§ After Clause 5 insert new Clause A:
§ " Special provisions as to non-able-bodied workmen.
§ " A.—(1) Where a person employs a workman, not being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture on time work at a rate less than that which would have been payable bad he been an able-bodied workman, that person shall, within fourteen days of the date hereinafter mentioned, send to the district wages committee a statement in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of himself and the workman, containing particulars as to the wages agreed to be paid, and the circumstances which render the workman not an able-bodied workman, and such other particulars as may be prescribed; and that committee may, if they think fit, increase the rate of wages payable under the contract, and thereupon the contract shall have effect as from the date hereinafter mentioned as so varied: Provided that this provision shall not apply in any case where the wages paid are in accordance with a certificate granted by a district wages committee under this section.
§ " If the employer fails to send such a notice as aforesaid or to pay wages at the rate fixed by the committee, he shall be liable to the like penalties as if the workman had been an able-bodied workman.
§ " The date hereinbefore referred to is the date of the commencement of the contract or of the fixing of the minimum time rate for able-bodied workmen in the district, whichever is the later.
§ " (2) If a district wages committee are satisfied that any workman employed or desiring to be employed on time work is not an able-bodied workman, the committee may grant to the workman, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the committee a certificate to that effect and applying to the workman the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act for able-bodied workmen, subject to such reduction as may be specified in the certificate; and whilst such a certificate is in force this Act shall apply as if the minimum rate subject to such reduction as aforesaid were applicable to him."
§ The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
§ Because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum time, rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men, and subsection (2) is unnecessary if the proviso to Clause 5 (3) of the Bill is retained.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERMy Lords, I move that your Lordships do not insist on this new Clause A. The view of the Commons on this Amendment is, I think, well understood by your Lordships, and the dis- 701 cussion on the previous Amendment has ranged to sonic extent over the point which is here involved. This is Lord Lansdowne's Amendment to meet the case of the non-able-bodied workman, and the effect of the action of the Commons is to restore the Bill to its original form, in which the only way by which a non-able-bodied workman can get employment at a rate of wage lower than the minimum rate is by obtaining a permit allowing him to do so. That is the course which the workman will have to take if your. Lordships do not insist on this Amendment.
The great objection to this course has been based on two arguments. One was that there was something humiliating to the workman in having to get a certificate of disability. As I understand the matter, there is no question of his getting a certificate of disability. All he gets is a permit to allow him to take the lower rate of wage. The other and more substantial objection was the difficulty the man would have in obtaining a permit, and the delay which would be caused by the necessity of obtaining these innumerable permits. The answer to that was given—I think it was a complete answer—by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. He pointed out that under the Bill the Agricultural Wages Board which nominally gives the permit has power to delegate any of its powers, except the fixing of minimum rates of wages, to District Committees, and these District Committees, again, have power to delegate to sub-committees. In every case, as far as the permits are concerned, that is what will be done. They will be dealt with locally. There is nothing to prevent there being a sub-committee for this purpose in every village, It would be impossible to work the. Bill on any other system than that of very wide delegation. Therefore the idea that by restoring the Bill to its original form you compel every unfortunate old man who wants to work at a lower rate of wages to appeal to the Agricultural Wages Board is an entire delusion.
