§ Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in agriculture on the holding, whether it is so occupied under a contract of tenancy or not, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house or garden were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant and the weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house.
§ Provided that—
- (1) compensation shall not be payable under this Section if notice to terminate the tenancy or occupation is given on account of the employment of the workman having been
332 terminated by reason of his misconduct, and such reason shall be substituted for the reasons specified in Sub-section (1) of the said Section; and - (2) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section seven shall not apply; and
- (3) where the tenancy or occupation of the workman is terminated by reason of a notice to quit given to the tenant of the holding and compensation for disturbance is recoverable by him from his landlord, the compensation payable under this Section to the workman by the tenant of the holding shall he recoverable by the tenant of the holding from the landlord as part of the compensation so recoverable.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI beg to move, after the word "Where" ["Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding"], to insert the words "the occupation of."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to this new Clause, which was put in on Consideration, which are entirely verbal.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI beg to move, to leave out the words "is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in," and to insert instead thereof the words "has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workman employed by him."
§ Mr. RENDALLI would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay a little attention to this word "allow." In the original Amendment put down by the hon. Member on my right (Mr. Royce), the word "occupied" was used. The right hon. Gentleman makes the word "allowed," and that seems to me to limit the force of the Amendment. If a farmer lets a house to a labourer for money, that would take the labourer and the cottage out of the benefit of this Amendment, and I think, therefore, the word "occupied" ought to be used there instead of "allowed." You have got the word "occupation" before and "occupation" after, and if you have the word "allowed" here it is not consistent with the word "occupation" elsewhere, and, I think, limits the force of the Amendment.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI do not see how I can insert the word "occupied." It would read "if the occupation of a house…. has been occupied." We have already inserted it in line 1, which reads 333 "where the occupation of a house," etc. We are discussing purely verbal points and I have taken the best draughtman's opinion, and I am informed that this is the proper form. We have already used the word "occupation," and the hon. Member will see, therefore, that there is no fear of cases being cut out which he thinks may be cut out. Certainly it is not the intention of the Government that they should be.
§ Mr. ACLANDI think the fact that later on the phrase is used "whether under contract of tenancy or not" makes it clear that this refers to all cases.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "it is so occupied" ["whether it is so occupied under a contract"], and insert the words "the occupation is."
§ After the word "not" ["under a contract of tenancy or not"], insert the words "and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
Sir A. BOSCAWENI beg to move, to leave out the words "or garden" ["if the dwelling house or garden."]
§ Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSWhy leave out "or garden"?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI do not know why the words "or garden" ever got in, because the Clause begins, "Where a dwelling house." There is nothing about garden. Had there been "or garden" at the beginning, there would have been some reason for putting in "or garden" here. But as there was no "or garden" at the commencement of the Clause, it really has no meaning.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house,
and insert instead thereof the words "notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
Sir A. BOSCAWENI beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "notice to terminate the tenancy or occu- 334 pation is given on account," and to insert instead thereof the words
(a) the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation; or(b) the tenant of the holding has before giving the notice obtained from the district wages committee, or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, a certificate that the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient to enable the holding to be cultivated properly; or(c) the employment of the workmen is for a year, half-year, or other definite period; or(d) the notice is given by reason:We come now to the really important Amendments. It may be remembered that when I accepted this new Clause, which was moved by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce), I stated that the Government accepted it in principle, but would have to reconsider the details, and suggested that that process might be done in another place. However, the House was anxious that