§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal).
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Establishment of agricultural wages committees and an Agricultural Wages Board.
§ 1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (in this Act referred to as the Department) shall, as soon as may be, divide Scotland into districts and establish an agricultural wages committee for each district, and an Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland, to be called the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
§ (3) The Department may, if they think it expedient, from time to time vary the boundaries and number of the districts into which Scotland is divided under subsection (1) of this section and may make such provision as is necessary in consequence of any such variation, with regard to the establishment of committees for the districts affected by the variation.
§ THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "divide Scotland into districts and." The noble Marquess said: I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for not having been here for the Second Reading of this Bill and for my name appearing so often on the Amendment Paper. As the Second Reading was postponed I had to go North on business and was unable to be here. The first two Amendments are mainly an attempt to deal with a point raised in connection with the English Bill of 1924, which was introduced in much the same form as that in which this Bill now appears. During its passage, however, Parliament thought it undesirable to put so much power into the hands of the Minister of Agriculture in saying what should be the various districts in which the committees should be set up for considering and settling upon the wages to be paid. Here we have it left to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to decide what the districts shall be. I suggest that Parliament should say what the districts should be rather than give uncontrolled power to the Minister. I therefore suggest that we should leave 535 out "divide Scotland into districts and" and later, after "district," insert "specified in the First Schedule to this Act;" and perhaps I might mention that later on I have an Amendment proposing a new Schedule setting out the districts. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name and, if I may do so, I will put the second one also, which is part and parcel of the same thing.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out (" divide Scotland into districts and").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD SALTOUNI rise to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, because it binds itself naturally to the proposed new First Schedule, which corresponds to all intents and purposes with the sheriffdoms of Scotland. These sheriffdoms, I claim, represent real differences in the character of the population of Scotland. For instance, for Aberdeenshire it would be a disaster indeed to us if the sheriffdom of Banff, Aberdeen and Kincardine were incorporated with Angus to the south or Moray-Nairn to the west. I can illustrate this point best by the following fact. Farm servants are more inclined now to remain in their situations than when I was a lad, but at all times, and even now, the practice has been for farm servants who really want to feel that they know the world to travel within the sheriffdoms and to accept places as far as fifty miles or more apart. That is a very common thing. It is quite a common thing to have a man in your service who knows every corner of the district Banff, Aberdeen and Kincardine. But they never go outside that area. There is a line beyond which you will very seldom find Aberdeenshire farm servants travelling. That indicates to my mind that the sheriffdom is a proper boundary for the local committee, because it corresponds to a real difference in population even though it may be too subtle to be noticed otherwise.
§ EARL CAWDORI should like to support what my noble friend has said 536 or this Amendment and to ask the Government, if they are unable to accept it, to give the matter sympathetic consideration.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL)It will perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships if in answering this Amendment I also give an answer to the two Amendments following, which are consequential, and also to the Amendment to the Schedule on page 3 to which the noble Marquess referred. As he explained, the object of his first Amendment is quite clear. It would have the effect of attaching to this part of the Bill a definition of the districts in Scotland for which the first agricultural wages committees are to be established. I should like to make it plain to your Lordships at the outset that in refraining from scheduling the districts the Government had no sinister motive. They have rather been moved by the consideration that, since it is desirable that power should be taken, as it is taken in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, to make such modifications in the number and boundaries of the districts as may be found expedient in the light of experience, it might be better to leave the whole matter of the definition of districts to be effected departmentally rather than to put it in the Bill itself. There seems to be an objection in principle to an arrangement whereby an Act of Parliament can be amended at will by a Government Department, and I should have liked to avoid this happening if possible.
