§ Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motions made by Lord Saltoun on November 24 last—namely, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board Regulations, 1937, dated nth October, 1937, made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, be annulled; and That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Agricultural Wages Committee (Scotland) Regulations, 1937, dated 11th October, 1937, made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, be annulled.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, the House will recall that, in moving the adjournment of the debate of November 24 on Lord Saltoun's Motion in connection with the appointment and business of the Agricultural Wages Committees and Board, the Leader of the House indicated that he did not think that the criticisms made by the 487 various noble Lords who took part in the debate raised any such fundamental question of principle as would preclude the adjustment of the differences of opinion by talk round a table. Since the debate took place the whole position has been very fully discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, as well as with the representatives of employers and employed and Departments interested, including the Ministry of Labour, and I am glad to say that in one important respect only has it been found impossible to meet to the full the various points of criticism which have been made to your Lordships.
It will no doubt be for the convenience of your Lordships if I refer first to this particular difference of opinion. The Regulations before the House were criticised on the ground that they prescribed rigidly the bodies who should have the right to nominate representatives of employers and employees to serve on the wages committees and on the Central Board, and that certain assurances which I gave on behalf of the Government during the passage of the Bill were thereby prejudiced. Further, the case was raised of the possibility of providing for the future representation of a body, such as that to which Lord Saltoun referred, in whose membership were included representatives both of employers and of workers. It has never been the intention of the Government to limit representation exclusively to the three organisations named in Regulation 1, if at any time other organisations representative of a substantial body of employers or of workers came into being. The Government are accordingly willing to make this position perfectly clear by adding to the Regulation, as at present drafted, a proviso to the effect that where any other organisation of employers or organisation of workers proves to the satisfaction of the Department that it represents a substantial body of employers or workers respectively, the Department may appoint representative members to the committee, on the nomination of such other organisation, so long as the statutory limit placed on the number of such members is not exceeded. A corresponding Amendment will be made in the Regulation dealing with the Agricultural Wages Board.
488 The effect of these Amendments will be to ensure that if at any time organisations of employers or of workers come into being, which are representative of substantial numbers, they will be eligible for such representation on the committees or on the Board as may seem appropriate having regard to their membership. I should explain, in regard to the concluding words of the proviso, that the Act provides for a maximum number of eight representative members on each side; so that, to take an extreme case, if the full number were appointed in the first instance on the nomination of the National Farmers' Union and the Farm Servants' Union, it would be necessary to wait until the first retirement before another organisation could be represented. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the Regulations will not restrict the right of nomination to a vacancy to the body by whom the retiring member was nominated. Accordingly, the concluding words of the proviso will not place any artificial limit on the number of representatives of organisations other than those mentioned in the body of the Regulation.
I am afraid, however, that the Government are unable to provide by Regulation for the representation of a body representing employers and workpeople jointly. The point at issue has been discussed most thoroughly with the noble Lords, Lord Saltoun and Lord Aberdeen, but for the information of the House I may briefly indicate the considerations which have led the Government to take this view. As noble Lords who have had much to do with these affairs will readily recognise, the organisations contemplated by the Regulations are of a kind generally recognised in this country in connection with wage regulation. An organisation of the type indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is not so recognised. The recognition for statutory purposes of such organisations would raise questions going far beyond the question at issue, important as that is, and the Government regret that they feel precluded from so wording the Regulation as to make its recognition possible for the purposes of this Regulation.
