AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

HL Deb 05 August 1924 vol 59 cc365-430

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Establishment of agricultural wages committees and an Agricultural Wages Board.

(3) The Minister may, if he thinks it expedient, establish one agricultural wages committee for two or more counties instead of a separate committee for each county, and thereupon that committee shall be the agricultural wages committee for the combined counties and those counties shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county: Provided that a committee shall not be constituted for two or more counties for which separate committees have been constituted unless those committees agree to such constitution.

(4) The committees first established shall be established for the counties and combined counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, but the Minister shall in the case of combined counties on representation duly made by the committee concerned, establish when so requested a committee upon the basis of an administrative county committee.

LORD PARMOOR

moved, in subsection (3), after " county," where that word first occurs, to insert " should resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties." The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to explain in a few words the object of the Amendments that stand in my name. In the first place, the words that I propose include and introduce Amendments which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. As regards the next Amendment it really is to put into more appropriate and, I think, clearer language what was obviously the intention of the Bill when it passed the other House, and that is that, in the first instance, there should be no further com- bination of counties for the purpose of these agricultural committees, except in respect of the specified cases which are contained in the schedule. When we come to the schedule it will be altered in the same way in order, from a drafting point of view, to be in the same position as the other Amendment.

The second of my Amendments is, I think, very clear. It is: (4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section the Minister shall, on the first establishment of agricultural wages committees, establish one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act. That is the only case in which there will be combination— (5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties, the Minister at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county. That is intended to make it quite clear that the one county principle is the guiding principle. It is not to be departed from in the first instance, except in the cases specified in the schedule itself, and ultimate changes, if any, shall only be made under the terms of the proposed subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 20, after (" county ") insert (" should resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties ").—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW:

I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. In the schedule we get as part of one combination of counties the Scilly Isles. The Scilly Isles are not a county. I should like to know whether that is possible under the Act.

LORD PARMOOR:

I think the answer is certainly " Yes," but I can look into it again before we come to the special Scilly Isles Clause. As the noble Earl knows, there is a special Scilly Isles Clause at a later stage. The matter has been considered and I think the Bill is right as it stands, but I will consider it again.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

As a matter of procedure I ought to tell your Lordships that owing to a misprint in the Marshalled List of Amendments we have allowed this Amendment to be moved, and there is an Amendment which comes before it in the name of Lord Banbury of Southam printed on the other page. The proper procedure is that Lord Banbury's Amendment should be put first.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

If the noble and learned Lord is going to accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment, then I do not propose to move mine.

LORD PARMOOR:

That is the intention.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

Then I do not move.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

I am much obliged to Lord Banbury. I will then put first the Amendment on page 1, line 20, after " county " to insert the words as printed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 21, leave out from (" counties ") to end of clause.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

I will now put the Amendment to leave out from " counties " to the end of the clause. Does that satisfy Lord Strachie also?

LORD STRACHIE:

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

Has the noble Earl saved Lord Stanhope's Amendment to the Amendment?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

I am going to bring that on when we have to leave out the first words. I will put the Amendment to leave out the words from " counties " to the end of the clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

I suggest that subsection (4) standing in the name of the Lord President ought next to be inserted, and I will put that.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 21, after (" counties ") insert:

(" (4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section the Minister shall, on the first establishment of agricultural wages committees, establish one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act.")—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

Now I will put the proposed new subsection (5), to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has an Amendment.

Amendment moved—

After the said subsection (4), insert:

(5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties, the Minister at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county.—(Lord Parmoor.)

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in the proposed new subsection (5) after " committee " where that word secondly occurs, to insert " by resolution of the representative members." The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble and learned Lord will accept this; therefore I need say nothing about it.

Amendment to the Amendment moved—

After (" committee ") at the end of line 3, subsection (5), insert (" by resolution of the representative members "). — (Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

That covers Amendments in the names of Lord Banbury of Southam, Lord Strachie, and Earl Stanhope.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.

(3) If, on an application in that behalf, a committee are satisfied that any worker employed or desiring to be employed on time work to which a minimum rate fixed under this Act is applicable is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate the committee shall grant to the worker, a permit exempting, as from the date of the application, or from any later date specified in the permit, the employment of the worker from the provisions of this Act requiring wages to be paid at not less than the minimum rate, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the permit, including if the committee think fit, a condition as to the wages to be paid to the worker; and, while the permit has effect, an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate if the conditions specified in the permit are complied with.

(4) In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

moved, in subsection (3), after " minimum rate," when that phrase secondly occurs, to insert " or that any such worker is working under a profit-sharing or co-partnership scheme which in the opinion of the committee will secure to the worker advantages not less than would accrue to him from the receipt of the minimum rate ". The noble Viscount said: This is a point which I desire to submit to your Lordships' consideration. It is a matter of some importance in principle, and I can only hope your Lordships will agree with me that some such Amendment would be desirable to insert in the Bill, even if it has only a very limited effect, as I think it would have. I do not think the matter was considered in the other House at all. Therefore, it may be a good thing to give the other House an opportunity of considering this point if your Lordships think it right to do so

The object of the Amendment is simply to say that where the labourer and the farmer have agreed on a profit-sharing system which they can satisfy the committee gives to the labourers no less advantage than they would have if a minimum wage were fixed under this Bill, then it should not be necessary in that case, and so long as all parties were satisfied, to fix a minimum wage for that particular case. I venture to submit it to your Lordships for this reason. This Bill proceeds on the theory that there is a divergence of interests between employer and employed, between farmer and labourer, in reference to the amount of wages that the labourer is to receive, and that, that being so owing to a variety of historical causes, it is desirable to establish a tribunal which shall decide as between farmer and labourer what is the minimum rate of wages which the latter ought to be paid. The basis of the Bill, as I understand, is that the minimum wage is to be what may roughly be called a subsistence wage. That is the principle as I read the Bill. It would not be right for me to dispute at this stage the principle on which the Bill is based, and I do not dispute it. For the purposes of this discussion I accept it, but I cannot help feeling that, even assuming the whole case for the Bill and assuming that it is desirable to make such a change as this, it is not really going to be a cure for the evils that exist.

Fundamentally the evil that exists in this industry, and in other industries, is the want of that confidence and mutual trust which ought to exist between employers and employed. If only that were there it would not be necessary to take all these measures to secure what is thought to be justice in favour of the labourer. In other words, this Bill at the best is only a palliation of the evils which exist, and if we really want to do something effective to restore the great industry of agriculture we have to do something quite different from this Bill. We have to aim at bringing all those who are interested in agriculture together and inducing them to work wholeheartedly and unreservedly for the success of the industry in which they are engaged.

I speak in the presence of many noble Lords who are far better qualified to deal with this subject than I am and whose knowledge of it is infinitely better than my own. But I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on the broad principle. The best hope for agriculture lies in the united efforts of the owner, the farmer and the labourer. So far as the owner is concerned he is not affected by this Bill. But I should be very glad if your Lordships could see your way to indicate, even in this Bill, the kind of relation between employer and employed, the farmer and the labourer, that you would like to see exist. It is for that purpose that I desire to move this Amendment—as an indication of the real policy that ought to be pursued, not only in agriculture but in all industries, and particularly in agriculture.

I have heard it said that it is not a practical proposal. That is a view which is sometimes held. I can only give, for what it is worth, my own experience in the matter. When I was in the House of Commons I had the honour of representing a purely agricultural constituency, and being interested in this particular aspect of the question I got together, on one occasion, a committee of twelve or fifteen of the largest and most influential farmers in my constituency. We discussed the possibility of establishing some system of this kind. I am bound to say that there was a considerable difference of opinion and that the majority of the farmers were against establishing any such scheme. They thought it would not work. But there was a minority who strongly approved of it, and one of the ablest men of my acquaintance, a farmer, was good enough to draw up what he conceived to be a practical scheme for putting this principle into operation. It was adopted by one or two of the farmers in that division. It was a very unfortunate moment to attempt any experiment, because it was just on the eve of the great slump in agriculture which made any new devices very difficult to establish. When I last heard of the scheme, which was some little time ago, it was succeeding on two of the farms where it had been adopted.

It is true that there are great difficulties in this matter—difficulties connected with the fact that many farmers do not keep accounts, difficulties connected with the fact that there is a great variability in profits in the farming industry, and also the fact that you may have a profit in one year, but you may have a loss or no profit at all for several years in succession. It is thought this fact would make it very difficult to work a scheme of this kind. I can only submit to your Lordships' that this objection diminishes in force year by year as the population of the country becomes more educated and better able to take long-views as to what its real interests are. In other industries it certainly has been found that the fact that there is no profit one year, or for a series of years, is not a fatal objection to a scheme of this kind, and I doubt whether it would always be a fatal objection in the agricultural industry.

I do not want to dogmatise, far from it. I want to leave the door open, I want to see experiments of this kind tried. If they can succeed they will be of the greatest possible advantage to the industry and to all engaged in it. I ask your Lordships not to do anything more than to say that where such an experiment has been tried with the full approval of all those engaged, labourers and farmers, and where the wages committee is satisfied that such a scheme is going, on the whole, to give greater advantages to the labourers than, or as great advantages as, any scheme of a minimum wage, then, in that case, the operation of this Bill may be suspended until some one under another provision of the Bill, feeling dissatisfied, makes a fresh application for its enforcement. That is the object of the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 38, after (" rate ") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not desire to embark on the general proposition stated by the noble Viscount, nor is this the occasion to discuss the scheme with which he has been so long and honourably associated. I was one of those who tried a co-partnership scheme for many years. Ultimately, I am sorry to say, it was dropped with the assent of every one concerned. But that does not mean that these schemes may not be carried out successfully under certain conditions. What I want to say to the noble and learned Viscount is this. I do not think the Amendment can be usefully inserted in the present Bill. What does it mean? If you had a co-partnership scheme under which the wages paid were up to the minimum wage rate, then there would be no objection at all under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, the only occasion on which the Amendment would be of importance would be in the case where a farmer was seeking to pay something less than the minimum rate and the employee was to have some advantage from benefits which he would derive from a co-partnership system.

The noble Viscount has himself pointed out the objections to introducing his proposal under the scheme of the present Bill. What are you to ascertain? And how are you to ascertain it? Does he mean that, if at the end of the year Where less than the minimum wage had been paid and the co-partnership resulted in a failure, this put an end to the matter? It is a very difficult problem, and I agree that you have to consider this question of co-partnership over a series of years. Is it really practicable under these conditions to ask these agricultural wages committees to go through a series of accounts in order to see whether the advantages derived are equivalent to what the worker would have received under the minimum wage principle? I think that is almost impossible I suggest to my noble friend, without wanting on the present occasion to discuss the matter in any detail, that it really would be out of place to introduce this proposal into this Bill. The only case in which it could be fairly worked would be where the minimum wage was guaranteed. In those circumstances it could be done under the terms of the Bill. But I cannot sanction a scheme under which it would take three or four years to tell whether the worker had got proper remuneration. If you begin by giving him proper remuneration, of course it could be done. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not press the Amendment.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

I am entirely in your Lordships' hands in this matter. I do not want to do anything which the majority of your Lordships, or even a considerable minority of your Lordships, think would be out of place in a Bill of this kind. Let me point this out to the Lord President of the Council. You have, far more frequently than some people realise—I have made many inquiries—a considerable number of these schemes actually in operation. Where they are in operation it is easy to ascertain whether they have, in fact, secured to all concerned greater advantages than would be secured by a minimum wage. The advantage of it is this. You have in the Bill a system under which you are helping to array the interests on opposite sides. I avoided and do not wish to be drawn into an acrimonious discussion on the principle of the Bill, but there is that objection. You are going to have the thing settled by controversy, you are going to have a considerable number of inspectors appointed under this Bill, and you are going to have all the trouble and expense of controversial proceedings as a normal part of your procedure. If you can have a system which avoids all that, and which from the outset brings the parties together and induces them to adopt in their joint interests a scheme which will give to both of them a better result than can be secured from this Bill, or at least as good a result, surely it is worth while doing something to secure this.

