CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.

HL Deb 04 August 1921 vol 43 cc277-319

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

House again in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF DONWHITMORE in the Chair.]

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, at the beginning of subsection (4), to insert "It shall be the duty of such committee as aforesaid to submit proposals to the Minister in relation to a minimum rate of wages." The noble Lord said: Tins is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I have consulted noble Lords who are learned in the law, and they agree that, although there is a recital or preamble at the beginning of Clause 4 to the effect that it is expedient that the committees should be established for the purpose of dealing with wages or hours of labour, there are no operative words to show what should be actually the duties of these committees. It assumes that their duties have been set out apparently at the beginning of subsection (4) which says— Any such committee as aforesaid which has agreed upon a rate of wages ….

There is nothing whatever in the Bill to indicate that it shall be their duty to settle a rate of wages, and in order to carry out the evident object of the preamble or recital, it is necessary that some operative words should be included in the Bill to make clear what their duties are.

Amendment Moved— Page 4, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not fully understand even now the purpose of the Amendment. The Minister does not propose to accept any jurisdiction for deciding whether a proposal in relation to a minimum rate of wages, or a standard rate of wages, is reasonable or unreasonable. The whole scope of the clause is that the conciliation committees will be formed for the purpose of dealing by agreement with questions of wages, and, being voluntary associations, they can adopt any procedure they like for this purpose. If they think fit they can apply to the Minister under Clause 4 to make the agreement compulsory on all employers in their district, but there is no obligation on the committees to take this course, and it is quite possible that in many cases it will be found that a voluntary rate agreed to by a committee is so generally observed that there is no necessity to take this course. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because we have heard a great deal about compulsion and the re-establishment of wages boards. He will see that the clause says that the committee "may submit the agreement to the Minister." If the conciliation committee reach a decision and find that decision has been generally observed throughout the district, they are not forced to send it to the Minister at all.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. It would mean practically that all proposals should be submitted to the Minister and he would be appointed to fix wages. The great thing is to have conciliation to produce agreement, and then, if they think fit, they can refer to the Minister. But this would make it possible for the Minister to have all sorts of proposals referred to him, and we are anxious to get rid of control in all forms.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree with my noble friend that the drafting of this paragraph is peculiar. This might be any committee formed for any other purpose, but which happens to agree on a rate of wages. I should certainly have said, had I been drafting it, "Any such committee may agree on a rate of wages." I hope the Government will consider it before the Report stage.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like to ease your Lordships' minds on this subject. I do not really mind in what manner this particular preface to the clause is framed. I do not want to have any drastic interference in this matter. All I want is that it should be made perfectly clear what are the duties—possibly the permissive duties—of these committees. The drafting of the clause is so bad that I want the noble Earl kindly to consult his legal adviser to see if it can be put into more correct legal form on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I shall be very pleased to consult the legal advisers to see whether it can be made clearer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (4), after "any," to leave out "such committee as aforesaid," and insert "joint conciliation committee." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was placed on the Paper for the purpose of improving the drafting of the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 1, leave out ("such committee as aforesaid") and insert ("joint conciliation committee").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORD DYNEVOR

had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), after "rate of wages," to insert "for a specified period." The noble Lord said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper to raise an important point which was only brought to my notice yesterday. I am not absolutely wedded to the wording of the Amendment, because I had to draft it in a hurry. if your Lordships will look at page 4 of the Bill you will see that it now says in line 2,"the joint conciliation committee "—those are the words that have just been inserted—"which has agreed upon a rate of wages for any class of persons," and there it stops. It refers only to an agreement as to the rate of wages. Later on, in lines 8, 9 and 10, it says— the Minister may confirm the agreement and cause the same and the (late from which and the period for which it shall operate"— Therefore, the Minister is stating and settling the period for which the rate is to operate and the date on which it shall commence. It seems to me that those two things ought naturally to be settled by the conciliation committee when they settle the rate of wages. I do not imagine for one moment that the Minister wants to settle those things; he would much prefer that the conciliation committee should settle them.

If your Lordships are agreeable, I should like to move my Amendment in a different form. Its effect will be to lift up to the second line on page 4 the words in lines 9 and 10, and the Amendment will then read: "after wages" omit "for" and insert"and the date from which, and the period for which such wages shall be paid." Later on, of course, there will be a consequential Amendment in line 9 to omit the words"and the date from which, and the period for which it shall operate." I do not know whether that would be agreeable to your Lordships, and to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but I think it carries out the intention of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 2, after ("wages") leave out ("for") and insert (" and the date from which, and the period for which such wages shall be paid ").(Lord Dyaevor.)

THE. EARL OF SELBORNE

I think my noble friend has done a great service in bringing this matter forward, but I venture to submit to him and to the House that even he has not given a complete account of the difficulty in which we are landed. I understand why the Government put this clause as vaguely as possible, and to a great extent I think the whole House is in agreement with them. The Government do not want the Minister to be responsible for rates of wages; nor do your Lordships' House wish him to be responsible for them. The Government want the submission of a rate to come as a purely voluntary action of a suitably representative conciliation committee.

Look at what the clause says first of all, and then I will ask your Lordships to see what my noble friend proposes. The clause, is my noble friend quite properly pointed out, says that the Minister is to fix the date from which the rate is to come into effect and the period for which it is to operate—one year, two years, or whatever the Minister may choose. I think your Lordships would object to that. That is not really consistent with the intentions of the Government. My noble friend proposes, as a remedy, that the committee should fix a period. Is that right? That is not the case now with the Central Wages Committee, because a rate is fixed from time to time, and either party is perfectly free to raise the question again whenever they like. Surely we want to leave both the representatives of the employed and of the employers free to denounce an existing rate, and to demand a fresh rate, whenever they like. You do not want to fix a rate for two years or three years, because you do not in the least know what is going to happen. I suggest that some alteration in drafting is required here.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think the point raised by both noble Lords is a perfectly' proper one The wording does require alteration, but it is difficult for me to say, on the spur of the moment, what exactly the Amendment should be. Let me say, first of all, that I think an amendment is necessary to remove doubt on this subject. It is, of course, the custom in every industry to agree on a rate of wages either for a specified period or for the rate of wages continuing in operation until either party to the agreement gives notice to determine it. There would not, in the latter case, therefore, be an agreement for a specified period. My suggestion would be that we should not accept this Amendment, but should insert the word "agreed" before "period" in line 10 when we come to that. That would, I think, make it quite clear that the period for which a rate shall operate must be a period agreed by the committee and not fixed by the Minister. When we get to line 10 I would move to insert, after the third "the," the word "agreed." If that would satisfy noble Lords I think it would be the best way to make it clear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You would have to make it apply to the word "date" as well as to the word "period."

LORD DYNEVOR

That would practically be what I have moved, but it does not meet the objection raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as to not specifying the period. It says "the agreed period," and therefore the conciliation committee will have to come to an agreement for a certain period. I do not know if they can re-open the question again until that period is ended, and my noble friend's suggestion will, therefore, be open to the same objection as mine, because it will not meet the objection raised by my noble friend, Lord Selborne.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I venture to hope that this matter will be left over till the Report stage in order that it may be carefully considered? I am bound to say that to substitute the word suggested by the noble. Earl would make the reading cumbrous and less convincing than would the insertion of words which my noble friend, Lord Dynevor, suggests. In any case what he suggests is, I understand, that the proposal of the conciliation committee shall include not merely the rate of wages, hut the date from which and the period for which it shall operate. It is an agreement including all these three items. All would have to be provided for. It is those three points as part of one agreement upon which the Minister would be asked to confer. That sounds the simplest method, but in any case I would venture to ask your Lordships, if the noble Earl assents, to allow this matter to stand over to Report to be properly considered.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

On the understanding that the Government will put down an Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not wish to make a decision on this. I only ask whether it would not be for the convenience of your Lordships if the Amendment, which I am informed is the best way to treat this question, to insert the word "agreed" in front of the word "period" in line 10, should not be agreed to now in Committee, and then, if that is found cumbrous or not to carry out what is desired, the question could again be discussed on Report. I am afraid that at this moment it is not very easy for me to decide the best line of drafting, but I think that would be the best course to pursue it is only the insertion of one word, and it is not very cumbrous.