I believe the Amendment moved by Lord Lansdowne—which was accepted by the Government in this House, though it was not our proposal—to have been an un-objectionable and even a useful Amendment. I do not know whether your Lordships read what appeared in the Press yesterday morning on this subject. If so, you may have observed in various organs that this 702 Amendment was represented as an action of your Lordships' House hostile to the agricultural labourer and calculated to reduce the benefits which he will enjoy under the Bill. A very unfavourable view, unreasonably, was taken of this Amendment in certain quarters; and as the Bill in the shape in which it originally came to this House will really enable the workman who is not able-bodied to obtain his permit with no serious difficulty, I hope your Lordships will not insist on the Amendment which the Commons wish to leave out.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, the Motion which has been made appears to me to be of great importance, and I shall ask your Lordships to substitute certain other words for certain words in this Amendment. First of all I wish to ask a question, to which perhaps I the Lord Chancellor will reply, as to the reasons for which the Commons disagreed with this Amendment. They say they disagree "because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men, and subsection (2) is unnecessary if the proviso to Clause 5 (3) of the Bill is retained; What will happen in this case? Clearly these rates for non-able-bodied men, if they can be made at all—I have considerable doubt in my own mind whether it is possible to fix any rate to cover classes of non-able-bodied men—will take a very long time. The question I wish to put is this, What will happen in the meantime before those rates are made? I do not know whether I am Tight or not, but it appears to me that until these rates are made it will be possible for non-able-bodied men to continue their employment in the circumstances under which they are employed at present, because, as was pointed out the other day, they do not come under Clause 4, and there is no retrospective action with regard to wages in their case. Therefore until rates are fixed for them I presume there is no reason why they should not continue to be employed on the same terms as they are being employed at present. Can the Lord Chancellor tell us whether that is the case?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe reason given by the Commons for their disagreement is twofold. They say, first, "because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum 703 time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men." When the Commons say "if minimum time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men," I do not understand them in any way to contemplate—what certainly I do not find in the Bill—that there should be rates fixed specifically by the Wages Board for non-able-bodied men as distinguished from able-bodied men, because that would be an almost impossible task. What they mean is this, that the rate fixed under the Bill, when your Lordships' Amendment has been removed and subsection (2) stands as it was in the. Bill when it came here, will be a rate for workmen employed in agriculture, and not confined, as it was under your Lordships' Amendment, to a rate for able-bodied workmen. It will be a general rate. But it is obvious that if that general rate were enforced it might lead to the infirm man not being employed at all. Accordingly a system of permits has been introduced by which an extensive dispensation has been granted to those who are not able to do a day's work according to the wage fixed as a minimum rate generally for workmen in the district. The system of permits will, of course, achieve the same end which was intended to be achieved by the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I may say that personally I think the machinery of Lord Lansdowne's Amendment was better. But the practical question for your Lordships is whether for a mere question of machinery you are going to risk the loss of the Bill. And it must be remembered that the agricultural labourers might be apt to take, a strong view of any action which resulted in their losing altogether machinery for fixing minimum rates of wages.
It must be recollected, as was pointed out by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, that there is a power in the Schedule for the Wages Board to delegate to a District Wages Committee any of their powers and duties under this Bill, other than their powers and duties to fixminimum rates of wages, and, subject to Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, to authorise any such District Wages Committee to delegate to a sub-committee thereof any of the powers so delegated to the Committee. By the exercise of these powers you can have local assistance which would enable you, I should hope with reasonable despatch, to have the issue of these permits arranged for; so that by a different power you reach the same end. 704 The rate is fixed generally, but, by the exercise of the power of dispensation, in the case of those who are not up to the standard of doing a day's work which will earn the minimum day's wage the employer is dispensed from the, obligation of paying them the minimum rate only. I hope I have answered the question of the noble Earl. I trust that very great expedition will be shown in extensively organising local sub-committees so that the permits may be granted with the utmost despatch.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble and learned Lord has misunderstood my question. It was, so long as these rates are not fixed—and they cannot be fixed for some time—in what position does the non-able-bodied man stand with regard to employment? Can he be employed on existing terms, or upon any terms that he may see fit to agree to, until such time as the definite rate of wages for non-able-bodied men is fixed? With regard to the clause itself, it seems to me to be a clause of the greatest importance. In fact, as the Lord Chancellor has already said, it is a far better clause than the one which it is proposed to substitute for it—or, rather, not proposed to substitute for it, because it was only an alternative clause. I propose to move certain words. I do not know whether I had better read them now or afterwards.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNERead them now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI propose that the clause which has been disagreed to by the Commons should read as follows—
§ A.—(1) Where a person employs a workman, not being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture on time work at a rate less than that which would have been payable had he been an able-bodied workman, that person shall, within fourteen days of the date hereinafter mentioned, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward a statement in the prescribed form, signed by or on behalf of himself and the workman, containing particulars as to the wages agreed to be paid, and the circumstances which render the workman not an able-bodied workman, and on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned; provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who may, if they think fit, increase the rate of wages payable under the contract, and thereupon the contract shall have effect as from the date hereinafter mentioned as so varied: 705 Then the proviso to run as it now stands. Those are the words which I ask your Lordships to substitute in the Amendment which has been objected to by the House of Commons.