the reconsideration should take place here, and for that reason I agreed to recommit the Bill in respect of this particular Clause. We do not for one moment deviate from the principle that, so far as it can be applied Clause 7 of the Bill should apply to a case of a tied cottage, but we have to bring the case of the tied cottage into line with the rest of the Bill, mutatis mutandis. In the Clause as moved by hon. Members opposite they had only one exception, and that was where the workman had been guilty of misconduct, but it is clear that there must be some other exceptions, and I have put down certain Amendments dealing with those exceptions. The first is where a man has only been in occupation for a period of less than six weeks. It would really be unreasonable if a labourer were allowed to occupy a tied cottage, and it was discovered, after a few days or a week, that he was not equal to the work he had undertaken, that he should get this full compensation, and the idea of inserting a period of six weeks is to impose what I may call a probationary period. This is eminently desirable unless abuse is to take place. The question of whether he is competent to do the work may also arise within the six weeks in the case of a new man, or it might arise at a later period. We consider that his competency should be subjected to some kind of test, and it is as to whether he 335 is necessary to enable the holding to be cultivated properly. That is a very similar condition to that in Clause 7 with regard to a farm tenant, and as to whether he is or is not cultivating the farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. In the case of the tenant we introduced an arbitrator as judge, but we do not wish to introduce arbitration here, because it is very expensive, and would be a very big burden for a working man. We find that there is another body which is quite competent to deal with these cases, and which does already deal with similar cases, namely, the wages committee of the district, on which both employers and employed are represented. You have a wages committee in the district, and you have sub-committees who, in the case of exemptions from the standard rate of wages through the physical inability of the man to do the work, are permitted to give certificates to that effect. We propose, therefore, that the body which grants those certificates at the present time shall be the body to say whether this certificate should or should not be given in respect of a particular workman. I observe that the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) has put down an Amendment to my Amendment, proposing that the workman shall have the opportunity of appearing before the Wages Committee in person, and that under certain circumstances, if the certificate is refused, and if, in fact, it is held that there was no ground for asking for it, his expenses shall be paid and he shall be entitled to recover them from the tenant. When we reach that Amendment I shall be prepared, subject to certain verbal reservations, to accept it.Then there is a third exception, which is put in to meet the case, which is common in Scotland and also in some parts of the North of England, where a workman is engaged for a definite term. It may be a year—which is very common in the case of Scottish farm servants—or half a year, or some other definite period. In such a case the workman has no expectation that he will remain in the cottage beyond the period for which he is engaged. He enters the employment for a definite period, and he occupies the cottage for that period.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThat is rather a conundrum I should say that it would be any period which is definitely laid down. I will, however, take an opportunity of looking into that matter. Then there is a further Amendment on the Paper, to which I had better refer now, although, of course, we shall have a discussion upon it later. The difficult question arises as to what the compensation is to be. In the case of a farm tenancy we say that it shall be one year's rest plus the cost of removal. The one year's rent, although, no doubt, it is higher on some farms than on others, is a fairly definite thing to understand. We are dealing here, however, with a case where occupation of a cottage is allowed really as part of the remuneration of the workman, and in such cases the rent varies largely from farm to farm. I know of cases where the rent is 6d. per week, and others where it may be 3s. or more. Therefore we have sought to fix a definite sum, and we have taken the amount which is allowed by the Wages Board of the District for the benefit of a cottage. I believe that that is usually, although not invariably, 3s. per week, and the compensation, therefore, would be 52 times 3s., or whatever is the amount allowed by the Wages Board for the benefit of the cottage. Those are the Amendments which I desire, on behalf of the Government, to move to this Clause. I believe that they will be generally accepted, and I think that they will make the Clause a workable Clause, while they will confer a great benefit upon the workmen in various parts of the country, and will, so far as is possible under the very difficult conditions existing, apply the principle of compensation for disturbance which is contained in Clause 7 to the case of tied cottages which arises under this Clause.
