House of Commons
Tuesday, June 24, 1958
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
asked the Attorney-General if he will now take steps to bring into operation the Sections of the Legal Aid and Advice Act with regard to the provision of legal advice.
I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 17th June.
While appreciating that, and while everyone, I am sure, welcomes the Lord Chancellor's recent announcement, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say what sort of response has been received, and whether it is to be hoped that these Sections will be brought into operation later in the year?
I cannot, at the moment, say what response there has been to this proposal that has been circulated by the secretary to the Law Society. I think that all of us who are concerned with legal aid and advice hope that the response will be prompt and entirely satisfactory, so that this new, additional service can be brought into operation at the earliest possible moment.
ARCHBISHOP MAKARIOS
asked the Attorney-General if he will instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings against Archbishop Makarios, on his entry into the jurisdiction, for complicity in the murder of British Service men in Cyprus, on the basis of the Grivas diaries and other documentary evidence in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.
For obvious reasons, it is not desirable to disclose, in relation to offences alleged to have been committed outside the jurisdiction by a person now outside the United Kingdom, whether any decision has been taken to prosecute him if he comes within the jurisdiction; and it is also not desirable that I should reveal what instructions, if any, I would give to the Director of Public Prosecutions should Archbishop Makarios visit this country.
I am very grateful for that Answer, but does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that there are many people in this country who consider that Archbishop Makarios has blood on his hands, and should never have been invited here, and, if he comes here, will my right hon. and learned Friend deport him, hang him, or do something to stop him landing here?
While not condoning in any way what has taken place in Cyprus, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agrees that, in view of the very delicate situation, and the statement made by the Prime Minister last week, Questions of this character are to be deprecated?
ACTIONS FOR ENTICEMENT
asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish actions for enticement.
No.
But does the Attorney-General think that it is necessary or desirable in the public interest that the courts should be exploited so that people can make money in this rather sordid way? While this kind of case is, fortunately, rare, could not it be left to the divorce courts to make suitable provision for injured parties?
I do not think that there is any question of the courts being exploited for the purpose of making money. Damages are awarded and assessed, by a jury, very often, to compensate for the injury suffered. I certainly do not think that there is any general demand for the abolition of this cause of action.
MINISTRY OF WORKS
Underground Chamber, South Unigarth
asked the Minister of Works whether his Inspector of Ancient Monuments in Scotland has yet completed his investigation into the nature, extent and contents of the underground chamber recently discovered at South Unigarth on the mainland of Orkney; and if he will make to the House a comprehensive statement on the subject.
Yes, Sir. The structure consists of a low entrance passage and a chamber, roofed with large stone slabs, which measures approximately 12 ft. by 10 ft. and is 3 ft. high. The whole structure, which is substantially intact, has throughout its history been underground, but was probably associated with a surface dwelling which has disappeared. The only article discovered was a hammerstone of uncertain date.
While thanking the Minister for that detailed reply, may I ask him whether he realises that this and similar discoveries are of great interest to archaeologists and historians? Will he, therefore, take steps to issue a White Paper relating this and kindred discoveries to each other?
I am sure that the archaeologists concerned will have other ways of obtaining information of this without a White Paper.
Is this underground chamber big enough to hold the whole of Lady Violet Bonham-Carter's party?
Corfe Castle, Dorset
asked the Minister of Works if, in view of the dangerous condition of Corfe Castle, Dorset, he will take the necessary steps to bring Corfe Castle into his guardianship in order to carry out the necessary repairs and regulate further access.
My Department is negotiating with the owner of Corfe Castle, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
Roman Wall, London
asked the Minister of Works if he has now completed his inquiries regarding the recent destruction of a stretch of the Roman Wall of London between Cripplegate and Falcon Square; what steps he is taking to prevent further demolition; and if, in conjunction with the City Corporation, he will proceed immediately with the plan for the creation of a sunken garden to preserve and expose the external face of the wall down to the level of the ancient city ditch.
Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the recent demolition of a fragment of London Wall near Falcon Square was inadvertent. With the object of avoiding another such incident, the City Corporation has repaired and strengthened the fencing round the remains of the wall in this vicinity and will provide any further protection which may appear necessary. It is also reaffirming its instructions that those concerned with operations near the wall should be most careful to keep clear of it. As the hon. Member knows, it is the intention of the City Corporation to preserve and display this stretch of wall, with a public open space adjoining it. I understand that the City Corporation proposes to carry out this work when it can best be fitted into the general redevelopment of this area.
I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he suggest to the City Corporation that it would be desirable to complete this work, which it can quite conveniently do, in advance of its general scheme of development in the area?
I am approaching the City Corporation with the suggestion that it might be desirable for further exploration to take place before large-scale building work begins in the neighbourhood.
Donnington Castle, Newbury
asked the Minister of Works what further restoration work on Donnington Castle, Newbury, is to be done this year; and when the galvanised sheeting blocking the entrance will be removed.
The final stage of the repair work to the gatehouse roof will start in July; this will be followed by repairs to the two turrets. Galvanised sheeting has been erected to prevent entry to the gatehouse while work is in progress. This is to protect visitors from danger of injury and also to safeguard materials stored during repairs. It will be removed when the roof repairs are completed, which I hope will be about the end of March, 1959.
House of Commons (Terrace)
asked the Minister of Works how often the flowers and plants in the boxes on the Terrace of the House of Commons are changed.
The plants in these boxes are changed two or three times a year, depending on the weather.
Is my hon. Friend aware that dead rhododendrons remained in those boxes for a week after we returned from the Whitsun Recess? Is this not rather surprising, in view of the very high standard usually shown in these matters, and will not my hon. Friend agree that it is most important for his Department to give an outstanding example of the highest standards of British horticulture in the House of Commons, as it undoubtedly does already all over the Royal Parks?
It is generally agreed that the standard in the Royal Parks is particularly high, and I was glad that my hon. Friend said that the terrace is usually good too. On this occasion, I agree, the change could, perhaps, with some advantage, have been made earlier.
Chiswick Park
asked the Minister of Works whether he will restore the bridge, temple and other garden architecture at Chiswick Park so as to make it in keeping with Chiswick House.
Yes, Sir, I hope to carry out this work in due course.
National Gallery (Adjacent Site)
asked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to acquire for future extensions of the National Gallery the vacant site in Tragalgar Square adjacent to the west side of the National Gallery.
