HL Deb 07 May 1924 vol 57 cc325-34

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes in Wiltshire farm labourers are only paid £1 (one pound) a week. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the facts of the case which I desire to bring to the notice, of His Majesty's Government are very simple, and can be briefly stated. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture made a statement in his place in Parliament to the effect that there were two counties in England in which the wages paid wore so low as £1 a week, and he mentioned Wiltshire and Berkshire as those two counties. I was abroad at the time, and I was very much surprised to read of that statement. I have taken some personal interest for a considerable time in this question, and I knew that at any rate within a short period of my going abroad the wages in many districts in Wiltshire were not £1 a week but 30s. a week, and in a great many cases 27s. a week, although the agricultural conditions in certain parts of the county are extremely bad.

The farmers of Wiltshire were very indignant indeed about this statement, and they at once instituted inquiries. Two or three Members for Wiltshire in the other House interrogated His Majesty's Government, and they made the very natural suggestion that a statement of this kind ought either to be supported by quoted authority or withdrawn. In this particular case the Minister made what seemed to me to be an amazing statement—namely, that the authority could not be given because the person who had given him the information declined to have his name disclosed. At school we used to call a boy who did that sort of thing a sneak, and we knew how to deal with him. Unfortunately, when we are grown up those summary methods are not resorted to. I am bound to say, so far as my knowledge goes, that it is entirely contrary to the universal practice of Englishmen, and above all of English Ministers, to make a grave charge founded upon authority and to refuse to quote that authority, or, when you find that your statement is ridiculously incorrect, to refuse to withdraw it.

What happened in this particular case? The National Union of Farmers is very active in my County, and in each of their brunches they immediately instituted inquiries. For some considerable time they could not hear of a single case in the County where wages had been so reduced, but last week a case was discovered in one village where one man, it is true, had had his wages reduced to £1 a week. One man in one village! And this is enough for the Minister of Agriculture upon which to base a general charge of this grave kind against all the agricultural employers in the County. It is an outrage. The Minister of Agriculture represents, or ought to represent, all the interests connected with our great industry of agriculture. He is as much a representative of those who own the land and of the farmers who cultivate it, as he is of those who work upon the land, and he is not going to serve the labourers' interest, or secure an improvement in their wage conditions, by making statements of this kind and then refusing to verify them.

We were discussing, a short time ago in your Lordships' House, a measure deal- ing with Agricultural Returns, and the Lord President found it very difficult to understand why some Amendments were moved from this side of the House. He contested the desirability of the alterations that were proposed and, I am happy to say, carried. It is evident from the Lord President's speech that he does not realise the present condition of things in the agricultural world. He does not realise that the conditions have changed by what has recently happened. He justifies his action by reference to the voluntary condition of things that has been hitherto in existence. I would point out, in the first place, that that condition of things was voluntary, and in the second place that the air was not infected as it is to-day with all these rumours and reports of what the Government are going to do. We hear of compulsion imposed upon farmers to make certain payments, and to do certain things. It is a blind man's policy, it is a policy made in defiance of all the facts as they exist at the present moment, it is a policy which will perish in the hands of those who are trying to force it upon our industry, and one that will react bitterly upon the very class whom the Government seek to help.

Let it be remembered that a statement made in Parliament is a privileged statement. You cannot proceed upon it. But supposing the Minister said: "I will make it outside," and he does so? The whole farming community of Wiltshire could not then bring an action for libel against the Minister of Agriculture, or at least I suppose not. This is an entirely misleading statement. It is not true that the farmers of Wiltshire are paying only £1 a week, it is not true that there is a great difference between the wages paid there and elsewhere. My belief is that, taken as a whole, the wages are as good and satisfactory in Wiltshire as they are anywhere else. And we have only heard of one case. When the Minister of Agriculture was asked by Members in the other House to give his authority for the statement it was not only because we wanted to know whether this charge, which we believe to be unfounded, had any foundation or not, but also because we wanted to find out the facts and use such influence as we possess to get the condition of things altered. Yet the Minister of Agriculture makes this statement and refuses to give any authority, or even admit that he has been misled.

It is not consistent with the best traditions of English government for a Minister to make a statement of that kind, to be unable to substantiate it, and then refuse to withdraw it. It reflects the greatest discredit on the farming community; it is discreditable to my own County, and it is absolutely untrue. I am here to repudiate it absolutely and entirely, and to say that the closest inquiries and most vigorous search made throughout the whole of the County has only revealed one case. I submit to His Majesty's Government that for their own reputation for character as fair-dealing men this charge ought to be withdrawn, and withdrawn without qualification. I shall be much surprised if the Lord President of the Council does not take advantage of this occasion to make it perfectly clear that the Minister was misled and that the charge is repudiated and withdrawn whole-heartedly. At least, so much justice is due to those whom I represent, the agriculturists of my own County.