May I add one further word? It is often said to advocates of this proposal: " How do you propose ever to get it promoted in the industries of the country? " I have always replied, and, I think, rightly, that the time to bring this proposition into effect is when some re-organisation of an industry is being effected by Parliament, and that at such a time a method such as this can be brought forward as an alternative to that reorganisation and can be offered to the parties engaged in that industry as a way of avoiding the controversial proceedings which at present deface our industrial system. So far as I am concerned, I shall be entirely guided by the general impression that prevails in this House. I have no desire to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I certainly hope that you will insert this Amendment in order to see, at any rate, what the House of Commons think of it.

LORD GAINFORD:

I am of opinion that there is a strong case for inserting an Amendment of this kind into the Bill. Having watched a similar arrangement in connection with another of our greatest industries, I am satisfied that a system of co-partnership, or of profit-sharing, does remove from the minds of the workmen a disposition to regard with suspicion many of the operations of the employers. The arguments of the Leader of the House did not seem to me to go against the adoption of this Amendment. The Amendment really will encourage a system of this kind being initiated in agricultural districts, and it is very desirable that a system of co-partnership and profit-sharing should be introduced wherever possible.

The very fact that it is inserted in a Bill will, I think, encourage that idea. I see no difficulty in connection with the payment of the minimum wage, because the minimum wage will be ascertained in each district by the wages committee, and this will be the agricultural labourer's guarantee that he will receive that wage whether a co-partnership scheme brings his wages in any particular year below that minimum or not. I think it is very desirable, considering the fluctuations of agriculture, that the agricultural labourer should have an interest in profit-sharing in years in which there is a profit, and that he should at any rate be guaranteed a minimum wage in the years in which the profit-sharing scheme would not produce a living wage. It is necessary for agricultural labourers to feel that they are guaranteed a minimum wage if they are to do their duty properly by their employers.

LORD PARMOOR:

May I refer to one point in the remarks of the noble Lord? Even if this Amendment is not included, the minimum wage does give the guarantee to which he refers, and there will then be occasion for having a co-partnership scheme, if it is thought desirable, in order to give further inducement. But the reason why I opposed this Amendment was that we want to guarantee the minimum wage in all conditions.

LORD ASKWITH:

The noble Lord in front of me, Lord Gainford, seems really not to have looked at the place in which it is proposed to insert these words. It is proposed to insert in the subsection which gives exemption to persons suffering from physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause a provision that exemption shall be given also to persons taking part in a copartnership or profit-sharing scheme—a matter which seems to be entirely out of place here. If this Amendment is inserted it ought to be inserted as a separates clause. There would not be much in a co-partnership or profit-sharing scheme if the individual who takes part in it is not able to earn the minimum wage. I am told by persons who have had to deal with these matters, including the noble Earl on my right, who has been chairman of one of these committees, that there is no question of a minimum wage in co-partnership schemes of this kind, nor has any such exemption been demanded, so that the insertion of this provision in this particular place would clearly be undesirable.

LORD HARRIS:

Theoretically I have always been in favour of profit-sharing, in agriculture as well as in other industries, but in agriculture—and I have been farming for many years a great many more acres than I ever wanted to farm—I have never been able to see how it could be practicable. It is very easy to work a partnership scheme when there is a profit, but a partnership scheme is extraordinarily difficult to work when there is no profit and when one of the partners in the scheme puts in an entirely different sort of capital from that which is put in by the other. The labourer puts in his labour—that is one sort of capital—and the farmer puts in his cash, which is quite a different sort of capital. There is another practical difficulty, and I wish the noble Viscount would tell us how to get over it. No farmer's account can be made up for at least fifteen months after the commencement of the year. The county committee is to give the co-partner a wage proportionate to the profit, but the profit cannot be found for fifteen months, so that the labouring co-partner will not be getting it during those fifteen months, and it will have to be made up in bulk at the end of the year. That seems to me to be a practical difficulty which would have to be arranged for by the insertion of words in the clause.

THE EARL OF MAYO:

I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, on this Amendment, though I agree with Lord Askwith that this should be a separate clause. I am not going to argue in any way the advantages of co-partnership. I think that co-partnership in anything is very useful and a very good thing. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I would point out that Clause 6 says that The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration. That leaves the Minister with power to direct the agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate. It gives him absolute power with regard to that matter. Lord Parmoor objects, because he says this is out of place in the Bill. He objects entirely to this Amendment dealing with co-operation, because he says it should not be in the Bill. But then he further says the Bill is to guarantee the minimum wage under all conditions. Now all conditions, so far as I understand the noble and learned Lord, would comprise co-partnership.

Therefore I support the noble Viscount's Amendment and say that it should be inserted in the Bill as a separate clause, and if the noble Viscount goes to a Division I shall support him in the Lobby.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

I am extremely grateful for the debate which has taken place. I am sure it has been of great value, and I trust that the public will take notice of it. I am impressed by the objections of Lord Askwith, who has told us of the technical difficulty of doing this in this way, and at this stage of the Bill. No doubt your Lordships are in very great difficulty in dealing seriously with any legislation under the conditions under which you are asked to deal with it on practically the last day of the Session—under conditions which show the complete contempt with which the Government regards this House.

LORD PARMOOR:

Oh, no !

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

That is my opinion, and I must say that there is difficulty in asking this House to accept this Amendment at this stage. I am very much obliged to Lord Mayo for his suggestion that I should bring up a new clause, and if it is possible to do so before to-morrow, when we take the Report Stage, I will consider the matter. I feel, however, in face of the opposition of the Government, and having regard to the stage of the Session, that my Amendment would not be likely to secure any real consideration in the other House, and that therefore it would be a waste of time to insert it here. In the circumstances I shall not insist on my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE

had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: Provided that in case of urgency a provisional permit, having effect as a permit under this subsection, may, on an application in that behalf, be granted to a worker by the chairman or any member of the committee for the county, and at the next meeting of the committee such grant shall be considered by the committee, whereupon the committee may either confirm or cancel the provisional permit. If the committee cancel such permit, the employer concerned shall not be liable to any penalty under this Act, for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate if the conditions specified in the provisional permit are complied with, but shall be liable to pay to such worker the difference between the amount which ought at the minimum rate applicable to have been paid to the worker and the amount actually paid to him under the provisional permit.

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not know whether it will save the noble Earl's time if I bring to his notice that a very similar Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of Lord Clinton. With the first part of that Amendment, and the principle of it, we agree, but with regard to the latter part it appears to be necessary to introduce some drafting alterations. I only wish to make that statement, because I look upon the two Amendments as substantially the same in idea, and we are prepared to accept Lord Clinton's Amendment, subject to certain alterations in the drafting.

EARL STANHOPE:

Perhaps I may be allowed to say in a few words why I prefer the Amendment standing in my name, although Lord Clinton is practically responsible for both. I am glad that the Government recognise the difficulty which exists. An employer may take on a badly disabled man, or a man injured in the war, and may not be able to pay him the full minimum wage. He puts in an application, and all the time while that is being considered he stands to be shot at by any common informer who may bring an action against him for paying less than the minimum rate. I understand that under Lord Clinton's Amendment, and I gather it is also true of the Government's Amendment, although the Government may be able to say that they themselves would not institute proceedings, a common informer might yet bring an action against an employer until an actual permit had been given.

Even during the twenty-one days an action can be brought against an employer. The employer is really taking a double risk, because not only is he liable to be fined for paying an agreed rate of wages, but he also would have to make up the difference between the minimum rate of wage and the rate he has paid, if the committee decide that the higher rate should prevail. I agree that if the committee fix the higher rate of wages for a disabled man the employer should pay the difference from the time the man has been employed, but the possibility of having proceedings taken against him will mean that no employer will take on a disabled man until the expiration of the twenty-one days. A man will come to an employer and ask for a job, they will agree upon a rate of wages, and the employer will write for a permit, but until the expiration of twenty-one days the employer will refuse to employ the man, because of the risk which he would run. That is why I prefer my Amendment, although I quite see that there is objection to it in certain respects, for instance, as to the power given to any single member of the committee to grant a permit. I feel that it will be a very great disadvantage to a disabled man if he has to wait for employment until the expiration of the twenty-one days.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 7, at end, insert the said new proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I think it would he well on this Amendment that I should refer to the Amendment of Lord Clinton, and show how we desire to meet the difficulty which is the foundation of the Amendment of the noble Earl and the Amendment of Lord Clinton. The object is to remove any liability to proceedings against an employer who is employing a disabled man at less than the minimum rate, so as to enable such a man to commence employment, provided the matter is settled in his favour after a certain time. That is what I think we all desire to do. There are two ways in which the Government are endeavouring to approach the question and settle it. One is in the form of an Amendment of Lord Clinton's proposal, and the other is in the form of some words which we have sketched out, and which really go further than the Amendments of Lord Clinton and the noble Earl.

I think it will be convenient if I read the words which we have sketched out. They are as follows:— If an application for a permit is not disposed of within twenty-one days after the day on which it is received, then the employer of the worker to whom the application relates shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate during the interval between the expiration of the said period and the date on which the application is ultimately disposed of. I believe those words are wider than the words suggested in either of the Amend- ments. We have also drafted an Amendment to Lord Clinton's Amendment, but I doubt whether it goes so far as the words which I have suggested.

Lord Clinton's Amendment is to insert at the end of subsection (3) this proviso:— Provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made during the period that such application is before the committee unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof. This is the form in which we have drafted our Amendment to Lord Clinton's Amendment. It is to insert: Provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made under this subsection during the period elapsing between the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the application and the determination of such application. I think that might leave the clause open to this difficulty. It might be said that during the twenty-one days steps might be taken. I am prepared to give any undertaking on behalf of the Minister that that would not be so. But I agree with the noble Earl that it would be better to have it specific in the Act itself. If the noble Earl would like to withdraw the Amendment I would move one in the terms which I have suggested, which, I think, go further than either of the Amendments.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

I would point out that, even though the Government's proposed Amendment, as I understand it, goes a certain way, it does not go so far as my noble friend's Amendment. Before the Government absolutely close their minds to my noble friend's Amendment I hope they will consider it a little more. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to take the Government Amendment for the moment, but before we finally dispose of the Bill I hope they will consider it from a wider point of view.

LORD PARMOOR:

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

The only object we have in view is that these men who are not able-bodied should not be turned out of their employment altogether. There is a great risk of it if you put difficulties in the way of the farmer, and if you say to him: " You are liable to penal proceedings if you employ this man, who is not able-bodied, at a lower rate than the minimum rate of wages." The natural consequence will be that the farmer will say to the man, " I cannot be bothered with you. You are an old friend of mine, and I should have liked to employ you, but the Government and Parliament have interfered. I should expose myself to great penalties if I did so. It is not my fault if you starve; I would have done it if I could." That is the sort of attitude that might be adopted.