§ Mr. RENDALLWith regard to the proposed paragraph (c), I think that the words "or other definite period" are very dangerous words. It seems to me that they enable practically everything that is now being done to go on being done. It is true that in the South of England the ordinary tenancy is a weekly or a monthly tenancy, but there will be nothing to prevent an ordinary employer of agricultural labour from making a definite 337 arrangement for a definite period, say, of one month or fourteen days. If he should do that, he would be given the legal right, under this Bill, to obtain possession of that house, and, therefore, the value of this Bill would be gone. If the right hon. Gentleman must use these words, I would suggest that he should define them and lay down a definite period, which certainly should not be less than three months. I think it would be fair to leave it as it generally is in those cases in which farmers engage labour for a term, that term being generally a year or half a year. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave out the words "or other definite period" he would be doing all that is necessary to protect those farmers in the North of England and in Scotland who have been accustomed to these long hiring arrangements.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI agree that these words as they stand would enable a coach and four to be driven through the Clause. Any farmer anywhere can make a yearly agreement with a man if he chooses, and if, by the mere fact of making a yearly agreement, he avoids liability to pay compensation under this Clause, I cannot see what is to prevent him from doing it. When a man hires a labourer he can always say, "The condition of my giving you this tied cottage is that we shall have a yearly agreement." If the man misbehaves, he can always terminate it before the year is up, but the fact remains that it is a yearly hiring. I do not say that it will occur in all cases, but it seems to me that it is exactly the same as moving an Amendment proposing that the liability to pay compensation might be voided by agreement. The promoters of the Bill have set their faces against anything of that kind, and it is evidently quite outside the spirit of the Bill. I do not see why a labourer should be allowed to contract out of the Bill. He is just as liable as a tenant to have pressure brought to bear upon him. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to some Amendments further down the Paper. Will it be in order for me to discuss those now, or ought I to wait until they are put?
The CHAIRMANI think it will be better to wait until we get to the further Amendments, although I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to explain them as a whole.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point of view, because I think that these words might make the Clause quite nugatory.
§ Mr. ACLANDI think that these proposals are on the whole considerable improvements, but there are two points that I should like to make. I think that it will be a good deal safer to leave out, as has been suggested, the words "or other definite period." I do not know of any periods to which this proviso would relate except the yearly or half-yearly periods, and it would be fatal to the whole purpose of the Clause if there were any chance of its being held that employment for a period such as a week or a fortnight is a definite period which would really make the Clause of no effect. I do not go so far as to think that it would be better to take out paragraph (c), because I think that in the main the worker, in districts of England and Wales where employment by the year or half-year is not customary, is in a strong enough position to defend himself against any proposal of the employer to make the employment yearly or half-yearly, and thus to exempt himself from the operation of this Clause. After all, I suppose the thing would work both ways. If you had contracted with the workman to make his employment for a year—that he should be given so much wages for a year's work—and then without good and sufficient cause terminated his employment earlier than a year, you would be liable to give him the whole of the wages you contracted to give him, so that I do not think any farmer would lightly try to drive a coach and four through this Clause in districts where it is not customary to employ men by the year by trying to make the employment by the year or the half-year the customary employment.
The other point I want to make is that the powers possessed by the District Wages Committees are delegated to them by the Agricultural Wages Board. This proviso gives the District Wages Committees definite powers without any reference at all to the Board. I am not surt that that may not be quite reasonable. It has certainly been found that in a parallel case, where the District Wages Committees are by delegation from the Board the authority to deal with permits of exemption, the Board has been quite 339 safe in allowing that matter to be dealt with by the district committees on their own authority without any appeal or supervisory jurisdiction being possessed by the Wages Board itself, and this seems to me a parallel case which ought to be decided on local knowledge, and probably will be decided quite well by the subcommittees. In some cases this work of granting these permits of exemption to men suffering from physical or mental infirmity has been quite satisfactorily dealt with by sub-committees of one, and the whole District Wages Committee is perfectly willing to delegate to one man, a worker or an employer, the duty of deciding on these permit questions, which shows that there must be very good feeling between the two sides of the District Wages Committee. I am sure Government does not want to do anything which looks like going behind the Wages Board, and no doubt this matter will come up for consideration at the next meeting of the Wages Board, and the Government will, perhaps, inform them officially that they propose this. There will be a meeting of the Wages Board, as it happens, before the Bill comes back from another place, but just so as to save, I do not say the dignity, but the position as it at present is, that the powers of district committees are only possessed by delegation of the Wages Board, I mention the point now.
Sir J. HOPEI understand that the compensation which the workmen may claim in lieu of the rent is provided for, but will he not be able to claim under this proposal compensation for forcible removal of furniture?
Sir J. HOPEThat being so, supposing there is agreement, he will go to arbitration on a claim for cost of removal in England, and he will not in Scotland. I think that is correct.
The CHAIRMANWill not that come better on the next Amendment but one? In order not to mix things up we had better take it there.