LORD DYNEVOR

The only objection I can raise to the suggestion of my noble friend to put the word "agreed" in front of the word "period" in line 10 is that he is assuming that the conciliation committee will have an agreed period. What will happen if the conciliation committee set up a rate of wages without an agreed period? My Amendment compels the conciliation committee to decide on a period.

EARL GREY

It would not until further notice be an agreed period legally.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. If you like to leave the whole question over till the Report stage for further consideration, be it so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is much sounder to leave it over.

LORD DYNEVOR

I have a good deal of doubt in following the advice of my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, because if this is left to the Report stage and my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster brings up an Amendment, we may not have very much time to consider it, and it is always rather difficult to alter an Amendment on Report. May I suggest to him that he accepts my Amendment, subject to the right of alteration when it comes to Report.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am informed that the Amendment as proposed by the noble Lord is not proposed at the right place, and it is really a question of drafting. I am afraid I cannot accept it. Of course, if he presses the matter, we shall have to divide about it, but I think it would be more convenient if he would withdraw it now and consider the question on Report. Of course, if he is in favour of pressing it we shall have to settle it by a Division.

LORD DYNEVOR

If your Lordships prefer to have it put off to the Report stage and will not go to a Division —

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am afraid that, by a rather disorderly interruption, I am responsible for the suggestion. I can only say this. We are none of us very clear what is the effect of the Amendment of my noble friend who sits behind me, because it is not upon the Paper in the form in which he wishes to move it It makes it rather difficult to see quite clearly what the effect is. I am not at all sure whether the words he proposes will cover all the cases which he himself wants to cover. That may be so. If there is any doubt about it, the simpler plan is to leave it over. I think we have come to the. Conclusion—I appeal to the noble Earl—that the clause does want amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I say that we have an understanding with the Government that the clause will be amended to some extent upon Report.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I admit that it is not clear upon this point and that we shall have an amendment on it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

From that I think my noble friend may be quite sure that the matter will not be overlooked altogether.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GALWAYmoved, in subsection (4), before "submit the agreement to the Minister," to insert "if the committee so desire." The noble Viscount said: My Amendment is simply raised because of the interpretation that may be put upon the word "may." We want these boards to act in the most conciliatory manner possible. It seems to me that if, the moment the wages are agreed to, they are obliged to be submitted to the Minister for confirmation and for publication in the whole district, that is rather rushing things too much, and I think you ought to give discretionary power to the conciliation committee to settle how soon they wish the agreed rate of wages to be set up and made compulsory for the district. They may agree to the rate of wages two months before it is sent up to the Minister for confirmation, in order to see if it gives satisfaction all round. I think there should be this discretionary power to the committee to say how soon they will send up the agreed rate which is to become the standard rate of wages.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, after (" may ") insert ("if the committee desire")—(Viscount Galway.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I shall be pleased to accept this Amendment with one slight alteration—namely, that "committee" should be "committees."

VISCOUNT GALWAY

of course, accept that alteration, and will move accordingly.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, in subsection (1), before "confirm the agreement," to insert "after consultation with the agricultural committee of the county." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment becomes all the more important in view of the fact that the Government, by a narrow majority, defeated the proposal that the committee should be set tip with the concurrence of the county council. It is suggested in my proposal that any rate of wages which may be proposed by these local conciliation committees, before they are advertised in the district to which they apply, shall be not merely confirmed by the Minister but that the county agricultural committee shall he consulted as to their suitability and applicability to the district. It is, in fact, to avoid all this centralised interference that I. move the Amendment, so that the Minister nay not act upon his own fiat, but with the approval of those who best represent all the agricultural interests in an agricultural area.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the agricultural committee of the county").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. As it is, the Minister has to satisfy himself that the conciliation committee, who have arrived at an agreement, fairly represent employers and employed. Subject to this he will then confirm the agreement and advertise it. I do not see what is to be gained by asking him to consult the agricultural committee before he confirms that order. It may possibly be very disastrous. When the conciliation committee has arrived at terms and asked the Minister to confirm it, some time may elapse before the agricultural committee can be consulted. There will be a certain delay, and fresh circumstances may arise, which might possibly mean that a strike will take place which might otherwise have been avoided. The delay in certain cases may cause disaster and strife, and I hope the noble Lord, when he considers the matter, will not press the Amendment. It must be obvious that the great fear of waiting for consultation with and advice of the agricultural committee might lead to misunderstanding and a breakdown of the negotiations.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Is the case really quite as simple as my, noble friend would make out? He will pardon me if I say that he argued as if the Ministry of Agriculture knew intimately all the circumstances and the varying conditions of every county in England. That is not the case. I have been at the Ministry and I speak with knowledge. They have a good general knowledge, but they have not an intimate knowledge. In my own county, so far as I know, the general feeling is that there should be only one county joint conciliation committee, and therefore the case to which I am going to refer cannot occur there. But some of my friends have told me that they hope there will be several conciliation committees in their counties. If there is no reference to the agricultural committee of a county council in a county like that, you may have one conciliation committee out of half-a-dozen propounding a rate of wages, which the Minister may affirm, with the result of upsetting all the other districts of the county altogether. The strike, which my noble friend fears, will have been caused by the hasty and ignorant (if I may use that word without offence) affirmation of the Minister; whereas if he will go there and have a consultation—and I ask him to remember that this is not a concurrent consultation—the Minister could be assured that they were running no such risk. It seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment which does not institute any concurrent authority with the Minister but merely takes the precaution that the Ministry knows the facts of the case before it gives its decision.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 25;

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Malmesbury, E.	Dynevor, L.
	Mar and Kellie, E.	Emmott, L.
Sutherland, D.		Gisborough, L.
Bath, M.	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hylton L.
Camden, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Illingworth, L.
Lincolnshire, M.(L. Great Chamberlain.)		Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)
	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Lamington, L.
Ancaster, E.	Boston, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Bradford, E.	Channing of Wellingborough, L.	Newton, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Clinton, L.	Parmoor, L.
Clarendon, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Shandon, L.
Eldon, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Grey, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Lucan, E.	Cozens-Hardy, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Lytton, E.	Crawshaw, L.	Wyfold, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Exeter, M.	Bledisloe, L.	Lawrence, L.
	Ebury, L.	Redesdale, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Strachie, L. [Teller.]
	Hastings, L.	Sumner, L.
	Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, M.	Selborne, E.	Crawshaw, L.
Salisbury, M.		Erskine, L.
	Hutchinson, V. (E.Donoughmore.)	Monk Bretton, L
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)		O' Hagan, L.
	Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
Grey, E. [Teller.]	Clinton, L.	Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Bath, M.	Lytton, E.	Gisborough, L.
Exeter, M.	Mar and Kellie, E.	Hastings, L.
	Portsmouth, E.	Hindlip, L.
Ancaster, E.		Hylton, L.
Bradford, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Illingworth, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)
Clarendon, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Eldon, E.	Dynevor, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Lucan, E.	Ebury, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CLINTONmoved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert—"Provided that it shall be lawful for an employer or workman to determine by two weeks' notice in writing any contract of employment entered into, prior to the specified date, for a term of three months or upwards to which this subsection applies and which provided for the payment of wages at a rate different to the rate payable under the agreement."