I think the Government are called upon to go as far as they possibly can to meet that difficulty. There is no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in his Amendment, does go a considerable distance further than either Lord Clinton or the Government, because his Amendment would operate immediately; there would be no three weeks' interval. The moment the less than able-bodied worker wanted to get work the farmer would merely have to go to a member of the committee and ask for a provisional permit. Under that he would be perfectly secure until the matter could be tried by the committee. During that interval the single committee man would have the power and authority to issue this provisional protection. That would operate immediately, and it would reduce the farmer's peril to the smallest possible proportion. If, however, you have a three weeks' interval the difficulty at once arises. The farmer wants the worker immediately. He will not wait for three weeks, but will get somebody else. He cannot under the Government's Amendment, without peril, pay the man less than the proper rate of wages during the first three weeks. He will have to run a risk. Well, he will not run that risk. You may say it is mean of the farmer, but they work on a very small margin of profit, and they have to cut things very fine.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER:

I thoroughly agree that, as employers of labour on farms, the last thing we wish to do is to turn off a man who, through physical inability, is unable to perform a full day's work and earn a full day's wage. I am very doubtful whether even Lord Stanhope's Amendment goes far enough. I am very doubtful whether, in my own county, I should know who were the members of the committee, and I am perfectly certain that three-fourths of the farmers will not know their names. If it is a question of applying to one of these members of the committee in order to get an exemption none of the farmers, I think, will take the trouble. They will simply tell this old or disabled man that he can go; they cannot run the risk of employing him. I should go even further than Lord Stanhope. I think the application ought to be made to a magistrate, or to somebody near at hand, whom the farmers will know.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR:

Is not the point really whether the farmer is acting bona fide, or whether he is not. If he is acting bona fide I think he should be protected. If there is fraud, or suspicion of fraud, let him suffer, but if a man is quite genuinely giving lower wages because he has reason to believe that the man whom he is employing is not able to do a full day's work I cannot see why he should be fined for what is, after all, very likely an act of charity. Would the Government look at it from that point of view before finally making up their minds?

LORD STRACHIE:

I should like to support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster. I am quite sure that Lord Clinton's Amendment is much better than Lord Stanhope's, because, in a great county like my own, it is very unlikely that the names of the members of the committee will be known. Under Lord Clinton's Amendment the mere fact, of applying for a permit makes the man perfectly safe.

LORD PARMOOR:

I agree, with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. I think Lord Clinton's words are really the best. Let us look at his Amendment. It says: provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made… That is quite clear. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, that to go and search for a member of the com- mittee is not the right way of proceeding. Then Lord Clinton's Amendment proceeds: … during the period that such application is before the committee… That is to say that, having made the application, he is not to be liable for proceedings.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

Will the noble Lord stop there?

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not want to answer in the negative. But let me read it through. … unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof. Would the noble Marquess agree to that? I believe there are some difficulties about that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

Let the Government stop at the word " committee " and then consider it between now and the Report stage.

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not think I can go further. I accept Lord Clinton's Amendment, subject to looking into it between now and the Report stage to-morrow. Let us see whether we can come to an agreement, because I have one or two forms before me which I am told are substantially the result of agreement made on this very point. I think the best plan would be to let Lord Clinton's Amendment be put in, with the understanding that it is to be further considered before to-morrow.

LORD SUMNER:

Will the noble and learned Lord say that he will cover the twenty-one days' interval somehow?

LORD PARMOOR:

I think it ought to be covered.

LORD SUMNER:

What he suggested was that there should be a Ministerial undertaking not to prosecute. That is, you create an offence by Statute, and then you give a Ministerial undertaking not to prosecute the offender, which seems to me an extraordinary thing to propose. There could be two or three forms suggested by which, from the day on which the application is sent in, the employer shall be safe in paying less than the minimum wage if it so happens that, by no fault of his own, he cannot get his application returned. Will the noble and learned Lord see that in some way or another when it comes to the Report stage that twenty-one days shall be covered?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:

Surely, this is a simple matter. Supposing a man is more or less unable to perform a full day's work, why should there be any trouble? He can get a medical certificate from his panel doctor that he is unable to perform a full day's work, and then the employer will offer him less. I have dealt with the same kind of thing myself, and it is very simple. A man suddenly or gradually fails, and the panel doctor says: " I do not think he will ever be good for very much." Then the employer says to the man: "If you like to go on I will give you so much a week." That is the best way of doing it. There need be nothing said about a minimum wage or anything else. You take things as they are. Farmers are very good natured people in that way and they will help a man on. If you have to wait until this, that and the other is done, in my opinion you will have a great deal of unpleasantness and possibly, prosecutions, and so on. Why not allow a man to work for what he is worth?

LORD PARMOOR:

In reply to the noble and learned Lord, I agree that undertakings are of no value really in matters of this kind. It is a question of what the Act itself contains. This is a matter which wants more consideration. I have been trying to consider it this morning, but there are so many other matters to be dealt with. I think the best plan would be to allow Lord Clinton's Amendment to be inserted and before tomorrow I hope that we shall come to an agreement in reference to putting in or omitting any words that may be necessary in order to deal with the matters to which reference has been made.

EARL STANHOPE:

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE:

In the absence of Lord Clinton, I beg to move his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 7, at end insert (" provided that an employer shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages at a rate less than the minimum rate to a worker in respect of whom an application for a permit has been made during the period that such application is before the committee unless the application shall have been considered and refused within twenty-one days of the receipt thereof ")—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I accept this Amendment subject to what I have just said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE

moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: (5) In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this section a committee shall secure, for able-bodied men, wages which in their opinion are equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of at least thirty shillings per week. The noble Marquess said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I feel sure that the House will acquit me and those who think with me of any attempt to obstruct or place any difficulty in the way of the Government at this period of the Session. But the position of the labourer is so dreadful and so ghastly, and the Bill as it stands, after having been " amended," as it is called, by the addition of the unfortunate Acland Amendment, which nine out of ten Liberals so profoundly deplore, is of such a character that there is nothing left for us to do except to move an Amendment on behalf of the agricultural labourers of England in the hope that it may be accepted.

The position of the agricultural labourer is a very sad one. I do not want to go over old ground, but some of your Lordships may not have been present when the Bill was read a second time, and I should like very briefly to quote again the statement of Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government. I ask your Lordships to remember that this is not a statement made by a person who knows but little of what he is talking about; it is not a statement made to create sympathy or anything of the sort; it is a distinct statement of a member of the Government, speaking not only for himself but for every single member of the Cabinet to which he has the honour to belong. The right hon. gentleman said that in some counties of England, happily not in all, a man who is in receipt of the standard rate of wages of 25s. a week and has a wife and five children has only 15s. and a few pence left to feed himself, his wife and his five children after he has paid for the necessities and decencies of life, and all that he can spend on each meal for these unfortunate people is three-farthings per head. I leave it at that. It is not my statement. It is the statement of Mr. Noel Buxton who is Minister of Agriculture and a member of one of the finest Norfolk families. He is responsible for the statement, and he says that it is absolutely true.

What are we to do with the Bill in its present state? Can we possibly allow such a state of things to go on? Is it possible to conceive that in this country such a state of things shall be allowed to go on? What objection is there socially, politically, or financially to the Amendment I have the honour to submit to your Lordships? The reason urged against it is that the Norfolk farmers are unable to make both ends meet if they do not pay these horrible starvation wages. I maintain that that is a libel on the farmers of Norfolk as a whole. As I told your Lordships on a previous occasion, farmers can and do pay 30s. a week in districts where there is a demand for industrial labour. In many parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire 30s. a week is being paid by farmers to-day on land which is no better and produces no more than the average land in Norfolk, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire. I should like to point out that these farmers in the north of England were able to pay 30s. a week last year when prices were very low. Prices are rising now. I believe that wheat—I speak under correction—is £1 a quarter more than it was last year. Flour is supposed to be 3s. a sack more, and a ewe and lamb can be sold, I believe, for £11. Yet in those circumstances, when agriculture is reviving to a certain extent, it is said that Norfolk farmers are unable to pay a decent minimum wage to their unfortunate labourers, though farmers in other parts of England and in worse circumstances were able to do so twelve months ago.

I am not going to detain your Lordships by reading the Amendment, but I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that the words I ask you to insert in the Bill are identical with words which appear in the Corn Production Act, 1917, Lord Ernle's great Act, which saved the country from starvation. In that Bill the wage was set down as a 25s. minimum. An Amendment was moved to increase that to 30s. a week, and who was it that moved it? It was moved by the Labour Party themselves—the very men who now are in office. That Amendment was supported by Mr. Wardle, who was at that time a Labour leader, and he was supported by Lord (then Mr.) Arnold, by Mr. Noel Buxton himself, by Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald, the present Prime Minister, by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Adamson and practically the whole of the Labour Party. Now we have this Bill. What is it? Is there anybody in this House, I almost might go so far as to ask is there anybody out of this House, is there any human being who up to now has said a single good word for it? There is the Lord President of the Council. We know what his forensic career has been; we know what a genius he is. The Bill could not be in better hands than his, but I am afraid he could not make much of it. But he was the only man who said one word during the Second Reading debate on the Bill to explain it, or one word in its favour.

What did others say? There was Lord Selborne. There is nobody in England whose opinion is more valued, and valuable, than Lord Selborne's. His speeches are always reported everywhere and he knows what he is talking about. Lord Selborne said that: This is an Act for turning the land of England into grass as soon as possible. He began his speech by saying that. What did Lord Long say? Lord Long is one of the men who was in the running for the Premiership. He is one of the best known and most respected members of your Lordships' House. What did Viscount Long of Wraxall say? He said: " The Bill as introduced was a bad measure, and, as amended, I strongly object to it." What did Lord Banbury of Southam say? He always speaks his mind everywhere, as we know. Lord Banbury said: " It is a bad electioneer ing Bill which nobody believes in."

Then, this afternoon, we have had a most interesting speech from Viscount Cecil—a speech that was listened to with the greatest possible attention. I think he said that the Bill was only a palliative, and that there was nothing practical in it. The Bill was called by one of the Ministers a " half-a-loaf-is-better-than-no-bread bill." With prices rising in the way that I have described I should almost be inclined to call it now " a-quarter-of-a-loaf-is-better-than-no-bread bill." That is not very strong praise of the Bill. Finally, in the Holland Division by-election, one Labour supporter who had a sense of humour—very grim humour certainly it was—called it an "Agricultural starvation wages continuance Bill." Those are the descriptions of this unfortunate Measure given not only by its opponents, but also by its supporters themselves.

I went to the House of Commons and listened very attentively to the speeches on the Third Reading of this unfortunate Bill. There were four speakers who struck me very forcibly. The first I heard was Lord Wolmer saying that this Bill is being carried into law by the co-operation of the Conservative and Socialist Parties, and he added: " This is being done to the obvious disgust and chagrin of the Liberal Party as a whole." I agree with what the noble Lord said, but I go further than that and say that this agreement, " this subtle underground work," as Mr. Ben Tillett called it, is not only looked upon with disgust and chagrin, but also with alarm and dismay. The next speech that struck me was that of Mr. Emlyn-Jones, who voiced, as I understand it, the opinion of the Liberal Party. He had the whole of the Liberal Party at his back, and he was helped by three other Liberal members of the House of Commons. He moved the Amendment which I have the honour to submit to jour Lordships. That Amendment was not allowed to be put under circumstances which it would be impossible for me to allude to in this House, still less to criticise. He made a splendid defence of the attitude of the Liberal Party. He did the best he could, and it seems to me that he is a man who will make his mark, end come into the front rank amongst the politicians in this country.

Then we had a lamentation from one who has every right to speak for the agricultural labourer—Mr. George Edwards, who has been an agricultural labourer himself, and knows what he is talking about. He expressed the disappointment, and almost the despair, of the agricultural labourers at the omission of what they had been led to expect—namely, a fixed minimum wage of at least 30s. a week. But the most important speech of all was made by a woman—Miss Jewson, the Labour Member for Norwich. She spoke from the Back Benches in a most modest and ladylike way. She had her back to the wall, but I could hear every word she said, and what she said was very alarming indeed. Being Labour Member for Norwich she knows what the condition of the Norfolk labourer is, and she knows how many of them have been driven into the town by the terrible conditions under which they live.

