Has the Minister considered the arguments that were presented to him on the Second Stage of this Bill in regard to this matter of withdrawing from the labourer his right to sue for arrears of wages for a greater period than two years? I cannot think of any conceivable reason why that right should be withdrawn so long as Section 5 of this Bill is passed. One could have conceived, under the original Act, that a farmer might have employed an incapacitated workman without realising that he should have got a certificate before he took him on and then, having that fellow in his employment for 15 or 20 years, that man could sue the farmer on the ground that he was bound to pay him the full agricultural wage, despite his incapacity, over the whole period of 15 or 20 years and, in the absence of a certificate, the court would have to decree accordingly. But, under the proposed Section 5 here, in such a case as I envisage the court is entitled to say: "We are satisfied that if this farmer had applied for a disability certificate when he employed the plaintiff, he would have got it and, therefore, we are going to deem that he did apply and did get it and is, therefore, not liable for the moneys for which he is sued now." But, apart from the case of a farmer who underpaid his labourer through a misapprehension, what justification is there for indemnifying a farmer who has deliberately defrauded the labourer of his hire?
I make no apology, despite the fact that it appears to grate on the ears of some of my colleagues, when I say that I was taught, as the Minister was taught and as, I suppose, most other Deputies in this House were taught, in the penny catechism, that one of the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance is defrauding the labourer of his hire. Were not we all taught it? If that is true, and I believe it is true, and I think every Deputy sitting in the House at present agrees with me that it is true, why should we debar the labourer who is thus injured by his employer from recovering from his employer what was his due? I have no sympathy whatever with the employer who withholds from his labourer a payment to which he is entitled. I have no desire to mitigate the burden that man will have to bear. I have no desire to withdraw from the labourer any part of his power to put right what is wrong, and I do not think any other Deputy here has. Why then do we do it? I urge on the Minister most strongly to withdraw Section 4 and let the original Act stand, subject to the amendment proposed in Section 5.