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment really for the purpose of obtaining information as to the position of those employers who are in the habit of engaging men for a long period, say six months or a year, and who entered into an agreement a few months ago, before this Bill was mooted. Are they to be bound by the rate of wages to which they have agreed until the termination of the year? I am very strongly against breaking any agreement entered into between master and man, and at the same time it is very possibly some hardship, in these entirely changed circumstances, that the employer should be obliged to pay a rate which probably is very much higher than what he is paying to those employed on a different tenure, perhaps weekly servants in his own employ. I think there is likely to be very considerable difficulty between different men on the farm, and possible hardship, and perhaps the noble Earl is able to say how far these agreements will be affected by the rates which the new conciliation boards will bring in.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after (" agreement ") insert the said proviso—(Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because I am of opinion that it goes too far. I can give a case. Supposing that an employer engaged a man at 40s. a week on a three or six months' engagement, and subsequently the conciliation committee fixed the wage at 42s., I hardly think that that should stand; and I do not think it can be quite justified that the employer should be in the position of getting off paying the extra two shillings agreed upon. There is a point in connection with this, however, where a hardship arises, and I will look into it to see whether we can introduce an Amendment on Report which would deal with the cases of exceptional circumstances. The case I contemplate is that of a fanner who bad entered into an agreement with a workman to pay a certain low wage because the man is lame or otherwise not fit. He has agreed to pay the man, we will say, 35s. for a term. The conciliation committee fix a wage of 40s. and, the farmer having explained the circumstances, the conciliation committee refuse to give an exemption, and insist on the full rate being paid. In such circumstances, I think the employer certainly ought to be able to get out of the bargain, or make some other arrangement.

LORD CLINTON

I put forward this Amendment only for the purpose of ascertaining how far these long engagements were affected by the subsequent decisions of the conciliation committee. What I understand is that they are not affected in any way, and the agreements still stand.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I take it that the arrangement which exists at the present time will continue, and that it will be possible for conciliation committees to give exemptions, just as district wages boards are giving them now. Will that not be the case?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Whatever the conciliation committee fixed as the new rate would be the implied rate of the contract When the conciliation committee settled 42s. instead of 40s. the 42s. would be a term of the contract, and that amount would have to be paid.

LORD CLINTON

Although the agreement had been entered into before?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes; or, at any rate, he would have to give notice.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I wish my noble friend would make this perfectly clear. The ease I understand Lord Clinton to raise is that of an agreement of three or six months, or a year. Does that agreement hold good, or does it not hold good, if the rate of wages is fixed afterwards? Supposing the rate is fixed afterwards and the rate is then lower than the contract, is the contract altered to the disadvantage of the workmen? And suppose the rate is fixed higher than the contract, is it to remain to the disadvantage of the employer?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE EARL, OF SELBORNE

That is the ease.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In answer to my noble friend behind me, the case of the infirm man is dealt with in the next subsection; that is not the point we are considering now.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

No.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I understand that the answer is, and that we have it clearly now, that if a new rate of wages is fixed, and that new rate is to the advantage of the employee, he gets the advantage of it.

TI1E EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If it is not to the advantage of the employee it does not affect King?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

That is the case.

LORD CLINTON

Is not that an extraordinary position? Surely there ought to be one rule for both parties. I should prefer that the arrangement should stand, because it is a definite contract equally affecting both. I do not think it ought to be in favour of the one and against the other.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am sorry to pursue this subject, but if you look at the wording of the clause, it says— it shall be an implied term of every contract for the employment after the specified date of a workman of any class to which the agreement applies"— that is to say, the moment that the wages are increased, ('very existing contract is to be affected prejudicially to the employer, assuming the wages to be raised.

THE EARL, OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

But assuming the wages to be lowered, the contract for a considerable period would still hold good?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I should very much like to know how the noble Earl defends that proposition as a reasonable bargain between employer and employed.

LORD HASTINGS

Is it not a fact that no such contract as that referred to by Lord Clinton could have been entered into unless a certificate of exemption was granted by the wages board

LORD CLINTON

Before this Act was passed—last month.

LORD HASTINGS

Precisely; before this Act was passed. With the dissolution of the wages board and the power which they now possess to establish a certain rate of wages for any part of England, do not their exemption certificates also come to an end and do we not start de novo? If a man has been exempted by a district wages board on account of certain infirmities and his employer wants to enter into a contract to pay him a lower rate than that fixed or customary in that district, surely an application must be made to the newly-formed committee for a new exemption certificate. Is it not the fact that his contract would come to an end automatically on the dissolution of the wages board which gave the exemption certificate which enabled him to be paid at that particular rate?

EARL GREY

I think the noble Lord has missed the point. This may refer to future as much as to existing things. In my own county of Northumberland men are engaged by the year and I hope we shall go on doing it in the future, but in future years there may be a variation at any time; a drop in wages may be agreed to by a conciliation committee in the course of the year. It is the noble Lord's defence on that subject—how he defends the workmen having the advantage of a rise and not the disadvantage of a fall—that we wish to hear.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think the answer to the point raised is that the employers would have to agree to that on the conciliation committee before occasion arose. If there is a conciliation committee they would have to agree to the fall unanimously.

EARL GREY

I think that would meet the case in Northumberland, because all our men are taken on by the year in a county where they are not all taken on, but only a small proportion, I do not think that would meet the case at all. It would not meet the case of a landowner who took on certain men by the year when the normal practice of the farmers was not to do so.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Surely that is a case which these conciliation committees would consider. Take a case like that of Lincolnshire, where it is not the usual thing to engage men for the half-year or the year. There is a. hiring for servants every six months, but there are a large number who are only taken on for the week. I should think that state of things exists also in a good many other counties, and I cannot help thinking that a conciliation committee, on which there would be employers perfectly aware of these circumstances, would consider the case of these men engaged for six months, and would be aware that if they lowered the wages it would perhaps be an unfair thing upon the employers who had agreed with men for six months. I think it is one of those things which conciliation committees, with a knowledge of the circumstances in their district, would consider before they came to an agreement.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What does the noble Earl suggest that the conciliation committee would do? There would be an employer who had agreed to pay a certain rate of wages for a period; before that period has elapsed the wages are lowered; does the noble Earl suggest that the wages conciliation committee would make an exemption in favour of a particular employer, because he was placed in a difficult position

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

No, I do not think they would make an exception in an individual case, but I think they might except a certain class of people who had been engaged for six months or for it year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVORmoved, at the "end of subsection (5), to insert—" Provided that. wages shall not be recoverable under this subsection unless proceedings for such recovery shall have been commenced before the expiration of six months after the date when the wages became due." The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) lays it down that when a rate of wage has been agreed upon by a conciliation committee it shall he an implied term of every contract that that wage shall be paid. The object of my Amendment is to limit the time to six months within which an employee can sue his employer for the difference between the wage he is receiving and the wage settled by the conciliation committee. If your Lordships think six months is not a desirable period—and you may think it is too long—I am quite ready to alter it. But I think we must carefully consider the position of the employee on this question. I know that your Lordships do not wish to be hard on the employee, but on the other hand we have to take into consideration the risk that a farmer may be running in employing an old labourer at rather a low rate of wage. If the farmer thought he would be penalised later on, and have to pay a large sum in arrears, I. am afraid he would think twice before He took on an old labourer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after (''agreement") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD CLINTON

I agree with the noble Lord that there must be some limit to the time during which a possible claim may be made against the employer. I think my noble friend's argument is correct in that respect. If you lay too great a risk on the employer lie is not likely to engage any number of necessitous cases, but I think six months is too long a period. We are presuming that the parties have agreed, and that for some reason or other the man breaks his agreement because he has found that his wages are too low. But if they are too low, surely he must have found that out long before the period of six months has elapsed. I have an Amendment later which deals with a. somewhat similar subject, and I do not want to go into the full argument now. But I merely state that I think the period of six months would 'really be better reduced to three months, because that is quite sufficient time for a man to know whether he has been badly taken in by an employer or not.

