HL Deb 09 April 1918 vol 29 cc649-58

THE EARL OF JERSEY rose to call attention to the effects of the system under which labour is obtained in agricultural districts for non-agricultural work carried out by or on behalf of certain Government Departments, and the consequent menace to the food supply of the country; and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in the matter.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in asking this Question I should like to explain that I do not under-estimate the importance of the work of the Departments to which I refer, and I fully appreciate the vital necessity of that work being completed at the earliest possible moment. But if I state the case from what may appear to he a one-sided point of view, it is because possibly it may not be fully realised to what an extent food production is hampered by the activities of these Departments, and more especially by the method which their agents employ to secure the necessary labour. The Departments to which I propose particularly to refer are those connected with aerodrome construction and the work of the Road Board, but I have heard of others, and I venture to hope that any assurance that may be given will apply equally to the work of all Government Departments in agricultural districts.

The system complained of is that by which labour is withdrawn from agriculture by the very simple process of offering wages at a rate with which no farmer could possibly compete. I notice that this subject was touched upon in your Lordships' House in a recent debate, and I will endeavour not to go over the same ground again, more especially as I do not wish to quote any specific instances, but to refer to the effect, not only the immediate but the lasting effect, which this system is likely to have on agriculture. I should like to add that I felt bound to raise this matter because of the great number of letters received by the War Agricultural Executive Committee of which I am chairman, both from individual farmers and from various agricultural bodies in the county; and I understand that the same complaint is being put forward in very many other localities.

We are told that an adequate supply of home-grown food is essential if we ale to continue the present struggle, so much so that men even of military age are not allowed to be taken away from agriculture by the military authorities at a time like this, when all fit men are so urgently needed. I would suggest that it is surely an anomaly, that being so, that other Government Departments should bribe men to leave agriculture by the inducement of extravagant wages at a time when it is so very essential that every man should serve his country in the capacity for which he is most fitted. I shall, perhaps, be told that every aerodrome contractor has received instructions that he is only to take men through the Employment Exchanges, and that the managers of those institutions have been instructed that they are not to put forward men who are engaged in agriculture. I wish that this instruction had extended to work that was to be undertaken on behalf of all Government Departments, and that it had been somewhat more strictly observed. I believe that the managers of the Employment Exchanges observe their instructions, and that the contractors and the resident engineers do their utmost to avoid taking men from agriculture, but I am not sure that the same can be said about all their deputies. However that may be, the fact undoubtedly remains that a great number of men have found their way from agriculture into work undertaken on behalf of Government Departments. I could give instances where men have been refused by aerodrome contractors on the ground that they had come straight from agriculture, yet have been promptly taken on by the Road Board; but, as I said, I will not give particular instances this evening.

It is not within the scope of my Question to criticise the work undertaken by other Departments except in so far as it affects food production; but I would suggest that a system by which a contractor receives a commission on the wages paid, which means that the more men he employs and the higher wages he pays the better it is for him, is not likely to conduce to economy. The men themselves know that these wages are not permanent, and a certain number of them, at any rate, are not inclined to hurry over the job. Such a system as this is likely to prolong the work and to increase the cost. I do not dispute the right of any man to obtain the full market price for his labour, but he should undertake the labour for which he is best fitted and carry it out to the best of his ability. I am told that within the last three weeks an increase of 12½ per cent. has been paid, and this where men who are unskilled are earning up to about 70s. a week, and skilled men much more; yet the skilled agricultural labourer receives less than half of that amount. How can farmers possibly compete with such a system, and whence are they to obtain their labour at harvest time?

I have often wondered why the German prisoners in this country could not be employed on aerodromes and on the roads instead of civilian labour, When these men are employed on farms the, restrictions as to the size of the gang, the radius within which they go out to work, and also the supervision to be exercised, are rightly strict. These restrictions could be far more easily complied with if they worked on aerodrome construction or on the roads. And if they were paid at the same rate of wages as that received by our men in Germany, there would be no question of competing in the matter of wages in regard to agricultural labour. Consider the feelings of the farmer when he is told by his Committee to break up grass land, and, after cheerfully accepting that decision, goes home and finds that his carter, perhaps, has gone to work on the nearest aerodrome or on the road. Is not such a state of things most discouraging to him in his efforts to increase our food production? Those who serve on Executive Committees know the argument that is put forward on appeal by the farmers to the effect that, if they have to break up more grass land, something else will have to be left undone because of the shortage of labour. If compulsory Orders are issued, the least we can do for the farmer is to see that he gets the necessary labour, and to ask His Majesty's Government to take care that various Departments do not deprive the farmer of what little labour be already has.

