MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



5 August, 1919.] 



SIR DANIEL HALL, K.C.B., F.R.S. 



[Continued. 



25s. was a bargain between the farmers and the 

 Government. You remember that was stated to be 

 the case when the Labour Party desired to get 30s. ? 

 I think I cau assure you that there was no bargain- 

 ing and no consultation of that kind. 



168. I will get the "Farmers' Union Journal" 

 iater. You are quite familiar with the composition 

 of the Agricultural Wages Board, are not you? 

 Yes. 



169. You know that it is not composed entirely of 

 representatives' of the employers in that industry 

 and of the labourers? There are 7 appointed 

 members. 



170. And, as you know, the 7 appointed members 

 have a very large say in the determination of the 

 wages? I suppose they act as peacemakers and 

 bring the others together sometimes. 



171. No. My point is that that is a safeguard to 

 the community in that both sides have to state 

 their case, and the 7 appointed members act very 

 largely as the jury and the judge also, both sides 

 having to prove their case before they can get a 

 decision or judgment?. Yes. I agree that was the 

 idea of it. 



172. Therefore, it is not very likely that a Board 

 composed in that way would fix minimum rates of 

 wages beyond which the industry could afford to 

 pay? There comes a point at which the people in 

 the industry can, as it were, settle alone what they 

 can pay. 



173. But I want to say that the people in the 

 industry have the opportunity of stating their case-' 

 Yes. 



174. And, after all, the Wages Board is of the, 

 nature of a judicial bench:' The point I wished to 

 make in my evidence-in-chief was this, that 1 

 do say there is a point when a body of farmers have 

 a right to say: " You are imposing a rate of wages 

 upon us that we refuse to pay and cannot pay; " 

 and in such a case they ought not to have to opposo 

 what is actually the law. I do not want these men 

 if they get to the point of striking against the 

 rate of wages, to be then striking against the 

 law; just aa, on the men's side, if you want to 

 insist upon a rate of wages that has not been awarded 

 by the Board, and you strike to obtain it, you do 

 not want to be made outlaws by the act of striking. 

 That is where I conceive the position of the Wages 

 Board comes in, in laying down a minimum rather 

 than the actual rate of wage. 



17o. You arc aware, of course, that the Wages 

 Board takes into consideration local circumstances 

 and does not fix one uniform rat of wages for the 

 country:' Yes. 



176. Kor example, in the immediate neighbourhood 

 of London, say. in Kent, Essex, Surrey, Berkshire 

 the Home Counties there is a different minimum 

 in almost every one of those counties? Yes. 



177. Would you agree that the workers in the 

 agricultural industry have a right to a wage that will 

 enable them to live in decency and comfort? Cer- 

 tainly. 



178. Kven if the cost of living should not rise. 

 would there not be room for even a higher wage be- 

 fore that point was reached? Than the pr> 

 rate? 



179. Yes? I would not like to express my opinion, 

 f '!<> not think we at the Bonrd have any opinion as 

 to what is the right wage. 



180. I do not want you to give any figures, and I 

 do not suggest that you should give any; but I would 

 suggest that the present minimum rates are not rate-. 

 that allow of an ordinary working man, an agricul- 

 tural lalxwirr-r, doing justice to himself, his wife and 

 his family, and that therefore even if the cost of 

 living should not rise, there should still be an oppor- 

 tunity for his wage going a bit higher? I would 

 simply nay this: Are you persuaded that the Agricul- 

 tural Wages Board have got a minimum wage in 

 existence which represents a decent minimum living 

 wage? Tf not yon may persuade thorn that the existing 

 wage ought to be altered, and that the agricultural 



labourer ought to have a higher wage ; but are you or 

 are you not satisfied that a security wage has been 

 arrived at? 



181. Just one final question. What protection is 

 given to the nation by the fixing of any guarantee? 

 For instance, if farmers and employees know there 

 is a certain definite guarantee on their produce, 

 what guarantee has the community that you are not 

 subsidising inefficiency? I think you would be right 

 if these guarantees were meant to fix the prices, but 

 you see that is what I want to avoid. I think if you 

 attempt to fix year by year, as some people claim, 

 the prices of wheat, the prices of milk, and so forth, 

 you are then in the difficult position of not know- 

 ing whether you are subsidising indifferent methods 

 of management, indolence, and so forth. I see 

 all those difficulties in fixing the prices. But we 

 claim that the guarantees in the Corn Production 

 Act should not be the actual prices, but something 

 below the average run of prices ; something that would 

 just provide a minimum of security should there be a 

 run of bad seasons or of competitive prices, and would 

 prevent the farmer's capital being depleted. In 

 farming you expect ups and downs. 



182. Mr. Ttunran: Then I take it that the reply 

 you have just given is based on the idea that, nor- 

 mally, prices in farming will be remunerative? I 

 think so. I think we must get our farming' based 

 upon realities. 



183. And that this method you are proposing is 

 simply to guarantee the cost of production, eliminat- 

 ing return on capital or provision for depreciation? 

 I do not see how you can have any prices 

 guaranteeing cost of production, because A's cost of 

 production is entirely different from B's. I can only 

 see a certain level, round about the average coste ol 

 production, which will keep people in the business. 



184. For that purpose you arrive at a rough figure 

 which will have the effect of keeping land in cultiva- 

 linn which otherwise would go out of cultivation ? 



Yes, that is what I want. 



18o. And would therefore be based on the cost of 

 production of the least profitable land? Yes, as 

 judged by the average level which keeps people going. 



186. So that even in these exceptional years when 

 the price falls, the guaranteed price would actually 

 guarantee more than the cost of production to a pro- 

 portion of farmers? Yes, certainly it would. On 

 highly favourable land, of course, the costs of pro- 

 duction run down to something comparatively 

 small. 



187. So that, normally, agriculture would be left 

 with its profit during the years when prices were 

 remunerative, and a proportion of the corn farmers 

 would be left with profits when prices are not re- 

 munerative on the poorer class of land. These facts 

 are not to be taken into account in fixing a guaran- 

 teed price? I think they would be taken into account 

 in the process of finding the level, as it were, which 

 will induce a certain area of farming. If you take, 

 say, the 5 years prior to the war, that is 1909 to 1913. 

 you then had a certain area of arable land being main^ 

 tained, or rather it was not being maintained, for it 

 was actually shrinking. You might say that the 

 35s. level that we had then was clearly under those 

 conditions not quite good enough ; it probably was 

 good enough, but men had not quite tumbled to tho 

 fact. 



188. Will you take tho statement in the last sen- 

 tence in paragraph 3 of your evidence-in-chief, which 

 statement does not quite square with your answer 

 you have now given? No; it cau be read not to. 

 I am trying to suggest there that this protection 

 should not do more than on the average you can 

 only take these things on the average and only <>: 

 the broad issue pay expenses I would not ask for 

 more. 



189. What I want to get at is whether the 

 iuaranteed price is to guarantee a farmer against 

 actual loss, or whether in fixing it the profits he 

 may be making ovei any period are taken into 

 acrount? It is to guarantee him against loss over an 

 :i>erage of seasons. 