To the other points raised in the previous debate I need not refer more than briefly. Regulation 4 was criticised on the ground that it left complete power to the nominating bodies to terminate 489 the appointment of any of their nominees "on good and sufficient cause," and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested that it should be clearly stated what is a "good and sufficient cause," as otherwise an appointment would apparently be terminated on a member taking a different view of his duties from that of the association which nominated him. The Government have examined this as well as other possible ways of amending the Regulation, but have concluded that it is impracticable to do so satisfactorily. His Majesty's Government therefore would be willing, in order to meet the criticisms offered, to delete the Regulation, thus withdrawing altogether the power of recall which was possible under the Regulation as drafted. I should, however, make it plain that this power has existed in England and Wales and has been considered by the organisations concerned, both of employers and employed, as a reasonable power for the clearing up of practical difficulties, such as will readily occur to the minds of your Lordships. Its withdrawal therefore will, in theory at least, limit such possibilities in Scotland as compared with England and Wales, and I think the House would agree that I should state clearly, here and now, that should practical difficulties arise through the absence of any Regulation on this point the Government would, at a future date, have to consider dealing with it by a further Regulation. Any such Regulation would, of course, be laid before Parliament in exactly the same way as those we are now considering.
There was finally, my Lords, a somewhat general criticism that certain Regulations, particularly Regulations 9, 10, 12 and 13, imposed unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of action of the committees. The criticisms offered have been fully discussed, and the Government are prepared to incorporate in revised Regulations the Amendments desired on Regulations 9, 10 and 13. They do not, however, feel able to accept the suggestion made in the case of Regulation 12. This Regulation, which has worked well in England and is designed in the interests of both parties represented on the committee, deals with the procedure to be followed for equalising the voting strength of the employers and employed representatives should matters before the committee necessitate a divi- 490 sion. The organisations representing both parties are emphatic that the rule should be, retained, and in all the circumstances the Government feel bound to agree. I hope and believe that your Lordships will agree that we have fairly met the criticisms which were brought forward. In so far as it has not been possible to go all the way it is for reasons which I have indicated to the House, the strength of which noble Lords will, I am sure, appreciate. I am, therefore, prepared, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give an undertaking that if the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is willing to withdraw the Motion now before the House, my right honourable friend for his part is ready forthwith to submit to the House Regulations amended on the lines which I have indicated in the course of this statement. I should add that it is also the intention of the Government to lay before the House at the same time the Regulations dealing with the valuation of benefits in kind.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I think the first thing I should do is to express the regret of my noble friend Lord Aberdeen that he is unable to be present at the debate this evening. Having done so, it will be of service if I recall very briefly the course that this matter has taken from the beginning. When last this subject was discussed by your Lordships, I went into considerable detail over what had happened in the country in consequence of the passage of the Agricultural Wages Act and the publication of the Regulations, and I pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the Regulations as drafted and the undertaking given to your Lordships by the Government (luring the passage of the Bill. On the publication of the Regulations, I was naturally asked to make some statement upon the subject, and it was necessary for me to do so. Realising the delicate nature of the question, I made a careful note of what I was to say and I said exactly what I thought, which was "that the undertaking given in your Lordships' House had been overlooked by the Department of Agriculture in framing these Regulations, but that as soon as attention had been drawn to the fact it would be remedied." Unfortunately my words were not reported verbatim in the local Press, and I was unable to obtain a correction in later editions, nor do I now know exactly what turn was given 491 to what I had said. If any other account has reached the Minister or any member of the Department it is incorrect. I should like to say that if any noble Lord of greater experience than my own can show we where and how I might have handled the matter better at any stage, he will do me an act of great friendship for which I shall be very grateful.
It never occurred to me to accuse, and I never have accused, His Majesty's Government of a breach of faith outside this House, nor do I think I have done so within it. The first time that any question of non-fulfilment of an undertaking emerged was on November 23 when I understood from the Minister that he was to contest my Motion in your Lordships' House. Even then, I recall saying that I did not believe that the Government were serious in this intention, and the first time that any question of such a nature really emerged was when I understood that the Government were to face a Division here. I was deeply grateful to the Lord President of the Council, and I always shall be grateful to him, that he preserved me from asking your Lordships to divide upon a question which, whether I succeeded or failed, would have been completely shattering to all my political ideas, and I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my feelings towards him in this matter before your Lordships.