LORD DYNEVOR

I would like to point out to your Lordships that while six months may sound rather a long time, if a farmer employs an old man and the rate of wages he pays is or below what the conciliation committee settle, 5s. for sir months would only really mean £5 or £6.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

We will accept the Amendment, if the noble Lord will accept three months instead of six months.

LORD DYNEVOR

I will agree to that.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is in the form as printed, subject; to the alteration of"six months"to"three months."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, in subsection (6) (b), at the beginning, after "where, on an application," to insert "by either an employer or a workman.'' The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment want to make it quite clear on the face of the Bill that where a certificate is applied for in the case of what I may call' an abnormal employee, such certificate may be applied for both by the employer and by the workman.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, after ("application") insert ("by either an employer or a workman'').—(Lord Bledisloe)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTONmoved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert— Provided that a workman shall not be entitled to recover arrears of wages at the rate agreed by the Committee except in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks next preceding the commencement by the workman of proceedings for the recovery thereof.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a somewhat similar nature to the one just accepted from Lord Dynevor. Lord Dynevor's Amendment was to limit the time during which art employer could be sued by his men who have accepted wages below the standard rate. This Amendment is for the purpose of limiting the amount of arrears of wages for which a man can sue Iris employer in the courts. We are dealing with a matter in which an employer has made an agreement with Iris man for a fixed wage less than the standard wage, on account of some infirmity of the man whom he employs. The agreement is a definite one, but in the course of time the man thinks that his wages have been fixed too low and he sues in the court. Occasions will occur somewhat frequently of these employments at a lower rate of wages, largely for quite short periods, very often perhaps in front of the harvest, when neither employer nor employed can afford time to go to the conciliation committee, or possibly even if they go to the conciliation committee, the committee may disagree, and they will not make up their minds to go to court in the first instance. These engagements will probably continue because [wither side will care to move, and two or three months afterwards the man may be persuaded by some friend that he is getting too low a wage, and that it will be worth his while to try his luck in the court so that he may perhaps get something out of his employer. I think that what he gets out of court should really be limited to arrears of even a lesser period than my noble friend has carried in his Amendment. I suggest; six weeks would be sufficient.

There are two or three cases of importance that come under this. One probably might lay down the principle that these engagements ought never to be broken at all, and if a man be engaged for a certain sum he ought to accept it. But it is possible, particularly in agriculture where labour is very isolated, that a man may be imposed upon and may be forced, by the difficulty of getting any employment at all, to accept a low wage. Therefore, one may admit that it is reasonable, in a limited number of instances, that agreements may fairly be broken. But there are other eases where they may be deliberately broken. A man may accept a very low wage actually for the purpose of getting employment, with the intention some weeks later of applying to the court to have his wages raised, and the difference between the amount he has agreed and the standard wage, or such wage as the court may fix, being paid to him. He could do this for the purpose of getting employment, after having accepted a low wage and cutting out some better man, who perhaps held out for a reasonable wage. I do not think such a course should be encouraged. But it does exist, and I suggest that the man should not be allowed to recover more than a sum equivalent to six weeks' arrears of wages.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I agree that there should be some limitation and if the noble Lord will accept the same period as Lord Dynevor, and make it three months, instead of six weeks, I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

One feels reluctant, in discussing a matter of this kind, to have the appearance of arguing against a workman having a reasonable right to recover where he has been over-persuaded, perhaps by his employer, to accept a lower rate than the rate of wages prescribed by the conciliation committee. I should be the last man to desire to have the appearance of being in any way against the agricultural working class. But what is in my mind is really the interests of the agricultural class. I know of a large number of men, perhaps abnormal is not the right phrase to use, less efficient workmen who have worked for me, and I have no doubt for many of your Lordships. It does not matter so much to the fairly rich man. In every one of these cases we cannot afford to give them the full rate of wages; they are not worth it as the men do only half a man's work. We, therefore, agree with them on a lower rate, but we should do so with the possibility hanging over our heads at every moment that they may go to the conciliation committee and claim three months' -arrears of the difference between the rate of wages agreed upon between us and the rate of wages prescribed by the conciliation committee in the case of many of your Lordships you might be willing to run that risk, although if you have a number of less efficient workmen it might be a serious matter.

When one is not thinking of the benevolent landowner but of the farmer who has to consider every shilling, and rightly so, the question is: What will be do? I feel very little doubt that in almost every case the farmer will say that he will not employ the less efficient man at all with such a risk hanging over his head. The fact that he may be called upon to refund £3 or £4 to the workman may be such a risk that he will say he will not employ him. He may be an old friend, but the farmer will say that the Legislature has interfered and has imposed conditions so unfair that he cannot employ him any longer, and that he will employ none but first-class workmen who are worth the wages fixed by the conciliation committee. It appears to me to be an almost necessary result, and I believe that under the law, as it is at present administered, the effect of these compulsory wages has been precisely that. That is confirmed by noble Lords, and I am sure it is so. Farmers up and down the country say: "We simply cannot employ this kind of labour, they must go and starve, they must go into the workhouse. We are sorry—"

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

At the high rate?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No doubt; the noble Earl is very fair in his comments. But he will recognise that the mischief will exist, though in a lesser form, under the provision as the Government have proposed to agree to it. I would plead for these less efficient workmen. They are in a pitiful case up and down the country. W by should they not have a fair chance of being employed They really earn a less rate of wages, without that' risk hanging over the employer's head which will cause him to abstain front employing them. I do not want to press the matter too hard; for fear of appearing to be against, the workmen; but really the whole point of my argument is in favour of the workmen, and is intended to benefit them. I hope the noble Earl will see that he would do much more wisely to accept the Amendment of Lord Clinton, a ml to allow the Bill to go through in that form.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

It is very difficult to resist this appeal, but, there are two points which I should like noble Lords to consider. We have conceded that three months should be the period for suing, and I think that the period for recovering wages should be the same. The noble Marquess makes out a great case for the enfeebled or the incapacitated man, who will be thrown out of employment because people will be afraid of employing him at a lesser wage. I should like noble Lords to understand that the employer who is afraid that he might be sued later on, and have to pay this considerable amount, can always get out of the difficulty by sending the agreement to the conciliation board and asking them to consider the case. I think that will meet the case to a very large extent. It is very hard to resist the Amendment, but, in view of those two facts, I should much prefer three months instead of six weeks.

LORD HINDLIP

I hope the noble Earl will depart from his present attitude. He talks as if every small farmer and small holder is going to know every detail of this Act when it has passed both Houses of Parliament. They are going do nothing of the sort. Noble Lords have been talking gaily of 40s. a week and 35s. a week. The country, in the next few months, is possibly going to be faced not only with the great agricultural crisis to which Lord Clinton referred, but also, very likely, owing to the rate of taxation, with absolute disaster. I beg the noble Earl to reconsider the question of these old men, who are very likely enittlop7d by the poorer farmers, to whom £3 or; £4, or £.5 is a very great consideration. It is not a question to my mind of whether a man is going to be employed at the rate of 30s., or 40s., or 50s. a week, but of whether he is going to be employed at all.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

I hope the Government will not give way to this Amendment I have been chairman of the district wages board in Devonshire since its formation. This is the third biggest county in England, and practically its sole industry is agriculture. There is no difficulty whatever in this matter. Before engaging an infirm workman, a man of low physical strength, the farmer merely has to apply for a permit of exemption, and on getting it, he engages the man, and the man remains in his employment so long as the permit lasts. We grant permits all over England, I think, for different periods; in some cases for six months. There is really no reason why this difficulty should arise at all. Let the farmer apply for a permit; and then he is perfectly safe.