Sir A. BOSCAWENIn answer to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) has said, we have not the slightest desire 340 to go behind the Agricultural Wages Board and to dictate to them what they ought to do, but we think this is a proper use to be made of the Agricultural Wages Committees, and I will certainly follow the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and give notification to the Wages Board of this proposal.
§ Mr. ACLANDThere is a point as to whether the Wages Board itself ought not to have a supervisory jurisdiction to see that the committees are doing what we want them to.
Sir A. BOSCAWENCertainly, I will take that course. With regard to the words "or other definite period," I quite agree. I think that is far too vague, and therefore I am willing to leave those words out, and there are some other words which I think could be added which will go some way to meet the point of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman), "and the occupation is terminated at the end of the period." That, I think, will prevent the contracting-out which he has in mind. It means that a man will not be able simply by saying, "I engage you for a year or half-year," to escape compensation and give notice at any time. The compensation will be payable always, except when a man has moved out of the cottage at the end of this definite period of a year or half a year. That, I think, will be a very great improvement and will make the Clause much more watertight than it was before.
The CHAIRMANMay I point out that I have not yet decided the question to leave out the words at present in the Clause? The insertion of the right hon. Gentleman's words will come a little later.
§ Captain FITZROYSub-section (1) says, "the employment of the workman having been terminated by reason of his misconduct." Who is going to be the judge of the workman's misconduct? In this Clause it does not give any authority who is to state whether misconduct has been committed. Is it to be purely on the word of the farmer who says he has discharged him because of misconduct? There must surely be some authority to whom he will have to apply to give him a certificate entitling him to give this notice because of misconduct. I think that wants clearing up.
§ Captain FITZROYOught it not to be put in?
Sir A. BOSCAWENNo, because it is laid down in Clause 7 that where there is a dispute all questions shall be settled by an arbitrator. Therefore, when it is a question of misconduct, it will be an arbitrator. In the other case, where it is simply a question whether or not it is desirable in the interests of good farm management that a man should no longer be employed, the question will be settled by the Agricultural Wages Board.
§ Mr. RENDALLThe right hon. Gentleman's last speech has really made the whole Clause of very little value. The farmer has only to say the dispute is one of misconduct and apparently the advantage of the Wages Board coming in as arbitrator disappears altogether. It would be much fairer if you put the whole matter before the Wages Board, which is a perfectly impartial body composed of farmers, labourers, and representatives of the Board of Agriculture, and which is perfectly capable of making wise and just decisions. It is local and it is easy for all the evidence to be brought before it, and it seems to me to allow this particular matter, which is going to be the most contentious of all matters—alleged misconduct—to be brought before an arbitrator, and therefore to make it a most expensive method of deciding this point will be the method which will have to be adopted when there is a case of alleged misconduct. Therefore, it would be an Amendment disadvantageous to the labourer. It seems altogether unfair to put this particular matter into the hands of the arbitrator. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter to the Wages Board.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI think there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says. There is, of course, a great difference between a question of misconduct and the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient so that the holding should be cultivated properly. I agree it is a difficult point, and I am quite prepared to undertake that the point which my hon. Friend has put shall be reconsidered.
§ Major M. WOODIf the words "definite period" are left out men who are employed for a broken period of three months or nine months are going to be outside this provision. It seems to be very dangerous if a farmer is to be prevented from taking on men between terms, as they say in Scotland. It would be much better to leave the words in and add "not greater than one year."
§ Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSI have already expressed my views on the question of compensation as between landlord and tenant and I think it is equally ridiculous for farmers and labourers to have to indulge in this sort of question. I cannot imagine the House of Commons discussing a greater piece of perfect nonsense. But as the Government have brought the proposal in let us discuss it and let us understand what we are going to do. I understand no compensation is payable if the employment of the workman is for a year or half year and the man goes away at the end of the particular period. Then in that case no compensation will ever be payable at all because the man will be engaged for a year or half year. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think so. Other hon. Members will have the opportunity of putting their case. The man will go away at the end of the time not of his own free will but because he is not re-engaged. If you refuse to keep on a tenant of an agricultural holding you have got to pay compensation and to give a year's notice. Here is a man taken for a definite term and you are going to get out of compensation merely by this provision as to being taken on for a year or half a year. He goes away against his wish and no compensation is payable. It is perfectly nonsensical putting a compensation Clause down and a provision of that character into it. I am astonished that the Government have consented to any such proposal knowing that it is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply a sham and a fraud.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI cannot agree that the arbitrator is a more suitable person to settle the question of misconduct than to settle the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient. I should think the arbitrator would be the more suitable man to say whether there were advantages in terminating the application to enable the holding to be properly culti 343 vated than to decide on a question of misconduct as between employer and employed. I think that the whole of this Clause is most difficult and muddling. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has just said that the Government have entered on a path of trying to compensate everybody all round at somebody else's expense. It is difficult to stop that when you once begin and we are not going to stop here. There will be lots of people left out who will think that they have just as much right to compensation as other people. They will put in a claim and we will go on until we are all living on compensation. It will be a sort of vicious circle. It really is more ridiculous than anything one could conceive. Still I suppose we must try for the credit of this House to see that the provision is intelligible and does what it professes to do. I thought when a year and half year were put forward that that would meet the case, but I do not think it will because what difference does it make whether a man is engaged by the week or the month or the year or the half year because he will not be asked to leave his house until his engagement is terminated. There are annual hirings where employer and employed make a perfectly free arrangement on the understanding that each party at the end of it shall be perfectly free to go or stay as he likes. That is exactly the case of the lease. Two free Englishmen make an arrangement under contract and sanction of the law, one to hire a farm and the other to let it, and they agree that at the end of that period each shall be free to go or stay as they like. That is no longer allowed and the farmer is to get compensation and the lease is to be broken in his favour although both had agreed to it. I have here a letter which shows the awful hardship that this will inflict on many small owners.
§ Mr. ACLANDThat is not the point here.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is absolutely on the point. The lease is broken and one of the parties is made the recipient of compensation to which he had no title and in defiance of the contract into which he entered. Here again are two men, this time farmer and labourer, who enter into a similar contract for a period of one year, with the understanding that at the end of that time they should be free.
344 What is the difference. If the compensation is right in the one case it is right in the other, and if wrong in the one it is wrong in the other. I express no opinion as to whether it is right or wrong. If the House is professing to give some compensation and desires to carry out the principle of the Clause then let us do it, but this is not doing it.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYOne word as to the tribunal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this with the Secretary for Scotland.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYWhat I suggest is that the case instead of being brought before the arbiter should be brought before the sheriff. Was that what the hon. Gentleman thought I had in my mind?
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYThe arbiter would not be a good tribunal, and it would be much better to have the matter brought before the sheriff.
§ Mr. ACLANDI am quite satisfied with my right hon. Friend's statement that he will have the question of the double tribunal considered. I have been thinking it over. I think there is a great deal to be said for not having two different tribunals, one where it is a case of misconduct and one where it is a case of being incompatible with proper cultivation. It is desirable to have as much simplicity and as little argument as possible between employer and workman. It would be a pity, for instance, if one week the employer were to appeal to the arbitrator on the ground of misconduct, and be turned down on that, and the following week to appeal to the District Committee on the ground that the man was too old. I think that the Committee is likely to be a fair tribunal, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend is going to consider whether there should not be a similar tribunal for both classes of cases.
§ Mr. GARDINERUnder Sub-section (c), so far as the employment of workers 345 by the farmers is concerned, given a farm labourer who does his work well, I can assure him security of tenure, not of compensation. Our men stay with us year after year. Our only complaint is that they leave of their own accord. We do not send them off.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the Clause. The man may give notice himself, but under this Clause if he has notice for the house, quite apart from whether the notice is from the employer or he has given notice himself, he gets compensation all the same.
§ Mr. GARDINERMy point is that the question of compensation does not arise if there is security of tenure. No compensation asked by the farmer from the landlord will give such security of tenure as will be given to the farm labourer. These questions will not arise.
§ Mr. T. DAVIES (Cirencester)In our part of the country, in Gloucestershire, all the bargains are made for a yearly contract between the 11th October and the following 11th October. Suppose, in the middle of that time, there is a dispute between the man and his employer.