I now come to the Amendments in the Regulations which the Government are prepared to accept and I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Strathcona for the very long way the Government have gone to meet me in this direction. The most important, of course, is Regulation 1, and I am glad to admit, in view of what he has said, that when the Amendment foreshadowed by my noble friend in Regulation 1 has been carried out, the Government can lie under no possible imputation of not having fulfilled their pledges. With regard to the other Regulations, I feel they are much improved and I am sure they will lead to more harmonious working than the original Regulations could possibly have done. I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for what has been done, and hope that they themselves will feel that these matters are on a better basis than they were. When I have said that, I am still bound to say that I deeply regret 492 the Government's decision not to recognise a joint association. Such an association was felt by the farm servants in the North to meet their requirements in a way that no other such association has ever done, and I can see no valid reason for its exclusion. I have been told from many sources that when wages come to be discussed, it is. better that the two parties should be widely separated and in different hostile camps and only meet on common ground for the discussion in order that each side may obtain full value of its own peculiar position. That is the essence of His Majesty's Government's position in this matter.
I am told that when a man goes into the market to sell a horse, though he may sell it to his best friend, yet in the matter of the bargain they take hostile sides. This simile is widely adopted to support the Government's attitude, and though not used by my noble friend I shall examine it to show the weakness of the Government's action in this matter. Similes are devised to conceal loose thought and the wage question requires accurate thought. If a man takes a horse worth £40 to the market to sell and he asks £100 and gets it, the man who buys it may have a use for that particular horse commensurate with the £100. The seller gets his £100 and there the matter ends. But take the case of wage bargaining. Suppose the farm servants come into the committee and their representatives ask that the minimum wage for a grieve be fixed at, say, £100 a month. Of course, if the farmers on their side offer £1 a month, the matter will probably be contested and a proper amount fixed. Suppose the farmers do not take the obvious course and suppose they make no objection, the chairman of the committee will be forced to fix a grieve's wages at £100 a month; and how many grieves are likely to be engaged at that figure? I have taken an extreme case, but something of the kind is not at all unlikely to happen if the two parties are determined to think only of their own interests.
When I was a young man it was impossible for a farmer to keep his land in grass for more than three years, so that even to-day one-half of every farm in Aberdeenshire is in cultivation and one-half in grass. To-day, by reason of the introduction of wild white clover, it is 493 possible to keep the land in grass for six, nine or twelve years without any difficulty. At the present moment the migration of a very few hundreds of farm servants to the towns has produced a shortage of labour in a district containing some 15,000 farm servants. Now supposing, under the new Act, the minimum wage is fixed too high, it is not very difficult for the farmers to determine to keep their land in grass for nine years instead of for three. The result will be that less oats and straw will be produced, and in so far the country would be less fit to face a war. Oats and straw are at present produced in excess of the requirements of the cattle on the farms. In such a case the demand for farm servants' labour will be practically halved, not to speak of the additional unemployment caused by the introduction of machinery, which every farmer normally hates.
The farm servants have as much to lose as to gain by the over-driving of their demands, and yet when the two forces are arrayed in hostile camps, as the Government suggest, such over-driving of a case on either side is almost inevitable. Both sides are to be organised to the highest possible extent in hostility to the other, and are to meet semi-annually for the trial of strength under the rules laid down by a Department of State. My Lords, it looks very pretty, but it is really a device fit for children born after 1914 and with no experience of life. For how long does His Majesty's Government think that men of flesh and blood who possess these organised forces of increasing efficiency are going to be content with sham fights? Even a child with a toy gun is only content with it by imagining with all his soul that it contains a bullet. The Government's decision has killed the Aberdeenshire Association. Farm servants were eager to join it because it gave them in every parish a common meeting ground with farmers where, as I can personally testify, the utmost freedom of speech was enjoyed in perfect friendship. But they will not continue to join an association which has been explicitly condemned by the powers that rule. The future will probably show the extent and the nature of the mistake which has been made this afternoon, but I realise very clearly I can do no more and I must accept the decision of the Government. With this 494 protest I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motions.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, on behalf of those for whom I speak I would like to say how glad I am that the Government have adhered to Regulation 1. The noble Lord who has just spoken reminds the House that those who are not of his view seem to be oblivious of events since 1914. It is strange to me to hear a joint industrial organisation commended in which one of the parties should be of a composite character as he suggests whilst the other, I suppose, would naturally be representative of their own organisation. The reason why we have had joint industrials councils and the elaborate machinery of trade union and employers' organisations is surely not that they want to meet once or twice a year-in hostile camps. It is because it is absolutely vital to the progress of industry that increased organisation should be a part of it, and that those concerned should be represented in a responsible way through an organisation which can give effect to agreements and so on. If the noble Lord's scheme of things had been approved it would in effect have cut at the root of half, indeed nearly all, of the trade consultative bodies of a responsible character that now exist. When he speaks of the farm servants wanting gladly to join in this composite organisation, does he really think they will feel the same freedom to press their case, that they will choose as able representatives to state their case, if they are discussing it in the presence of their employers and the landowners? I am sure he would not find that any collection of workers would share his views. I am, as I say, very glad that the Government have adhered to the Regulation.
Next I would refer to that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he deplored that wages might be too high and that therefore there might be a shortage of agricultural labour in the district, which is, I gather, what would happen because some of the farmers would put the land down to grass. They would not require so much labour, and therefore there would be so much less labour in the district. The very reason why to-day, from one end of England to the other, there is in many districts a shortage of skilled agricultural labour is that wages have been too low. In the Eastern Counties, for example, there is now in some places 495 quite a dearth of skilled agricultural labour because the younger men have gone off to help to make munitions or to get employment in the different factories that have sprung up during the last two or three years in those areas. It is because higher wages in the towns are attracting the younger agricultural workers from the land that there is a shortage. The reason for the shortage is that the conditions of the agricultural worker have not been so good as the conditions of a comparably skilled worker in the towns, and I suggest that the position is the very opposite of that which the noble Lord suggests.
Surely what agriculture wants now, and very urgently, is that the conditions of employment on the land should be such as will keep the workers there, as will not lead them to want to wander off to the towns. Because conditions are unsatisfactory in many places they have wandered off. The best way of securing effective representation of their views is by allowing them to be put forward in a responsible way through a proper organisation. I wish every farmer was a member of the Farmers' Union and every agricultural worker was a member of his union. Then it would be possible to make progress in all sorts of other directions. Before very long this representative organisation will be wanted for much more than the mere wages squabble that the noble Lord seems to think about. If agriculture is to be organised in the effective way it ought to be organised, the first essential is a good representative organisation of both parties.
May I say, passing on to the next point, that I regret that the Government have not adhered in the case of Scotland to Regulation No. 4 and to the practice which works quite smoothly and very satisfactorily in England? We have had an assurance from the noble Lord, and I am sure it will be faithfully observed, but I cannot refrain from expressing serious regret that that Regulation is to be omitted. I prophesy with some consider- 496 able certainty that before very long the non-existence of this Regulation will be found to be a serious inconvenience both to farmers and farm workers. It has worked smoothly in England, it has not been abused, and it has been found to be a great convenience. With regard to the other Amendments to Regulations 9, 10, and 13 which the noble Lord mentioned, I hope he will allow me to say that whilst we should examine them in an entirely friendly spirit he would not expect us to express complete concurrence until we have seen the draft. Our position is therefore one of reserved acquiescence. He does not say what Amendments he proposes to make, but they are not very vital Regulations in any case. Finally, I would like to express the hope that the Government will adhere firmly to their decision and that before very long they will see their way to incorporate in the Regulations the one they now propose to omit.
§ Motions, by leave, withdrawn.