ABOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES IN SCOTLAND (Hansard, 3 August 1972)

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 19, line 6, at end insert: '; and a committee of representatives of farmworkers and farmers, chaired by a representative of the Secretary of State, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State to advise him on the discharge of these functions and to advise him on the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. In your absence, Mr. Speaker, we have been proceeding with all sweetness and light—although I am sure that is not connected with your absence. I hope that we may get the same kind of response on this Amendment, at least from the junior Ministers opposite.
We discussed in Committee aspects of the abolition of the wages committee, and we are no longer seeking to reverse that decision because it would be improper for us to do so. Wages committees perform an important limited function in Scotland. Their functions are now to be taken over by the Secretary of State, and I regret that.
I had expected the Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and I shall not necessarily be able to do so in the same depth as he would have done. If we are wiping out the agricultural executive committees, it is singularly inappropriate at the same time to wipe out the wages committees. One of their vestigial duties was to look into the question of disabled workers and the rates payable to them.
We have been told that the reason for the abolition of the wages committees is 1075 to improve administrative efficiency. We cannot accept this as a reason. We do not put efficiency ahead of grass roots contacts and consultations. We must remember that we are dealing with a sensitive area. In 1961 there was a gap of £4 between the wages of industrial workers and those of agricultural workers; in 1971 the gap increased to around £10. There is roughly a third difference between the average industrial wage and the average agricultural wage, despite the fact that the output per farm worker increased by 7 per cent. over the last year, which was roughly double the increase in productivity to be found in industry.
Agricultural workers, who comprise 2.6 per cent. of the nation's labour force, contribute some 3 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product. We are therefore dealing with men who feel very sensitive about anything which will tend to remove their ability to join in committees with the rest of the industry so that they may bring pressure to bear. Therefore, we are seeking to amend this provision.
We have accepted with regret the fact that the wages committees are to go, but if these functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State there must be some democratic involvement in decisions by the Secretary of State. It cannot be left merely to executive decision.
We suggest that the new committees should be composed of both farmers and farm workers and that they should advise the Secretary of State on how to carry out the functions of the wages committee and other functions of that wages board. This is not a major demand, but seeks to replace an element of consultation and involvement in industry which is now being wiped out—in my view, stupidly wiped out—by the Government. Therefore, we hope that the Government will accept our fairly modest proposal.

§ Mr. Strang
I wish to confine my remarks to the work of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. I contend that that board, like its counterpart in England and Wales, has been an absolute disaster. More than any other body it must carry the responsibility for the intoler- 1076 ably low standard of living to which the farm worker has been subjected. There are exceptions, but the gap between farm workers and the average urban worker is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said, about £10.
It is no answer to say that farm workers receive certain "perks" which make up for the difference. The report issued by the National Board for Prices and Incomes went into this matter in great detail and decided that these "perks" in no way compensate the farm worker for having to endure such a large difference in rates. It is absurd to suggest, for example, that a tied cottage is comparable with a council house in a village or nearby town. The tied cottage is part of the farm worker's job, and if he loses his job he loses his house. Furthermore, because the man lives in a tied cottage, his employers often are able to make demands which they would not be in a position to make if the man were living in his own accommodation.
I am not suggesting that all farmers are bad employers. On the contrary, some are very good. My point is that we have a wages board because farm workers do not constitute a section of the work force which has enormous bargaining power. They are not able to come out on strike as easily as other workers, because they are fragmented in terms of perhaps one or two farm workers on different holdings. We have a wages board to remedy that situation, but it has completely failed.
I realise that the Government are unlikely to accept the Amendment. However, if they see it as their responsibility to ensure that farmers have money to invest and receive reasonable incomes, they should accept the responsibility for seeing that farm workers also receive reasonable incomes. That means that something must be done about the wages board. It is intolerable that it should carry on as it does and reflect to such a large extent the attitude of the employers but not that of the farm workers regarding their wages and living standards compared with other sections of the community.
We have the ironic situation of farmers writing to the Farmers Weekly complaining that the wages board is fixing farm workers' wages too low and of branches 1077 of the NFU taking up this cue. There is no more dismal commentary on the Agricultural Wages Board than that.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I reject totally some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). I realise that from time to time complaints can be, and are, made about the level of farm workers' wages, and so on. However, the attack which the hon. Gentleman made on the Agricultural Wages Board, which is composed of representatives of both the workers and the employers and independent members, is totally unwarranted. That is not the substance of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the wages board is not justified by the facts. Neither is the impression he gives in speaking to this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the industry in giving the impression—I do not know whether he intended it—that almost everyone in the industry is earning the minimum wage. That is the impression which will go out from what he said. Members of Parliament are responsible not only for the precise words they utter but for the impressions they give. We should bear in mind that a large number of people in the industry are not on the minimum wage level.

§ Mr. Buchan
The Under-Secretary is being grossly unfair to the way my hon. Friend has handled the wages question over the last few months. In dealing with the comparative figures for wages between agricultural and industrial workers, my hon. Friend was referring not to minimum wages but to average earnings. Therefore, my hon. Friend was absolutely right, as I was earlier. It is most unjust of the hon. Gentleman to bring in this rather rancorous note at this stage of our proceedings when we are trying to conduct them calmly and quickly.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
It is no more unfair than making an attack on the wages board, which is unable to defend itself. It is up to those of us who are responsible to make sure the record is put straight. That is all I am endeavouring to do in dealing with that point. Criticisms may be made of the wages board in certain respects, but generally it works well. Responsible people serve on it.
1078 Clause 23 abolishes the district agricultural wages committees in Scotland. We have proposed their abolition because, as we explained in Committee—I do not intend to go into the arguments again tonight—we believe that the need for their continuance has diminished to the point where their limited functions could easily be encompassed in the less cumbersome machinery within the Department. The Clause makes no change whatever in the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.
9.30 p.m.
The Amendment seeks to create an advisory committee to give advice to the Secretary of State not only about the discharge of the functions set out in the Clause but also about the working of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Indeed, it goes far beyond the limited scope of the Clause. I see no reason for disturbing the present machinery of wage fixing in agriculture, a procedure which is well established and respected by both sides of the industry.
The Board, which is an independent statutory body, provides an efficient means of establishing minimum rates for workers in an industry as fragmented as this industry is. The board is representative of both sides of industry. It has a balance of independent members, and successive Governments have been careful to maintain the independent and impartiality of their nominees. The chairman has always been a highly praised member of the legal profession, and in Scotland he happens to be the Lord President of the Court of Session.
The fact to which the hon. Gentleman should pay attention is that neither the workers' nor the employers' side has shown any wish to change the composition of the board. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by the creation of an advisory committee similar to that of the board which would advise on the working of the board. This could only undermine the board's standing and effectiveness in the discharge of its statutory functions.
In so far as the purpose of the advisory committee is to help the Secretary of State in administering the former functions of the agricultural wages committees, I cannot see any justification for it 1079 on that ground either, because the remaining functions of these committees—I dealt with this in detail in Committee and I do not want to go over it again tonight—are to be transferred to the Secretary of State, and the administrative procedures have been agreed by both sides of industry.
Essentially what is at issue tonight is the consideration of applications by individuals for exempt terms from statutory wage levels in respect of handicapped workers, because that is the one thing that is left. I hope that I may reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him that before a decision is reached in an individual case, should difficulties arise my Department will convene a panel locally, representative of both sides, to consider the case. I give that assurance, and I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will see that the advisory committee which he is suggesting will not be necessary. In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.