She said: Those who have had some experience of trade boards realise that, with the Central Wages Board gone, and the fixing of wages under the Bill left almost entirely in the hands of local committees, the position is very bad indeed. We had perorations which followed each other with monotonous rapidity, to the effect that we must all do the best we can to show good will and make this Bill work smoothly. In regard to this Miss Jewson said: It is all very well to speak of good will in the carrying out of this measure, but in the cases of many of the people concerned their position is too desperate to speak to them of good will. The men and their wives are having a terrible struggle, the children are going to school half-starved and not properly clothed, and it is insulting to talk to such people about good will in the industry. I have nothing more to say. Your Lordships have known me long enough to believe that I would not attempt to dictate in any way to your Lordships' House, but I do implore you to think, as Mr. Gladstone said, not once or twice, but thrice, before you go into the Lobby to support this dreadful Bill as it stands.

Think what our responsibilities are now. By holding up one finger and by going into the Lobby we can rescue and relieve those who fought for us in the war, their wives and their children, from a state of misery and semi-starvation. Every one, in his heart of hearts, would be glad to vote for a living wage for these poor creatures. Is it too late now? If you cannot vote for the Amendment are you going to vote against it? Are you going into the Lobby against this proposal to give a living wage to so many of our fellow-creatures? If the news could be flashed to Norfolk to-night that the House of Lords had come to the rescue of the unfortunate Norfolk labourers, imagine the joy and the gratitude there would be in so many Norfolk cottages, where the women are starving themselves in order to put body and soul into their poor children. I have done. I have done the best I could. I am afraid my poor words will not be of much use, but I cannot say all it would mean to these unfortunate people if this Amendment, this moderate proposal, could be inserted in the Bill, and we should be relieved from a state of things, which, as I said on the Second Reading, is not only a national scandal and disgrace but a national danger and a national crime. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I hope your Lordships will not be induced to consider the Amendment which the noble Marquess has brought forward. I have ample evidence before me that if this Amendment is introduced the certain result will be that the Bill could not proceed, and there would be a far larger amount of dismay, if I may use the term used by the noble Marquess, amongst the agricultural workers in this country if that should happen than if the Amendment was accepted. Let me give illustrations of fact rather than of fancy. One of the unions of agricultural workers does not want a 30s. minimum wage, and the reason they do not want it is because they know that in many circumstances it would tend to reduce the wages they are actually receiving at the present time. It is far too rigid a sum when you come to apply it over the whole of the country. Not only that, but they say that strong representations have also been received from the Scottish Farm Servants' Union against such a proposal; they fear it might have a tendency to depress wages, which in Scotland are generally above 30s. per week.

It is difficult to say what is the opinion of all agricultural workers, but, judging from my own experience, I say that the enormous majority of them are against any proposal to fix 30s. as a minimum, as one central figure. I believe the great mass of farm workers desire to have the matter discussed and settled locally. I need not go further into that matter at the moment, because under the provisions of this Bill there is ample power to come to headquarters if the local committees do not fix the minimum, or should some difficulty arise. What I wish the noble Marquess to appreciate is that there is to be a minimum fixed for all agricultural wages under this Bill. That is the whole principle of the Bill. What he desires is one fixed minimum, which, according to the views of the unions, would not only be not beneficial but would actually tend to reduce the wages which men are, in fact, receiving at the moment. The noble Marquess shakes his head. I know the conditions in Yorkshire and Buckinghamshire, he knows the conditions in Lincolnshire, and I say without any hesitation that if a 30s. minimum were adopted it would have no effect in Buckinghamshire, because 30s. is practically in existence there now, and as regards Yorkshire it would have a tendency to reduce wages as much as 10s. below their present level.

When he pleads on behalf of the agricultural labourer, my answer is that they do not want this plea. They do not want to have this one minimum wage fixed at headquarters, because they know how deleterious it would be, in the long run, to their own interests. I cannot imagine, having some knowledge of agricultural matters, how you can have one minimum wage fixed at headquarters which would be fair all round. The conditions of agriculture differ in different localities. They differ as regards proximity of markets and towns, as regards fertility of soil, and in numerous other ways. Any attempt to fix this one minimum wage would, in my view, tend not in the direction which the noble Marquess has indicated but directly in the opposite direction, and the tears and moans to which he so eloquently referred are much more likely to be heard if this minimum is fixed than if the reasonable method is adopted of fixing a minimum rate in reference to different conditions in different localities.

There are one or two other matters which I must put straight. This is the second time that the noble Marquess— he did so on the Second Reading debate —has attacked Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister of Agriculture. Quite unintentionally, I am sure, he has wholly misrepresented what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place. What he referred to was the reason for the Bill being passed. He referred to these conditions, and said he regretted them. He brought them forward as illustrations of the necessity for the Bill being passed, and it is only just to the Minister to say that there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that he mentioned these intolerable conditions—I think those were the words used—with the idea that he sanctioned them and that they ought to be preserved. It was absolutely the contrary. He quoted illustrations of these bad conditions as a reason why, in his opinion, a Bill dealing with the mini mum wages question must be passed.

I will not go into the speeches made in the other House to which the noble Marquess referred, but he quoted three members of this House—Lord Long, Lord Banbury of Southam and Lord Selborne. But they did not support his thesis; their speeches were against it. Even as the Bill stands, they expressed their fears regarding the influence of any minimum wage—and this is a minimum wage Bill—on the interests of agriculture. I should like to know what those three noble Lords would have said if this proposal had appeared in the Bill. I see one of them here. I feel perfectly certain that, if any one of those three noble Lords had been speaking on the proposal of the noble Marquess, his speech would not have been in his favour but entirely the reverse. He would have emphasised his objections to it, and, I believe, would have expressed the view that it would lead to the downfall of the agricultural industry in this country.

There are, of course, two sides to the question whether you are to have one minimum wage, fixed at headquarters, or various minimum wages, fixed with reference to local conditions. But there must be no mistake about this: there is to be a minimum in any case, and it is this that the noble Marquess appears to forget. He talks as though there could be no minimum except a single minimum, applicable over the whole country. That is not so, and it is precisely because it is thought that a single minimum would not operate for the benefit of the industry that the Bill was brought into its present form. I want to say quite frankly that the Bill as originally introduced into the House contained the provision which the noble Marquess is asking your Lordships to introduce.

THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE:

There never was, in the Bill as originally introduced, a 30s. minimum wage.

LORD PARMOOR:

I made a statement which I ought not to have made. I beg your Lordships' pardon; it was not in. I thought it was. I know that it was a good deal discussed, but it was not in, and quite rightly. What happened? I say quite frankly that the question ultimately arose whether there was to be a Bill dealing with this matter of minimum wages this Session or not. It came to that. I think that the Government and the Minister of Agriculture were more than justified in saying that a Bill of this kind should not be allowed to go by the board, and that it should be preserved in the only way in which it could be preserved, and that is by the agreement and the arrangement which were arrived at. I do not think that it is any use shutting our eyes to the fact that for many years it may be that any one Party will be in a minority when the two other Parties combine against it. I believe that this is likely to be a condition of our political life for many years. I think it would be the height of folly not to recognise that. Are we to throw over every measure which we hope will bring reform in our social conditions, such as all these questions of agricultural labour, because we do not think it wise to adopt the only attitude which enables us to deal with them in a practical form?

As I said in proposing the Second Reading of this Bill, I think that it was. a step in the right direction when the compromise was arrived at. Speaking as much in the interests of the agricultural labourer, and being as much concerned with regard to his interests as the noble Marquess, I say that it would have been a great misfortune if the compromise had not been reached, and it would have been a great misfortune if the great advantages which this Bill will give to the agricultural labourer had not been pressed forward. I am not going into the question whether the conditions of poverty have been exaggerated or not. As tested by the conditions in places where I know what the life of these men is, they would be exaggerated, but, whether they have been exaggerated or not, I do believe that, in the interests of all, we ought to have this minimum wage, and we can have it only on the principle of its being settled in the various localities. I ask your Lordships, in spite of the eloquence of the noble Marquess, not to be led away into accepting his Amendment.

LORD RATHCREEDAN:

I desire to make a few remarks in connection with this Amendment, in order that I may justify the vote which I am about to give, and which might, in some senses, be considered paradoxical. I agree in a great measure with that which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, on the Second Reading, when he pointed out that the farmers were practically between the devil and the deep sea. They had either to pay what the majority of them considered to be very large wages, or they were obliged to allow the greater part of the land which they cultivated to go into grass. This agricultural question has not been dealt with fairly or justly by the present Government in this Bill. We are told, in the first place, that we are to accept the measure as it stands without amendment because, forsooth, an agreement was entered into by a section of one Party in the other House! I have not been a member of your Lordships' House for very long, but I was for many years a member of the other House, and I was given to understand that your Lordships' House existed for the purpose of revising and ameliorating measures which came up from the other House. Now we are told that in this instance, when we are dealing with the agriculture of this country, which is the greatest of all its industries, we are to accept the measure absolutely in the form in which the Government submit it to us. In my opinion this is not only a slight upon your Lordships, but it amounts to a gross insult.

The landlords of this country are at present in this position: they are getting for their capital a paltry two per cent., or at most three per cent., whereas, if they could divert it into some industrial pursuit, any sound industry in this country would give them twice that interest. The farmer, as I have pointed out, is in the position of barely being able to make both ends meet, and the noble- Marquess has described the condition of the agricultural labourer in many parts of the country. I know that in South Oxfordshire the agricultural labourers voted almost to a man in one particular direction because they were definitely promised this minimum wage of 30s. a week. The farmers were offered some sop to enable them to give these wages. Now both farmers and agricultural labourers are thrown over. I know that there are these various committees to which they can apply, but, after all, as was pointed out, I think, by my noble friend Lord Strachie, the power remains with the Minister and with the central body, and it is to this that the agricultural labourers and the farmers of this country strongly object.

I may be asked why, if these are my views, I am going to support the noble Marquess. I am going to support him because something must be done. I contend that this agricultural question is a great national question. The agricultural question is a great national question, and it should not be dealt with in a piecemeal manner. Certainly it should not be a Party question. We all agree that in the interests of the country at large it is necessary to keep whatever agricultural population we have upon the land, and to prevent them rushing into the towns and lowering the wages of the urban workers, and thereby multiplying unemployment. The present Ministry came into power for the purpose of doing away with unemployment. This measure will do nothing to do away with unemployment, and therefore I feel that it is my duty to support the noble Marquess if he goes to a Division.

LORD GAINFORD:

Before the Amendment is put I should like to reply to one or two observations made by the Leader of the House. He alluded to this Amendment as being calculated to kill the Bill. I do not believe that that fear really has any sound foundation. He further said that it was absurd to place in the Bill a general minimum wage—that a minimum wage ought to vary according to the circumstances and the fertility of the soil. It is perfectly true that fertility varies, and wages vary, and it is also true that after the passing of this Amendment there will be a varying minimum wage according to the fertility and circum- stances of every county; but what we ask for is that in no county shall wages be reduced to a lower figure than 30s. I have had some little experience in connection with agricultural affairs, although I hesitate in this House to address your Lordships upon matters connected with agriculture, knowing the wide experience that many of your Lordships have had; but having lived in Yorkshire, I can undertake to say that Yorkshiremen are not going to allow the minimum in favour of the worst-paid counties to affect them. They are competent to look after their own interests, to see that the wage that they have hitherto obtained shall obtain in the future, and that their minimum shall vary according to the fertility of the soil and circumstances in Yorkshire.

The minimum is a principle which we have to accept whether we like it or not. It has been on the Statute Book for some years, and in the last mining strike in 1921, when there was a long stoppage, it was very patent to the coalowners of the country that in another great industry the miners were not going to accept any arrangement which did not secure for them a definite subsistence wage. What we are asking here is that the poor agricultural labourer in the worst paid districts shall receive a subsistence wage. In my own County of Durham the subsistence wage for the mining population is 7s. 6d. per shift for the lowest class of unskilled labourer, working on the surface of the mines. That means that he gets over 42s. per week in cash, and in addition, if a married man, he gets coal and house rent free. The agricultural wage of the skilled man working on the farms in this County is now 35s. per week, and he would not be subject to the Amendment, but there are districts where the agricultural worker would be subject to this Amendment, and I come to another County with which I have been closely associated, having represented for eight years the Northern Division of the County of Essex.

