I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "shall," to "after," in line 8.

The Committee will remember that when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved nearly everyone who addressed the House pleaded for a national minimum to be fixed at the earliest possible moment, and I move this Amendment because I believe the present wording of this Clause is likely to cause some considerable delay. The Minister said, in his winding-up speech last week, that no doubt when we came to the Committee stage of the Bill we should have something to say with regard to the first part of Clause 1. The Committee will know that the Agricultural Wages Board, before fixing a national minimum, have at least three things to do. First of all, they are to have consultations with the agricultural wages committees, secondly, they are to consider general economic conditions, and, thirdly, they are to consider the conditions of the agricultural industry. Then it says that they shall proceed to fix a national minimum wage.

What is the real purpose of the Agricultural Wages Board consulting the different county agricultural wages committees? It cannot be for further information as to what is the wage at the present time, because that information is well known. I am not sure whether, in order to judge the general economic position of agriculture, they will consult these 47 committees. I would ask the House just to visualise how long it would take to consult them. What is to be the procedure, assuming that this Amendment is not carried? Does consultation mean that they will have to meet each of these 47 committees separately, or that the Agricultural Wages Board will submit to each agricultural wages committee a series of questions to which they would be expected to supply answers, and from which they might then be in a better position to know exactly the national minimum wage to fix? It might be argued—and indeed I believe it will—that these committees will have a right to be consulted. I am looking at it from one point of view—and I think there is some force in that argument—that, in considering the economic position of agriculture, they will have to have some kind of consultation with these committees.

If the Central Wages Board fix a minimum which, in the opinion of any of the counties, is considered too high, the county committees under the terms of the Bill will have the right to appeal for a modification of the national minimum wage, so that to some extent they will be safeguarded even if the Amendment were carried. I want the Committee to believe that the whole purpose of putting down this Amendment is that we feel that it may have the effect of delaying the fixing of a national minimum, and we recognise, equally with hon. Members opposite, that in these days the production of essential foodstuffs is absolutely necessary, and that the position on the land from the angle of man-power is almost desperate, and there ought not to be the slightest delay in fixing a national minimum. It is because we believe that the wording of which we complain may lead to delay that I have moved this Amendment.

I beg to support the Amendment. If the words which we propose to leave out remain in the Bill, the Minister will be taking away from the Central Wages Board the very powers for which this Bill has very largely been designed. In this small Bill there are two distinct functions. First, all the increased powers of the Central Wages Board are more definitely defined in giving them the power to fix a minimum standard rate of wages for agricultural workers throughout the country. In the second place, there is a more clearly defined function for the county agricultural wages committees. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, if these words are left out of the Bill, the county committees will still have the power if there are special conditions in their areas, to appeal to the Central Wages Board to have those special conditions dealt with. If these words are left in the Bill, it will be like taking away with one hand what has been put into the Bill by the other. It is giving a sort of analogous power to the committees to influence the Central Wages Board in performing their duty of fixing a general minimum standard rate of wages. It is up to the Minister really to give us a sound reason why these words should be left in the Clause. The practical reason why they ought to be taken out is that it seems to be inevitable that their retention will mean a very long delay. If the committees have to be consulted, as suggested by the wording in the Clause, one cannot see an end of such consultations, and on these grounds I hope that the Minister will see his way to recognise the desirability of accepting the Amendment.

I was critical on the Second Reading of the Bill on this particular proposal that we are now considering in the form of an Amendment. Now that the opinion of the House has been recorded in favour by a Second Reading of the Measure, it is my purpose, as I am sure it is the purpose of everybody in the Committee, to make the best of this Bill in the shortest possible time, in order that the greatest measure of encouragement to agricultural labour in this country can be given at the earliest moment. On that background, I would only like to make this one comment on the Amendment. If it is true that it is the main purpose of the Bill to give encouragement to agricultural labour to remain on the land, and give greater encouragement to labour to come on to the land, I cannot imagine anything more catastrophic than the absolutely flat description of a minimum without consultation, as suggested in this particular Amendment. I do not say that in criticism of Members of the Opposition in the least bit. I believe they have the same purpose at heart that I have, but it has been agreed by the Minister that the powers of the Central Wages Board up to the present have not been such as to encourage the collecting of information, because that particular Board has not been armed with executive powers.