Farmers are prepared to make any sacrifice and to do any kind of work possible at the present time. The readiness with which they have accepted the various Orders has been remarkable. But they should have an adequate supply of labour to fulfil the demands made upon them, and they should not be subject to the additional insecurity caused by demands for labour in other directions making their position almost impossible. So with the labourers. Is it reasonable to expect a man to stay at one kind of work when other men, who are not doing half the amount of honest work that he is doing, are drawing twice as much in wages? I believe that many of these men, however, have remained in their old employment because they think that they can best serve their country by working on the land, and have not considered their own immediate pecuniary interests.

My excuse for taking up your Lordships' time is that I view with great concern the future of agriculture, and unless steps are taken to remedy matters and to re-adjust the scale as far as the times permit matters will go from bad to worse. In existing circumstances there must be unrest, and the farmers as well as others have to face abnormal difficulties; but I trust that the action of Government Departments will not aggravate those difficulties. We have been told that the farmers can save the country. I believe that the farmers and the labourers together can and will save the country if they can but obtain a fair chance to reap the reward of their labours. The evil which exists is a double one. There is the immediate depletion of agricultural labour from the causes I have mentioned, and the disquieting effect that this has upon those who continue in agriculture. In my view the latter evil is as important as the former. We all wish to see the farmer placed in a position of greater security and given that encouragement which has been too long denied to him. We also wish to see the agricultural labourer receiving a fair share of the improved conditions. But if the revival of agriculture is not to be based on mutual regard, and if the agricultural labourer is to be taught that he is better off in any other industry than agriculture, then the outlook is hopeless. Those who are always desirous of fermenting trouble are given opportunities by the existing condition of affairs, and nothing is more calculated to disorganise labour in our country districts than a sense of unequal treatment.

The farmer cannot continue to produce food without labour. At the same time he cannot compete against the rate of wages paid by Government Departments unless the price of food rises still further. The cost of production must naturally govern prices. We have heard a great deal about the importance of agriculture, and we are glad to believe that the farmer is to receive at last proper recognition; but although many appeals have been made to the farmer, when it comes to granting practical assistance, agriculture, being weak, goes to the wall when Government Departments compete amongst themselves. It is all to the credit of the farmer that, despite the way in which he has been treated, he is still determined to do his best; and I hope that the noble Viscount who will reply on behalf of the Government will give us some reassuring statements as to his future prospects.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has presented with much force the difficulties in which agriculture is placed owing to the higher wages offered in other occupations. We sympathise with the difficulties in which the farmer is placed, and also with the patriotic behaviour of many of the labourers who have resisted these temptations.

The first observation I have to make on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rother-mere—because he was to have answered on behalf of the Air Board and the Road Board, and, so far as that portion of the Question is concerned, I am taking my noble friend's place—is that an arrangement was come to with the Air Board, as the noble Earl said, at an interview arranged by the Minister of National Service, that the Air Board, its contractors and subcontractors and all those whom it controls, should take their labour in future only through the Labour Exchanges. That arrangement has been carried out. Instructions have been sent by the Minister of Labour to the Labour Exchanges that they should not send forward men actually engaged or who have recently been engaged in agriculture when the Air Board or their contractors require men for building aerodromes.

I think my noble friend was good enough to admit that so far as his observation goes these arrangements have been carried out both in the spirit and the letter of the engagement. He suggested, it is true, that some of their deputies—I suppose he meant some of the sub-contractors—had not been above suspicion. I should like to say this. Of course, these arrangements apply to the contractors and every sub-contractor with whom they deal, and the Air Board is extremely anxious that the arrangements should be strictly adhered to, and if any complaints are sent to the National Service Board or to the Air Board they will he glad to investigate them and see whether the stories are really correct. I am glad to note that my noble friend made no allusion to certain charges which have been brought forward, that vans were going about the country and deliberately recruiting men for aerodromes. Those charges have been investigated and found not to have any foundation in fact. Such vans as were in existence were merely used for conveying men who had agreed to take service in aerodromes to their work.

There is a further point which I should like to make, and this is rather on the part of the National Service Board than on behalf of the Air Board, because what I have just said binds only the Air Board and the Road Board, which of course acts as agent for the Air Board in constructing roads and such work in connection with aerodromes. But the system that I have outlined has been carried still further, and arrangements have been now made for munitions, and only two days ago arrangements were fixed up with the Admiralty that they would similarly only employ for their works of construction persons taken through the Labour Exchanges, and persons who were not engaged or who had not recently been engaged in agriculture. Therefore the whole field of Government construction is coveted, and men will no longer be taken by subterranean methods but only through the Labour Exchanges. If this arrangement is kept, I think that all the Government can do will have been done to see that agriculture is not further depleted.

