§ Mr. VIANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that in connection with a contract for work of renovation in the Law Courts about 30 labourers were employed by the contractors instead of skilled french polishers, that the entries in the firms pay sheets showed that these men were receiving the french polishers' rate of 1s. 9d. per hour, whereas they were only receiving 1s. 4d. per hour; that the foreman, when questioned, stated that the men were skilled french polishers, but contrary evidence was subsequently secured showing that they were labourers; that, in addition to deceiving the Office of Works, the foreman had apparently been keeping for 620W himself the difference between 1s. 4d. and 1s. 9d. per hour; whether the foreman has been prosecuted; whether the Department has any evidence that the firm were aware that the men in question were not french polishers and were not receiving their proper rate for the work being done; whether there have been any previous complaints against this firm with regard to alleged violation of the Fair Wages Clause; and, if so, whether these facts will be borne in mind in the event of the firm ever again tendering for a Government contract?
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe actual violation of the Fair Wages Clause in the manner indicated was brought to the notice of the Department, which is requiring the contractors concerned to pay the men the difference between the french polishers' rate of 1s. 9d. per hour and the rate of 1s. 4½d. per hour actually received by them at the time. The Department has no reason to believe that the firm were aware of the foreman's defalcations, but they understand that he was discharged and that, having undertaken to reimburse the money he had misappropriated, he was not prosecuted. So far as the Office of Works is concerned, there have been two previous complaints of specific failure to pay the correct rate of wages. In the first case, the rate was at the time in dispute, and there appeared to be a genuine misunderstanding. The rate was adjusted, and the arrears due were paid to the men by the firm. In the second case, investigation failed to reveal any case of underpayment. As regards the last part of the question, all relevant considerations are borne in mind before placing any contract.