I do not myself think that it will be fair to allow the Central Wages Board the responsibility of fixing a minimum wage without having had time and oppor- tunity to collect all the necessary information from the different parts of the country as to what the effect of a minimum they fix would be on those particular districts. It would be catastrophic if they fixed the minimum at the wrong point. We recognise the danger of fixing it at any point—we are quite frank about that—but if they fixed it at a point other than the best point they could select, they would be doing grave harm to agricultural labour. It has been mentioned that they might fix the wage too low. I am not at all sure that in fixing a minimum wage we should think only of those areas which would wish to work below that minimum wage. One of the greatest difficulties about the minimum wage will come in those areas which are already working above the point at which the minimum will be fixed. We have to look to it to see that the Central Wages Board have information of the position in these areas. Unless the Central Wages Board are extremely careful, the fact that a minimum wage is fixed below the point at which some counties are working will act as a brake, or as a deterrent against future rises of wages in those already higher wage-paying counties, and that is a danger which nobody in any quarter of this Committee would wish to be brought into effect. We have to see that where a county can pay a higher wage, they should pay a higher wage, and if an increased wage is possible, it should be paid. We do not want to do anything which will slow down the process of wage increases where a wage increase is possible, but while I quite understand the point of view of the Mover and the Supporter of the Amendment, personally I would be extremely sorry if they pressed it, as I believe that it would act in exactly the opposite direction to that in which they hoped it would act.

I, too, hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. We have to get two things working in the Central Wages Board. One is clearly that of carrying out the scheme, and I am certain that the Central Wages Board will be fully aware of the wish of the House of Commons on that question. But surely also we want to get at the right figures, and we want real co-operation between the Central Wages Board and the county agricultural wages committees, which will have a lot of functions to perform even under this Bill. Therefore the Committee would not desire to lose that wealth of experience which the county committees have gained for quite a long time, such as a knowledge of the conditions in their own counties, how the present wages are affecting their own counties, and so on. There is no desire at all on my part to regard the Act as a brake, but I feel that, in approaching a new subject, the Central Wages Board would want to get advice from the county committees. I do not think that there is the slightest need for contest between the Central Wages Board and the county agricultural wages committees.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said during the Second Reading that they would get from them—that is, the county committees—the fruits of their experience, and the facts that one obviously must get when they are gathered together and fixed at a centre. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind. Exactly how the Central Board will set about their task, I do not want to try to lay down here. One can see that there will be one or two ways in which they can do it. They can make their own determination, and send it down to the county committees and say, "We would like to have your observations on this. This is the calculation at which we have arrived. And now let us hear what you think about it." Or else they may say to these committees, "We would like your advice on the general question and your observations upon it." In any case I think that they will probably feel bound to do it, whether or not it is provided for in the Bill. The other point I wish to make is that this is not just a temporary Measure, and it is not going to be the only determination which that Board will have to make. If you are to have an alteration later on and a new examination, then the Central Wages Board will want to know what has happened in the counties arising from the first examination, and it will be necessary for them to have that experience and to consult again with the county agricultural committees.

Supposing the Central Wages Board found that one or two committees were absolutely obstructing and causing delay, would that debar the Central Wages Board from getting on with the work of fixing a national minimum?

No, Sir. I do not want to take the legal view, but if the Central Wages Board actually sent a letter or something like that to them, then that would be consultation. It is up to the county committees. Obviously, one does not want to see one or two county committees obstruct the whole work. It is not the intention of this Bill that obstruction should be allowed, but I still cannot think the Committee would want to do away with all the wealth of experience which is there, and I hope they will trust the Central Wages Board to act speedily and sensibly, get the co-operation and help of these county committees, and not start on the wrong foot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) made out a good case for this Amendment, which was amply supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), but both the cases they put forward were not nearly so effective in support of the Amendment as the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. In fact, he proved much more effective in showing the absolute non-necessity for the words embodied in the Bill. He told us that the Central Wages Board will be bound to consult with the wages committees and collect their experience.

Have consultations.

I think such consultations as may be deemed to be necessary by the Central Wages Board would take place without delaying words being embodied in the Bill. I cannot conceive of the Central Wages Board fixing a national minimum without in some way contacting the county wages committees, but while the Wages Board are fulfilling the conditions laid down here, and while considering the general economic conditions and special conditions affecting the agricultural industry, such information, advice and guidance that they may require from the county committees could be made available for the Board. There is another point: the Central Wages Board will be made up of six representatives of labour and six representatives of employers, and it is fair to assume that the 12 members together are in some way closely identified with the activities of the county wages committees.