EARL GREY

Of course there is no difficulty in getting a permit if the farmer applies for it. But the difficulty is that the farmers in the majority of cases do not take the trouble. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says it is quite easy to apply to the conciliation committee, but that is not going to be. in permanent session. Very likely it will not meet more than once a month, and if an old man comes along the day after a. meeting it will be impossible to get a permit for allot her month. I hope the. Amendment will be accepted.

LORD HASTINGS

May I also plead with the noble Earl to give way on this Amendment.? In villages in the neighbourhood in which I live I know of not a few but a dozen old men who have been discharged because the farmers are unable to pay them a rate of wage which they are not worth. In every one of those cases a permit could be obtained, but that would involve trouble and expense, and the farmers will not go to that trouble and expense, quite apart from the odium which these applications bring upon them from the local Labourers' Union. They prefer to take the least line of resistance, which is to dispense with the services of these old men. The result is pitiable, and I plead with the Government on behalf of these old men, who are invaluable on the farms and who must live, and who deserve to live, on the farms. Anything which your Lordships can do to make it easy for these men to be employed is well worth doing, and from that point of view I beg the noble Earl to give way.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line:3, leave out ("Any such committee as aforesaid'') and insert A joint conciliation committee").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREYmoved, in subsection (7), to omit '' or may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government department or other body." The noble Earl said: This subsection deals with the power of the conciliation committee to appoint an independent chairman, and it says that "any such conciliation committee may appoint an independent person to act as chairman, or may agree to such appointment being made by any Government Department or body." My Amendment is to leave out the second alternative, and I ask your Lordships to accept it for this reason. In the first place I do not think it is necessary in order to enable a conciliation committee to secure an independent chairman. I agree that it would be an advantage in the majority of cases if conciliation committees had independent chairmen, but I do not think it would be an advantage to have independent chairmen forced upon them. They can take action themselves to secure an independent chairman. If the words which I propose to omit are left in it is possible for the Minister to try to bring pressure to bear upon a committee to accept a particular chairman. I am not saying that that is likely to happen; but one can never tell, and I do not see why conciliation committees should be exposed to any such pressure.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("chairman") to ("and") in line 6.—(Earl Grey.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I do not think that this Amendment is necessary. These committees are purely voluntary bodies, and, if they agree, they may appoint a chairman. If they know of no suitable man, and yet require someone to bring them together and prevent a strike, they "may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government Department or other body." They have got to agree to it; it is no question of a Government Department trying to force their nominee on these committees. it is a question for the committee alone.

EARL GREY

I agree, if the case were as the noble Earl points out. But I do not think it is. It is not necessary that the conciliation committee should appeal to the Department. It is open, without any initiative from the conciliation committee, for the Minister to put pressure on them to accept an independent chairman, and that is what I want to avoid.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Surely my noble friend is misreading, the clause. The object of these words is to give complete liberty and flexibility to these committees ill relation to the selection of chairman. The subsection at first says that they may appoint, if they please, an independent person to act as chairman. If they do not do that, they may agree to ask the Government to appoint a chairman.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The subsection says.— or may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government Department or other body. In other words, nothing can be done without their antecedent consent. They may ask the county council, or the Royal Agricultural Society to do it for them if they do not want to appoint their own chairman; they can also apply to the Ministry of Agriculture or the President of the Board of Trade, or any other body. Having done that, there is complete liberty left to determine what the powers of the chairman will be.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It is hard to apprehend the purpose of these words. One may assume that if any Department is applied to for nomination of a chairman it will be the Ministry of Agriculture. It is hardly to be supposed that the Admiralty or the Royal Mint would be applied to for this purpose. I do not understand why the noble Earl cannot agree to omit the words altogether, as I cannot think that the conciliation committees would require this degree of guidance.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It reduces their liberty of action. But if the noble Marquess wants to do that the words can come out.

EARL GREY

Will these words do— or may apply for such appointment to be made"?

LORD BLEDISLOE

It would seem that those who sit on the front bench opposite are not arguing from the same stand-point as those who sit on this side of the House. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that this actual process might arise when the members of the conciliation committee failed to agree—meaning thereby, not upon the chairman, but on the matter under discussion by the committee —and feared that a strike or something of the sort might occur.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Hear, hear.

LORD BLEDISLOE

That is a totally different condition to that which would arise when they came to appoint a permanent chairman who would sit continuously with theist as their chairman. It looks to me as though both conditions ought to be provided for. It is quite possible that they nine at the outset select a chairman to sit continuously with them, to use his moderating influence and to enable them to come to an agreement on questions of wages. On the, other hand, some committees may not agree to appoint a chairman and may sit without one. But they may fail on occasion to agree on a matter of substance in relation to wages, and in order to avoid a strike may call in some outside personad hocto give his independent view after listening to the reasoning on both sides. It appears to me that there are two sets of circumstances contemplated by this clause. If so, it ought to be made to say so, and in the later case it is meant to apply where there is no normal continuously-sitting chairman, but. it is desirable to appoint one ad hoc to decide matters of difference between the members of the committee.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

If the noble Lord is anxious to have those words, I will accept them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, in subsection (7), after "chairman," where that word firstly occurs, to insert "without the power to vote." The noble Lord said: Although I should infinitely prefer to see it made obligatory upon the committee to appoint a chairman, I see some difficulty in the fact that there is only what one may call one independent person, who is almost bound, in certain circumstances, to become a partisan, if he is not so at the outset. For that reason, in order to try to induce these bodies, in the interest of conciliation, to appoint a chairman, I should like to make it clear that this chairman would not in any case have a vote, but that he shall be there in order if possible to reconcile conflicting opinions as between the employers and the workmen so as to come to an amicable agreement. With that object in view I move my Amendment, to be followed by a consequential Amendment to omit the subsequent words "and the chairman may be appointed with or without the power to vote."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after ("chairman') insert ("without the power to Vote" ).—(Lord Bledisloe)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. One of the objects of the Bill is this. If the committee wish to appoint a chairman they shall be allowed to appoint a chairman and to do so under what conditions they please. It is quite obvious, I should think, that there will be occasions on which the representatives of the employers alai of the employed will not agree and will reach a deadlock. They will then say: "Let us have a chairman in. Let us appoint a chairman to try to bring us together." It may be the opinion of the committee that the chairman should act only as a kind of go between, to keep order and to try to bring them together. Again, the committee may consider that it would be better to have a chairman who could vote. If such a chairman was appointed he would practically act as an arbitrator.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

He would.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

We do not want to stop that. We wish to encourage it. If these two parties cannot come together or come to terms, it is quite possible and reasonable that they would say: "We cannot agree amongst ourselves; let us call somebody in to act between us." You may call him a chairman, but he would act as an arbitrator-chairman with a vote. He would be in the position of an arbitrator, of course, and I think it would be a thousand pities to prevent such a thing taking place.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Does not the noble Earl think that if the committee find it difficult to agree on the point at issue, they will find difficult to agree on the chairman

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am not very well acquainted with councils and trade disputes in the past, but I know it is not an unusual thing in trade disputes to call in someone to act as chairman and as conciliator. I do not know exactly what power he has. I believe there was a case in the county in which I live where a dispute took place between certain manufacturers and their workpeople, and an independent chairman was called in. It was in the town of Perth, and I think I am right in saying that they went outside themselves and called in a member of your Lordships' House to act as arbitrator between them. The noble Lord who was thus called in had practically no interest or knowledge of the trade, or of that particular dispute. They looked upon him as an impartial person. I do not think that is an unreasonable way sometimes of bringing people together. In this case, the committees need not adopt it unless both parties agree.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