§ Possibly the employer comes home, as they say down there, half screwed, and quarrels with the man. They cannot make it up, and the employer says, "You have to go." Has the man to pay a fee to the arbiter before he starts as provided under the National Insurance Act, or where the arbitration goes against a man, has he to pay the arbiter's fee, and how much is it going to be? It is quite possible that the fee would swallow up all the compensation.
§ Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Amendments made to proposed Amendment: In paragraph (c), after the word "year," insert the word "or."
§ Leave out the words "or other definite" and insert instead thereof the words" and the occupation is terminated at the end of such."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
§ Question put, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 20.
347| Division No. 372.] | AYES. | [8.55 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Dcyle, N. Grattan | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Edge, Captain William | Hinds, John |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hirst, G. H. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Edwards, G.(Norfolk, South) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Elveden, Viscount | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Farguharson, Major A. C. | Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Fell, Sir Arthur | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Finney, Samuel | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Foreman, Henry | Irving, Dan |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Johnson, Sir Stanley |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Johnstone, Joseph |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Blair, Reginald | Galbraith, Samuel | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith. | Gardiner. James | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Glanville, Harold James | Lawson, John J. |
| Briggs, Harold | Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A. | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) |
| Bromfield, William | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Cairns, John | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) |
| Cape, Thomas | Green, Albert (Derby) | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Loseby, Captain C. E. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander |
| Casey, T. W. | Gregory, Holman | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Grundy, T. W. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maddocks, Henry |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Mallalieu, F. W. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hayday, Arthur | Mason, Robert |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Mitchell, William Lane |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Moles, Thomas |
| Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Rendall, Athelstan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Tootill, Robert |
| Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Morgan, Major D. Watts | Robertson, John | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Morrison, Hugh | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Rodger, A. K. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) | Rose, Frank H. | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Royce, William Stapleton | Whitla, Sir William |
| Myers, Thomas | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Wignall, James |
| Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T.) | Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert |
| O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. | Simm, M. T. | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Parker, James | Sitch, Charles H. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Winterton, Major Earl |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Stevens, Marshall | Wintringham, T. |
| Perring, William George | Strauss, Edward Anthony | Wise, Frederick |
| Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | Sturrock, J. Leng | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W. | Sutherland, Sir William | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Swan, J. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Taylor, J. E. | Younger, Sir George |
| Pratt, John William | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) | |
| Purchase, H. G. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West) | Captain Guest and Commander |
| Reid, D. D | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill) | Eyres-Monsell. |
| NOES. | ||
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Kidd, James | Starkey, Captain John R. |
| Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stewart, Gershom |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Nail, Major Joseph | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund | Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Inskip. |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In paragraph (1) leave out the words "by reason" and insert instead thereof the words "on account."
§
At the end of paragraph (1) insert a new paragraph—
(2) in lieu of any compensation which in the case of a holding is to be ascertained by reference to the rent of the holding, there shall be payable a sum equal to fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of the provision of a cottage free from rent and rates as determined for the district under the provisions of the Act of 1917; and."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
§ Mr. ROYCEI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words—
Provided also that where under paragraph (b) of this Section the tenant of a holding seeks to obtain a certificate from the district wages committee or a sub-committee of that committee, the occupier shall be entitled to appear before the district wages committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be, and shall, in the event of the certificate being refused, also be entitled to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred by him in appearing before the district wages committee or the subcommittee.This Amendment is moved to secure to the labourer, when an appeal is made to the District Wages Committee and if the charge is unsuccessful, compensation for loss of time and expenses in connec- 348 tion therewith. I am sure the Committee will think that reasonable.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI think it fair and reasonable that the workman should have an opportunity of appearing in person before the Wages Committee or Subcommittee to oppose an application, and it is not unreasonable that some provision should be made to pay his expenses if the certificate is refused. Therefore I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment in principle. It may be a matter which is dealt with better by Regulation made by the Minister. It may be desirable to some extent to alter the wording of the Amendment in another place.
§ Mr. ACLANDThere is one phrase which will need modification. The certificate, I think, should be the certificate of the District Wages Committee. It would not be right to trust sub-committees of the district committee with the authority of giving certificates. It should be done by the Committee itself.