There are more than six counties.

I know there are something like 47 counties, but the representatives of employers and employed, particularly the representatives of employed, very often s operate in four, five or six counties, so that their accumulated knowledge of the position will be available for the Central Wages Board. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the wisdom of deleting these words and leaving the Central Wages Board with power to consider general economic conditions and the special conditions affecting agriculture, and acquiring such knowledge as they may deem necessary, and not insist that they consult every county wages committee in the country, one after the other. They may find that some county or counties were hesitating and that it would hold up the fixation of the original national minimum. My support for this Amendment is not because I feel that there would be months of delay, but because I realise the seriousness of the position in the country to-day. I know that labourers have been leaving at an alarming rate; we cannot afford to lose any more. The sooner this Bill is in operation, and a national wage fixed, the sooner shall we prevent the continuation of their departure from the countryside, which we have been witnessing not only during the past 20 years but, particularly, during the past six or seven months. If only as a psychological concession to rural areas, I hope that, even now, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

After hearing the Minister, I felt my uneasiness grow about the retention of these words in the Clause. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did say that whether they are

I want to ask the Minister to be a little more explicit about what these words, "after consultation," mean. The words in the Bill impose upon the Board an obligation which it cannot itself of its own power and volition discharge. It cannot consult with any one of the county committees unless a county committee chooses to consult with the Board. It seems that the insistence on the inclusion of these words is very unfortunate indeed, because there is no equality and balance on the other side. In view of what the Minister has said, he would put the Board in a much happier position if, with the words out, he left the Board to make such consultations as they could before arriving at a final decision. To leave them in seems to be contrary to what I think is the sensibleness of legislation.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "after," to "after," in line 8, and to insert:

"giving notice to the agricultural wages com-committees and considering any representations made by them and."

There is no one who wishes to see the processes under the Bill speeded up more than I, but I think it would be very unfortunate if county agricultural committees were entirely ignored. I have tried to find words which will express what I actually mean in the way of consultation. "Consultation" is a very vague word, and the Minister did not make quite clear what he had in mind. He suggested that the obligation as to consultation might be carried out by the Central Wages Board, by simply writing a circular letter. I do not think that could ever be described as consultation. I have tried to find words which express the amount of interchange of views between county committees and the Central Wages Board which seems reasonable. I was unable to vote for the previous Amendment, because I think that to give no direction for consultation of any sort or kind is a mistake. If you have local committees, they should have some functions to perform, and I would point out to hon. Members above the Gangway that there are as many representatives of the workers on county committees as there are of employers, and if the Central Wages Board are to consider the actual rate, whether it is 40s., or 45s., or as high as 50s., surely it is to the interests of the workers' representatives that they should be able to suggest what the figure should be. I should have thought that some opportunity for consultation and some opportunity for the workers' representatives in the counties to put their case would have been welcomed by hon. Members above the Gangway.

If the Bill is to be operated, it must be with the good will of employers and workers. Some form of local consultation must take place, and my Amendment suggests what I think is the right amount of consultation. The Minister has said that there may be more than one revision of the national minimum wage. Therefore, the county committees should be notified when a revision is going to be made. I have given effect to that in the first part of the Amendment. Secondly, the county committees should have the right to make representations which shall be considered by the Central Wages Board. The Amendment carries out that object. The onus is on the Minister of Agriculture, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, to explain how it does not provide sufficient consultation. He may say that he wants to leave the thing vague and give the Central Wages Board every opportunity of finding out the opinion of the country. If he says that, I shall have to regret the vote I have given because that would, in my opinion, be delaying the matter. I do not believe he wants to delay the processes and that he will not prefer words which are clear and definite to his own vague and indefinite words. In any case, when the Bill is carried, you will have to have representations from the county committees. Presumably they will come in within three weeks, certainly within a month, and then a decision of the Central Wages Board can be given within another week. There is no need for delay if the procedure indicated in the Amendment is carried. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, which will clarify and simplify the Bill and not detract from it in any way.