§ Moved, That the said new clause be inserted in lieu of the clause to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I entirely agree with the perfectly accurate account which the Lord Chancellor gave of the matter as it stands, and it was because it stood in that way that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, convinced everybody in this House that it would work extremely unfairly as regards the old labourer or the non-able-bodied man. After this Bill has been passed and until certain matters have been considered, of which I will say a word in a moment, everybody who employs an old man or a non-able-bodied man at less than 25s. a week becomes immediately subject to a heavy penalty, because it is in contravention of the principle of the Bill that any one, unless he gets a permit, shall be employed at less than the 25s. a week. Therefore immediately this Bill comes into force every farmer, whether he wishes to or not, will be obliged to get rid of the non-able-bodied workmen. I am sure that every one in this House desires that such a result should not follow. It is hardly possible to imagine a harsher result as regards the class of man whom every member of your Lordships' House desires fairly to protect. But there is no escaping from the position. The moment this Bill is passed every person employing an old man or a non-able-bodied man for less than 25s. incurs a heavy penalty and may be placed in the dock, as Lord Desborough has said.
§ LORD PARMOORIt has been explained in this House more than once that, whatever the rates may be "applicable to she case," you have to pay at least the minimum of 25s.
§ LORD PARMOORTo every man. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not 706 want to be diverted from my argument. I was not on that at the moment The noble Marquess's Amendment was that, during the time between the passing of the Act and the obtaining of permits, these poor old men and non-able-bodied men should be allowed to go on being paid as now, subject to this only, that if the Local Wages Board or whatever the authority is thought that the amount should be more than they had actually received they should be entitled to the larger amount. That is perfectly fair and right. It gave them every protection, and enabled them to go on in the employment in which they were engaged, which I think I may plead to the noble Viscount everybody desired.
It has been stated that you may make Regulations to deal with this matter. Of course you may. But there are two answers to that. First, when will these Regulations be made; secondly, in what form will they be made? What we desired was to give a statutory protection to the poor non-able-bodied man. It is an entirely different thing to put him at the will or discretion of the Board of Agriculture for the time being. I am not going to find any fault with the Board of Agriculture, but I know perfectly well that even people who are able to defend themselves find great difficulty in dealing with official bodies. These old men, once deprived of the protection of Parliament, will have no protection at all except what an autocratic body desires. I am the more insistent upon this because, as Lord Selborne pointed out, the Bill has been put in its present form probably by the Labour Party, who are not very cognisant of agricultural conditions. The Labour Party always desire uniformity. They are against, any special rates being paid even to non-able-bodied men. Their desire is to have a minimum rate all round. If you apply that to agriculture you get the greatest hardship imaginable. That was the very point that the noble Marquess made when he induced your Lordships to accept this Amendment without dissent. It was no question of farming; it was no question of general national policy; it was that a particular class of men who are singularly unable to protect themselves should be properly protected by statutory provisions. That was the meaning of his Amendment. I hope that when the time comes your Lordships will not consent to have this Amendment eliminated, but that you will insist upon maintaining in the Bill, perhaps 707 amended in the way Lord Camperdown has suggested, a provision which on every humanitarian ground ought, in the opinion of everybody who has any knowledge of agricultural life, to be preserved.
LORD HARRISMy Lords, it is very audacious for a layman to disagree with one so learned in the law as my noble friend Lord Parmoor, but I confess that I cannot construe the two subsections which deal with this particular matter as being so dangerous as he makes out. I assume that the words which are put in the forefront of the clause—that is, in subsection (1)—are applicable to the various classes of labour with which we are concerned. The wording is: "Any person who employs a workman, not being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture shall pay wages to the workman at a rate not less than the minimum rate as fixed under this Act and applicable to the case." "Workman" is defined as meaning any man, woman or child; and it is obviously ridiculous to suppose that Parliament would for one moment contemplate putting words into an Act which meant that every man, woman, and child, whether they are efficient or not, are to get a minimum wage of 25s. That would be an absurdity.