§ Mr. ACLANDCertainly.
§ Amendment agreed to.
349§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have not been in the House while the discussion on these Amendments has been carried on, but I should like to say a word or two on the Clause as a whole. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary departure for this Government to make. It shows how we can progress in socialistic legislation to an extent which five or six years ago would have seemed impossible. It also shows the difficulty and danger of bringing in legislation which allows the robbery of one class for the benefit of another. The farmers are endeavouring to rob the landlords in order to put something into their own pockets. Now that they find that once they have introduced the principle that you may rob a person in order to benefit yourself, now that they have got the landlord's property and find they may have to part with some of it to somebody else, they begin to think that this Bill is not quite so good as it was. I have received a circular from the Farmers' Union in which they say that this Clause is a bad one. They by no means fancy putting their hands into their own pockets for the benefit of somebody else; they only desire to put their hands into the pockets of the landlords for their own benefit.
I should like the House to consider how much further they are going in this direction. Not only are farmers not to be allowed to farm their land in the way they choose—in the way that will be to their own interests, as they think—not only that, but the Department is to be allowed to come in and compel them to farm the land in the way it thinks best. In addition to that a body called the District Wages Board is to decide whether or not the farmer may dismiss a labourer. How is it possible to carry on any business in this way? I do not know what the position of the country is going to be. I see in one of the papers to-day it is suggested there should be a forced loan with a great increase in the tax on corporations, or that there should be some other method devised to prevent the country going to utter ruin at once. This sort of legislation tends to render that kind of thing absolutely necessary. What is wanted is encouragement to the farmer and to everybody else to do the 350 best they can to advance their own interests, which are really the interests of the State. If the State is to become the director adviser, guide and controller of people carrying on business the only result will be that no business will be carried on at all. I cannot believe it possible that those Members of the Government who were formerly members of the Conservative Party should come down here and, with their previous records, propose legislation of this sort. An hon. Member near me suggests that the explanation is that the majority of them know nothing about it. Possibly that is the correct solution. We have only to look at facts. There are 707 Members of this House. Seventy are away, thank goodness! They are occupied in shooting people in other parts of the country. But that leaves about 640.
The CHAIRMANThese remarks are a little too general. The right hon. Baronet is rather anticipating the Third Reading.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am coming to my point. I wanted to call attention to the fact that in a Division on the Amendment but a few minutes ago only 160 Members of the House took part, and that rather seems to suggest that the majority of the Members do not know what is going on. Under these circumstances it is perfectly evident that the country can no longer trust this House to do its duty, and the sooner we recognise this the better, at any rate for those of us who still remain Conservative. Our principles may be wrong, but we believe in them, and we do not believe in this sort of legislation. It is useless our voting against it, because we are voted down by hon. Members who come in from the smoking and dining-rooms. I rather gather from the circular from the Farmers' Union, to which I referred just now, that they are already learning their lesson. I hope they will not forget it, and that before very long they will see cause to regret supporting a measure of this kind.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) founded his advice to his Friends on a supposed circular from the Farmers' Union. There is, I believe, no one in this House who speaks directly for that union. I have received a circular. I expect it is the same one as that to which the right hon. Baronet refers, and I would like to point out 351 that they do not condemn this Clause. They reiterate their support of the Bill, and only refer to this Clause in a colourless way, indicating that they would like Amendments to be made to it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman permit me—
§ Mr. ACLANDremained standing—
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has put words into my month—
§ Mr. ACLANDI must decline to give way.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf the right hon. Gentleman declines to give way, I can only say I have not been accustomed to that sort of thing.
§ Mr. ACLANDHe said he had in his pocket a communication from the Farmers' Union condemning this Clause. I do not think he can produce it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI said I had received it. I did not say I had it in my pocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did!"] We have all got it. I will find it and send it to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I possibly can. What the Clause was I remember perfectly well; it was that they were in favour of the Bill providing that the other Clause dealing with labourers' cottages was omitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
Sir A. BOSCAWENI really must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I had a notice sent to mc officially, and they said they agreed provided it was made perfectly clear that the Clause would not interfere with good cultivation on the farm.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.