I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on 10th June.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and the Government will never be forgiven if they allow this site to slip through their fingers? Can he say whether there have been discussions with the Canadian Government? Is there any information about the Canadian Government's need of the site?
So far as I am aware, the site is not yet on the market, though there have been indications that it is likely to be. Hon. Members will not expect me to say more at this juncture.
Will the Minister bear in mind that the acquisition of this site is very necessary both in the interests of the collection itself and in the interests of the general appearance of the square? Will he do everything he can to expedite a decision on this very important matter?
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely soon to receive a deputation from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members on both sides will support him in any representations he makes to the Chancellor for taking this unique opportunity to acquire a site which it may not be possible to acquire during the lifetime of any Member of Parliament except at this particular moment?
I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Roman Hypocaust, London Coal Exchange
asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to ensure the preservation of the Roman hypocaust beneath the London Coal Exchange.
The Roman hypocaust beneath the London Coal Exchange is scheduled as an ancient monument, and three months' notice is required under the Ancient Monuments Acts of intention to carry out any works affecting it. If proposals for the demolition of the Exchange proceed, the City Corporation has promised to consult my Department on means of preserving the hypocaust.
Barrow Hill, West Mersea (Tumulus)
asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to prevent further damage by trees and animals to the tumulus on Barrow Hill, West Mersea.
I am looking into this and will write to the hon. Member.
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
Cotton Industry (Shirley Institute)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is satisfied that the Shirley Institute is adequate to the requirements of modern developments for the present-day needs of the cotton industry; and if he will make a statement.
Yes, Sir. The British Cotton Industry Research Association—to give it its full title—provides an excellent example of progressive development and has achieved the confidence of industry and a high international reputation. My noble Friend has recently visited the Institute and is confident that the Council and Director of the Shirley Institute will continue to direct their programme of research effectively to those problems whose solution will be of the greatest benefit to the cotton industry.
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he say what financial support the Government are giving to this Institute and whether it will be increased if the work of the Institute expands?
Yes. The grant last year was £84,000 and some extra hundreds. If the industry contributes more, then, for every £100 extra from the industry, the Government will increase their grant by £50.
Atmospheric Pollution
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what publication is made of the measurements of air pollution made by, and submitted to, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
Summaries of measurements of air pollution made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and by the 364 organisations co-operating with the Department are published annually by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in a Report entitled "The Investigation of Atmospheric Pollution."
Will the Parliamentary Secretary encourage the widest use of this information, and can he say how many of these organisations are local authorities?
The widest use is made of it. Of the 364 organisations, 331 are local authorities.
Research Grants
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, by what outside bodies the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is advised on grants for promising researches in science and technology in universities, colleges and other institutions.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is advised on grants for special researches by the Research Grants Committee of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, though the Committee may seek the views of outside referees on any application. The Chairman of this Committee is Professor P. M. S. Blackett, F.R.S., and its members are scientists of distinction in relevant research subjects. The Chairman of the University Grants Committee and the Physical and Biological Secretaries of the Royal Society sit as assessors.
Is my hon. Friend able to say how the present expenditure on nuclear physics research and other research compares with expenditure in previous years?
There has been a steady growth on both. The grant this year for nuclear physics was £330,000, Last year, it was £192,000. Apart from nuclear physics, it has grown from £80,000, two years ago, to £155,000 last year and £320,000 this year.
Small Harbours (Design)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what investigations the Hydraulics Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has made into the improvement in design of small harbours used by fishermen.
The Hydraulics Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has recently studied the problems affecting three fishing harbours in the United Kingdom; Southwold, Great Yarmouth and Eyemouth. As a result, at Southwold wave action can be reduced and the entrance made safer for ships of greater depth; at Great Yarmouth a redesigned South Pier will reduce turbulence and the immediate danger of undermining from scouring. Also useful information dealing with the bank of sand that builds up at the entrance of Eye-mouth Harbour has been obtained from experiments on a scale model.
Does the Hydraulics Research Station undertake to advise on all harbour improvement works?
Yes, it does, up to the limit of its capacity. It undertakes research when the harbour authorities invite it to do so, provided that they are prepared to pay the cost.
In view of the discoveries about the sandbank at Eye-mouth, has the Minister any information about what will be done about it now that we know?
It is for the harbour authorities themselves to put into operation the results of the investigations carried out by this research department.
Coil Spring Industry
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps have been taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to ensure that the research facilities available to the coil spring industry are adequate in relation to the facilities afforded for research on other forms of springing.
The Coil Spring Federation Research Organisation, which is supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has recently completed plans for the construction of a new research laboratory in Sheffield to provide better facilities for research on the characteristics of springs and the materials used. It is hoped that ultimately all forms of springing will be investigated.
Is membership of this research organisation open to users as well as to manufacturers of springs? If the industry supports the organisation, can my hon. Friend indicate whether the Government will give the organisation further help?
I should like to give my hon. Friend a good answer on his birthday. The position is that, provided the industry raises £7,000 a year, the Government grant will be £4,000. Above those figures the Government will give £100 for every £100 subscribed by the industry, up to £4,000.
That is a very good answer.
SCOTLAND
Employment
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Scotland's population at 30th June, 1957, had increased by 37,000, that 35,000 Scots people migrated to other countries, and that this is partly due to unemployment in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to induce Scottish people to remain in employment in Scotland.
I am aware of the figures quoted by the hon. and learned Member. Emigration is, of course, prompted by a wide variety of motives. The Government's economic policy continues to be directed to the maintenance of a high level of production and employment and new measures to assist in the provision of employment in localities where a high rate of unemployment exists and is likely to persist are contained in the Distribution of Industry Bill now before the House.
Is not the best way of dealing with this problem to put light industries into the North-East and the Highlands of Scotland because they are peculiarly suitable, having regard to the fact that high freight charges handicap heavy industry? What steps has the Minister taken to move light industries into the area?
As the hon. and learned Member knows, every effort is being made to encourage this kind of development by the provisions which I have described in my Answer. Our aim is to help in this very important matter.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the loss of population suffered by Scotland by migration last year was by far the greatest since 1929 and that but for that loss of population the unemployment figures for Scotland would be very high indeed?
I do realise that very serious fact. It is interesting that a study of the loss of population by emigration in relation to local pockets of unemployment does not give any clear conclusions. It is evident that the reasons for emigration are complex.