When I first became representative of the agricultural labourers in that county the average wage of the agricultural labourer was 11s. per week. In 1901 it was raised to 12s., and before the war it had been raised to 17s. But that is a wage which did not really enable the farmers to employ what I call physically strong men. The result of a low wage in the County of Essex was that all the young men and able-bodied men left the district and went abroad or into the towns. The older men were left, and many of them had large families. I saw something of the suffering of the men and of their families, living on 12s. per week, during the eight years I was their representative. These men cannot live on a wage of from 12s. to 17s. per week as they did before the war, and the equivalent of that to-day, with the increased cost of living, is between 25s. and 30s. per week. I say that 30s. is as low a wage as Parliament ought to ask any agricultural labourer to accept. I am perfectly certain that if you pay a man a wage on which he can live respectably and happily he will be a far better worker on the farm. It is because I believe that, whether some farms will have to go out of cultivation or not, it is better for the nation that the standard of living should be raised to at least 30s., that I shall support the noble Marquess in the event of his going to a Division.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY:

I have heard so much about my own County that I really think I must say a word or two. I honestly confess that I used to think a minimum wage a very good thing. The minimum wage started during the war, and it worked fairly well. I only wish that my noble friend Lord Ailwyn was here. He was Chairman of the Central Wages Board. What you want is a great many more things than the minimum wage. You have got to remember that in my county, and I dare say in a great many other counties, farms are let with a number of cottages at one inclusive rent. The consequence is that the farmer can charge what he likes. Now that is one of the great curses of the agricultural industry.

If you want to have a minimum wage you want to have all your agricultural cottages at one particular price. I can go not many miles circuit from my own place and find a great difference in the rents that these agricultural labourers are paying. Some are paying up to 3s. a week. You go a little further, and you find that they are paying not more than 2s. 6d. or 2s. a week. All my cottages are in my own hands, with the exception of those on two farms, and the farmers there are personal friends of mine. All have separate agreements, and the tenants can only be turned out by receiving notice on April 6, to expire on October 11. It works quite well. Of course, some cottages are better than others. They were built by my father, and I often wonder what they cost. Not one of the tenants has ever had his rent raised since the cottages were built, and many of them were built in 1865. They pay £4 a year. Of course, it is not an economic rent, but no cottages were ever supposed to pay an economic rent. The landowner built them simply for the farmers' workmen to live in. But that is one reason why we cannot have a general minimum wage. You can, as indicated by the Leader of the House, have a separate minimum wage for every district, and you must have confidence that the people will come to some arrangement.

In my own County they never did come to an arrangement till the other day, when, marvellous to relate, they agreed to fix the rate of harvest wages. Personally, I believe that is a very good omen, and I only hope that state of things will continue. It is very difficult to get people to agree. I should be absolutely dishonest if I said that the people in my County are living in misery and starvation, because they are not. I have never seen anybody in that condition. At one time there was an election campaign going on, and politicians were trying to see how many votes they could catch by promising people more wages on the plea that they were starving, but there was no truth in it. God knows, I wish they had more wages, but they can have more in many ways. They can work only eight hours a day, as my people do, and they can earn other things besides.

To tack on this Amendment to the Bill would, in my opinion, be absolutely fatal. Agricultural Bills are not very easy to work. You cannot control the clerk of the weather, and what suits the East of England does not suit the West. You really want separate Acts for separate districts. You have to be content with what the French call a pis aller. I shall not be the least afraid to meet people whom I represent after this Division, because to insert this proposal for a general minimum wage would be disastrous to them.

On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)	Allendale, V. [Teller.]	Crawshaw, L.
		Denman, L.
	Anslow, L.	Emmott, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Cawley, L.	Gainford, L.
Chichester, E.	Chalmers, L.	Hemphill, L.
Portsmouth, E.	Channing of Wellingborough, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
		Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
		Strabolgi, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Stanhope, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
		Danesfort, L.
Devonshire, D.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Darling, L.
	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Desborough, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, M.	Chaplin, V.	Dynevor, L.
Salisbury, M.	Chelmsford, V.	Erskine, L.
	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Ancaster, E.		Harris, L.
Bradford, E.	Novar V.	Hylton, L.
Clarendon, E.	Peel, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Younger of Leckie, V.	Lawrence, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queen sherry)		Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
	Ripon, L. Bp.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Fortescue, E.	Southwark, L. Bp.	Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]
Kimberley, E.		Olivier, L.
Lucan, E.	Anslow, L.	Rowallan. L.
Malmesbury, E.	Arnold, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Mayo, E.	Avebury, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Midleton, E.	Balfour of Burleigh. L.	Sumner, L.
Onslow, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)	Templemore, L.
		Thomson L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert: and shall so far as practicable secure for workers other than able-bodied men who are not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause of performing the work of a normally efficient worker (other than an able-bodied man) such wages as in the opinion of the Committee are adequate to promote efficiency. The noble Earl said: It is rather curious that under Clause 2 (4) an able-bodied man is all sorts of things besides being an able-bodied man. He is also a lad or a boy, or any male worker who is not mentally deficient or physically unfit. Therefore, under this clause as it stands, you have two considerations which affect wages. One is that wages shall be sufficient to promote efficiency, and the other is that wages shall be sufficient to maintain a man and his family. Obviously that is inapplicable to a man who is other than able-bodied, and a boy.

Therefore, later on I propose to amend the definition of an able-bodied man so as to show that it shall apply only to those who have attained the age of twenty-one years. Even apart from that, this subsection does not affect women and girls. As I said before, the basis of wages in Clause 2 is the question of efficiency and of their sufficiency to support a family. Therefore, I beg to move my Amendment, not with reference to the definition as it stands at the moment but as I hope your Lordships will eventually make it. The question of the family does not enter into the question. Unless you leave this Amendment out of the Bill entirely there is a necessity for it in regard to the basis on which wages are to be settled.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I think there must be some misunderstanding upon this point. The Bill deals with men, women and boys. It deals also with men who are in some sense disabled in that they are not in a position to earn the ordinary minimum wage. That being so, I have difficulty in seeing to what the noble Earl's Amendment is directed. It says " and shall so far as practicable secure for workers other than able-bodied men ", and so on. Women and boys are already dealt with in the Bill. Workers other than able-bodied men are also dealt with because men who are in any way disabled either by age or infirmity can work for an agreed wage which is less than the minimum wage. The noble Earl will find these words in subsection (3)— If … a committee are satisfied that any worker … is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age…that he is incapable of earning that minimum rate the committee shall grant to the worker a permit exempting… —and so on. It is dealt with already. We have been dealing with it as regards cases in which less than the minimum wage may be paid and in reference to which I said I would consider subsequently the words of Lord Clinton's Amendment. I am really unable to see what the noble Lord is aiming at, because all these matters are already treated in the Bill itself. I hope that he will not press his Amendment, which is not necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

I think that the noble and learned Lord will find, if he looks at the matter a little more closely, that there is a defect in the Bill. I ask, on what principle is the minimum wage to be fixed? In subsection (4) there is a reply to that question as the Bill stands, but the reply is confined, if the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to follow me, to able-bodied men. It says: "In fixing minimum rates the committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men ", and so on. Except so far as Lord Clinton's Amendment is concerned (and I do not think that quite covers the ground) the only direction for fixing minimum rates is that contained in subsection (4) of this clause, and that is confined to able-bodied men.

If I look at the definition of " able-bodied men " in Clause 16 I find this— The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical infirmity "— and so forth— of performing the work of a normally efficient worker. So far as subsection (4) is concerned it does not include able-bodied women or girls; it is confined entirely to male workers. My noble friend Lord Stanhope established, first of all, that in the case of able-bodied women and girls there is no direction in the Bill under which the minimum wage is to be determined. So far as men are concerned it is based on efficiency. So far as women and girls are concerned there is no direction whatever. I do not know what the Government intend, and I should be able to discuss this matter more easily if I knew what was in their minds in regard to able-bodied women. Is an able-bodied women to receive a minimum wage? Yes. Is that minimum wage to be determined on the question of efficiency? There is nothing in the Bill. It may be that is intentional. It may be they do not propose that in the case of a woman or girl the efficiency test shall be the test. There is this to be said for it, that a great difficulty arises in the case of women, as between married women and single women, and if efficiency is the test it is clear that the married woman does not want so much as the single woman. I say that the definition is not apt to the able-bodied woman or girl. My noble friend has established, as I think, that there is no proper provision in the case of women and girls, because there is nothing in the Bill at all.

As to the boy, he is covered by the words of subsection (4) because under the definition of " able-bodied man," as the Bill stands he is a male worker and therefore he is covered by this clause. The difficulty there is of another kind. The efficiency test is not quite right in the case of a boy who does not necessarily want wages which shall keep him in efficiency, because, presumably, he does not live by himself but in his father's house. Therefore, the efficiency test does not seem to be exactly apt. My noble friend has put the efficiency test into his Amendment, if I may say so, for want of a better proposal. I think that we should be much better able to discuss this matter if we knew what was in the minds of the Government.

LORD PARMOOR:

I appreciate what the noble Marquess has said and I will try to reply to him. There are two minimum wage clauses and I will deal with both of them. One is Clause 2 and the other is Clause 4, which deals with inadequate payment for piece-work where no minimum wage is paid. In both of them I think the matter the noble Earl referred to is covered. Clause 2 provides that— Subject to the provisions of this Act, agricultural wages committees shall fix minimum wages for workers employed in agriculture… Then, if you look at the Definition Clause, you will see that:

The expression ' worker ' includes a boy, woman and girl.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

That is so.

LORD PARMOOR:

Therefore, so far as that is concerned I think there can be no doubt. When we come to the other matter which, of course, is an important one, though not quite of the same importance, we are dealing again with any worker employed in agriculture, and it certainly seems to me that any worker employed in agriculture—certainly any class of women or boys—comes into the terms of the definition.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

The point is that " worker " does not come into subsection (4).

LORD PARMOOR:

Subsection (4) of what?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

Subsection (4) of Clause 2.

LORD PARMOOR:

I will refer to that in a moment. I thought the noble Lord was referring to Clause 4 which has the word " workers " in it. Subsection (4) says: In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency. I see now what the noble Earl means. Although wages are to be fixed for women and boys, there is no test in the same way that there is a test in the case of able-bodied men. I think that is so. As a matter of fact, I think the Bill was intended to be framed on that basis, but now that this matter has been called to my mind I do not want to rule out the efficiency test. It is difficult to see how an efficiency test is to be fixed in the case of women and boys. I understand now that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is suggesting that there is no efficiency test.

EARL STANHOPE:

There is no explanation on which a committee can settle what the wages are to be.

LORD PARMOOR:

I think the efficiency test is intended to be left out, and is left out, in the case of women and boys. The efficiency test is only applied to able-bodied men.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it is applied to boys.

LORD PARMOOR:

Where is that?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

" Able-bodied man " includes a boy under the Definition Clause.

LORD PARMOOR:

Then it comes down to the question of whether there is any efficiency test in the case of women. There is no provision, so far as I know, for an efficiency test in the case of women's work, but it is a matter that I will enquire about. I looked carefully at the noble Earl's Amendment, but it was not thought to be directed to this point. No doubt it was our fault in not adequately appreciating what was meant. The one point left is whether there should be an efficiency test in the case of women, and I will have that looked into.

EARL STANHOPE:

Would the noble Lord like me to press my Amendment now, and to consider it on Report? I think he will find that there ought to be something on which the committee is able to base itself in fixing wages for women and girls. They have something to guide them for able-bodied men, but there is nothing in the case of women. If the Government wish to cut out women and girls let us negative my Amendment. Otherwise, I think they will want words in the sense of my Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR:

I regret that I have not been made cognisant of this point. It will be considered, and I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power of the Minister to direct the reconsideration of minimum rates.