§ LORD PARMOORThat is in the Bill.
LORD HARRISI think the words "applicable to the case "have a context somewhere or other, which is important and which cuts into my noble and learned friend's contention. Take subsection (8) of the next clause. It says: "In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall secure for able-bodied men"—not workmen—a rate of at least 25s. I do not think that the Bill can be so badly drawn that in one place it provides that the Wages Board is to secure for the able bodied man 25s., and that in another place it secures for every person, able-bodied or not, man, woman, or child, 25s. That cannot possbly be; and I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to explain the words which my noble and learned friend could not construe.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am afraid that the Government must be convinced that, if your Lordships think it 708 necessary in all the circumstances to accept what the Commons have done, we shall turn out one of the worst Acts of Parliament which has ever emanated from our system; for we have the spectacle of a noble and learned Lord, highly skilled in construing Acts of Parliament, who is really unable to give any definite meaning to the provisions to which we are asked to agree. In fact, he is inclined to think that the whole Bill is unworkable in this respect. I confess I am somewhat impressed by the argument of my noble friend Lord Harris. Perhaps there are some means of salvation in the words "applicable to the case." But anybody who is familiar with Acts of Parliament must realise that we are depending upon a most ambiguous phrase in order to protect these unfortunate old men, the people who ought to have been the first persons whose interests should be studied in connection with this part of this Bill.
But I should like to put one or two more difficulties. In the first place, as the Bill reached us from the Commons and is now returned to us, apparently the case of the man who is getting on in years and is no longer capable of doing a full, although he can do a very useful, day's work is not provided for. The words were that a permit could be granted in the case of a man who was affected by any mental or other infirmity or physical injury. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who pointed out that this was not sufficient. One knows what mental or physical infirmity means. It means some definite disability, some injury to the mind or the body, or illness affecting the mind or the body when makes a man infirm. But what of the man between 60 and 70 years of age who is still a good man, able to do very useful work, not in any sense of the word infirm, but simply not capable of doing what a man between 40 and 50 or between 30 and 40 can do? I fail to see that this case is provided for at all. I do not see how any Court could interpret the word "infirmity" as covering that case.
Let me take your Lordships to another difficulty. The provision in the Bill is that any person who employs a workman in agriculture shall pay wages to the workman at a rate not less than the minimum rate as fixed under this Bill. That is the first provision. This Bill will take a long time to get into operation. It is all very well for my noble and learned friend on the 709 Woolsack to say that he hopes there will be great despatch. I certainly hope so. But everybody knows that these things take a long time. You have to arrange for your new organisation, your committees and sub-committees, and so on. It must take many months to come into force. What is to happen in the meantime? What are you going to do with the old labourers? This is an emergency Bill; therefore I am not wrong in dealing with the immediate foreground, because it is with the immediate foreground that we are concerned. I presume that the employer will say to the old labourer, "You are not worth 25s., although you are a good fellow in many ways; I will give you only a sovereign." What is going to happen? After several months the organisation comes into operation. It is said by the Government, "Well then the old man will go to the tribunal and say, ' May I have a permit to take less than the minimum wage? ' "Suppose he does not go and ask for a permit? I put this difficulty to the Government. These old agricultural labourers are not learned in the law; they will not understand very much. In what position are you left if the man does not go and get a permit? As he has not got a permit lie will rank as an able-bodied labourer. I cannot read the Bill in any other form. The employer who has been I paying to this man all these months 5s. below the limit has been breaking the law and may be proceeded against in the Courts. He will be put into the dock, will this unfortunate employer. My noble friend laughs. I admit that he has said on a previous occasion that no disgrace attaches to it.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI did not say that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI beg the noble Viscount's pardon. Then disgrace will attach to it. The unfortunate employer will be put in the dock for having I paid this admittedly non-able-bodied labourer 5s. below the proper figure all these months. There is no remedy until the man goes to the tribunal and asks for a permit; yet there is nothing to compel him to ask for a permit, and I do not think he will do so.
