Attachment of Wages
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1963.tb00697.x |
| Date | 01 January 1963 |
| Published date | 01 January 1963 |
ATTACHMENT
OF
WAGES
THE
principle of the security of the wage packet has been the
subject of considerable attack in recent years. National Insurance
contributions and P.A.Y.E. are well established, automatic deduc-
tions from gross wages. Even the recent Payment of Wages by
Cheque Act,
1960,
was seen by some as an attack upon the right
to earnings. The most important recent measure, however, is
the Maintenance Orders Act,
1958,
by which power is given to
attach the earnings of defaulters under maintenance orders. This
legislation followed a period in which the use of attachment proce-
dure had been considered in several different fields.
It
was recog-
nised as an important departure and a potentially dangerous
precedent. In the debate on the second reading the Home
Secretary said,
“
People may ask whether, when we are introducing this Bill
for the attachment of wages, we are to extend the principle of
attachment to such matters as civil debt, hire purchase agree-
ments, fines or any other purposes
. .
.
it is not the intention
of the Government to extend attachment to any of these
things
or
any other purpose.”
The maintenance order was thought to be a special case in which
the use of attachment could be justified. Both sides of industry
seemed to reject attachment as a device. Nevertheless, it is a
system in wider use in Scotland and suggestions for its extension
in England have been made, and are still being urged.2
It
is the
purpose of this article to examine the present legal position, and
to consider the arguments for and against wider use
of
attachment.
“The Trade Union movement thought that
it
had seen the
end of attachment and that the inviolability of the pay packet
had been secured by two measures.”
*
These are the Attachment
of Wages (Abolition)
Act,
1870,
and the Truck Act,
1887.
Although the protection against attachment is regarded as comple-
mentary to the truck system it is separate from it. In fact,
attachment as a process was not introduced until the Common Law
Procedure Act,
1854,
whereas the first general regulation
of
truck
was
1831.
In
1870,
the Wages Attachment (Abolition) ,4ct pro-
vided that
‘‘
no order for the attachment of wages of any servant,
labourer
or
workman shall be made by the judge of any court of
record
or
inferior court.”
’
The Act passed through both Houses
1
579
H.C.Deb.,
col.
1545.
2
1961
Conference-National
Union
of Shopkeepers.
3
Anthony Greenwood,
Y.P.,
on
the debate in the Second Reading
of
the same
4
8.
1.
Stephen
J.
in
Booth
v.
Traill
(1884)
12
Q.B.D.
8 at
p.
9 expressed
the
Bill.
579
H.C.Deb.,
col.
1556.
view
that
the
Act was
not
intended to apply to the
High
Court.
51
To continue reading
Request your trial