6. The Minister may direct an agricultural wages committee to reconsider any minimum rate which has been fixed by them, and thereupon the committee shall reconsider the same and notify to the Minister the result of their reconsideration.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: This is a very short clause, but a very mischievous one. The clause means that the ultimate fixing of the minimum wage under this Bill is in the hands of the Minister, and it is in the hands of the Minister because, as the Bill stands at the present moment, he has the power to appoint two independent members in each locality, and those independent members will hold the balance in their hands. Therefore, if a local committee agrees to a wage, say, for the sake of argument, of 30s. a week, and the Minister thinks that it ought not to be 30s. a week but 35s., or some other sum, all he has to do under this clause is to inform the committee that they must reconsider it, and at the same time privately inform the two independent members who have been put on by him, and who can be removed by him, that they are to vote in a certain way, and then it will be done.

I would ask your Lordships to remember the circumstances in which this Bill was introduced, and the circumstances in which the Wages Board for agriculture was set up some seven years ago. In 1917 it was determined in order to increase food production, to give a bounty to farmers, and it was said then that because farmers were going to have a bounty, or might receive a bounty, out of the funds of the nation, part of that bounty should be passed on to the agricultural labourer. Therefore, a Wages Board was instituted to fix a minimum wage for the labourer. Then, again, in 1921, when further alterations were made, it was always contended—I remember the debates in another place perfectly well—that the only justification for establishing a Wages Board was that the farmer was going to receive a subsidy from the State. Then, in 1921 or 1922 —I forget which—it was found that the subsidy would cost the State too much, the members who sat for urban constituencies were afraid that their supporters would not like putting their hands in their pockets to give a subsidy to the farmers, and therefore the subsidy to the farmers was cancelled. At the same time the Wages Board was also cancelled.

The two things always went together, but now, for the first time, without a subsidy for the farmer, you are going to have a Wages Board. You are also going to say under this clause that the Wages Board shall not have power to fix the minimum wage, but that it shall be reserved to the Minister, sitting in Whitehall, to fix the wage. There are some small sweated industries which are, I think unfortunately—I opposed it at the time—subject to Trade Boards, but there is no great industry which is so subject. The coal industry, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gainford, spoke a few minutes ago, is not subject to a Wages Board. The arrangement in the coal mines industry is a voluntary arrangement entered into between the masters and the men. The wages are not fixed in any kind of way by a Wages Board. I should like to see this clause deleted. I cannot understand how anybody can support a clause of this sort. The whole trend of the view of the Farmers' Union, and of the farmers themselves, has been against legislation of the kind which they call " farming from London," and this clause is going to preserve that, and to preserve it in a form worse than that contained in the Wages Board of 1917, because power will be absolutely in the hands of the Minister.

Let me point out this to your Lordships, in addition to what I have already said. In the House of Commons a member may ask a question of a Minister, provided that the Minister has control over the subject of the question. Therefore, if a Minister sends back a wage to the local committee, and some advanced member of the House of Commons, anxious to obtain credit in his constituency, thinks that the increased wage ought to be paid, all he has to do, unless this clause is left out, is to put a question down in the House of Commons asking the Minister why he has not insisted upon an increased wage being paid. When the salary of the Minister comes up in Supply that subject can be debated, and you will have advanced members of the House of Commons—members on both sides; I do not make any distinction—whose chief concern is to make themselves popular in their constituencies, taking advantage of this clause to raise discussions upon the Minister's salary in order to show how anxious they are to secure high wages for their constituents.

If this clause is left out the Bill is in no way injured; the principle that wages should be fixed by the committee will still remain. All that will happen is that the Minister sitting in Whitehall will not have the power to compel farmers and their local committee to do something which they have no desire to do and which probably they have no means of doing. This is a very serious matter. It is the worst clause in the whole Bill. I hope I have put the matter quite clearly before you, and as I do not want to take up any length of time I will now content myself with moving the omission of this clause.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD PARMOOR:

The noble Lord has almost convinced me that this is an important clause. I was prepared to say that it was not of much importance and that I should not care to press it if the feeling of the House were against it. But the noble Lord has said so much that he may be right in some of his statements with regard to its importance, although he has not convinced me that there is anything in his argument. It gives no power to the Minister to interfere at all. All it does is to say that the Minister may ask them to reconsider the matter. He has not the slightest control over it. My only difficulty, when I rose for the purpose of saying that we do not attach any great weight to the clause, has arisen from what the noble Lord has said. He described it as the most important clause in the Bill. In my view it is an unimportant clause, and I am not prepared to press it if the House takes the view that it should be deleted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Penalties and legal proceedings.

(4) Where an employer has been convicted under this section for failing to pay wages to any worker at not less than the minimum rate applicable, then, if notice of intention so to do has been served with the summons, warrant, or complaint, evidence may be given of any failure on the part of the employer to pay wages to that worker at not less than the minimum rate applicable to him at any time during the eighteen months immediately preceding the period of six months mentioned in the last preceding subsection, and on proof of the failure the court may order the employer to pay such sum as is found by the court to represent the difference between the amount which ought to have been paid to the worker by way of wages at the minimum rate applicable during those eighteen months and the amount actually so paid.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out " failing to pay " and insert " paying." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the Lord President is prepared to explain this sub-section in language which will be understood by the agricultural labourer. I had to read it many times before I understood it at all. Double negatives are employed, and it is not easy to define. My Amendment, and also the other Amendments on the Order Paper, cut out these double negatives and put the subsection in much simpler form.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 4, leave out (" failing to pay") and insert ("paying").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. We have looked into this very carefully from the drafting point of view, and I think the drafting is quite right. You have to have a form of drafting in relation to the preceding subsections. The matter has been fairly considered, and it is thought that it is now in the better form and should not be altered.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

I am sure the noble Earl will not press the Government on a matter of drafting, but I am glad he has called attention to it. If I may say so, I think the drafting is very clumsy. It is a double negative and most difficult to understand. If the Lord President would be good enough to consult the draftsman again I shall be quite satisfied.

LORD PARMOOR:

I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Regulations.

(2).Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

LORD STRACHIE

had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection: (2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of any-thing previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

LORD PARMOOR:

Let me say, in order to save time, that subject to a drafting Amendment I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE:

I am much obliged to the Lord President.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

I will read the new subsection as amended by the Lord President and accepted by the noble Lord: — (2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address to His Majesty is agreed to by either House. …

and so on.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection:

(" (2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address to His Majesty is agreed to by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.")—(Lord Strachie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Appointment and powers of officers.

9.—(1) The Minister may appoint a secretary for the Agricultural Wages Board and a secretary for each agricultural wages committee and, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, such officers as he thinks necessary for the purpose of investigating complaints and otherwise securing the proper observance of this Act.

(2) Any officer so appointed shall have power—

1. (a) to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture;
2. (b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act; and
3. (c) to require any such worker, or the employer of any such worker, or any agent of the employer to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him.

(3) If any person—

1. (a) hinders or molests any officer acting, in the exercise of his powers under this section: or
2. (b) refuses to produce any document or give any information which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce or give; or
3. (c) produces or causes to be produced or knowingly allows to be produced any wages sheet, record or other document which is false in any material particular to any such officer knowing the same to be false; or
4. (d) furnishes any information to any such officer knowing the same to be false,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in subsection (1), after " Board and," to insert " (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned.)" The noble Earl said: This is to provide that the secretary to the committee shall only be appointed after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned. As the Bill stands the Minister has the right to appoint the secretary, a most important officer, without any consultation whatever with those with whom he will have to work. If these committees, are to work smoothly and rapidly it is necessary that they should be consulted before the secretary is appointed.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 7, after (" and ") insert (" (after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned) "). — (Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I think one or two considerations have not been present to the noble Earl. In the first place the secretary will be appointed before the committees are constituted, and, in some cases, will help in their constitution. In the second place, the expenses of the secretary are to be paid by the Treasury, and it is expected that one secretary will act for various agricultural wages committees. It is not work that will take up a man's whole time, and Regulations might be made so that the same secretary might be appointed for more than one committee. The noble Earl will understand, therefore, that the Bill as it stands is best. These secretaries are, in our view, Ministerial officers of no great importance.

VISCOUNT PEEL:

I am not entirely convinced by the observations of the Lord President. With regard to the point raised by the Amendment it does not matter very much whether the same man is secretary to one or more committees. The secretary will have to work with the committee, and it is perfectly reasonable that before he is appointed the committee with whom he is going to work should be consulted as to whether they would like to work with him. Nothing would conduce more to the easy working of the committee than that they should have some say in the appointment of the man with whom they are going to work. I hope the Lord President will meet us on this point.

LORD PARMOOR:

I think the noble Viscount did not quite appreciate my answer. I agree with a great deal that he said, but what I suggested was that a secretary might be secretary for a good many of these committees. Instead of having perhaps fifty secretaries paid by the Treasury, we contemplate that there will probably be only five, or some such small number, and that they can get through the work perfectly well. The secretarial work of a committee of this kind is almost nominal. You must have a secretary, of course, in order to keep minutes and so on, but there is very little other work, and the Treasury do not desire to appoint a large number of unnecessary secretaries when the same secretary can operate for a number of these committees. But this cannot be done if you have to have the consent of the committees. They might not give their consent. I have put my point, and I hope that this provision will not be introduced, for the reasons that I have stated.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON:

The noble Lord speaks of the secretary as doing secretarial work, but he must know that in a case of this kind the whole of the executive work will go through the secretary, and the secretary will have the executive working of the officers who are to be appointed. If your Lordships will look at the powers given to the officers, you will see that they are of the most inquisitorial description. The officer is given power— to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture—

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I was dealing only with the question of secretaries. The question of officers is a different matter altogether.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON:

The secretary will have the executive working of the officers. Unquestionably the officers will all work under the committee, and the secretary is the person who will issue all instructions to the officers. I would put it to the noble Lord that nothing is so likely to cause friction, especially in the country districts, as a man being sent from headquarters without consultation with the persons who are chiefly involved in the matter. They will take an opportunity of raising all sorts of difficulties. I do not think that a more unwise thing could well be done than to appoint the secretary without the concurrence of the committee. As my noble friend merely proposes consultation with the committee, I sincerely trust that he will press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAYO:

May I ask the noble Lord one question? In answering the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, he stated that the secretaries would be appointed before the committees. May I ask where that is inferred in the Bill?

LORD PARMOOR:

The appointment of the secretaries is in the hands of the Minister, and it would be a difficult form of administration to have the secretaries appointed when you are getting these committees together. That is my information, and I think it would be so. I do not want to keep up argument upon a point of this kind, but it appears to me, from my knowledge of agricultural committees and country committees, that the duties of the secretary would be almost nominal. No doubt the committee would have to fix the minimum wage in the first place, and then I dare say they would not be wanted to meet again—I was going to say for years—unless some difficulty arose. I have said what I have to say. This is not a matter in which I would put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but, from an administrative point of view, I think the Bill is much better as it stands. The officers, of course, are upon a different footing. They are not the officers of the local bodies, and they are quite distinct from the local bodies.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER:

May I ask the noble Lord one question? When we were dealing with the question of granting exemptions and allowing less than the minimum wage to be given to people who were not able-bodied, or who were suffering from some infirmity, I understood that we agreed that all these demands would have to go through the secretaries of these committees. I merely ask the noble Lord to give that point his consideration. The farmers in these cases will have to apply to the secretary, which will mean a good deal of correspondence.

LORD PARMOOR:

I think that is so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

And a certain amount of local knowledge as well.

