How far have Trade Boards actually succeeded in fixing such a minimum?  Mr. Seebohm Rowntree has put forward two sets of figures based on pre-war prices, and, of course, requiring adjustment for the changes that have subsequently taken place.  One of these figures was designed for a subsistence wage, the other for a “human needs” wage.  The latter was a figure which Mr. Rowntree himself did not expect to see reached in the near future.  I have compared these figures with the actual minima for unskilled workers fixed by the Boards during 1920 and 1921, and I find that the rates fixed are intermediate between the two.  The subsistence rate is passed, but the higher rate not attained, except for some classes of skilled workers.  The Boards have in general proceeded with moderation, but the more serious forms of underpayment have been suppressed so far as inspection has been adequately enforced.  The ratio of the female to the male minimum averages 57.2 per cent., which may seem unduly low, but it must be remembered that in the case of women’s wages a much greater leeway had to be made good, and there can be little doubt that the increases secured for female workers considerably exceeded those obtained for men.

THE QUESTION OF A SINGLE MINIMUM

Criticism of Trade Boards has fastened on their power to determine higher rates of wages for skilled workers, one of the additional powers that they secured under the Act of 1918.  There are many who agree that a bare minimum should be fixed by a statutory authority with legal powers, but think that this should be the beginning and end of law’s interference.  As to this, it must be said, first, that the wide margin between a subsistence wage and a human needs wage, brought out by Mr. Rowntree’s calculations, shows that there can be no question at present of a single minimum.  To give the “human needs” figure legislative sanction would at present be Utopian.  Very few Trade Boards ventured so far even when trade was booming.  The Boards move in the region between bare subsistence and “human needs,” as trade conditions allow, and can secure a better figure for some classes of their clients when they cannot secure it for all.  They therefore need all the elasticity which the present law gives them.

On the other hand, it is contended with some force by the Cave Committee that it is improper for appointed members to decide questions of relatively high wages for skilled men or for the law to enforce such wages by criminal proceedings, and the Committee accordingly propose to differentiate between higher and lower minima both as regards the method of determination and of enforcement.  I have not time here to discuss the details of their proposal, but I wish to say a word on the retention—­if in some altered shape—­of the powers given by the Act of 1918.  The Trade Board system has been remarkable for the development of understanding and co-operation