I rather like this form of Amendment. I think it is better than the previous one. Not being sure of the position, and feeling that the Clause as it stands might easily give rise to circumstances in the future which would lead to deep controversy, I supported the first Amendment. But this Amendment meets the Minister's position and enables him to give a satisfactory answer on the point. I have no intention of preventing the Central Wages Board properly consulting county committees. That would destroy and disturb a very effective piece of work. The Amendment does meet the real position which will arise, and prevents any misunderstanding in the future when things are different, and when, in a piece of permanent legislation, we may regret having left the matter so vague as it is in the Bill.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the two hon. Members who have supported the Amendment. Their intention of clarifying the Minister's proposal is obviously good, but I read into the Amendment something which is restrictive. It would imply, to my mind, that the Central Wages Board would send out a figure and that, having given notice of the figure, they would accept representations. That may be one way of doing it. But there are other ways of doing it, as were indicated by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to restrict the Minister in the advice that he gives to the Central Wages Board. Obviously, he must give advice to them in this new sphere of activity, and I do not want to restrict the advice that he gives or the action which the Central Wages Board may take. I can see a situation in which possibly the Central Wages Board might adopt the second alternative mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. The county wages committee might be asked to frame proposals on which a minimum wage will be based, but if we accept the Amendment, it will debar the higher paying counties from asking whether, before considering the fixing of a minimum wage, the Board would take into consideration certain aspects which affect only that group. If we accept the Amendment, we shall rule out any representations from local committees before any figure is mentioned at all, and at once you get into the minds of county committees some idea that, after all, whatever advice they give does not very much matter, and that it is hardly worth their while to consider it seriously. These things have to be considered seriously. I think hon. Members will agree with me in that. While I agree with the purpose of the Amendment to the extent that we want to get something on which both the Agricultural Wages Board and the county committees can advise us, I think the effect of the words in the Amendment would be in the opposite direction.

I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). I feel that the Amendment is a restrictive one. It defines the method of consultation and appears to narrow the subject of consultation, and for that reason, I am opposed to it. I can imagine a situation arising in future in which the Agricultural Wages Board desire to fix the minimum wage at a certain figure, and are in agreement with the agricultural wages committee that that should be done, but both the Board and the county committee then consulting together and discovering that that minimum cannot be paid because the state of the industry will not allow it. Therefore, I want the widest measure of consultation in order that the Central Board may discuss all possibilities and, if necessary, discuss proposals to be put before the Government so as to enable the industry to pay the wage which they think desirable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has put the objections to this Amendment in very good language. I feel, too, that it would be unsafe to try to prescribe the actual method by which the Board should carry out this consultation. Having decided, as we have, that there should be consultation, I am convinced that the best way of dealing with the matter is to allow the Board to find out what is the best method in any given circumstances. Circumstances may differ from time to time. The Board may want a different type of consultation in six months' time or a year's time, and I think we can trust them to find out the quickest and best method of consultation. If we were to insert the words of the Amendment, we should lay down rules of a more or less formal character which would limit and be harmful to the purpose which all of us have in mind. We have to visualise the different sets of circumstances that may arise. I think the Committee would be well advised to leave the provision in general terms and allow the Board to find the best and most appropriate method in any given case. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out Subsection (3).

I am very glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture mentioned the other day that the county committees have an obligation to women agricultural workers, and that a statutory obligation is being placed on those committees to examine the wages paid to women workers in relation to the settled national minimum. I understand that the last census showed that there were over 55,000 registered women agricultural workers, comprising all types of workers; and I am very glad that so far my right hon. and gallant Friend has seen fit to include them under the provisions of the Bill, because it is true to say that all the arguments that were used on the introduction of the Bill can be used in relation to women workers as well as to male workers. What I am not sure about is how far the provisions of the Bill will apply to women workers, because there is no precise definition.

I must remind the hon. Lady that we are not now discussing the Bill. I called her in order that she might move an Amendment to leave out Subsection (3) of Clause 2. All that she has said so far has been entirely in favour of the Sub-section remaining in the Bill.

I assure you, Sir Dennis, that in a minute or two I shall explain why I think Sub-section (3) should be deleted. I was trying to be nice to the Minister about the steps he has already taken to encourage women workers in agriculture, but if a little more acidity in my voice would be acceptable, I shall have pleasure in changing my tone. I have been told that I am sometimes a little too acid towards Ministers, and I thought that I would reform, and move my Amendment in rather slowed-down terms. I think this Sub-section should be deleted because adequate protection is not given to women agricultural workers. Although the county committees have to examine women's wages in relation to the national minimum, I do not see that any statutory obligation is put upon them, when they have come to a decision, to send their decision to the Agricultural Wages Board for confirmation and approval as is to be done in the case of adult male workers. Although the machinery provided in Clause 2 covers women workers, they are not to have the advantages of the machinery which is provided for adult male workers, and the national minimum that is provided for in Clause 1. This Sub-section has caused great dissatisfaction to the women who are engaged in agriculture. They feel that for a very long time they have been regarded as casual workers, they do not think that the provisions of this Clause give any encouragement to those women who are being trained at agricultural colleges which are subsidised by the Treasury, and they do not feel that their position is being really bettered under the Bill owing to there being no precise definition.

I will try to say to the hon. Lady what I have to say in a pleasant voice, but I am afraid that I have something unpleasant to say to her. Not a single sentence of what she has said has had anything to do with this particular Sub-section. She appears to want to amend the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924.

I thank you, Sir Dennis, for being so nice about it. In dealing with this matter, I see the difficulty that there is in intervening on a matter about which one has no knowledge. I could challenge the world in the industrial field, because I should be certain of what I was talking about. I have been asked by the women agricultural workers to intervene in this Debate on their behalf, and I do not think they will appreciate how difficult it is to keep within the Rules of Order. Sub-section (3) reads:

"It shall be the duty of every agricultural wages committee to have regard to the national minimum wage, not only in fixing minimum rates of wages for men of full age employed whole time by the week or any longer period in agriculture, but also in fixing minimum rates of wages for any other class of workers, but without prejudice to their power to fix for workers of any class rates higher than are necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act."

If I remember rightly, my right hon. and gallant Friend, in speaking in the Second Reading Debate last Wednesday, defined "any other class of workers" as covering women. The reason I ask for the deletion of the Sub-section is that it does not define the precise relationship of women's wages to men's wages, having regard to the national minimum. If I speak much longer, I feel that I shall trespass on your courtesy, Sir Dennis, and on the Rules of Order, but I hope that the Minister, who has a wide vision, will know what I mean to say. Therefore, I leave it to him to make the position crystal clear. I am afraid that if he does not find some way of assuring us that under this Sub-section women agricultural workers will have the same kind of protection as men—it is true that they will have their conditions improved in order to encourage them in their work—although we shall not be able to do anything on this Bill, we shall have to make representations in regard to this discrimination against women. We feel very strongly that this is the time to encourage both men and women in the agricultural industry, and the terms of this Sub-section, by not defining precisely the relationship of women's wages to men's wages, having regard to the national minimum, discriminate against women and leave them in an unsatisfactory position. I hope the Minister will be able to point out that I am entirely wrong, and that women agricultural workers will realise that the Government have at heart their interests as well as the interests of the male workers.

I am afraid that the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) would rob all agricultural workers who are not adult men, all those on piecework, all those who are seasonal workers, and all women agricultural workers of the only privilege they have under the Bill. Only under this Sub-section, in the category described as "any other class of workers," would women come under the Bill. The other thing that I want to say is that in the original Act of 1924, the Preamble catered for "workers in agriculture," which includes women. This Bill deals with "men employed in agriculture." Therefore, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman needs a lesson, all that he has to do is to go to the Labour Government's Act of 1924. He will find that in that Act we dealt with both men and women, whereas in this Bill it is only Sub-section (3) of this Clause that makes it possible for county committees to do for women something in relation to what the Agricultural Wages Board is able to do for men.

I would point out to the hon. Member that I raised the matter in this way because it seemed that the only way in which I could bring to the notice of the House the question of women agricultural workers was by putting down such an Amendment.

As a matter of fact, the hon. Lady did it only as a result of the unjustified leniency of the Chair.

I am very grateful to you, Sir Dennis.

I admit that it is rather difficult to answer the hon. Lady's questions, but I think I realise what is in her mind, and possibly the best way of explaining the matter is to state how this Sub-section will work. This goes back to the main principle of the Bill, and I assure the Committee that when we considered this whole question of wages and the setting up of a Central Wages Board, we had women workers very much in mind. As I tried to explain in my Second Reading speech, the actual minimum wage to be fixed by this Board is not an automatically operative wage. The county committee can, under certain conditions, fix the wage rate at a higher level or may apply to the Board to make it lower. What we tried to do was to give a guiding line to the county committees and to say to them, "You cannot go below that line," but leaving the county committees free to work in their own districts and, if need be, to go higher. Naturally that datum line would be worked on, in fixing the rates of the vast majority of workers who would be adult male workers.