There were two observations made by my noble friend on which, although they were not strictly relevant to the Question, perhaps I ought to add a word. My noble friend will see that there is immense difficulty if you have one industry in the country which must necessarily be less well paid than another. The temptation for a leakage from the less well paid to the higher paid industries is very great, and it is especially great in the case of aerodromes which have to be put down in country districts, and where the contrast between the rates of wages paid is so easily known to the inhabitants. I think my noble friend commented on the high rates of wages. No doubt they are high, but that is not due to the special action of the Air Board or of the contractors. They merely pay the rates of wages which prevail in the particular trade. They cannot pay less, and they do not pay more; but it is obvious, with the longer hours and the overtime, that the wages for unskilled men must reach a high figure. Sunday work, as the noble Earl knows, is now to be stopped.

The noble Earl's second criticism was upon the method of carrying out these contracts by paying a percentage on the amount expended. This system was inherited by the Air Board from the War Office, and I think I am right in saying that far the larger number of the contracts now running for aerodrome construction under the Air Board were fixed by the War Office and were therefore inherited from the War Office. Certain changes have, however, been made under the Air Board. They have a number of accountants going about the country looking into the wages paid and seeing that there is no waste of any kind. The system, obviously, may he objectionable in various ways, but the noble Earl does not, perhaps, realise that the only way in which you can get work done at all—because such is the uncertainty now and the rise in prices that you cannot get aerodromes built at all under ordinary contract conditions—is under this system. It may be open to criticism in some ways, but it had to be adopted; otherwise no aerodromes could have been built.

On the general question, I think I must leave the noble Earl to find what satisfaction he can out of the fact that a system has been devised and is being carried out by which men can only be recruited in one way and through one channel for this work. This last point he might consider. As he knows, men of military age who have been in agriculture since the beginning of June have a special protection. They lose that protection when they leave agriculture. Now the age is going to be raised to fifty or nearly fifty-one, as announced by the Prime Minister in another place, and it is quite clear that those under that age who are now in agriculture and who try to go to other occupations will lose their exemption. I know there are some pretty old agricultural labourers, but I think the number above that age must be small who leave their homes to take up other occupations, because above that age the human being becomes a little less flexible for adapting himself to new occupations. Therefore I think on that point agriculture is to some extent safeguarded.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I am sure your Lordships will agree that the noble Earl need have made no apology for introducing this subject or for any length at which he spoke, for as a matter of fact this is a question of supreme importance, and I confess I was a little disappointed when the noble Viscount told us that he had come to the conclusion that the Government had already done practically all that they could do to avoid a further depletion of agricultural labour. Even now agriculture is working under the greatest difficulty as regards labour and the increase in the price of labour to which they are being made subject every day.

We have been told over and over again, with much energy and almost passionate force, that it is vital to the safety of the nation and to its life—that is the language of the Prime Minister—that there should be an enormous increase in the production of home-grown food, and every word of that is absolutely true. Then what is the position with which we are confronted? The noble Earl, with great clearness and force, has told you that if the present difficulties in regard to labour continue they must be absolutely fatal to this production which the whole of the Cabinet are agreed is vital to the very existence of the nation. It is nearly a year since the Leader of the House of Commons, Mr. Bonar Law, in a speech which he made upon this subject, made a statement in which he put the further production of food in this country and the continued progress of increased production side by side in importance with the provision of fighting men at the Front. This is absolutely true. I hope the noble Viscount will take the opportunity of impressing the matter upon the Government. Perhaps the noble Earl also will have something to say to some of them on the point.

I am the more anxious about this because I can confirm all that has fallen from the noble Earl from the fact that only last night I was addressing an enormous meeting of agriculturists in the North of England. I learned that the condition of things there was appalling. Not only were statements made at the meeting itself, but had the advantage of meeting half a dozen or more of these gentlemen privately afterwards and having a long talk with them before I caught the train back. What were the facts I arrived at? In the county of Durham they were asking 36s. per week wages. In the county of Northumberland I was told it was 38s. In Cheshire not long ago they were asking 45s. in the dairy district. Everybody knows that the thing began the other day in Norfolk, where they asked for an increase from 25s. to 30s. That was taken up in Northamptonshire.

There has followed exactly what I predicted on the Second Reading of the Corn Production Bill would follow after the change of policy which was adopted in that Bill as compared with the clear and definite policy laid down by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on February 23 last year. What was that policy? A distinct, unqualified, definite pledge that there should be no wages boards set up till after the war, and a further guarantee that there would he no maximum prices fixed, but that the producers of food, in the great task which was urged upon them, would be allowed the free run of the market. As the result of all these changes I state with profound regret my undoubted view that the methods which have been pursued and the whole system for producing an enormous increase of food in this country are as unhappily situated at the present moment both with regard to meat and cereals as can easily be imagined. Something must be done. The Government must take up the question in earnest, and find some way—because it is their business and their duty—to give substantial effect to the policy which they have declared to be absolutely vital to the safety and existence of the country.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) for the reassuring statement he has made. As regards one of his observations, I should like to say that I did not criticise the fact of the percentage on construction. I was particular to say I only criticised the fact that the percentage on wages was included in the percentage on construction, but I know that Lord Rothermere has explained that no other system was possible.