LORD PARMOOR:

I will not say anything more. I do not wish to repeat myself. I said that the secretary would be appointed first, and would assist in the arrangements and Regulations, whatever they might be, for the work of the committees. If your Lordships take the ether view, I can only say that I have put the view of the Government as strongly as I can, and I must leave it there.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in subsection (1), after " number " to insert " and after such consultation as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: This applies the same principle to the officers. Perhaps I might say that some of us who went through this Bill so far disagreed with my noble friend opposite that they felt that the secretaries would have so much to do that it would not be possible for them to take on any of the work of the officers.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 9, after (" number ") insert (" and after such consultation as aforesaid ").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not know whether your Lordships will regard this as the same point over again, but the officers stand upon rather a different footing. The officers are really sent down from Whitehall to investigate certain matters, if necessary. I do not want to go over the question again, but I rather hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: These subsections give power to the officers of the wages boards—

1. "(a) to require the production of and to inspect and take copies of wages sheets or other records of wages paid to workers employed in agriculture;
2. "(b) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act; and
3. "(c) to require any such worker … to give any information—"

and so on. Then it goes on to lay down the penalties to be inflicted if any person hinders or molests an officer in the performance of his duties. These are very great powers to give to some petty official, as these officers will in all probability be. I think we all know what happens to a man who is given a little temporary authority and how he is very often liable to abuse it. The farmer is, from the nature of his business, in a very different position from that of the manager of a bank or a factory. He may be a mile, or a mile and a half or two miles, from his farm house, working in his fields at a time when the weather happens to be propitious, and one of these officials may approach him and order him to go back to the farm house, or may go round amongst the men and stir up all sorts of strife in order that he may be recommended for promotion as a zealous officer.

In the Act of 1919 the clause was somewhat different, because it said that the officer could enter only at reasonable times and after proper notice had been given. The Act of 1917 had somewhat similar provisions, though they were not quite so savage. It was there laid down that proper notice was to be given before the official could enter upon the farm— proper notice and at reasonable times. The penalties, so far as I remember, were nothing like so severe. Under the present Bill the penalties are a fine not exceeding £20, or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both fine and imprisonment. Really those are very heavy penalties, which might be imposed if a farmer had done some criminal act, but ought not to be imposed if he has, perhaps inadvertently, done something which he ought not to have done under the BILL.

I was going to make this proposal to the noble and learned Lord. Owing to the very short time that we have had for the consideration of this Bill it has been impossible to put down all the Amendments that one would like, or to put them down in the form that one would wish. If the noble and learned Lord will tell me that between now and Report he will consider whether or not he can alter this clause, so as to preserve the clause in the Act of 1917—namely, that it shall be necessary to give proper notice—and if he will reduce the penalties, then I will not press my Amendment. I do think, however, that it is absolutely necessary the farmer should be protected by proper notice being given that this official is going to call, and also that the official shall call at reasonable times, and further that the penalty should be reduced. I beg to move my Amendment, in order to give the Government an opportunity of saying whether they accept my suggestion.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, lines 13 to 42, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I am afraid I must say at the outset that I cannot accept the noble Lord's suggestion. Of course, so far as you omit subsections (2) and (3) the whole Bill at once becomes unworkable, because the only sanctions that the provisions of the Bill shall be carried out are contained in subsections (2) and

(3). They have been very carefully considered. The provisions in the Bill follow very closely the provisions found to be necessary in the enforcement of the Trade Boards Act, and I do not think they go too far. It is enormously to the advantage of farmers as a mass that these conditions shall be complied with, and the penalties ought to be sufficient to ensure compliance. Every other farmer would be penalised if one particular man was enabled to defy the Act and there were no sufficient sanctions to make him comply with its provisions. We want this Bill to operate, and I believe it is only in very few cases that these sanctions would become operative at all; but it is necessary to have them, for otherwise the man who complied with the provisions would be penalised and the man who did not obey the law would be let off.

LORD HARRIS:

Surely the noble and learned Lord does not object to giving reasonable notice?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

I do not think the noble and learned Lord quite understood the proposal that I made to him. I did not propose to leave out the whole of the subsections. All I asked was that whether, having regard to the short time that we have had for considering the Bill, he would put in words which would compel the official to give reasonable notice of his visit. Under the clause as it stands it may be that the official will come to a farmer who is paying proper wages, or rather the wages fixed by the Wages Board, and is anxious to pay them, and yet the official will have the right to demand to see all the farmer's books, and under this clause the farmer may be compelled at any time, without notice, to produce his books, although he has been paying the proper wages. Surely a clause which will enable a farmer to be taken before a magistrate if he does not obey that demand is wrong, and I object to power being given to these officials to come in at any time, perhaps on mere suspicion and without proper notice. I cannot see why the noble and learned Lord objects to the insertion of words requiring that the official shall give proper notice.

LORD PARMOOR:

Really I think the noble Lord hardly appreciated my answer. These are inspectors and are entitled to make visits, or to enter at all reasonable times, in order to see that the provisions of the Act are being complied with, and, for the purpose of seeing that, to call for necessary documents. It is the sort of provision which applies to every Bill of this sort. You do not always want to give notice. We want the inspector, who has probably had information supplied to him, to be able to go and see whether a particular person is being employed at the time at adequate wages. I do not think you can have real sanction of the Bill except substantially in these terms.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW:

The noble and learned Lord referred in effect to paragraph (b), which says that the officer shall have power " to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act." That means he may search a man's house from cellar to garret.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

The first subsection says nothing about " reasonable times " at all. The inspector may meet a farmer in the market, and may require him to produce the whole of his documents there and then.

LORD PARMOOR:

It would not happen.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

I dare say it would not, but this is extremely bad drafting.

LORD PARMOOR:

Having regard to what has been said I will look into the matter. I cannot go beyond that.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

Upon that understanding I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HARRIS:

Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) says that a person shall be liable to a penalty who refuses to produce any document, or give any information, which any such officer lawfully requires him to produce. Can the noble Lord assure the House that that word " lawfully " applies to the words in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), which requires the worker or the employer, or any agent of the employer, to give any information which it is in his power to give with respect to the employment of the worker or the wages paid to him?

LORD PARMOOR:

Undoubtedly.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Definitions.

16.—(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—

The expression " able-bodied man " means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in the definition of " able-bodied man," after the first " worker," to insert: " who has attained the age of twenty-one years and." The noble Earl said: I hope that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment. He will see that the expression " able-bodied man " means " any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, of performing the work of a normally efficient worker." Under these words a boy would be included in the expression " able-bodied man." That is not what is intended by the Bill, and I suggest it should be amended by the insertion of the words of my Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 23. after (" worker ") insert (" who has attained the age of twenty-one years and ").—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

The objection to this Amendment is that there are people twenty years of age, and even younger, who are competent in every way to do all forms of agricultural work. In fact, some of the young workers are the best, and they .ire entitled to the minimum wage. They are able-bodied men; that is to say, irrespective of their age, they are entitled to a wage that an able-bodied man can earn. My experience is that agricultural labourers below the age of twenty-one come fully under the definition of " able-bodied men," and can do their full share of farm work.

EARL STANHOPE:

Does the noble and learned Lord include a boy of fourteen?

LORD PARMOOR:

The limitation is in the words themselves. Is the person in question an able-bodied man? That is for the committee to determine, and it should not be determined merely by age.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

As this definition is drafted it means any male worker who is not incapable by reason of physical injury … that would apply to a boy of fifteen— or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age… Nobody would say that a well-grown boy of fifteen was incapable of working because of an infirmity due to age. It is evident, I submit, on the definition as it stands, that any male worker of fourteen and upwards would be entitled to the full minimum rate of wage, and although, no doubt, that is not what is intended, the drafting requires some such Amendment as my noble friend suggests.

LORD OLIVIER:

The Amendment limits the minimum wage to men of twenty-one and over, but at present boys of seventeen or eighteen constantly get men's wages.

LORD DANESFORT:

There ought to be some age beyond which a man can be called able-bodied, and below which he cannot, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks the age of twenty-one in the Amendment is too high would he accept eighteen? A man is fairly well grown at eighteen.

LORD PARMOOR:

I am very anxious not to cut out of the benefits of this Bill any able-bodied man who really can do the work of an able-bodied man. From my own knowledge of agricultural workers many of them are capable of doing the work, though they are below the age of twenty-one. I think it is a mistake to insert the age. Lord Cecil of Chelwood asks about a boy of fifteen or sixteen. I do not think that any committee endowed with some sense would regard such a boy as a able-bodied man.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

It is a most ridiculous position that the Government is putting the Committee into. They really, in effect, say, " Our definition would include a boy of fourteen, but no committee would be so silly as so to construe it." In other words, they are putting into the Bill something that the committee would think so ridiculous that they would not accept it. Surely, that is not the way to draft legislation.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:

Is not a boy who is unfit for the work on account of his youth already excluded by the definition? The definition does not say " old age "; it says " any infirmity due to age." If the person is too young to do the work set for him to do he is suffering from an infirmity due to age.

EARL FORTESCUE:

Surely the concluding words of the definition make it fairly clear. A boy of fourteen would not be capable " of performing the work of a normally efficient worker."

LORD DANESFORT:

May I propose an Amendment to the Amendment— namely to leave out " twenty-one " and insert " eighteen "? Then the definition would read: The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who hag attained the age of eighteen years… and so on.

Amendment to the Amendment moved—

Leave out ("twenty-one") and insert (" eighteen ").—(Lord Danesfort.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:

I hope that the Government will meet us. I am sure they must see that the drafting is not satisfactory. They cannot defend it. It would be a pity that we should divide against the Government on a matter which they really cannot defend.

LORD PARMOOR:

The difficulty is this. There are many boys of eighteen who are not able-bodied men; there are others who are. Therefore the test which the noble Earl Lord Fortescue referred to is the right one. The question is: Is the person in question an able-bodied worker in the sense of being entitled to the minimum wage? If you put in the age of twenty-one you may cut out men whom you ought to include; if you put in the age of eighteen you may bring in people whom you ought to exclude. It is really a question of fact in each case. If it would help the House I can reconsider it, but I really do think that we should not put in the age.

VISCOUNT PEEL:

Would not it be possible to say: " The expression ' able-bodied man ' means any male worker who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker "? It if the surplusage of words in the middle, which seem to limit the definition, which caused the trouble.

LORD PARMOOR:

It is difficult to consider drafting questions at the moment, but it appears to me that the noble Viscount's suggestion might meet the difficulty. I am prepared, so far as I can see for the moment, to adopt it, but, if it is put in, we may consider it afterwards. At first sight the words seem to meet the difficulty.

EARL STANHOPE:

May I respectfully point out that these words really do not meet the case? Take a big County like Kent. Does the noble and learned Lord really think that the secretary or the committee is going to go into every single case of a worker as he grows up, year by year, in order to decide whether he is to get the full minimum rate of wages? Obviously the committee must have some definite rule to work to, and then there could be exceptions, if you like.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, negatived.

EARL FORTESCUE:

May I move the omission of the words, as suggested by Lord Peel, " by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause "?

Amendment moved—

Page 11, lines 23 to 25, leave out (" by reason of physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age, or to any other cause ").—(Earl Fortescue.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion. I do not think it makes any difference, and the definition will read just as well as it did before— … who is not incapable of performing the work of a normally efficient worker. I accept the noble Earl's Amendment in that form which, I understand, is the form in which he desires to move it.