Moreover, if you put the districts in the Bill and give power to the Department to amend them subsequently, you run the risk that in the course of a few years that part of the Act may become out of date. May I give an example of what I mean by the Schedule falling out of date? While the Bill was in course of preparation the Government had in mind the districts recommended on pages 50 and 51 of the Caithness Committee Report. Those were the districts adopted for the previous wage regulations scheme set up in Scotland by the Corn Production Act of 1917. More recently, however, some suggestions have been made—some of them by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, himself, I think—for modifying those districts. It is true that if the suggestions were adopted they would not involve any 537 very large departure from the recommendations of the Caithness Committee, but since they have been made it seems to the Government that they should be carefully considered, if possible, in consultation with the bodies representing the organised agricultural industry in Scotland, who will be intimately concerned either directly or indirectly in the working of the scheme. The position, therefore, is that the districts have not yet been fully determined.
I have carefully considered whether, and if so, how far. it is practicable to meet the views of the noble Lord who has put down this Amendment. In order to see whether it may be possible to reach a. firm decision on this matter while the Bill is still before Parliament, the Department has invited the representative organisations to confer with them, but in the meantime I can only say that at some stage in the progress of the Rill through Parliament there will be a clear indication of the Government's intentions in the matter of the determination of the districts, and that the Bill will be amended either to include a schedule of the districts or to provide for the determination being made by way of an Order which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That, of course, will give an opportunity for the Legislature to raise any objections to the Department's proposals. After that assurance I very much hope that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRI am rather disappointed with the noble Lord's reply, because I thought I was on safe ground, seeing that the Department have had experience of the English Bill and that Parliament has practically told them that Parliament itself should lay down these districts. Still, perhaps the noble Lord will enable us to put down something on the Report stage, in case he has come to some agreement with the parties he has named, although, frankly, I think we in this House know Scotland as well as anybody. With reference to the actual Schedule, I may say that in every case except one it conforms with the present boundaries, the only exception being Dumfries, where the conditions are different from the other counties in the proposed Schedule. The whole point of drawing up the Schedule has been that where there are differences 538 of practice in the engagement of farm servants there should be a separate committee who would know the customs in the area. That Schedule has been most carefully drawn up with that in view. If the noble Lord can give me an assurance that if possible he will produce the decisions of those with whom he is conferring before the Bill leaves this House I shall be quite willing to consider withdrawing my Amendment at this stage.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALIf the noble Earl likes to put down an Amendment for the Report stage I have no objection, but I am afraid I cannot give him the assurance that I shall be able to make a Government statement before the Report stage, although it will be given during the progress of the Bill through Parliament.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments in the name of the noble Marquess are consequential, I believe?
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "from time to time" and insert "after receipt of a resolution in that behalf passed by the committee concerned." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is merely to ensure that the areas of local committees are not changed without their consent, and as I do not suppose the Department wishes for power to over-ride all local attachments I hope that no objection will be raised to this Amendment. I think it ought to be made perfectly clear in this Bill, and I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the resolution mentioned in this Amendment is a resolution "passed by the committee concerned." That means that it is not what is called a "resolution of representative members," as outlined in Clause 15, subsection (2) of the Bill, but merely an ordinary resolution of the committee. That would not, I think, present any difficulties. If they could not obtain a majority they could not pass a resolution.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out (" from time to time ") and insert (" after receipt of a resolution in that behalf passed by the committee concerned ").—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALAs Clause 1 (3) stands power is given to the Department of Agriculture to vary the boundaries and number of districts if they think it expedient to do so. The proposed Amendment would have the effect of transferring the initiative in the matter from the Department to the committees, since the Department could then only act upon receipt of a resolution passed by the committee concerned. If the Amendment were accepted, the only case in which a modification of boundaries could possibly be made would be by agreement between two adjoining committees. That being so, in all probability no changes would in fact be made, however much the Department might think them expedient. The English Act provides in Section 1 (3) for action by the Minister, if he thinks it expedient, only in the event of unanimous resolutions by the representative members of the county committees concerned. The action that the Minister may thus take is concerned with combinations of whole counties. In Scotland it is modifications of boundaries that are most likely to be in question, and not combinations of districts. It appears to me that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, would be content, in the case of Scotland, with a majority resolution of the committee as a whole, and that would meet his case. This certainly does make some difference, and on the whole I think I can accept his Amendment in principle, on the understanding that it will be redrafted to mean what Lord Saltoun intends—namely, a majority resolution.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord are consequential, and will not be moved.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Duties and powers of agricultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.