LORD PARMOOH

My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has very much exaggerated the statement that was made, and has not perhaps given sufficient attention to the corroboration which is forthcoming in support of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in another place. The noble Viscount asks whether the Government "are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes of Wiltshire agricultural labourers are being paid only £1 per week." No such statement was ever made by the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to read exactly what he did say. This is the actual statement made in the other place:— In the South of England, I am sorry to say, I hear of cases of a wage as low as £1; not, I hope, very numerous cases, but there certainly are some. When we talk of 25s. we must remember that the Norfolk men have not been working 50 hours but 48 a week. Ms. BLACK: Does the 25s. include rent and no emoluments? Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I hope those cases are rare. What the Prime Minister said about two months ago no one can deny—namely, that it is impossible to get good value for such wages as that. There is nothing more uneconomic than a sweated wage. There is a good deal of interest in a regulated wage. Very often there are farmers who would like to pay a bettor wage than they are doing, but whose 6ense of social duty precludes thorn from paying as good a wage as they would like to pay. These are the very men whom regulation would protect. MR. LAMBERT: Are the conciliation committees working where these £1 a week wages are paid? MR. BUXTON: No, there are very few conciliation committees working at all. SIR HENRY CAUTLEY: In what locality are these wages of £1 a week paid? MR. BUXTON: In Berkshire and Wiltshire. Therefore the statement was that in Wiltshire, as the noble Viscount has said, there were rare cases—I use that expression-in which these low wages were paid.

When the question was raised in the House of Commons with regard to the sources of information no doubt the answer was given in the way pointed out by the noble Viscount. As the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture stated, in reply to questions in the House of Commons on April 16, 1924, to disclose the names of the farmers whose workers are in receipt of low wages, or to disclose the districts where they are paid, would obviously embarrass the persons concerned, and the Minister does not see his way to disclose the names or the sources of his information its to cases of low wages in Wiltshire. The noble Viscount can be assured, however, that the information is derived from unimpeachable sources.

In addition to that, further information can be added. Since the statement was made, other cases have been brought to the Minister's notice, and in one case a wage of 17s. only per week is being-received. Confirmation of cases of low wages has been received as a result of an inquiry by the Ministry's own inspectors which clearly indicated that able-bodied men doing a full week's work were receiving only 20s. per week. In two cases which came, to the inspector's personal notice, the men were married with families; in one case he was a general farm worker and milker doing 62 hours per week, including Sundays, for 20s. per week, and in the other case a general farm worker working 52 hours for the same sum.

Then this matter, as the, noble Viscount has stated, was discussed in Wiltshire. It was discussed at the Chippenham branch of the National farmers' Union on Saturday, April 26, and I take the following quotation from the report of the discussion:— Mr. Prior referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that there were farmers in Wiltshire paying £1 a week to their employees. He regarded that as an insult to the farmers in the county but he was sorry to say he had found a case in his neighbourhood. Mr. Prior said he had been to the farmer himself and told him of the disgrace we was bringing upon himself, the parish and the farmers generally. His excuse was that the man came to him as he could not get other work and he put him on temporarily at that figure. He understood the man had reduced his other employees from 27s. to £1. That is a statement made by Mr. Prior, a Wiltshire farmer, who may be known to the noble Viscount.

The last agreement made by the conciliation committee in Wiltshire lapsed on September 29, 1922, and since that date it is understood that the majority of the farmers have paid their workers in accordance with the recommendation of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union. The county Farmers' Union recommended a minimum rate of 27s. per week for 50 hours with proportionate rates for overtime beyond the 50 hours, and proportionate reductions for men below 21, and it is understood that this rate is paid by the majority of the farmers in the County. I want to emphasise that, because the only statement made in the first instance was that it was a rare occurrence. It has never been suggested that it was paid in parishes in Wiltshire. Here we have a statement that the general rate was a rate which had been fixed by the County Farmers' Union, although the conciliation committee was no longer in force. Yet, as stated by Mr. Prior at the Chippenham meeting, there was a case of £1 a week, and the farmer had reduced his other labourers to the same figure.

The Minister has received protests from the Wiltshire branch of the National Farmers' Union and others in connection with his statement about low wages in Wiltshire, and suggesting that, if there are cases in which farmers are paying only £1 a week, the men concerned are not fully able-bodied workers, but are men employed on compassionate grounds at a lower rate than the standard wage because they are only partially competent. It should be pointed out, however, that the cases brought to the Minister's notice are of able-bodied men doing a normal week's work. In making this statement as to low wages in Wiltshire in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture never suggested that £1 a week was the general rate being paid to agricultural labourers in the County, or in any district. His sole object was to emphasise the need for machinery for compulsory regulation of wages in agriculture, in order to prevent a few unscrupulous employers from exploiting the weak bargaining powers of their workers.