If you once allow the chairman to have a vote, it will seldom happen that the two parties will agree. The chairman, when they do not agree, will be the person who has to fix the rate of wages. That seems to me to be a very dangerous thing to allow. If it is to be a conciliation board, it would be much better that the wages should be agreed to by the respective parties. If you allow the chairman to come in and have a casting vote, it will be the worst form of settling a wage dispute that you could have. The chairman would either be a partisan of one side or the other, or he would draw a middle line between the parties, and give a decision which would give satisfaction to no one.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I cannot too strongly support what my noble friend, Lord Galway, has said, and I implore the Government to believe that in this matter we want exactly the same thing as they do. We want these conciliation committees to be a great success. Of what are the Government running the risk if you appoint a chairman without a casting vote? You have in that case an element of permanent conciliation whose influence can be exerted on both sides in favour of moderation. But if once you give him the value of it vote, what takes place? Each side becomes extreme in its demands. The employers go for the lowest possible wage, the employed go for the highest possible wage, knowing, if it comes to the decision of the chairman, that he is almost sure to divide the matter between them. Therefore, the whole element of conciliation, which is the gist, the marrow and the absolute ideal of the plan, is lost and destroyed from the beginning. I have the utmost possible confidence—I never was speaking with more truth than at this moment— when I say: If you want these committees to be the greatest possible success do not allow a chairman to be appointed with a vote. If they want an arbitrator, let them appoint one. There is nothing to prevent them saying: "We cannot agree; we will appoint an arbitrator." But do not let him be the chairman of the committee.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The noble Earl does not mind an arbitrator so long as he is not called chairman?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am talking of the standing chairman of the committee.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

These committees are complete masters of I their own procedure.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

You are giving them a lead here.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Not a lead, but an option. The whole object is to make these committees as flexible and as autonomous as possible. The whole object of noble Lords during the last twenty minutes has been to limit, curtail, and impair the freedom of these committees. I think that is a great pity. Just now we excluded words entitling these committees, if they thought fit, to appeal to the Government or to their county council to find a chairman for them.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

They can do it if they choose. You have given them leave.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Having stated in the Bill that they shall have leave to do it, and than having cut out those words from the Bill, I assume your Lordships do not mean them to have or to exercise that power. That is curtailing their power.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

It is a chairman with a vote.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

If they want to have a chairman with a vote, why should they not?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think it is very dangerous.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

May I give an experience? This is not a new problem. Lord Crewe very well remembers the crisis of 1893, when Lord Rosebery came in as chairman not with an official vote but technically with voting power. Having settled the great coal strike, conciliation committees were set up all over the country covering the Federated Area, with possibly a. small exception in Scotland. For twenty years we had exactly the same procedure laid down there. Both parties met with an independent chairman —Lord St. Aldwyn was a chairman for years—with complete power to vote. Lord Selborne says each party puts forward its extreme claim. Of course it does. Each party is equally going to put forward its extreme claim if the chairman has not a vote.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not think so.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Nobody diminishes his claims just because the chairman has or has not a vote. People in commerce put forward their maximum claims, and they do not diminish their claims on a point of etiquette. If we allow these committees to do what they please they will do the right thing. In some cases they will give their chairman a vote; in other cases they will refuse it; but they will have the responsibility. What we want is to make these people have that full sense of responsibility of authority not to make the county council a court of appeal as was suggested just now, not to make the Government responsible, but to invest these conciliation committees with maximum personal responsibility. If so, I am confident they will work, but if we cut them down in every possible way we shall reduce their direct interest in these things, and then I think the danger of their not working will be very greatly increased.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot help thinking that the analogy which the noble Earl has just mentioned, although an interesting one, fails if it is applied to this particular matter. In order to find what would be called an impartial person in this matter of agriculture, it would have to mean that some person altogether unconnected with the land in every relation had to be brought in as chairman in the sort of case which the noble Earl mentions. That is not, I take it, contemplated by His Majesty's Government or by those who considered this matter of agricultural committees. It would be assumed, I think, that a person who was called in to give advice or to make a decision upon the rate of wages would be a person who, from one standpoint or another, was skilled in agricultural matters. if he is not, I confess I am rather, sorry for him if he should attempt to come to a conclusion on the rate of wages.

The case of the collieries to which the noble Earl alluded is surely on a somewhat different footing. It would be quite possible to find a man trained in business who, at the end of an inquiry, would be able to give quite a sound opinion on a difficulty or dispute relating to mining wages. I question very much whether, when it comes to settling the average wage for a county with its varying circumstances, you would find any person competent to do that if brought from a different sphere of business. But if you are to have a so-called impartial chairman, he has to come with some knowledge of the subject. He must belong to one class or the other, and he will start with the initial prejudice against him of some body of persons whose interests will be affected by his vote. Consequently I adhere to the view that it would be far safer to leave the chairman to preside without the dangerous prerogative of being able to give a final decision, if, as would often happen according to the proposed constitution of these committees the voting is divided on a difficult question affecting the interests of one side or the other.

LORD HINDLIP

It seems to me that the whole question of conciliation in agriculture is being lost sight of. It does not matter a brass farthing whether coal is dug in June or July. But in agriculture the object of these committees is to avoid strikes. If there is to be delay in the appointment of the chairman, the cows have still to be milked and the harvest gathered. These things cannot wait. I do not see how in an emergency the chairman is going to do very much good at all.

LORD ORAWSHAW

I think it would be much better for the chairman not to have a vote. Many cases will occur which will have to be referred to the chairman. If the committee had power to call in an arbitrator they would generally settle the questions themselves before they did so. It would be much better that the chairman should be independent without a vote; otherwise, everything will be referred to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Let me emphasise in one sentence the point that the Earl of Crawford appears to have missed. There is all the difference in the world between an organisation which consists of two, and an organisation which consists of three. That is the real difference. Employers have one consolidated vote, and the employees have one consolidated vote. That is, there are two votes. If the chairman has a vote, that will make three votes. In the two-vote system you must have agreement. Otherwise there will be a deadlock. That is the whole theory of conciliation, that you should get them to agree. Then there is the impartial chairman, who says:"You must come to some arrangement. I suggest this and that." That is conciliation. When you have three votes it is a question of a majority, and you will not get conciliation at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved, at the end of subsection (7), to leave out "and with such other powers as the committee may determine." The noble Lord said: This is not an important point. I move to omit these words largely in order to find out what is really contemplated. The words Are extremely vague and Very wide, and I should have thought that as the House has apparently decided that the chairman is simply to be a peacemaker, it is unreasonable to give him wider powers than are apparently contemplated. I should like to know what is really intended.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("vote") to the cud of the subsection.—(Lord Bledisole)

THE EARL OF ANCASTEB

I agree to this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOEmoved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: I desire to move the omission of this subsection because I object very strongly on principle to separating these two bodies, who are to meet together to try and come to an amicable arrangement, into two watertight compartments, each of then giving one collective opinion on behalf of the class to which they belong. In these days, when we are all doing our best to bridge the gulf between the different classes, and, above all, if possible, to do away with class consciousness, we are here stereotyping that difference in a very marked manner, by giving these gentlemen a block vote on either side of the table.

All I would suggest to the Government is that, if they have in mind, as has been suggested in the course of the debate this afternoon, the possibility, which arises under the present system of district wage.s hoards, of a certain member of the committee on either side being absent through illness or for some other cause, that the same procedure should be adopted as is already provided for by the Government in their Regulations made under the existing Act. I do not know that I need read it, as I have already done so this afternoon, but, it is to the effect that where one or more persons belonging to either class is or are absent, arrangements shall be made that the person or persons who are absent be balanced on the other side by an equal number of votes. But the main purpose of my Amendment is, of course, that each person shall be entitled to vote individually, according as his reason and his conscience may dictate, without being necessarily compelled by the machine behind him to give a collective vote, and so promote class disagreement rather than conciliation.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 9 to 11, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I ant afraid I cannot: accept this Amendment. This is not the practice in all the Whitley Councils; and the practice laid in the Bill appears to be absolutely consistent with the principles of collective bargaining. To have a go-as-you-phrase' vote on these questions would not, I think, be satisfactory. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which is quite contrary to all the practice of 'Whitley Councils of a similar nature.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I can appreciate the position of the noble Earl, lint at the same time I cannot help regretting that His Majesty's Government are not able to give more of a hearing to this proposal. It is, of course, a well understood system in the workmen's organisations that every man comes as a delegate, and with the absolute necessity laid upon him of supporting a certain line of action. It has it been the practice with regard to other organisations. It would be difficult, for instance—I mention it casually—for the Central Landowners' Association, supposing they were represented on the committees by three or four members, to expect every member to say absolutely "ditto'' to the others. It would be contrary even to our Party practice. Those who are most obedient to the Party whips from time to time feel entitled at any rate to make an exhibition of independence, even if they do not carry it very far, and it is, I think, very unfortunate that in this matter tile practice of voting en bloc should be absolutely stereotyped and receive the sanction of Parliament.

I can well understand that if the contemplated arrangement had been different there would have been a strong case for sonic such arrangement as this. if it had been laid down, for instance, that the representatives of the workers must he men actually themselves engaged in agricultural employment, it is evident that if the district were large it might often happen that one or another of them might not be able to attend, but that, is carefully safeguarded by the provisions' of the Bill. Either landowners or occupiers may be represented by people who do not occupy or farm an acre of land. Equally the workers' organisations may be, and undoubtedly will be, represented by persons who are not agricultural labourers and have never engaged in farm occupation at all. That is carefully provided for by the Bill. That being so, it seems to me that the necessity for this block vote is greatly diminished, because it cannot be argued that any set of persons are likely to be disabled front attending the meetings of committees by reason of their being engaged in actual work. I gather that the Government are not likely to accept my noble, friend's. Amendment, but I could not let it pass -without entering a protest against what f consider to be a. most unfortunate proision.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I have made my protest against the system and I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL GREYmoved to leave out subsection (9) and to insert the following new sub-section:— (9) This sect except subsections (1) and (2) thereof, shall not apply to the counties of Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, or Cumberland, nor, except subsection (1) thereof, to scotland.

The noble Earl said: Rather earlier in the evening the noble Earl in charge of the Bill commented on the fact that in Scotland the agricultural industry was in the fortunate position of being able to disregard the findings of the wages boards, inasmuch as the agricultural wages paid there are consistently on a higher level than those fixed by the Wages Board. I am, happy to say we are also in that position in my own county of Northumberland, and also in the county of Durham. And it is because there is so much similarity in farming practice between the four northern counties and Scotland that I have put down this Amendment. I did so after consultation with the leaders of the Workers' Union in my own county and they entirely agree in riot desiring to see the principle of compulsion, even voluntarily and in the background, applied to their own county, because where they are able to meet in friendly discussion with the fanciers they find that they get the best possible terms.

Unfortunately, owing to the short time that we are allowed in this House to consider legislation, I have not been able to consult with the leaders of the workers in Durham, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, and therefore I do not feel that I am able to press this Amendment very strongly on the House. But I believe that, if time lord been given me, I should have got the same consent front the workers of I he other three counties. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether, between now and the Report stage, he would make inquiries as to whether this Amendment could not be accepted. If he is good enough to do so, I would ask him to make those inquries from the local leaders of the unions, because I am sure that the answer he would get from the headquarters in London would be very different from what he would get from the men's leaders in the four counties themselves.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 12 and 13, leave out subsection (9) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Grey.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I hardly think that the noble Earl is making a reasonable suggestion. He wants us now late in the day, to make inquiries.

EARL GREY

It is not our fault that we have got such little time.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

This Matter has hen before the consideration of the country for a considerable period.

EARL GREY

The whole principle of compulsion was put in on the last. clay in the House. of Commons.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

It had been given a good deal of consideration by the Farmers' Union and the workers' unions for some time, and we had not received any information that Northumberland wished to be left out. While the noble Earl himself confesses that he knows nothing about the throe other counties. I really do not know why the partition of England should begin at this Period. It would be perfectly easy for a noble Lord to rise and move that the county of Kent, or Lincoln, or Lancashire should be left out. We have had no information that the situation in these four counties is the same as it is in Scotland. Therefore, we do not see that there is any special case for making an exception. There is, of course, the case that in these northern counties it is more customary for men to be engaged for longer periods—for a half-year or a. year.

EARL GREY

They are all engaged for the whole year.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Is there no la Lour employed at all.

EARL GREY

Very little; no noire than thee is in Scotland.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am not wishing to make a difference in regard to Scotland. I am only asking whether t here is any casual labour in the northern counties. If, as the noble Lord says every body is engaged by the year, the conciliation committees set up in those counties will be well aware of the fact and will make terms as to wages and so on in conformity with the understanding that most of the men there are engaged for long periods. It is hardly fair to ask the Government at this time to except certain counties, and fear we cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.—

VISCOUNT GALWAY

had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (10) (a), to leave out "or orchard, or osier-land, or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds." The noble Viscount said: In moving my Amendment, I would point out that it is advisable to confine wage-fixing activities of the committees to the fixing of actual agricultural wages. Agriculture is really confined to persons employed more or less the year round in raising corn or stock. But it is defined in subsection (l0) as including, first of all, dairy farming and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land. The men employed on that work arebona fideagricultural workmen, who work all the year round and are quite properly brought under the conciliation committees.

Then we come to orchard land and I propose to omit "orchard." It is a matter of fruit growing and gardening, in connection with which a certain amount of extra labour is employed at different times of the year in collecting fruit or spraying trees. But the fixing of the wages has nothing to do with agriculture. Then in regard to osier-land a large amount of extra labour may be set on when osiers are being cut or the beds weeded; otherwise, the work is not so continuous as to demand the help of a conciliation committee to fix the wages. Woodlands, after all, have nothing to do with agriculture. It is a special branch of cultivation and ought to be treated separately. I understand, how- ever, that His Majesty's Government intend to leave that out; so I will say nothing further about it.

In regard to market, gardens, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill mentioned that parties of One hundred or two 'hundred men were taken in lorries at certain times of the year to look alter market gardens. But that is not continuous employment, and it seems to me that continuous employment is what these conciliation committees are concerned with, It is no part of their business to inquire into the profits of these occasional things and determine how much wages the men employed are entitled to. Nursery grounds are connected with woodlands and the raising of young trees, and have nothing to do with agriculture or continuous employment therein. I hope His Majesty's Government will accept my Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the Government accept the words"or woodland," and I suggest to the noble Viscount that he should move the deletion of"or orchard or osier-land "first, and I will call en him afterwards in regard to the others.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

I beg to do that.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("or orchard or artier-land")—(Viscount GaIway.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

As I have already stated, I ant prepared to omit "woodland," but as to the next I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The definition of agriculture is the same as in the Act of 1917. It is not an innovation to put in these words. I should say that there are a large number of people employed regularly in orchards, osier-land and market gardens, and it is almost impossible to differentiate them from agricultural workers. Take, for instance, a large seed merchant who grows his seed. Why should he be allowed to employ people at a lower rate of wages than the farmers around him? The same applies to market gardens. I cannot conceive why, if a rate of wages is to be made in a district, the Market gardener should riot pay the same rate of wages in that district as the farmers have to pay.