§ 2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, committees shall fix minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture for time work, and may also, if and so far as they think it necessary or expedient, fix 540 minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture for piece work.
§ (6) 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 recuiring 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;
§ (9) Before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate, the committee shall give such notice as may be prescribed of the rate which they propose to fix or of their proposal to cancel the rate or of the proposed variation of the rate, as the case may be, and of the manner in which and the time within which objections to the proposal may be lodged, not being less than fourteen days from the date of the notice, and shall consider any objections to the proposal which may be lodged within the time mentioned in the notice.
§ Where the proposal is modified in consequence of any objection so lodged, notice of the modified proposal need not be given except where in the opinion of the Board the proposal has been altered so materially that a fresh notice ought to be given.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "time work," to insert with the exception of married workers employed under a contract of service by the year or half year and in the occupation of dwelling houses provided by their employer." The noble Lord said: This Amendment brings up the whole question of the position of farm servants who have a contract of service for a year and are living in houses provided by the employers. That brings up the whole question of the tied-house system. I do not want to elaborate what I said about that system on the Second Reading. I will merely content myself with two observations upon it. In the first place I think anyone who has had practical experience of agriculture in Scotland must agree that the tied-house system offers a great measure of security to the worker. Secondly, if you do away with the tied-house system you are not really going to put the worker in any better position, for, considering what I have already said 541 upon the subject, what use is it to a man to be tenant of a cottage which he does not in fact leave when he leaves his engagement, if he is going to take another engagement perhaps fifty miles distant, where he may, or may not, be able to get another cottage.
§ On the Second Reading Lord Marley, speaking I believe as the mouthpiece of organised labour, suggested that the future of agriculture depended upon the lowering of costs by the substitution of machinery for man-power. Speaking for the men on the land, I do not accept that solution. When I was assisting in the management of an estate and of a home farm, farming, as I might say, de haut en bas, I shared the opinion of the noble Lord, but my experience of practical farming in Aberdeenshire has given me a very modified opinion of the value of machinery in agriculture. In that County, at any rate, I am sure that when all is reckoned machinery is just as expensive as horse-power; but although, like everybody else who has had to do with the land, I am a little inclined to dislike machinery as I think it leads to defective tillage, it has certain quite definite advantages. It makes the farmer independent of labour and destroys any chance of a successful strike of agricultural labourers. Anyone who doubts this has only got to think for a moment of the disastrous results of the strike of farm labourers in Southern Ireland not long ago. In the second place—and this is a most important point—machineiy assists in the substitution of casual for permanent labour. In the third place, it enables a great deal of necessary work to be done quickly and betimes during intermittent spells of good weather.
§ Now this Bill and this clause in the Bill have made farmers in Aberdeenshire turn their attention more and more to the use of machinery because they carry on their industry in a latitude where the short days in winter and continuous bad weather render farming operations impossible for prolonged periods of the year. They argue that if they are to be compelled, as they think they would be compelled, by the local committees to pay extra money to their men for overtime they will seek to economise by reducing their permanent staff and falling back on casual labour during the times when they will require it. In Aberdeenshire most farms are equipped largely for married 542 farm servants. The farmers have at their disposal several cottages for these servants on farms of any size, and it is very easy for the farmer to use one of these cottages as a man's chaumer, as they call it, and to let the other cottages for any price that they can get. As conditions are in Aberdeenshire, they can get very good prices in any part of the county from tenants of these cottages. They will then simply turn one. of the cottages into quarters for single men sufficient to form the nucleus of their staff, and rely for the rest on casual labour obtained from amongst neighbouring smallholders or their tenants.
