§ 38. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that, following a visit of one of his wage inspectors to a farm at Rossington Bridge, near Doncaster, the farmer has dismissed two labourers and is now demanding possession of the cottage tenanted by one of them; and will he state what action he is prepared to take to safeguard the wages of agricultural labourers without involving their dismissal and ejection from their homes?
§ Mr. ELLIOTMy attention has already been drawn to the case referred to. Whilst I would greatly deplore the action of any employer in dismissing a worker as the result of a complaint with regard to the non-observance by the employer of the minimum wage rates, I have no power to prevent employers from dispensing with a worker's services. I consider that the proper enforcement of the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, which the Ministry endeavours to secure, should check any tendency there might be towards victimisation, especially as the dismissal of a worker does not obviate the necessity of paying the minimum wage to that worker's successor.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMay I ask whether, as these cases are very numerous—I have another this morning—the right hon. Gentleman does not think that to re- 1465 employ an additional number of inspectors to make test inspections over a given area would probably avoid this victimisation, since the farmer thinks the labourer made the complaint?
§ Mr. CAPORNIs this form of victimisation unknown among trade unions?
§ Mr. ELLIOTAn increase in the staff of inspectors employed under the Act is under consideration. Of course, the inspectors engaged in making these investigations have strict instructions not to disclose to the employers that the inspection is the result of a complaint by any particular worker.