Will the Government explain how their Bill is going to work? The real cause of the bad drafting is this headlong and ex- 710 traordinarily unbusinesslike way of legislating, on which I ventured to make some observations to your Lordships on the last occasion. We have no time. This Bill is sent to us to-day from the Commons with no proper Report. We hardly know what was said or what was done, and we are asked to put to the hazard that the Bill may be properly drafted, when we have every reason to believe that it is not; we are to put to the hazard the livelihood of these unfortunate old labourers. I confess that unless the Government can explain to us how this Bill is going to be made to work reasonably, we have nothing before us but to, I will not say insist on our Amendments, but to give the House of Commons another chance to consider the matter, which it is perfectly open for us to do.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Lord Harris is perfectly right in the way in which he reads the words "applicable to the case." Those words were inserted, as I think was stated in Committee, for the purpose of meeting the fact that the Board may fix different rates of wages applicable to different classes of workmen—rates suitable to men, rates suitable to women, and rates suitable to boys. The provision as to 25s. has no application whatever except to the fixing of minimum rates for able-bodied men. It is a direction to the Board that they are, in fixing minimum rates, to see that the rate for able-bodied men is not less than 25s. a week.
The case was stated with force by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, of a non-able-bodied man employed as a non-able-bodied man. There is no difficulty in that case at all. If the noble Marquess will look at Clause 4, subsection (4), he will see it is there enacted that the provisions of that clause as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as respects able-bodied men as from the commencement of the Act (although a minimum rate of wages may not have been fixed), so as to enable any sum which "would have been payable under this clause to an able-bodied man on account of wages for time-work if a minimum rate forable-bodied men had been fixed, to be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time not exceeding three months after the rate is fixed. Then there is a proviso that the man shall not be entitled to recover if the wages are decided to have been equivalent to 25s. a week.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble and learned Lord has not dealt with the difficulty. Suppose the non-able-bodied workman, after the minimum wage has been fixed by the Committee, does not apply for a permit. He then ranks as an able-bodied workman from that time onwards, because he has no permit. Is not that so?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe effect will be that if the non-able-bodied workman does not get a permit he will not get employment, because he is clearly not worth 25s.; and owing to his own fault he is without a permit which enables him to be employed at a wage below the full rate.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYBut he will have been employed all these months, and, in the case I cited, will be entitled to recover the 5s. a week.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think not. The noble Marquess will see that when the minimum rate is fixed the retrospective operation under Clause 4, subsection (4), is confined to able-bodied men, and does not apply to the non-able-bodied man with whom the noble Marquess is dealing. Your Lordships will also observe that the permits are wanted only when a minimum rate has been fixed. Clause 5, subsection (4), says that before fixing any minimum rate of wages the Agricultural Wages Board shall give notice of the rate which they propose to fix, and consider any objections to the rate which may be lodged with them within one month; and the Board shall give notice of any minimum rates fixed by them in such manner as they think fit with a view to bringing the minimum rates, so far as practicable, to the knowledge of the persons affected. While that notice is being given and time for objection being allowed, the process of entertaining applications by infirm or aged men may be approached, and with the assistance of sub-committees the Board may be in a position to grant permits, I should hope, as soon as the minimum rate of wages comes into force. With the assistance of sub-committees you may within a short time, or contemporaneously with the coming into force of the minimum wage, have the coming into force of the permits which will enable those who are not competent to earn a full wage to get employment.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I do not think that the matter is quite so clear. The Lord Chancellor has pointed out again that after the minimum rate has been fixed nobody can employ a non-able-bodied man at a lower rate without a permit. If he does he will be liable to the penalties I have pointed out. I think that the conditions are hopelessly wrong, but whether they can work at all in these circumstances will depend upon the form which the Regulations take. This House has no control whatever over the form of the Regulations. That is, of course, a matter for the official body. I do not know what the penalties may or may not be, but as the Bill stands, and apart from the form in which the Regulations are drawn, it is clear that if the minimum rate is fixed anybody who employs an old man at less than that rate will be liable to heavy penalties. Then there is another point to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. Between the passing of the Act and the fixing of the minimum rate there is no escape from the position. The position is that 25s. is to be taken as the datum line until the minimum rate is fixed. If a farmer employs an old man at, say, 15s. or £1 per week, he will be liable for the difference between the amount paid and the 25s.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe retrospective provision applies as respects able-bodied men only.