We have not dealt, it is true, with others such as juveniles and women. It will be for the county committees to consider the question of the wages of women workers, and we say in this Bill that the committee shall have regard to any alterations which may take place in the national minimum. They will have to try to relate to the conditions in their own areas the movement of wages both for men and for women and also for juveniles. Bearing in mind the main purpose of the Bill, which is to give a guide instead of fixing an automatically operated rate, I think women workers can be satisfied that they will get fair play, and I sincerely hope that in the future it will be possible, through the operation of this provision, to get more women workers back on to the land. I regret very much the disappearance of so many women workers from the land, and I hope that the necessary encouragement for their return to agricultural work will be provided by this Bill.

In view of the Minister's statement, and as I am always trustful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (4).

I cannot bring myself into such a complaisant condition of mind regarding this Amendment, as the hon. Member for Walsall (Miss Ward) has shown in regard to her Amendment. This is the last Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill, the presentation of which must have given great satisfaction to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill has been welcomed in every part of the Committee because it gives the hope, at last, of some uniformity in the fixing of agricultural wages, and it may result in relieving heavy anxiety in many homes. Because the Bill is so generally welcome, we feel it a pity that the Minister should comprise within it a provision which seems likely to hamper its effectiveness. I want the Minister, first, to explain what is the purpose of advertising these rates in the counties, and, secondly, to examine the consequence of doing so.

By the rejection of the two Amendments which were moved in relation to Clause 1, the Minister now secures that before the national minimum is fixed, there will be consultation with each of the 47 committees. Therefore, presumably, the national minimum figure will be fixed as a result of the advice tendered to the Board by experienced members of the county committees. Surely the county committees are themselves, as to their own county areas, sufficiently representative of county agricultural opinion. It seems superfluous after having consulted with the county committees to proceed to advertise the intentions of the Board to the farming community in the counties represented by those committees. The effect of doing so is even less defensible than the presumed purpose. It will be to present those agricultural interests which object to the primary purpose of the Bill, or object to the minimum figure fixed, with an opportunity of appealing against the figure, of hampering the work of the Board and delaying the operation of the rate itself. Those interests, I suggest, are interests which the Minister should be the last to desire to consult and the last who should get any opportunity of placing restrictions on the work of the Board. The necessity for advertising does not exist after the county committees have been consulted, as provided for in the Bill, and the effect of this Sub-section will be restrictive and hampering and will injure the purpose which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.

I feel that this Amendment has been moved under a misunderstanding. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact that under Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act of 1924, committees are required to give notice before fixing or altering minimum wage rates for their areas. What they generally do is to advertise in two or three papers circulating in the area, so that farmers and farm workers can see what the rates are. We thought it only right, when the national minimum has been laid down and when the county committees make their own determinations—and they still have to publish them under the 1924 Act—that they should include in that publication a statement of what the national minimum wage was so that workers and farmers could see and compare the final results of the county wages committees' deliberations with the datum line of the national minimum wage. It would not make any difference to the working of the Measure if this Amendment were accepted, and I think the Com- mittee will agree that it is only right and proper that workers and employers should be able to compare the national minimum wage with what their own county committee has finally determined.

I took some care to read the appropriate provisions of the 1924 Act. They make it incumbent on county committees to advertise the rates which those committees fix. The position in regard to the Board and the national minimum is that the Board has power to consult the county committees. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this provision would not make any difference to the working of the machinery of the Measure, but surely it would enable representations to be made against the rate by various organisations, designed to hamper the working of the Measure and the achievement of its main object.

I am advised that it would still be necessary, even if this Amendment were carried, for the county committees to publish, and in any case I suggest that the publication of the national minimum wage for purposes of comparison is a desirable precaution from the workers' point of view. If in any given county they saw that the wage rate was to be lower than the national minimum, they would, naturally, desire to make representations to the county wages committee, and the committee would have to consider those representations. I suggest that it would work unfairly if they had not the information on which to make a comparison and form their opinion, and I think this may well prove a valuable provision to the workers as well as to the employers.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have omitted to examine Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 with its proviso, otherwise I think he would be obliged to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) that Sub-section (4) can be made into a delaying provision. What will be the machinery of this Measure if Sub-section (4) is retained. First, the Central Wages Board must consult the agricultural wages committees before they proceed to fix their national minimum. Then they proceed under Clause 2 which reads as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the agricultural wages committee for every county, within the prescribed period after receiving notification that the national minimum wage has been fixed or altered, to reconsider the minimum rates of wages fixed by them under the principal Act."