Teachers (Special Recruitment Scheme)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the shortage of teachers, he will continue the increased publicity in respect of the Special Recruitment Scheme which is proving beneficial.
I have arranged that the increased publicity, which has recently produced over 2,000 inquiries, will be continued.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his reply will give great satisfaction in Scotland? Will he go further in seeking avenues in which the scheme can be publicised in view of the great problem that exists?
I am prepared to consider any new suggestion of how to get even wider publicity.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given consideration to the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Education that awards to graduates undergoing training should be increased and awards under the Special Recruitment Scheme should be reviewed; and what is his decision.
This recommendation is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
Since these are the only two remaining recommendations of the Advisory Council, and since the scheme is making such a contribution, will the right hon. Gentleman make a decision quickly, in view of the programme confronting Scottish education in the next two or three years?
I fully realise the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.
Driving Offences (Drink and Drugs)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases of driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs, reported to the police in Scotland in 1957.
2,384.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure is double that of only five years ago? Since this is creating great problems for the administration in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider increasing the penalties even to the extent of depriving people, such potential murderers, of their licences?
The hon. Gentleman knows that the recent provisions provided fairly substantial penalties. I am watching the effect of the Act very closely, but so far I have no reason to suppose that the powers of the courts are inadequate.
Is not prevention better than cure or even punishment? Where there is a great number of motor cars outside a roadhouse, would not it be advisable sometimes for a policeman to see that the person who comes out drunk never gets into his car, which is a lethal weapon when he is in it?
That is an interesting suggestion, which I will consider. It raises some other interesting points, too.
Independent Schools
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount in grant was paid to Fettes, Loretto, Glenalmond, the Ladies' College of St. Andrew's and other schools of similar type in Scotland for 1956 and 1957, respectively; and what fees were charged for the same years in the primary and secondary departments to pupils by those private schools which are grant-aided.
No grant is paid to these or other independent schools. Information as to the fees charged is not available in my Department.
Can the Secretary of State give me some idea of what supervision and control the Department has over these schools?
That is another question, which the hon. Gentleman should put upon the Order Paper.
Dundee
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to assist the City of Dundee following his recent visit there.
I was very glad to have the opportunity of visiting Dundee and of discussing its industrial problems with local interests on 23rd May. I am considering the representations and suggestions made to me during my visit in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers, as appropriate.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment figures in the jute industry, which have just reached me this morning, show that the situation there is steadily worsening and that the figure is now more than 15 per cent.? Is the Secretary of State also aware that there will be intense disappointment in Dundee if the right hon. Gentleman's on-the-spot investigation does not produce really decisive action from the Government to remove uncertainty from the jute industry and bring more jobs to Dundee workers much more quickly?
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will realise that the programme of diversification is not too unsatisfactory. Six factories approved since last autumn is fairly good going, although I agree that a great deal more has to be done. We are watching every possible chance to help the situation.
Herring (Sale to East Germany)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken by the Herring Industry Board to facilitate and increase the sale of herring from Scotland to East Germany this year and in the coming years;
(2) to what extent, and in what way, the Herring Industry Board has been advising and assisting persons anxious to sell herring to East Germany.
For a number of years, the Herring Industry Board has arranged to sell cured and quick-frozen herring to East Germany in exchange for fertilisers and other goods, and it also notifies the appropriate trade associations of any opportunities which may arise for private sales. Some contracts for the current year have already been concluded and negotiations are proceeding for further contracts.
Cumbernauld (Playing Field Accommodation)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the new town of Cumbernauld is planned to have mean net residential densities ranging from 70 to 120 persons per acre with an overall density of 32 as compared with 18 in other new towns; and if he is satisfied that under this plan sufficient easily accessible playing field accommodation will be available for children.
While the detailed provision of playing field accommodation has not yet been fully worked out, I am satisfied that the general standards which the Corporation has in mind will provide adequate playing field accommodation for children.
In view of the exceptional densities which are to prevail in certain areas in this new scheme, is not it absolutely essential that there should not only be ample playing space but playing space that is easily accessible? Will the Secretary of State look into the statement that has been made that the proposed space for playing spaces is now waterlogged and not usable at all?
I certainly will look at that point, which is a different one from that which was asked in the Question on the Paper. I would remind the hon. Member that the Development Corporation is working to two acres per thousand of the population, which apparently is the normal standard for new developments.
Rivers Forth and Devon (Pollution)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the deteriorating condition of the River Forth, with the result that salmon and other fish float dead from pollution; and what steps are being taken to deal urgently with purification.
As I told the right hon. Member on 2nd July last, there have been occasional complaints of fish dying from pollution in the tidal parts of the Forth over which the River Purification Board has at present no control. A draft Order extending the Board's jurisdiction to the tidal waters of the estuary was published in May this year, but has been the subject of objections which are now being considered.
Would the Secretary of State investigate the possibility of scientific methods of counteracting the pollution, even if he cannot get pollution stopped immediately? Would he also see whether preventive measures could be taken against some of the worst forms of pollution until such time as the Board can get its major operations into order?
I understand that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has been examining the possibility of curing pollution by re-aerating or oxygenating rivers, but all the evidence so far shows that that is an almost impossibly expensive method of doing it. The cure must lie in prevention rather than in action after the event.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the beginning of pollution in the Devon near Dollar; and what steps he will take to prevent any development of this destruction of the amenities of the Devon.
I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to pollution of the river resulting from the driving of two new shafts at the Dollar mine. I understand this pollution is only temporary and that the National Coal Board is co-operating with the Forth River Purification Board in minimising it while it lasts. I have not heard of any damage to fish.
Will the Secretary of State keep in mind that if he can get the hydraulic analogy for nipping it in the bud, he will stop this pollution before it starts, so to speak, in this part of the Devon, which is one of the most beautiful rivers in Scotland?
This is a question of a mixture of water and sandstone brick which has been getting into the river. It is hoped to get over the trouble very quickly indeed.
New Town Development Corporations (Rents)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his directive to new town development corporations to increase their rents.
There was no formal directive, but my views on the low level of the existing rents and on the course of action I thought the Corporations should follow were made clear to them in discussion.
Is it not the case that this scheme was laid before the Development Corporations, that they asked whether in the Press statement they could use the words that it was a directive and that the Minister of State said that they could use those words? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Development Corporations had any power to alter or modify the scheme laid before them?