The noble Lord made a reference to a speech that I made earlier in the day. I stated that I knew of a ease where men and women were brought long distances in motor cars in order to work. As a matter of fact, that was not on a market garden but on a field. There we get into this difficulty—how are you to define a market garden? The place to which those people were brought contained about 200 acres under onions, another 200 acres under wheat, amid about 200 acres under parsnips and carrots. How are you going to say what is a market garden and what is a farm? If you begin leaving out "market gardens" and then "nursery grounds'' you get, into a great difficulty. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that you should be satisfied with the omission of woodlands.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I take it that "nursery grounds" means any private nursery on an estate. On a large estate a number of the foresters will put in a day or two in the nursery. Would they come under this beading? Take the case of what happens in unemployed insurance. Woodcutters and foresters are not supposed to come.under the unemployed insurance, but the Department tries to contend that if a. forester puts in a day or two, or even a few hours, in a saw mill, he must come under the insurance. Though it would be useful to have woodlands excluded, that would not quite meet the case.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out ("or woodland —(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTONmoved, in subsection (10)(a), to leave out "or nursery grounds." The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl is not inclined to accept this Amendment on the ground that the expression "nursery grounds," as used here, does not, apply to tree nurseries. I should like to have an assurance from the noble Earl that that is the case. It is quite clear that if it applies to nurseries, as we have already excepted woodlands, as our practice is to employ the same men on the nurseries as in I he woodlands, a very difficult situation will arise. I want some decided assurance on that. We understand that generally on an estate nurseries are not included as nursery grounds.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 19, leave out ("or nursery grounds").—(Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I am informed that nursery grounds do not mean places in which you are growing young trees, but it moans places where seed merchants and people of that description follow their calling. I think in those circumstances they come under the same heading as market gardeners, and I think it would be a pity to leave them out.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I suggest, that on the Report stage the noble Earl should put in some such words as "other than woodland nurseries," which would make it quite clear that it does not include the nurseries to which Lord Clinton referred?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVORmoved, in subsection (10)(a), after "nursery grounds" to insert "hut not woodland." The noble Lord said: Although the noble. Earl has accepted the deletion of the word "woodland" it does not make the position clear. This Bill will become an Act without the word "woodland" in it, and someone may raise the question as to whether woodlands are agriculture or not. It may go to the Courts and the Courts will decide. If my Amendment is inserted the position is made perfectly plain.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 19, after ("grounds") insert ("but not woodland").—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am not quite certain how the subsection will read. I will promise the noble Lord to put in words on the Report stage excepting woodlands.

LORD DYNEVOR

I want to pre-vent such a case being taken to the Courts to decide whether woodlands are agriculture or not. I am informed that these words will make it quite certain.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I will accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Before we leave Clause 4 I should like to ask how the expenses of the members of these committees and their operations will be met? Is each individual to bear his own expenses? If so, it will perhaps mean sonic injustice to the workmen who act on them as compared with the employers.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Their expenses will be met by their organisations.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

LORD STRACHIEmoved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause: Section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is hereby repealed.

The noble Lord said: Section 15 of the Act of 1920 transfers from Part I of the Act of 1908 some provisions by which the tenant can make certain improvements without the consent of the landlord and then charge his landlord with the expense for so doing when he leaves the farm. The improvements which the tenant can make include the formation of silos and the removal of permanent fences, which, of course, might alter the whole character of the farm, and in these days of high prices the tenant may put up permanent fences at a most unreasonable cost.

Another point is the reclaiming of waste land, a most expensive and very doubtful proposition. Then there is the laying down of permanent pasture, to which some of your Lordships object very much. Next, there is the planting of orchards. I happen to know something about that subject, and I think it is one of those matters of which the landlords ought to be the sole judges. It might seem quite favourable. at the beginning, but after a few years, when the tenant has gone, it might be found that the trees selected were unsuitable to the soil and climate and the whole thing is an absolute failure, while the landlord will have had to pay a very heavy sum in compensation two or three years before. I think this section may be fairly described as one of those sections put in as a compromise in the Act of 1920. Part I of that Act certainly did give landlords very great advantages in certain respects, and when that has been taken away, it is only fair to relieve the landlord of the heavy burden which may be put upon him under Section 15 of that Act.

I would point out that; the cost of labour and material now is very excessive. Anyone of your Lordships who has lately read the statements inThe Timesregarding the cost of maintaining great estates, such as that which appeared to-day with regard to the Duke of Bedford's estate in Bedford and. another county, will see what enormous expenditure is necessary. I may be told that the agricultural committee would have a right to veto this expenditure and to arbitrate between the landlord and the tenant as to the desirability of the improvements. But before these great powers are used it should be shown that landlords have been remiss in the proper equipment and repair of their estates. If arbitration took place at the present moment, and the landlords were told that the tenant would have a tight to put up these buildings, even at the excessive price of materials, when the tenant went out a few years afterwards, although it might cost far less then, he would get the full price of the improvements. The arbitrator would see that it would be very unfair to the tenant not to give him the full value after the agricultural committee had approved the improvements being made. It seems to me that up to the present owners have done this, and unless it can be shown (and I do do not think it has been shown vet) that they are unreasonable in this matter it is only fair in these days of overwhelming taxation local and Imperial, that Section 15 should be repealed.

I may be told that these improvements may be objected to because they can only be made by Regulations laid down by the agricultural committees. We know that the committees have attempted to do this. I do not think it is fair that landowners should have these things hanging over their heads, with all their present liabilities, and if. Parliament does not protect them from Regulations which may be introduced in the future they will be put to very heavy expenditure entirely against the interests of the estate, perhaps in favour of some particular tenant who inn have the approval of the agricultural committee.

Amendment moved—. After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord strachie.)

LORD CLINTON

I think the description of my noble friend of Section 15 is quite a fair one. When the Act of 1920 was before the House, these Regulations were objected to more than anything else. But we eventually came to a sort of Parliamentary compromise upon it, under which certain buildings. & c., were not to be transferred, mid the remainder of the improvements might be transferred by Regulations. When the Regulations first came before your Lordships' House they were objected to very strongly and were withdrawn. They were brought in once more and were objected to by my noble friend end again were withdrawn. Had been present in the House I should have voted in favour of the Regulations being passed, not because I liked them—I disliked them as much as anybody else—but because I thought we had mite to an agreement and some Regulations should be passed. The point now working in my mind is whether the great, change which the Government making in withdrawing Part I of the Act of 1920 absolves us from tarrying out what was a compromise at the time the Act of 1920 was passed. I am inclined to think we are absolved, and that is the view of those with whom I act. Owners have distinctly suffered by the withdrawal of Part I of the Act, the only things which are left being those which are most objectionable to them. Therefore I think we are entitled to take perfectly free action in this matter.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I imagine my noble friend only wishes to repeal subsections (1) and (2). The latter part of this section deals with the Evesham Custom, which is a different matter altogether, and none of us want to interfere with it.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

In reply to the last speaker, I think the Amendment does touch the subsection dealing with the Evesham Custom, but I will deal mainly with the Amendment as it relates to Orders to move these improvements from one schedule to another. I may say at once that it is utterly impossible fur the Government to accept the Amendment. It is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and the noble Lord fully recognises that, because he has put down a consequential Amendment to alter the Title of the Bill. I would really suggest to the noble Lord 'that if he has such a great grievance his proper course is to bring in a Bill, or get other people interested in this matter to bring in a Bill, amending Part II of the Act. I do not know whether he wishes me to enter into the whole question of the rights and wrongs of the Ministry of Agriculture issuing an Order that certain improvements should be transferred front one schedule to another. We have already had a very lengthy debate on that subject and I was beaten, and the noble Lord was victorious. Exercising his powers and the powers which your Lordships exercise in this House

Resolved in theaffirmative, and the Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 agreed to.