Then there is the proviso:

"Provided that the regulations prescribing the period within which the duties imposed by this Sub-section upon agricultural wages committees are to be performed, shall make provision for any necessary extension of that period in cases where a committee decide to make representations to the Board in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section one of this Act."

There you have made provision, first, that the Central Wages Board shall consult the county committees and, second, that having acquired all the knowledge they require, they shall proceed to establish a minimum. They prescribe the minimum and lay down a period within which the county committees shall comply with it. But should any county wages committee desire to make representation to the Central Board because the minimum wage is too low or too high, the prescribed period can be extended to enable them to make such representations.

In Sub-section (4), which calls into being Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the original Act, the same obligation applies when fixing a national minimum. Subsection (4) reads:

"Among the matters of which agricultural wages committees are required by Sub-section (6) of Section two of the principal Act to give notice before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate of wages there shall be included the national minimum wage."

Therefore, when a national minimum wage is fixed, Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the original Act comes into being. The original Act reads:

"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,…."

But they have already done that under Clause 1, Sub-section (1). It seems to me that under Clause 2, Sub-section (1), in prescribing a period where a county wages committee has a right to make representations to the Central Board, the Central Wages Board have power to extend the period. Clearly this third condition appears to be wholly unnecessary. I hope that I have made what appears to be a complex problem clear; but, if all three conditions are fulfilled, there must inevitably be an unnecessary waste of time. There is the first consultation, and once it has taken place and a minimum wage has been decided upon, county wage committees are given time to make representations to the Central Board. They cannot, however, make representations to the Central Board unless the wages committees know the minimum which has been fixed. Then there is this third condition, compelling them again to advertise the minimum wage, allowing objection to be made, and the Central Board are called upon to examine this objection and vary the minimum if they deem fit. Although I think there is some point in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's submission about the first consultation between the Central Wages Board and the county committees I am afraid I cannot find any justification at all for this third condition.

Clause 2 has nothing to do with objection to the national minimum wage. It merely means that at the bottom of the page information will be given that the national minimum is so and so; there is no intention of inviting objection. It is merely included in the advertisement for the sake of allowing people to compare the final result of the county committees wage with the national minimum wage.

Are we to understand that in the Regulations that are made under Clause 2, Sub-section (1), intimating that a minimum has been fixed, and specifying a period whereby the county wages committee must comply with that decision, advertising will take place at that time, and not in a subsequent period beyond the prescribed period?

I am not absolutely certain when the advertising comes in, but I will check on that. I repeat that this is merely for information and not in order to invite objection to it.

You are speaking now of Clause 2?

Yes. It is merely an indication to the persons concerned so that they can compare the committee's proposals with the national minimum wage.

Surely the Minister is arriving at a conclusion which is unfounded? The provisions in the principal Act make it incumbent on the county committees to advertise in order that objections may be made.

May I read the appropriate Section of the principal Act again? It is:

"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."

From that, I think, either we are suffering from profound confusion, or otherwise, if we are not confused, there will be unnecessary delay.

The national minimum wage will not be included in the notice as part of the county committees' proposals. It is to be on the advertisement to show what is the national minimum, but it will not be among the proposals as to the rates which the county committees give notice of their intention to fix. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a county wages committee proposal is that the rate should be 3s. a week above the national minimum. That would be a proposal on which there could be representation from the employer or the worker. In the advertisement it would be shown that the national minimum figure was and that the county wage would be X plus 3s. It will really make no difference in time. The advertisement merely clarifies to the worker how his wage is related to the national minimum.

I think we are in substantial agreement about what we want, although I do not think we are in agreement as to what the proviso means in its present form. As I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman his view is that the advertising provided for here will be merely an announcement of what the county committee intends to do, and that that will be the end of it. But it cannot be the end of it with the provisions of the original Act, the appropriate Section of which has been read by my hon. Friend.

The county committees will not be publishing proposals for a national minimum wage. They will simply be giving opportunity for objections to the rates they propose to fix for their areas, and this will be after the national minimum wage has been fixed.