The position is that a scheme was shown to them. My words are correct; there was no formal directive in the technical sense of the word. I have to be frank about that. There was no formal directive. I think my first Answer made clear that my views were made very plain to the Development Corporations. I should like to examine the hon. Member's later question very carefully before I give a reply to it.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman done his utmost to encourage the Development Corporations, if he has not directed them, to determine new rent levels which are precisely those which he asked local authorities to work towards over a period of years? Is not the increase much too sudden in this case?
I cannot accept that increases of the order of 7s. 6d. a week at East Kilbride and 6s. in Glenrothes are too severe as increases in standard rents, especially when account is taken of the rent rebate scheme, which is a very fair scheme indeed.
Roads (Grants)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, in view of the improvement in the nation's financial situation, no grants are being made available to local authorities in the current financial year for unclassified roads in Caithness and Sutherland in spite of their importance to agriculture and forestry.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why grants have been refused to the County Council of Ross and Cromarty under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, for the year 1958–59.
Grants are being paid for a number of projects at present under construction in Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland, but I regret that the need to restrict grants still continues and that it has not so far been possible to offer grant for any new projects to start this year.
Is not it a bad thing to withhold grants for essential road repairs while unemployment is running at a rate of 7.2 per cent. and many thousands of pounds are being paid out to keep men idle? Would not it be better to put them to work on the roads?
I am only too anxious to get on with urgent road work where-ever it is humanly possible and consistent with economic conditions, but I should point out that the amount of employment given by extensive road works is relatively very small, although I agree that it is an element in reducing unemployment.
If the amount of employment is necessarily small, that means that not much labour is used in the making of roads. That seems all the less reason for closing them. Would the Minister say whether even after a war, in our hardest times, there was ever any stoppage of the development of these roads in the Highlands?
There is no stoppage now. Work is going on. At the moment work is going on in Sutherland where grants of £20,000 have been approved, in Caithness £8,400, and in Ross and Cromarty £25,000.
Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the things which makes minor roads so expensive is the stopping and starting of projects? Cannot he represent to the Treasury that the annual grant for this purpose sometimes leads to considerable extra expenditure? Since there is an indication in the private sector that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is relaxing the squeeze a little, can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the relaxation may reach the public sector?
This work is continuous and that is why it must be phased gradually to avoid the kind of disruption to which the hon. Member refers. The second part of his question is one which is constantly in my mind.
Tenants, Renfrewshire (Notices to Quit)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Renfrewshire tenants regarding evictions under the Rent Act; and from which areas within Renfrewshire.
I have received representations about notices to quit under the Rent Act from seven tenants in my constituency and from one in Paisley.
Are any of these tenants in the Gourock area?
I do not know whether I should have included Questions in the House from the hon. Lady as one of my constituents in Gourock. I regret that I omitted to do so. Of those to which I referred, five were in Gourock.
Is not the right hon. Member aware that he is not likely to have any representations from me because I own my own house? Thirty-five of his constituents in Ashton Gardens are threatened with eviction. Can he tell us what he intends to do about it? Will he now admit that there are hardships under the Rent Act?
It is still too early to tell whether any notice to quit will result in eviction. I have never disguised the fact that there might be some individual cases of hardship, but I do not believe that it is widespread, and I think that the hon. Lady must agree with that.
Ingleby Committee
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the Ingleby Committee's terms of reference and work concerning juvenile courts, remand homes, approved schools, and prevention of cruelty to, and exposure to moral danger of, juveniles; and why such a committee has not been set up for Scotland.
I am aware of the Committee's terms of reference. The Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care has already explored part of this field; and I intend to seek the Council's advice on any recommendations made by the Ingleby Committee which fall within its province and are relevant to Scotland.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the overcrowded remand homes, the overcrowded approved schools and the overcrowded Borstals of Scotland and take some action along the lines recommended by the Ingleby Committee?
I have listened to the hon. Lady's supplementary question carefully and I will consider it very carefully.
Legal Aid and Advice
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to give effect to the legal aid and legal advice provisions under Sections 5 and 7 of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.
I hope to bring Section 7 of the Act into force towards the end of this financial year and to follow that by bringing Section 5 into force in the next financial year.
Does the Secretary of State realise that to bring those Sections of the Act into force would not only tend to reduce the cost of the scheme but would greatly assist persons contemplating legal proceedings? Is he aware that his announcement will be received with satisfaction?
Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road improvement schemes in Scotland under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, he has so far approved; how many have been completed; and the mileage involved.
Sixteen schemes involving 43 miles of road have been approved. I have not yet been notified of the completion of any of these schemes.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of them have been started?
Most certainly. Some of them may have been completed, but I might not yet have had notification of completion.
Sea Wall, Eastfield
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has received from Edinburgh Corporation concerning tide and storm damage at East-field; and what action he proposes to take.
Edinburgh Corporation recently informed me that it had the condition of the sea wall at Eastfield under active consideration, with a view to the action which it might take under the Coast Protection Act. I am awaiting a further report from the Corporation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh Corporation has had this matter under active consideration for several years? Is not it time that he gave the Corporation a bit of a jog and got something done?
I am certain that the Corporation will take note of the views expressed by the hon. Member.
Forth Road Bridge
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce that a start has been made in building the Forth Road Bridge.
The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board has, with my approval, recently placed a contract for site-clearing work at South Queensferry which is an essential preliminary to the construction of the bridge; and I understand that a start was made on this work yesterday. The Board is pressing on with the negotiations for the two main contracts, and I hope it will be possible to begin work on the bridge itself in two or three months. I have no doubt that the contractors will be anxious to complete the work in the shortest possible time.
Water Mains, Coldstream
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a complaint by Coldstream Town Council about the frequent incidence of water-main fractures owing to the heavy traffic which passes through the town; whether he is aware that this has necessitated repeated expenditure on digging up and renewing pipes; and what action he proposes.
I have received an inquiry from the Border Burghs' Convention about the protection available in law to Coldstream Town Council against damage caused by very heavy traffic passing through the Burgh. As the main road through Coldstream is used for the movement of heavy indivisible loads, I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who administers the regulations governing such movements.
While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether we can take it that some helpful action is likely to result?
The whole question is rather complicated and I think it may be helpful if I write to my hon. and gallant Friend about it.
Agriculture
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further legislation he intends introducing to deal with agriculture in Scotland.