§ Of course I blame the farmers who reason in this way, because I stand for the retention of the harmonious relations between farmers and farm servants which have been the rule hitherto, but I do not see how the Government can blame these men, seeing that under this Bill they are putting the farmers on one side and the farm servants on the other, and they must expect them each to seek their greatest advantage. Moreover, at the present moment, though it may be only the worst type of farmer who is adopting this course, it is in the end bound to be the rule for all. I have said that this will be the result of the clause, but I can go further. I am not the only person to say this. There was a very good leader on the subject in the Aberdeen Journal, which carries deserved authority in the agricultural North, indicating that this is about to take place. And I have myself heard from two sources in Aberdeenshire that, in consequence of the introduction of this measure, the harder driving type of farmer is already adopting this course. I do not wish to detain your Lordships with other arguments which occur to me on this matter, seeing that this one fact appears to me to be unanswerable.
§ I have no reliable means for making an estimate, but I have estimated that in the first two years of the working of this Bill, if it should pass, there may be as many as a thousand families put out of work and rendered homeless and—worse than anything—deprived of that access to the land which is not only the means of their existence but the greatest pleasure in it. Even if I am wrong, take one half of that figure, I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Government whether they have contemplated such a dislocation of rural life as I have sug- 543 gested will result from this Bill. If it should take place I would like to ask him how they would propose to deal with it. I can assure him that, although the passage of this measure affects me with feelings approaching to despair, there is no one who is more willing than myself to do everything in his power to make it a success and to prevent its affecting harmfully people for whom, in spite of the abolition of all hereditary jurisdictions, I still feel so large a measure of responsibility. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("work") insert ("with the exception of married workers employed under a contract of service by the year or half year and in the occupation of dwelling houses provided by their employer").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRIt may not be known to many of your Lordships that married men on farms in Scotland not only get fixed wages, but they get perquisites, and these perquisites are very valuable to the men and their families. I have rather a fear that if minimum wages are laid down and those minimum wages become rather higher than the farmer is able to afford, these perquisites will cease, and the state of these married men will be worse than it is now. I should like some assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that perquisites will be taken into account when the committees are set up and that instructions will be given to that effect when the minimum wages are fixed. It is a very important part of the married man's advantage, and also of the farmer's provision for his men. I think that unless we can have some guarantee that perquisites will be taken into account that would be a very good reason for leaving out married men, as proposed by the Amendment.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALIn dealing with this Amendment I think it will be well to inform your Lordships that it is the normal practice throughout Scotland to engage married farm workers by the year or half-year, and to provide them with Jiving accommodation on the farm. The Amendment would have the effect of excluding from the scope of the Bill a very important proportion of the total number 544 of farm workers in Scotland. I think your Lordships will agree that in a measure of this kind it is plainly impracticable to make exceptions, such as those suggested, on a territorial basis. I sincerely appreciate the depth of feeling which the noble Lord, and also the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, expressed when speaking on this Amendment, but I think that the noble Lord seemed to have lost sight of the main object of the Bill. In general there is no question but that married men receive a fair deal from the farmer, and such fair-dealing farmers have nothing to fear from wage regulation, to which, after all, they will be parties through their representatives on the wages committees. The only difference, so far as they are concerned, is that many rates will be settled in round-table discussions on the district basis, instead of by private negotiation on the individual basis, which has operated hitherto.
As I see it, the case which will be affected by the operation of the minimum wage is the exceptional one where a fanner may in the past have taken advantage of the absence of any collective bargaining scheme to pay rates of wages below the standard of customary rates to married men who are willing to accept then in order to get a house. I do not see that such adjustment as may be decided upon by the wages committees is likely to bring in its train any of the extreme results which the noble Lord apprehends. It will, after all, be open to the committees under the terms of Clause 2 (2) to fix a minimum rate so as to vary according as the employment is for a day, week, month or other period, or according to the number of working hours or the conditions of the employment. It will be possible for the committees, with this wide discretion, to devise arrangements dealing with long hirings, which will fit equitably into the general framework, and will not cause any undue local disturbance. Noble Lords may therefore rest assured that the special case or cases in which they are interested can be met without amendment of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will realise the difficulty which the Government would fee in accepting any such Amendment, and I hope that after this explanation of mine he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment which is on the Paper.
