HC Deb 22 January 1969 vol 776 cc479-81
37. Miss Quennell

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is now the national average weekly wage of agricultural workers; and what he estimates the national average weekly earnings of agricultural workers to be.

Mr. John Mackie

The current national statutory minimum wage for adult male agricultural workers in England and Wales is £11 11s. for a standard week of 44 hours. It is estimated that total average weekly earnings of all hired adult male regular whole-time agricultural workers in England and Wales was £15 13s. 9d. in the year ending 30th September, 1968.

Miss Quennell

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that information. However, in view of the fact that it is estimated that the national average wage for industrial workers is between £22 and £23 a week, and in view of the fact that Report No. 25 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes was issued only in the spring of 1967, why did the hon. Gentleman not make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she referred the recent agricultural agreement to the National Board?

Mr. Mackie

I know of the difference between agricultural wages and industrial wages. It is a long-standing one, and we are doing our best to close the gap. The Agricultural Wages Board is an autonomous body, and it is the job of that body to deal with the matter. As for the National Board for Prices and Incomes, I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Lady by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on Monday.

Mr. Hazell

Does my hon. Friend really agree that the Agricultural Wages Board is an autonomous body, in view of the fact that its recent decision has now been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Mackie

The National Board for Prices and Incomes is a statutory body as well. If any Ministry refers a wage question to it, it is done on a statutory basis.

Mr. Godber

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously telling the House that the Government are trying to reduce the disparity between these wage levels, why did the Government refer this issue to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Mackie

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that this is a system which has been brought into being to try to control inflation and keep prices and incomes in some relationship. We have a wide spectrum of incomes, and it is not a good argument to say that a particularly low income should not be looked at. We have asked the National Board for Prices and Incomes to give us its reply before 3rd February, when the wages order is due to come into operation. It has promised to do that.

Mr. Mackintosh

The N.E.D.C. Report states that, if the Minister's own target of expansion is to be achieved, the average level of agricultural wages has to be raised from its 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of present industrial wages. As this is the Minister's own objective, and as the record of productivity of agricultural workers of 6 per cent. is unequalled in the country, did he have words with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity before this matter was referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Mackie

Of course we had consultations with my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Mackintosh

What did my hon. Friend say?

Mr. Mackie

I realise the inexperience of my hon. Friend, but it is not usual for consultations of that nature to be made public.

Mr. Prior

Is it not a fact that, if we are to get the expansion that we need, we require more agricultural workers of the right age? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he is allowing his Government to do to agricultural workers with that point? Is this not a clear case of Government double-talk?

Mr. Mackie

I do not agree that it is absolutely clear that we need more agricultural workers. However, if we look at the record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the four years to June, 1964—[Interruption.]—I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) should step his baying and listen—there was a drop of 91,100. From June, 1964, to 1968, it was 89,700. That is the general picture of the efficiency of the industry. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) knows this very well.

Mr. Gardner

Disregarding the antics and cheering of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, will my hon. Friend accept that many of us who have supported and still support the prices and incomes policy none the less regard agricultural workers as among the lowest paid in Britain? In view of that, will he make the strongest representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about this reference?

Mr. Mackie

All these matters are borne in mind.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport

What mind?