I am not at present in a position to make any announcement about future legislation.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that if any future legislation dealing with agriculture in Scotland comes to his attention it will be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee? The Committee on the Agriculture Bill, which affects Scotland, contained only 6 Scottish Members out of 45. A very large number of Scottish Members have wished to put points for their agricultural constituents but have been unable to do so. The whole thing is grossly unfair to the farming community of Scotland.
I do not accept that for one minute. Replying to the main question, I am not prepared to hypothecate, if that is the right word, about the future.
Housing, Leith
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been closed in Leith since 1945 and 1954, respectively; and how many houses have been built.
The number of houses closed is 289 since 1945 and 177 since 1954. The numbers built since these dates are 187 and 171 respectively.
In view of these figures, which prove the continued decline in population in this part of Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is now taking to expedite the building of new houses and slum clearance?
The hon. Member may well be referring to the Leith Port site. Plans and specifications have been prepared there and it is hoped to invite tenders shortly.
Atomic Power Station, Hunterston
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the atomic station at Hunterston, Ayrshire, is to be used for production of material for military purposes.
Her Majesty's Government are concerned solely with the possibility of securing additional sources of military plutonium should the need for them arise. I cannot at present forecast what use, if any, would be made of Hunterston in these circumstances.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Times published an article saying that plutonium for military purposes is to be manufactured at Hunterston and this has caused great alarm in the district as raw material for atom bombs will be manufactured in a big industrial area, which is near to the constituency of the Secretary of State?
The reply I have given is based on the facts as they are at present.
RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT, WALES
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong representations from Wales concerning the periodic tests for radioactive fall-out, he will give instructions that reports are to be written in a non-technical form easily understandable to the public; and whether, to reassure the population in the upland areas of Wales, he will publish in simple non-technical terms the incidence of fall-out and the level of strontium 90 in these areas, and give in non-scientific terms information which will help lay persons in assessing the danger from strontium 90 fall-out.
We are considering whether we can improve the presentation of the results of measurements of fall-out. I would point out, however, that the assessment of the significance of these results is a complicated and technical matter. The forthcoming Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation will, I understand, contain an up-to-date assessment of the health hazards due to radiation.
Will the Prime Minister look at this matter again, because in Wales people are getting alarmed and, from the Western Mail of today, we understand that water in Wales is to be tested for strontium? All the people would like to know in simple language what it really means to them and whether they can carry on earning their livelihood at sheep farming, particularly in the Welsh hills.
In simple language, I am advised that the levels do not constitute any danger to the human population, but I am sure the hon. Member would understand that there is always rather a difficulty in trying to express these highly technical results in too simple a form because one might then be accused of not keeping precisely the balance. In simple language, I have tried to answer this supplementary question, but for the more technical language I would rather await the reports of the experts.
Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there are continuous references made to this matter in the Press and that widespread concern is created? While appreciating the difficulties, may I ask him if, when he has had this Report, he will consider whether people can be reassured—that is what they want—that the dangers so often spoken about are not very real?
I have tried my best today to give that assurance, and I say there is no evidence to suggest that these levels constitute a danger to the human population. While keeping a balance and not being accused of misrepresenting the facts but trying to state them in rather more understandable forms, I should say that the levels will not constitute a danger to the human population.
Will the Prime Minister make the United Nations Report of which he spoke available as a White Paper for the House and the country to see and, if necessary, can it be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum?
I will certainly consider the form of this publication and whether it should be re-published in the form of a White Paper. I will also consider the question of an explanatory memorandum, but I have to be very careful in doing so not to be accused of in any way trying to re-write the Report or making my own gloss upon it. I should have thought it would be better to leave the Report as it is, but I will consider the suggestion.
I am obliged to the Prime Minister, but will he bear in mind the great difficulty in obtaining United Nations documents and the importance of having the full text of these Reports?
Yes, I will see to that.
Will the Prime Minister tell us the date of the latest report of the Medical Research Council on this matter?
There is to be a further report covering the 1957 figures to be issued in the next few days.
ATOMIC ENERGY (COMMONWEALTH CO-OPERATION)
asked the Prime Minister if he will initiate discussions with Commonwealth Governments on the need to create a Commonwealth atomic energy organisation.
Co-operation with Commonwealth countries in atomic energy matters is already so close and continuous that I do not think there would be any advantage in creating any formal organisation. I am not aware of a desire for any such organisation on the part of other members of the Commonwealth. We have, however, invited all Commonwealth Governments to send delegates to an informal meeting of Commonwealth nuclear scientists in the United Kingdom this September as foreshadowed in Command Paper 237 last year.
While I welcome an informal meeting of scientists on this matter in September, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that if European countries can create a formal organisation like Euratom, with which we may be associated, there is surely a need for a formal arrangement for a Commonwealth organisation, and that many people feel that such an organisation would have tremendous influence in the world, not only for developing atomic energy but in the wider sphere of Commonwealth organisation?
Yes, Sir; but I should not like to deal with what we might discuss at Montreal. Up to now it has been the tradition of the Commonwealth to deal informally and not to set up these formal bodies. That may change and we may end by setting up some of these bodies, but I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has said.
Taking first things first, is not there an urgent need to initiate discussions with Euratom immediately in view of the United States' Euratom agreement issued this morning? Secondly, why have we been lagging so lamentably behind the United States with all our experience in nuclear reactor production for electricity, so that the Americans have been able to step in and capture this European market with a £120 million programme?
The hon. Member has succeeded in a supplementary question in raising an entirely different question and altogether misrepresenting it.
Does not the agreement between the United States and Euratom point to the value of having a specific international organisation to deal with this problem? Might not we use that experience with the Commonwealth to avoid being pushed out there by the United States?
No, Sir. Glad as I am to find the hon. Member rallying to the Commonwealth, that is not really a question which arises from the original Question.
EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA
asked the Prime Minister whether, in his proposed meeting with General de Gaulle, he will endeavour to secure a co-operative attitude to the negotiations for a European Free Trade Area.
We shall have many important matters to discuss, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the French Government will have been told of the great importance Her Majesty's Government attach to the speedy conclusion of an agreement on a Free Trade Area.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the fairly reasonable certainty of the "Little Six" organisation starting next year, a great many arrangements are being made among the different firms in those areas and, unless this is decided fairly soon, it may be that there will be consolidation between the Six which will preclude the proper organisation which might come if the European Free Trade Area could be started earlier?