§ THE EARL OF STAIRI am in considerable difficulty about this Amendment. I am very strongly in sympathy with Lord Saltoun's object in moving it, but I am not entirely satisfied as to whether it answers the purpose or not. The usual practice in my part of the world, in the dairying districts in the South-West of Scotland, is to engage a man to supply possibly two, three, or four milkers, which puts a man with a large family in rather a strong position. The position is governed by the number of available cot houses and whether these cot houses are big enough to hold large families and whether, failing large families, there is i. sufficient number of cot houses to supply the necessary labour on the farm. It is these conditions which appear to me to make it almost impossible for any wages board to decide the actual value of a man according to the size of his family. It is this particular difficulty, in tact which is my chief objection to the Bill at all, and which points to the absolute necessity of private bargaining, for in practically every case the circumstances are different. I have had this difficulty myself a vast number of times. You lose a man with a wife and perhaps two grown-up sons and one or two daughters, and it is almost impossible to find a corresponding number of workers for a house accommodating six or seven people without engaging two families who require two houses. I do not quite see how the Bill is to be framed to meet these cases. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take this point into very serious consideration before the Report stage and, in consultation with his advisers, see whether this Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun will cover the case or not.
LORD SALTOUNMay I ask the noble Lord also if he is able to amplify a little of what he said? The real difficulty is the question of overtime. On a farm you cannot reckon overtime. I gave examples of that on the Second Reading. I myself have never been able to reckon overtime and, what is more, my men knew I could not. It was a case of my men putting in extra time of their own accord, not one of my driving them. What farmers are frightened of is that they will have to reckon regular hours and overtime. They are throwing up their hands and saying, "This is not worth it. We shall engage unmarried 546 men and depend on casual labour for our overtime, and cut down our expenses when there is no work to be done on the land in the winter time." If the noble Lord can give me some assurance that the local committee can definitely disregard the question of overtime, that will go a long way to meet me.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI quite appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and with regard to Lord Aberdeen's point I believe that the question of perquisites will be taken into consideration. Also I understand that the question of overtime will be considered, but I hope noble Lords will believe me when I say that ample provision is made in subsection (2) of this clause, and I ask them to be content with that assurance for the time being. I will, of course, report what they have said to the Department, but I really do not see that I can withdraw from the position I took up before, that in a Bill of this nature you cannot possibly bring in special provisions such as noble Lords are pressing for.