§ LORD PARMOORThat leaves the whole matter open. Who is to decide, as to his being able-bodied or not, if you employ a man of 75, 80, or 85? The farmer is left liable to pay the whole of the difference between the two figures.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERMay I call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the terms of Clause 5, subsection (9)? That subsection says—
In this Part of this Act the expression "able-bodied man" means any male workman who is not incapable by reason of age or mental or other infirmity or physical injury of performing the work of a normally efficient workman.How could it be contended, with that provision staring you in the face, that a man of 75 or 80 years of age was an able-bodied workman?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEIt would be greatly for our convenience if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would read again the words of Lord Camperdown's Amendment, because I really do not know what it is.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI will read that part of subsection (1) which has been amended by Lord Camperdown and which he has moved—
Where a person employs a workman, hot being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture on time work at a rate less than that which would have been payable had he been an able-bodied workman, that person shall, within fourteen days of the date hereinafter mentioned, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward a statement in the prescribed form, signed by or on behalf of himself and the workman, containing particulars as to the wages agreed to be paid, and the circumstances which render the workman not an able-bodied workman, and on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who may, if they think fit, increase the rate of wages payable under the contract, and thereupon the contract shall have effect as from the date hereinafter mentioned as so varied:
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, this really is the heart of the matter as we understand it. I am told by my noble friend who has charge of this Bill that the action of your Lordships in insetting the new clause has been represented in certain sections of the Press as aimed at the agricultural labourer and as showing the hostility of this House to his interests. I do not think that it would be possible to state anything more untrue or more unjust. Those who have said that are either supremely ignorant of agricultural conditions, or else they have not even a fundamental conception of justice and are prepared to libel in the grossest manner anybody who happens to be their political opponent. Your Lordships know well that this clause had no other foundation except our anxiety for the old and infirm agricultural labourer.
I would tell the Labour Party, with great respect, that we know a great deal more about the agricultural labourer and his 714 life than they do. It is the glory of agriculture that we have never turned off our old men. The infirm agricultural labourer and the aged are employed, and in the South of England they stay in their cottages in normal conditions to the day of their death. That is the condition of affairs which we meant to preserve, and which we feared was jeopardised by this Bill. The Government agree that our form is preferable; but they say that it is misunderstood in the House of Commons, that the whole thing is sufficiently preserved in the Bill as originally drafted, and they ask us not to insist on our Amendment.
What I understand my noble friend Lord Camperdown to have done is this. He has moved words the effect of which is to eliminate the share of the District Wages Committees in this proposed procedure. It leaves to the individual employer and to the workman the opportunity of making a provisional agreement, and it puts the obligation on the employer of sending notice of that provisional agreement at once to the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture may thereupon issue a sort of provisional permit, but subject in every case to the confirmation, amendment, or disapproval of the Central Wages Board. That preserves the intention of the Amendment, and at the same time puts its action into conformity with the plan on which the House of Commons insisted—namely, of leaving the responsibility to the Wages Board and not to the District Wages Committee. I think your Lordships will be well advised in giving the House of Commons an opportunity of reconsidering their position on this matter because I am sure that they misunderstood our intention; and on reflection I believe they will see that the Amendment, as amended, will be entirely consistent with the general scheme in connection with wages of which they have approved.