It is, of course, a great regret to us that there has been delay in negotiations waiting on the preparation of a joint decision by the Six. That in its turn has waited on the political situation in France. That is one of the reasons, among others, why I hope in this visit to Paris at the end of this week to clear up this matter, as well as many other matters.
TRADE AND COMMERCE
New Factory, Swansea
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can yet state the outcome of the negotiations undertaken by his Department about the setting up of a large factory in west South Wales.
Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce that arrangements between the Board of Trade and Pressed Steel Company of Cowley, Oxford, have now been concluded by which the Government will provide them with a large factory at Swansea where the company proposes to manufacture refrigerators.
The company estimates that it will employ in this factory some 2,000 workers within eighteen months of the date of occupation and build up progressively over the ensuing four to five years to a labour force of around 4,000.
Is my hon. Friend aware that this will give enormous satisfaction to all Welsh hon. Members on both sides of the House? Can he give us an assurance that he will apply the same pattern of procedure to the problems of unemployment in North Wales?
Naturally the Board of Trade is glad that these arrangements have been concluded, but I should like to emphasise that this is only part of the normal work on which the Board of Trade is continuously engaged.
While we welcome this announcement, may we be assured that the Board of Trade will continue its efforts in north West Wales and other parts of the Principality?
And in Stoke-on-Trent.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer to this Question appeared on the tape at ten past one today and that the Department was careful to point out that it had no connection with the strip steel mill? May we take it, therefore, that Scotland's prospect of having this mill is very much better than it was?
The hon. Member should not draw any such conclusion from this announcement.
NATIONAL FINANCE
Television Tubes (Purchase Tax)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, a television tube which has to have the gun replaced attracts Purchase Tax.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Customs and Excise has now ruled that repair costs of television tubes must now bear Purchase Tax with the result that an £8 job will now cost £12 16s.; and if he will rescind this new administrative imposition.
Insertion of a fresh gun in a television tube amounts to the manufacture of a virtually fresh tube, and tax is therefore chargeable under the law. This is not a new imposition, and I see no reason to amend the law.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that an engine, wheels and body can be replaced on a motor car without the whole vehicle attracting taxation for the second time? Why cannot this principle be applied to television tubes?
Without more study, I am not sure that I would agree that there is a very great deal that a television tube and a motor car have in common.
Would not the Chancellor agree that the imposition of this tax will tend to encourage people to buy a new tube instead of paying for this very expensive repair; that they will be enouraged to spend £18 where, previously, £8 was sufficient? Will he try to appreciate the utter futility of the Government talking to the trade unions about stability while their own policy is so blatantly inflationary?
No. This is really a question of drawing a line—and it is a very difficult thing to do—between where a repair stops and a new component starts. If a person who has sent the tube for repair gets back the same tube and the same gun, repaired, Purchase Tax is not charged on the cost of the tube.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public are being exploited by the repairers, and that, frequently, the sets are not repaired at all, and that this very heavy tax which has to be paid falls very hard on those receiving small pensions? Would he look at the evidence on this matter that I sent to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a few months ago?
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would see that I got that evidence that he submitted. I do not think that I have seen it yet.
Can the Chancellor say whether, before this imposition was made, representations were made to his Department by the manufacturers of new tubes?
I should like to repeat that there has not been a new imposition. There may, in some quarters, have been misapprehensions about the position, and I hope that any misapprehension has now been removed by the recent Press notices on this subject.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
asked the Chancellor of of the Exchequer the cost to public funds of the recent proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1770.
About £2,100.
HOUSING
Prefabricated Houses (Public Open Space)
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consideration he has given to the possibility of allowing local authorities to retain prefabricated houses in good condition on public open space for the temporary rehousing of elderly or disabled persons rendered homeless by the operation of the Rent Act, 1957.
I do not think that this will be necessary.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Wood Green Council estimates that after it has made every effort to help families threatened with eviction under the Rent Act, there will be up to 100 tenants against whom landlords may be seeking orders for possession next October? In those circumstances, is not it quite wrong that the Council should have to give up 56 perfectly good prefabricated bungalows in 1960, although they would provide ideal accommodation for some of these elderly, homeless families?
I am sure that the position in Wood Green will, in fact, be better than the hon. Lady now apprehends. In any case, as I think she knows, I have no power to grant an extension for these 56 bungalows on public open space, without fresh legislation.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Derelict Aerodromes (Clearance)
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will consult with the Air Ministry in the interests of good town and country planning with a view to ensuring effective clearance of derelict aerodromes and, in particular, of concrete bases or wartime huts on the disused sites.
My right hon. Friend is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on this subject, but I am afraid that clearance of the concrete bases is very expensive and there is a limit to the amount of money which can be spent on this sort of work.
Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Lincolnshire hope that he will give the greatest urgency to this matter in his consultations with the Secretary of State for Air, as the countryside is still littered with these derelict buildings, some ten years after the end of the war?
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and we are currently discussing this matter with the Air Ministry.
NYASALAND
African National Congress (Delegation)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what demands he received from the Nyasaland African Congress delegation; and what reply has been given.
The delegation which called on my right hon. Friend on 13th June made a number of requests, which he said he would note, about new constitutional arrangements in Nyasaland, a subject on which the Governor will in due course be submitting proposals to him. I am circulating the agreed record of the meeting in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Will the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend that a feeling of despair in Nyasaland with regard to the imposing of Federation is likely to grow unless the legitimate demands put forward by the Congress in regard to increasing the very minor African representation in Nyasaland is attended to?
The form of the constitution, of course, remains my right hon. Friend's responsibility. I hope for an agreement on the changes which have been recommended to him, but if there is not any agreement then, as my right hon. Friend told the delegation, it will be for the Governor to submit his recommendations to my right hon. Friend.
CYPRUS
Murders
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Greek Cypriots have been killed in Cyprus in the course of communal rioting since the beginning of May; and how many are thought to have been murdered by Turkish-Cypriot terrorists.
The Answer to the first part of the Question is "twelve" and to the second part "none".
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Turkish Cypriots have been killed in Cyprus in the course of communal rioting since the beginning of May; and how many are thought to have been murdered by E.O.K.A.
The Answer to the first part of the Question is "None". As regards the second part, two Turkish Cypriots were shot dead during the recent period of communal tension, though not in the course of rioting. Responsibility for the murders has not been established.
Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by Dr. Kutchuk, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, in which he said that thousands of Turks had been murdered by Greeks in the recent disturbances? Does not he feel that in the present very difficult times it is a particularly violent and dangerous statement to make?
I hope that what I have said in my Answer will put the matter in its right perspective, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me to make any comment at this very serious moment.
Maronite Community
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions regarding the Maronite Community are contained in the new plan far Cyprus.
While the Maronite Community is not specifically provided for in the new plan for Cyprus, the intention would be to bear in mind the interests of this community when the system of government is worked out. The community would benefit from the general advantages to the people of the island as a whole, which would accrue from acceptance and working of the plan, in particular to the extent that the resources of Cyprus are devoted to progress instead of to violence.
Will my hon. Friend remember that, under the Radcliffe Scheme, the Maronite Community was, I think, to have been given at least one Parliamentary seat? Will he always bear in mind that they are neither Greeks nor Turks—if anything, they are of the Lebanon—and have always been extremely loyal to us, and are now quite anxious about their future?
If my right hon. Friend is not able to offer any specific constitutional advantage to these very loyal subjects of the Crown, will he consider righting their long-standing objection to the fact that one of their churches has been taken over and made into a rather unpleasant and unfortunate museum?
I hope that this might be a matter that we could consider at a later stage in the consideration of the plan.
MINISTRY OF POWER
Atomic Power Stations (Plutonium Production)
asked the Paymaster-General why Her Majesty's Government have decided to modify atomic power stations, primarily planned for peaceful purposes, to produce high-grade plutonium for war weapons; to what extent this will interfere with the atomic power programme; and if he will make a statement.
At the request of the Government, the Central Electricity Generating Board has agreed to a small modification in the design of Hinkley Point and of the next two stations in its programme so as to enable plutonium suitable for military purposes to be extracted should the need arise.
The modifications will not in any way impair the efficiency of the stations. As the initial capital cost and any additional operating costs that may be incurred will be borne by the Government, the price of electricity will not be affected.
The Government made this request in order to provide the country, at comparatively small cost, with a most valuable insurance against possible future defence requirements. The cost of providing such insurance by any other means would be extremely heavy.
Is the Paymaster-General aware that, as far as I am concerned, it is a disgusting imposition on what was primarily termed a peaceful programme in nuclear energy? Of course, I am pleased to hear that it does not interfere with the atomic energy programme prepared by the Government—although I accept that with some measure of reservation? Was this really necessary, in view of the fact that we are producing, perhaps at a slow rate, plutonium from our present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—although we are producing plutonium from our present—[ Interruption. ]—
Order. It is still Question Time for another thirty seconds. The hon. Member ought to utilise the time by asking a question.
Particularly having regard to the fact that the Dounreay atomic breeder is coming into production very
soon, was this imposition on our peaceful atomic power programme really necessary?
The hon. Gentleman says that it is an imposition. The only imposition on the country would have arisen if the Government had met our defence requirements for plutonium by means far more expensive than those proposed in this suggestion.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Question put: —
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. Heath. ]
The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 182.
AGRICULTURE BILL
As amended ( in the Standing Committee ), considered.
New Clause.—(APPLICATIONS FOR DIREC TIONS TO SECURE GOOD ESTATE MANAGEMENT.)
(1) The tenant of an agricultural holding may in the prescribed manner and after giving the landlord of the holding notice in writing of the proposed application apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for a certificate that the landlord is not fulfilling his responsibilities in accordance with the rules of good estate management and the Tribunal if satisfied that the landlord is not fulfilling his said responsibilities shall grant such a certificate and shall give such directions to the landlord as the Tribunal is satisfied are required to secure that the landlord fulfils his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management.
(2) If any person to whom a direction is given under this section contravenes or fails to comply with the direction he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds.—[ Mr. Willey. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.40 p.m.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I can speak with some brevity, because I expect that the Clause will be accepted by the Government. All that it does is to provide a measure of equity between the landlord and tenant. It is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill very properly places certain new obligations upon the landlord. Clause 4 which has had the support of hon. Members on both sides, places upon the landlord obligations to comply with certain statutory requirements.
We wish to go rather further. We feel that the definition of good estate management which still remains should be reinforced by some sanction. In the course of our discussions upon the Bill we have considered the imposition of sanctions upon the tenant in this matter, and hon. Members on this side feel not only that the definition should remain but that there should be an obligation upon the landlord to maintain a standard of good estate management, just as there is upon the tenant. I should have thought that that proposition would be equally acceptable to both sides of the House. I concede at once that some sanctions can already be called in aid against the landlord. I realise that the tenant can plead in aid the Maintenance, Repairs and Insurance of Fixed Equipment Regulations, 1948. But the new Clause provides that the tribunal should have a general residuary power to make the necessary directions in respect of good estate management.
My reason for anticipating the acceptance of the Clause is that in Standing Committee the Minister said: Good estate management is defined as management to enable an occupier of the land who is reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain sufficient production in respect of both the kind of production and its quality and quantity. We have to remember that good estate management serves the occupier by giving him the facilities to do his job on the farm. … It is right to require the Tribunal to serve directions in cases where, having regard to the requirements of good estate management, there is a reasonable case for them and also to do it only in those cases where the ordinary remedies available to the tenant do not apply. … Where he has those remedies, for instance, under his tenancy agreement, or under the model Clauses of the Agriculture Regulations, 1948, he ought to use them. Those will cover practically all repairs. He went on to say that the purpose of the Clause was to catch repairs which slip through an agreement or the model clauses to which I have referred."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 749–50.] I should have thought that there was no issue of principle between us. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to justify the imposition of directions to secure good estate management at large, and that is the very purpose that we are endeavouring to secure in the Clause.
3.45 p.m.
I would mention another factor which is not unimportant. We have been discussing the right of the landlord to appear before the tribunal and seek a sanction by way of notice to quit. I think that everyone would concede that in those circumstances it is only fair and equitable to allow the tenant to issue a counter-notice. This is a very salutary provision. Where one party has the right to go to a tribunal it is only fair that the other party should be provided with the means to state a case against, by means of a counter-notice. If it is not done in this case the provision will be unfair to the tenant. In this further respect I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the provision. I should have thought that this simply drafted and explicit new Clause would be non-controversial and, therefore, readily acceptable to the Government.