LORD SALTOUNIn the circumstances, as I may raise this point at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (6), after "behalf," to insert "made either by an employer or by a worker." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I only want an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The point is this, that a worker who is suffering from a disability will very often be extremely unwilling to go before the local committee and declare his disability. He will feel thereby that he is publishing his disability, and if he is unwilling to do so he will only be able to accept casual labour and eventually fall on unemployment relief. The object of this Amendment is to enable the application to be made by the employer, or I would be willing that it should be made by either party. If the committee are satisfied, it appears to me unnecessary for us to go into the means whereby they have satisfied themselves.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after (" behalf ") insert (" made either by an employer or by a worker ").—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI appreciate that this Amendment is intended in the interests of the infirm or disabled worker. It is the Government's desire, and I am sure it will be the desire of your Lordships, that those workers who are affected by physical injury or mental deficiency should have their case specially taken into account. The clause provides that where in such case the committee are satisfied that the worker is incapable of earning the minimum rate the committee shall grant him a permit which will enable him, subject to any conditions that may be necessary, to work for a lower rate without his employer incurring any penalty under this Bill. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable effective application to be made to the committee by the employer or the worker alternatively; but it would have the further result that nobody else could apply on behalf of the worker. Application in such cases may sometimes be necessary before the worker obtains any employment. In such cases, if they are mental cases, it would not be wise to put the duty of application on the worker himself. It is desirable that parents and guardians and institutions charged with the care of infirm persons should be enabled to apply. As the clause stands the application can be made by anyone on the workers' behalf. In view of that explanation I think that perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment which, I venture to suggest, happens to imply the opposite of what he intends.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "Board" and insert "committee." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment. It is merely the substitution of the word "committee" for the word "Board." If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will find that Clause 2 deals entirely with and defines the duties of the committee. Clause 3 proceeds to the definition of the duties of the Board, and, except for this one word "Board," the whole of Clause 2 applies to the operations of the committee. I venture to suggest, therefore, that it should be left to the committee to decide whether 548 or not the proposal is so modified in con-sequence of objection lodged as to need the issue of a, further notice, because in subsection (9) of Clause 2 the duty is given to the committee of publishing a notice prescribing the rate that they propose to fix. It would seem, therefore, reasonable that if, after they have received objections and have considered them, they come to the conclusion that this rate should be modified, they should have the power of saying whether or not a new notice should be issued. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out (" Board ") and insert (" committee ").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALThis clause deals with the procedure of a committee in considering objections to any of their proposals. A case may arise in which, after the period of notice has expired, the committee may decide to modify their proposals as a result of representations received. The committee are not bound to give notice of such modifications, but may at once make their decisions and submit them to the Board for that body to carry out their functions under Clause 3, subsection (2)—that is, to make an order carrying out the committee's decisions. On the other hand there is nothing to prevent the committee from deciding to give further notice if they think that course desirable. The point of bringing in the Board is simply the obvious advantage of a second opinion in the matter. In this case it is the opinion of the body formally charged with the duty of seeing that legal provisions, including the provisions as to notice and publicity, are duly complied with. The question as to whether a committee have given adequate notice of their intentions is a legal point on which the validity of the order might possibly be challenged at some later date in the Courts. The provision is, therefore, in the committee's interest, and is designed to avoid any risk of their decision becoming void. The Government are, therefore, of the opinion that the subsection should stand as drafted, and I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRI think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might perhaps consider 549 before the next stage whether it would not be better to put in this clause a provision whereby the committee may give notice when they have considered an objection and desire to give notice accordingly, which would mean that it would save the time that would be taken up in going to the Board and certainly it would tend to the more smooth working of the committee. I hope the noble Lord will take that into consideration before Report.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI shall be happy to make representations to the Department in that sense.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINEI confess that I am not altogether persuaded by what the noble Lord has said. I think the notice which the Board have to issue is dealt with in the following clause, but in view of what the noble Lord has; said I shall not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7:
§ Penalties and legal proceedings.
§ (4) Where an offence for which an employer is under this section liable to a fine has in fact been committed by some agent of the employer or other person that agent or other person shall be liable to be proceeded against for the offence in the same manner as if he were the employer, and either together with, or before or after the conviction of, the employer, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as that to which the employer is liable.
§ (5) It shall be a defence for an employer who is charged with an offence under this section to prove that he has used due diligence to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, and that the offence was in fact committed by his agent or some other person without his knowledge, consent or connivance.
§ THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (4), after "with," to insert "the employer." The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendments which stand in my name raise a legal point. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 7 proceedings may be taken against the employer and, after conviction of the employer, the employee shall be liable on conviction to the same penalty as that to which the employer 550 is liable. I venture to suggest that it would be incompetent to proceed against an employee in respect of an offence after the employer had been convicted of that offence, and for that reason I suggest that these words should be left out.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, after ("with") insert ("the employer").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI appreciate the noble Earl's point, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment and also the following two Amendments in the name of the noble Earl, but I cannot accept his Amendment in line 39, in subsection (5).