I think the words used by the noble Viscount are hardly justified. It is clear that no statement was made that the farm labourers in Wiltshire were paid such an impossible wage as £1 a week, but it is true that a rare case has occurred, and, in addition, that information of other cases has been given by the inspectors to the Ministry of Agriculture. I am certain, speaking on behalf of the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, that he would be extremely careful not to exaggerate any statement in a matter of this kind. I do not think he did so, and the remarks of the noble Viscount, which seemed to imply that a general attack had been made upon the agricultural wages paid in the County of Wilts, cannot really be supported when one has regard to that which was actually said by the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place.

As regards the other matters referred to by the noble Viscount, I think they were outside the present Question. It may well be that his views upon agricultural policy are very distinct from those of the present Government. That may have to be discussed on some future occasion. But as regards the particular Question which he has asked, I have stated the authority upon which the Minister of Agriculture made his statement, although I do not think—though I know the noble Viscount would be very careful in a matter of this kind—that he ever made the statement that in certain parishes of Wiltshire the agricultural labourers were paid only £1 a week. That which he actually did state I have already read out to your Lordships.

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, the noble Lord has replied with his usual courtesy, but I think it will be the view of your Lordships that the reply is not altogether adequate. The case, as I have followed it, has two aspects—(1) the nature of the charge that was brought by the Minister of Agriculture in the speech to which reference was made; and (2) his defence of the reasons for which he declined to give the authority for that charge. As regards the first point, I gather from the remarks made on both sides of the House that the case is that, in the first place, the Minister of Agriculture said that in a number of cases, although the occurrence was rare—and he specified Wiltshire—wages were paid at the rate of only £1 a week. To that my noble friend replies that the most careful investigation has shown only one such case as having been established. The noble Lord then says, quoting from a speech made at a meeting—I think he said at Chippenham—that an allegation was made by a farmer that he knew of other cases in which a farmer had reduced wages from £1 7s. to £1 a week. Was that in Wiltshire? No such statement was made.

LORD PARMOOR

I understood—the meeting being in Wiltshire—that it referred to Wiltshire.

THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON

The assumption is that it was in Wiltshire. The allegation is, therefore, not only that was there one case, but that there were other cases. If that be so, surely the first duty of the Minister of Agriculture, when challenged, is to give his authority.

This brings me to my second point. We have all known in our public life occasions when information is given to us privately and confidentially, under conditions which make it very difficult to give away the name of the informant. Those conditions are, as a rule, two in number. In the first place, a man may say to you: "I obtained this information in the most confidential way, and under pledge of secrecy, and therefore you must not put me in an impossible position." Or he may say: "I give you this information, but I am very reluctant indeed to be put in a position where I myself may be made the victim of a legal action in consequence." We are very familiar with both those cases, but neither of them applies to this instance. Surely, if a statement of this sort is made, be it just or unjust, by a Minister of the Crown, and a Minister of the Grown is challenged, it is not open to him to say in reply: "I do not want to asperse the character of this or that parish; I do not want to attack this or that farmer." He is bound, as an officer of the Government, to state his authority for a statement which is in its essence damaging, disparaging and injurious. If it is true, that is all the more reason for making the matter public.

Here I come to what struck me as the most vital point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Long. He said that he took action to-day, not only in a spirit of righteous indignation—as was evident—but in order to remove any abuse that might exist. He is concerned with the honour of his County, and with the reputation of the farmers of Wiltshire; and there I think he is quite right. I am bound to say that I think, in the first place, that the charge ought to have been made much more definitely, and not in the rather loose terms that the Minister of Agriculture adopted; and secondly, that when challenged as to the sources of his information he had no justification whatever for refusing to give them, and for leaving that County under an imputation which, if it is not altogether false, is, at any rate, grossly exaggerated.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, I cannot, carry this matter any further. There is no Motion, and therefore] cannot divide the House unless I move for Papers. But there are no Papers that I am aware of, and all I can say is that I entirely agreed with the noble Marquess below me when he said that the reply of the Government was wholly inadequate. It will convey a very bad impression to the agriculturist, not only in Wiltshire but elsewhere, and the Government have only themselves to thank if the language they used, and, above all, the language used by the Minister specially appointed to protect agricultural interests, leads people to believe that they have committed an injustice, and have been unfair to the agricultural industry. I very much regret, for the credit of British statesmanship, that the Government did not take advantage of this opportunity to put themselves right where they have hitherto been wrong, but I can carry the matter no further.

House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.