EARL FORTESCUE:

That is so.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps I had better read the words which it is proposed to omit— by reason of physical infirmity or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: (2) For the purposes of this Act the Scilly Isles shall be deemed to be a county, and the area comprising the Ulverston Rural District and the Grange, Ulverston and Dalton-in-Furness Urban Districts shall, if the Minister so directs, be deemed to be a detached part of the county of Lancaster. The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of the Scilly Isles and the particular district in Lancashire which is detached from the County of Lancaster. The first part of the Amendment—" for the purposes of this Act the Scilly Isles shall be deemed to be a County "—meets the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the second part—" the area comprising the Ulverston Rural District and the Grange, Ulverston and Dalton-in-Furness Urban Districts shall, if the Minister so directs, be deemed to be a detached part of the County of Lancaster "—meets the other point. I believe that portion of the County has always been regarded as detached from the rest.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW:

The Amendment meets my point, and I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Constitution and Proceedings of Agricultural Wages Committees and the Agricultural Wages Board.

Agricultural Wages Committees.

1. An agricultural wages committee shall consist of members representing employers and members representing workers in agriculture in the county for which the committee act (in this Act referred to as repre- sentative members), in equal proportions, of two members appointed by the Minister and of a chairman.

3. The chairman of an agricultural wages committee shall be appointed annually by the committee, but if the committee at any time fail to appoint a chairman within the prescribed period the appointment may be made by the Minister.

A committee may nominate one or more persons for the office of vice chairman, and the chairman may from time to time appoint one of those persons to act in his place as vice chairman in his absence.

A representative member of a committee shall not be qualified to be appointed chairman or vice chairman of the committee of which he is a member.

Agricultural Wages Board.

9. The chairman of the Board shall be such one of the appointed members as the Minister may nominate. At every meeting of the Board the chairman if present shall preside, and if he is absent such appointed member as the members then present choose shall preside.

10. At least one member of the Board shall be a woman.

LORD STRACHIE

moved, in the first clause, to omit " of two members appointed by the Minister." The noble Lord said: I do not wish to press this Amendment after the way in which the Lord President has met us on Clause 6, which has taken away a great deal of my objection to the appointed members. But I will move it formally in order that I may ask whether the noble and learned Lord would place a time limit upon the services of these appointed members, something to the effect that their term of office shall not exceed three years. Under the Bill as it now stands the Minister would have power to appoint any one he likes for the term of his life or for a very long period. I do not desire to be unreasonable in the matter, but we have to think not only of what the Minister of Agriculture may do under this Government but under any other. It seems to me that no Minister of Agriculture, whether under a Conservative, a Liberal, or a Labour Government, ought to have power to appoint two members for life.

I shall not press my Amendment because I shall not have the sympathy of the Front Opposition Bench. I understand that the Conservative Committee of agriculturists in another place approve of these two appointed members and that the National Farmers' Union have accepted them as a compromise. Therefore I should be against the Conservative Committee and the National Farmers' Union. Although I entirely disagree with these two appointed members and consider that the view of the National Farmers' Union and the Conservative Committee of agriculturists in another place is entirely wrong, I move my Amendment formally for the purpose of asking the noble and learned Lord to consider whether there should not be some limitation of the time during which they shall hold the appointment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 11, leave out (" of two members appointed by the Minister ").— (Lord Strachie.)

LORD PARMOOR:

The noble Lord is right in supposing that these words were introduced on behalf of the National Farmers' Union and the Conservative Committee of agriculturists in another place. I will, of course, look carefully into the noble Lord's suggestion, but I cannot give any undertaking in regard to it.

LORD GAINFORD:

I am under the impression that an agreement was come to in another place that the appointed members should come up for revision from time to time and be reappointed if they were perfectly satisfactory?

LORD STRACHIE:

In asking the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment, may I say that I do not think that any agreement was made in another place in regard to the renewal of the appointment of the appointed members? I think the noble Lord is mistaken there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

had an Amendment on the Paper, in the first clause, to insert " impartial " before " members," where that word lastly occurs.

LORD PARMOOR:

I accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 11, after (" two ") insert ("impartial").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

moved, in the first clause, to leave out " Minister " and insert " county council of the county." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, so that the two independent members should be appointed by the county council of the county instead of by the Minister. The object of the Amendment is to remove the Minister from this matter. In these days there is a great deal too much of the Minister. The Minister interferes in everything. The county council are far and away more capable of dealing with agricultural questions than is the Minister. In addition to that, they are free to a certain extent from political bias.

LORD Strachie said just now that the Farmers' Union were in favour of the independent members, but I think he is a little mistaken in that. I hold in my hand a letter, dated August 1, 1924, from the National Farmers' Union, in which it is stated that— The Union has never approved the principle of compulsory arbitration enshrined in the Bill now before the House of Lords and it has used its influence to the utmost in its attempts to persuade members of the House of Commons to reject that principle; the memoranda in your possession upon this subject issued from this office are evidence of our activities in this direction. When, however, it became clear from the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons that all parties were committed to the principle of the regulation of wages of workers in agriculture by compulsory arbitration, it was felt that nothing would be gained by our refusal to make suggestions for the amendment of the Bill‥

LORD STRACHIE:

The noble Lord will pardon me, but that does not at all contradict what I said. I said that the National Farmers' Union had accepted that compromise. It is quite true that they objected to it, though, to my surprise, they did not fight it, but took it lying down.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

I did not gather that the noble Lord said that. I want to emphasise that the National Farmers' Union accepted this provision unwillingly. It is all set out in this letter, which I will not read because it would take up too much of your Lordships' time. They accepted it because they were erroneously under the impression that if they did not they would get a worse Bill. That is absurd, as the noble Lord knows.

LORD STRACHIE:

Yes.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

There is nothing whatever in this Bill reprevent another Bill being brought in next year. Therefore, what the National Farmers' Union have done is to give away their whole case under pressure, and because they did not understand Parliamentary procedure and the minds and habits of Labour Ministers. The Farmers' Union proposed, so I am informed, either the Lord Lieutenant of the County, or the chairman of the county council. I have gone a little further and suggested the county council itself, because it brings in all bodies of political opinion and all shades of persons in the county. I think it is very important to get the Minister out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 11, leave out (" Minister ") and insert (" county council of the county ").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I think the Minister is the right person to make this appointment. He represents all parties as head of the Ministry of Agriculture. At one time he may belong to one Party in politics, and at another time to another Party, but as head of the Ministry of Agriculture he represents the whole industry. I do not know what the noble Lord's experience is, but I may say that I was for over twenty-five years a member of the County Council for Buckinghamshire, and I think the county council is a very unsuitable body to deal with a matter of this kind. I know it is a popular thing in this House to say: " Let us abolish the Ministry " or " the Minister," but when you come to administrative details you see how impossible this kind of thing is to work in practice. I submit that the Minister is the appropriate person to make the appointment, and I must maintain that position, because I think the county council would not be a representative body, particularly not representative of the agricultural workers. I do not think any county council is the appropriate body in that sense, because they really cannot afford to give their time. I doubt whether there is any county council with more than two agricultural labourers at most, upon it. The conditions are such that agricultural workers cannot give their time to attend.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

May I point out in the first place that the Minister of Agriculture does not represent all parties either in this House or in the other House, and secondly, that if the Minister of Agriculture is left in, there will be, we hope, sooner or later, a change in the Government of the country? You may have a Conservative or a Liberal Minister, and then, if he changes the policy, it will be put down to political bias. Therefore, I think it is much better to have the county councils who are less subject to political bias than a Minister. The noble Lord says that the county councils will not have time. I am not suggesting that a county councillor should be a member; I am merely suggesting that county councils shall appoint somebody. He need not be a member of the county council. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON:

I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. I cannot believe that satisfaction will be given in the counties if the Minister makes this appointment. The Minister is quite unaware of the local circumstances of the counties.

LORD HARRIS:

I should think, whether the county council is an appropriate body or not, county councils are not in the least desirous of being burdened with this patronage. There is the difficulty that the county councils meet only quarterly, and you may want the chairman appointed immediately after a meeting of the county council. Are you to compel the county council to meet again?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:

This refers to the two independent members, not the chairman.

LORD HARRIS:

I think they would be still more desirous of not being burdened with the duty of appointing the independent members.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL STANHOPE

moved, in the third clause, after " period " to insert " which period in the case of the appointment of the first chairman of the committee shall be one month after the establishment of the committee." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. It is to define the period in which the committee have power to appoint their own chairman.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 20, after (" period ") insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)

LORD PARMOOR:

Our view was that it should be a matter of Regulation and not of Statute. It will be introduced as a Regulation. Twenty-eight days is a more appropriate expression than one month. I think it ought to be in the Regulations, and not in the Statute. I will give an undertaking that it will be introduced into the Regulations as a period of twenty-eight days.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE

moved to leave out " 10. At least one member of the Board shall be a woman." The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment because I object to women being upon the Wages Board. Quite the contrary. I think it desirable that they should be on, but if you put restrictions into a Bill it is regarded as a sort of indication that not more than one woman ought to be appointed on the Wages Board. In these days it is little short of an insult to women, when all sex disqualifications have been removed, to subject them to special treatment in every Act of Parliament. In the old days, when women had not the franchise, and had not a majority of votes in this country (as they soon will have) it was different, but in these days it is desirable that all these distinctions should be swept away, and that there should be a free choice to the Minister to appoint whom he likes. I contend that it is absolutely unnecessary to put in these words, because they seem to suggest that women are to be put on these committees on sufferance.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, leave out line 34.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD PARMOOR:

I should have thought that it was not necessary to leave out this line. It only says that at least one member must be a woman. I hope your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is. I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

I should like to ask the Government whether they are quite satisfied, by saying this with regard to the Wages Board, that they will not rather indicate there ought to be no women on the wages committees. That would be very improper in cases where there is a large number of women workers.

LORD PARMOOR:

That is the last thing we would desire to do. We think that they ought to be upon the committees, and it is the intention that women should be on them.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD:

You do not think that might be the construction that would be put upon it?

LORD PARMOOR:

I do not think so, but I will look into the point.

EARL FORTESCUE:

May I ask the noble Lord whether the length of time for which members are to be appointed to these committees will be provided for by rules?

LORD PARMOOR:

I presume it will be in the Regulations.

LORD STRACHIE:

I do not press this Amendment, but I think the noble and learned Lord has quite failed to understand the point that I was making.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Counties and Combined Counties for which the First Agricultural Wages Committees are to be established.

Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.

County of Berks.

County of Buckingham.

Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.

County of Chester.

Counties of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.

County of Derby.

County of Devon.

County of Dorset.

County of Durham.

County of Essex.

County of Gloucester.

Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.

County of Hereford.

County of Hertford.

County of Kent.

County of Lancaster.

Counties of Leicester and Rutland.

County of Lincoln, Parts of Holland.

County of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lindsey.

County of Middlesex.

County of Monmouth.

County of Norfolk.

Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.

County of Northumberland.

County of Nottingham.

County of Oxford.

County of Salop.

County of Somerset.

County of Stafford.

County of Suffolk.

County of Surrey.

County of Sussex.

County of Warwick.

County of Wilts.

County of Worcester.

County of York, North Riding.

County of York, East Riding.

County of York, West Riding.

Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.

County of Carmarthen.

Counties of Denbigh and Flint.

County of Glamorgan.

Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.

Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.

Counties of Radnor and Brecknock.

N.B.—This Schedule is to be read as subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the County of London, county boroughs, and detached parts of counties.

LORD PARMOOR

moved to leave out the Second Schedule and insert:

"SECOND SCHEDULE.

Combinations of Counties for which Committees are to be Established on the First Establishment of Committees.

Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.

Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.

Counties of Cornwall and Scilly Isles.

Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.

Counties of Leicester and Rutland.

Counties of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey.

Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.

Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.

Counties of East Suffolk and West Suffolk.

Counties of East Sussex and West Sussex.

Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.

Counties of Denbigh and Flint.

Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.

Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.

Counties of Radnor and Brecknock."

The noble and learned Lord said: This is to make it quite clear, as I stated at the outset, that it should be denned in the schedule itself, in the cases of combinations, that two or three counties would be allowed in the first instance to combine. It is really consequential.

Amendment moved—

Pages 15 and 16, leave out the Second Schedule and insert the said new Second Schedule.—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.