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "conviction of". The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble Lord accepts this and the following Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out (" conviction of ").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, after ("employer") insert ("is proceeded against").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (5), before "defence," to insert "good". The noble Earl said: This is perhaps not a very vital point, but it has a meaning legally. If a man has a good defence he is saved a certain amount of trouble in the Courts, and it seems reasonable to suggest, in view of the wording of the Bill, that if he met these provisions he should have a good defence.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("a") insert ("good").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI am advised that this addition really is unnecessary. If a defence is not a good defence, it is not a defence at all.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
551§ Clause 8:
§ Regulations.
§
8.—(1) The Department shall in addition to any special power to make regulations given to them under this Act, have power to make regulations for the following purposes: —
(a) for enabling a committee, on the application of any employer or worker, to determine any question which may arise as to any contract of employment so far as the application of this Act thereto is concerned;
(b) for requiring the Board, if so re quested by a resolution of the representative members of a committee, to perform any duty or exercise any power of the committee under any regulation made under this section, or requiring the Board to perform any such duty which a committee has failed to perform within such time as may be prescribed by the regulation, and for applying for that purpose as respects the Board any provisions of this section relating to committees;
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: Clause 8 is a clause that enables a committee, on the application of any employer or worker, to determine any question which may arise as to any contract of employment. For a long time past the Sheriffs of Scotland have done a work which has deserved and earned the gratitude of the country for the expeditious, cheap and sympathetic manner in which they have settled disputes that arise as to contracts of service. It is common knowledge that the Sheriffs look upon themselves as trustees for the farm servant in this matter. It has been suggested to me that the reason of this clause is that of the expense involved in going to the Sheriff on questions of wage contracts. If a farm servant takes a case to the Sheriff and is successful it costs him between 5s. and 10s. and that is not a very large proportion of the wage he has received even in the worst times.
§ It has also been suggested to me that a local committee may, under this clause, merely get powers to explain the meaning of their regulations. The clause appears to me to go a very great deal wider than that. It appears to me to be a very wide clause indeed. In any case, if the committee's regulations are not clear, then no man ought to be blamed for mistaking them, and if they are not clear or if there is a possibility that they 552 are not clear, then the committee is the last body in the world that should have to decide that question. The Sheriff is a far better judge of whether they are clear. Again there is another point. Committees may get known as being pro-farmer or pro-worker in complexion. Such a reputation will multiply vexatious cases and cause infinite trouble as well as a good deal of injustice. Then again, committee members may have special reasons for sympathising with one side or another even if they themselves are not parties. In fact from the constitution of the committee it is plain that almost any case that may be brought before them involves them in the danger of being auctor in rem suam, which is so obnoxious to Scottish law. I am allowed to say that unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Alness, is prevented from being in his place to-day, but that he views with uneasiness the wide powers conferred in this clause. If the Government are unable to accept this Amendment I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to move something on the Report stage. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out paragraph (a)—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALI appreciate that the noble Lord suggested that the determination of mutters of this kind can chiefly be effected in Scotland by bringing the case before the Sheriff. This is undoubtedly true and I am prepared to accept his Amendment with this provision: I think the noble Lord proceeds to cut out the second half of paragraph (b) as an Amendment consequential on the first Amendment. If (a) is cut out the whole of (b) should go and I would suggest that we should accept these two Amendments with a consequential official Amendment which will be tabled at the next opportunity.
LORD SALTOUNI am very pleased to accept that, but there is of course the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRIf it is desired by the noble Lord I am prepared to move form-ally the deletion of the whole of paragraph (b) and before the next stage of 553 the Bill he can produce his Amendment. I therefore ask the Committee to delete paragraph (b) instead of only the second part thereof. It is really only consequential.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess is to leave out from "section" to the end of line 22. But the noble Marquess now moves to leave out the whole of paragraph (b).
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 12, leave out paragraph (6).—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule: