I do not desire to move my amendment in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper but perhaps, Sir, you would permit me to raise the point on the section at this stage. Under the definition section of the Bill it is provided that "the expression `agricultural worker' means a person employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship whose work under such contract is or includes work in agriculture, but does not include a person, whose work under any such contract is or includes domestic service." I take strong exception to the last portion of that section, because it seems to me to provide a very convenient way out of the provisions of this Bill for persons who might be unscrupulous enough to avail of the loophole provided by the Minister in this very wide definition which he has drawn. I can concede, of course, that it is not the intention to bring a domestic servant within the scope of the section, or to bring a domestic servant's standard of remuneration within the scope of a Bill designed primarily to regulate the conditions of agricultural workers. But it seems to me that under this section, as drafted, it is possible for an agricultural employer to plead, in support of his contention that an employee is outside the scope of the Bill, and that his wages, consequently, may not be regulated by the provisions of the Bill, that the person concerned performs domestic service. If, therefore, it can be shown by such agricultural employer that any particular employee performs domestic service, that person seems to me to go outside the scope of the Bill. It may, therefore, be advantageous for agricultural employers to employ their workers, indoor, perhaps, or even outdoor for some portion of their time on domestic work and in that way evade completely the provisions of the Bill.
I hardly imagine that the Minister contemplates leaving so wide a loophole for evasion under the Bill. I should like to suggest to him that that definition section should be tightened in such a way as to make it impossible for any person to ride completely outside the scope of the Bill by resorting to a subterfuge of that kind. I suggest to the Minister that the section might be amended to make clear that it does not include "a female person whose work under any such contract is or includes domestic service," but it seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill that, if you employ a person on domestic work, you can, by reason of the fact, have that person excluded from the regulatory provisions of the Bill.