In conclusion let me say this. Suppose the House of Commons insist. I do not know what line your Lordships would take in that case. But if your Lordships, in that event, thought fit not to insist further on your view, I would make an appeal to all employers of labour not to be influenced in their action towards these old and infirm men by the unfortunate action of the House of Commons. I am sure that nobody in this House would be so influenced. We should not discharge our old men because the House of Commons had failed to under- 715 stand the importance of the matter and had rejected our advice. But I would remind your Lordships that we are a small minority of agricultural employers. It is often forgotten that more than 80 per cent. of the occupiers of land in this country occupy land of less than 150 acres in extent. How many aged and infirm labourers are employed by that 80 per cent. of occupiers of 150 acres and less? A very large number. And these employers are not men who can afford to run the risks to which they may think the Bill would make them liable. It is to those men that I would address my appeal. Do not let them, because of any action the House of Commons may take, be frightened for one moment and turn off these labourers; because I am perfectly convinced that, whatever action the House of Commons takes, public opinion will be too strong, and that men whose only fault has been kindness will not be allowed by public opinion to be punished, no matter what the provisions of the Act of Parliament may be. But I hope that the House of Commons will reconsider their position and take advantage of the opportunity which my noble friend affords to them.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI propose to put the Motion in the following form, That the following new clause be inserted in lieu of the clause to which the Commons have disagreed—
§ Special provisions as to non-able-bodied workmen.
§ After Clause 5 insert new clause A.:
§ " A.—(1) Where a person employs a workman, not being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture on time work at a rate less than that which would
716§ have been payable had he been an able-bodied workman, that person shall, within fourteen days of the date hereinafter mentioned, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward a statement in the presented form, signed by or on behalf of himself and the workman, containing particulars as to the wages agreed to be paid, and the circumstances which render the workman not an able-bodied workman, and on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned; provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who may, if they think tit, increase the rate of wages payable under the contract, and thereupon the contract shall have effect as from the date hereinafter mentioned as so varied: Provided that this provision shall not apply in any case where the wages paid are in accordance with a certificate granted by a district wages committee under this section.
§ " If the employer fails to send such a notice as aforesaid or to pay wages at the rate fixed by the committee, he shall be liable to the like penalties as if the workman had been an able-bodied workman.
§ " The date hereinbefore referred to is the date of the commencement of the contract or of the fixing of the minimum time rate for able-bodied workmen in the district, whichever is the later.
§ " (2) If a district wages committee are satisfied that any workman employed or desiring to be employed on time work is not an able-bodied workman, the committee may grant to the workman, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the committee a certificate to that effect and applying to the workman the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act for able-bodied workmen, subject to such reduction as may be specified in the certificate; and whilst such a certificate is in force this Act shall apply as if the minimum rate subject to such reduction as aforesaid were applicable to him."
§ On Question?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents 22; Not-contents, 36.
717| CONTENTS. | ||
| Cholmondeley, M. | Selborne, E. | Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) |
| Salisbury, M. | Verulam, E. | Desborough, L. |
| Yarborough, E. | Greville, L. | |
| Camperdown. E. [Teller.] | Hindlip, L. [Teller.] | |
| Cowley, E. | Chaplin, V. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry) | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Leconfield, L. |
| Parmoor, L. | ||
| Harewood, E. | Sandys, L. | |
| Northbrook, E. | Beresford of Metemmeh, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Lincolnshire, M. | Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) |
| Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) | Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | |
| Chesterfield, E. | Cowdray, V. | |
| Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) | Derby, E. | Elibank, V. |
| Howe, E. | Milner, V. | |
| Lucan, E. | Peel, V. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Plymouth, E. | |
| Oxford, L. Bp. | Colwyn, L. | Newton, L. |
| Elphinstone, L. | Ranksborough, L. | |
| Aberconway; L. | Harris, L. | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Annesley, L. | Hylton, L. [Teller.] | Rhondda, L. |
| Anslow, L. | Lambourne, L. | Stanmore, L. [Teller.] |
| Avebury, L. | Leverhulme, L. | Stuart of Wortley, L. |
| Colebrooke, L. | Muir Mackenzie, L. | Wolverton, L. |
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Resolved in the negative.