I concede that difficulties arise whenever one provides sanctions. We do not wish to appear anxious to impose new penalties, but if we provide directions we must provide a sanction, and the only effective one is to provide a penalty by way of fine. I hope that with that explanation, and in the realisation that the Clause is clearly in accord with the objects of the Bill and the provisions affecting landlord and tenant, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is proper to provide a sanction, on the ground of good estate management, and be willing to accept the new Clause.
I beg to second the Motion.
The Bill seeks to give the landlord and tenant system a new lease of life, with the landlord having rather the stronger hand than at present. If we are to continue the landlord and tenant system in agriculture we should establish beyond doubt that the good tenant should be able, through the land tribunals, to seek redress against the bad landlord, who is not maintaining the fixed equipment of the holding in a proper manner. To have sound agriculture we must have good estate management, and that must clearly be seen to be the case. Where the system falls down we ought to provide a specific way in which the tenant who suffers can obtain redress. That is the purpose behind the Clause.
I, too, should not have thought there would be any difference of opinion between hon. Members on the two sides of the House. I should have thought that everybody would agree that our agricultural land is far too precious to be left in the ownership and management of landlords who will not do their full duty by the land and by their tenants. We are asking for specific powers to enable the tenant to seek rectification where the landlord is not carrying out his functions in the way that we would want. We must strive for higher agricultural standards year by year. We fully recognise that British agriculture has made progress and it should not be allowed to go backward because of the failure of the landlord to carry out his obligations. There are many good tenants and we want them to have the right beyond doubt of obtaining redress.
At present, the landlord can get rid of a bad tenant. I do not think that there is anywhere the power for a good tenant to get rid of a bad landlord. All we are asking for is that the sanction of law should be given to the good tenant to enforce his landlord to carry out his duties as a landlord in accordance with what are now accepted as proper standards of estate management.
I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). Listening to him, I almost became convinced that he was right and I was wrong to take the attitude that I have to take. As I have learnt during the last few weeks, his powers of persuasion are very considerable, but those powers are not backed with the logic which he infers he has to back his case.
I dislike being in any way suspicious, but I regard the proposed new Clause as perhaps being a rather ingenious way of restoring the power of supervision and direction. I do not want to go into that general argument, because we have discussed it during the various stages of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to remind me of what I said in Committee on Clause 4, dealing with a similar portion of the subject of the proposed new Clause.
May I remind the House of our views on fixed equipment directions? It can possibly be argued that the value of disciplinary powers was not to be found in the power to supervise and dispossess, but in the power to serve fixed equipment directions, either under a supervision order or in isolation under Section 14 (3). The fixed equipment directions have given the tenant what he wanted. But, in fact, without the power of dispossession, they would be useless.
There is power under the 1947 Act to deal with non-compliance, but the total penalty is a fine of only £100. This procedure is useless, since £100 in relation to the total cost of the work is far too small and I think that probably £200, as suggested in the proposed new Clause, is equally inadequate. The effective power was the power to enter, do the work and recover the cost. Unless that power exists, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman could hope that his new Clause would effectively operate.
The tenant has adequate remedies for neglect of repairs in his right of recovery through the courts under paragraph 13 of what we know as the model Clauses which were embodied in the Schedule of the regulations dealing with maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment. When there is neglect in making improvements the tenant has the right to obtain his requirements through Section 50 of the 1948 Act. When the new powers which are given to the tenant under Clause 4 of the Bill are added to this right, a considerable power is built up which the tenant can use against the landlord who is not doing his duty.
Even if the proposed new Clause could be made effective with the penalties envisaged, there is the danger that the State would be merely relieving the tenant of the need to use the remedies which are available to the tenant under the various provisions which I have just described.
Turning to the special features of the proposed new Clause, the first point is that the tenant is given a statutory right to apply for a certificate of bad estate management upon which the power to serve directions will rest. The old disciplinary powers did not give him any such right. If he complained, the State did not necessarily have to take action. So in this respect, the proposed new Clause is a greater interference with the landlord than anything that is contained in the 1948 Act.
I have already mentioned that the inadequate means of enforcement—that is, a fine of up to £200, which, if the proposed new Clause were passed, would make it rather ineffective—is a further reason why we would not be wise to accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). Nothing short of the old power of dispossession or very heavy inhuman penalties can provide adequate backing for fixed equipment directions. We are not prepared to go as far as that, nor is the hon. Member, judging from the fine that he proposes.
With those points in mind, attractive as the proposition may be on paper and attractive though the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and Norfolk, South-West may have made it appear to the House, I can but advise my hon. Friends to reject the proposed new Clause, despite the moderate and reasonable way in which it has been moved and seconded.
4.0 p.m.
When the Minister started by saying that the Clause was an attempt to restore the supervisory and directive powers of Part II of the Bill it seemed to me that although my hon. Friends may have put the matter attractively, as far as he was concerned, at any rate, they had not put it comprehensively, because he cannot understand in the least what the new Clause is about.
The whole point of the Bill is that the Government are moving out of agriculture as a supervisor and director. Estate management ceases to be the concern of the Government and they no longer propose to enforce it. Good husbandry ceases to be the affair of Government and they are no longer prepared to enforce it. Rents, and, indeed, all the costings which go to the prices which they still guarantee, cease to be the affair of Government, and they contract out. That leaves a vacuum.
If the Government are ceasing to concern themselves with good estate management, it seems desirable to provide that the tenant, who may no longer rely on the Government, can at least take action himself. That is what the Clause provides. It is the very opposite to the provisions of Part II, which were that the Government should take this responsibility. The Clause provides that in the absence of the Government the tenant shall have the right to do it himself.
Various objections have been put forward to this. First, it is said that it is already covered by paragraph 13 of the model Clauses. I would point out, first, that the model Clauses are not compulsory and, secondly, that the Bill has put landlords in a very strong position to be able to dictate substantially the terms of the tenancies which they grant. The demand for farms greatly exceeds the supply. We know that that is the position in farms as it is in housing. The Government are giving the landowner the whip hand. They are leaving him free to settle the terms of the contract, and he can exclude any of the model clauses he chooses. But even the model clauses do not provide machinery one quarter as effective or as immediate as that provided by the new Clause.
The Minister then refers us to Section 50 of the 1948 Act. That, too, deals with something quite different. It deals with improvements which the tenant wants to put up himself and for which he wants the landlord's consent. If the landlord will not consent, the tenant can apply to the Minister for consent and have claims in respect of that improvement, in the event of the tenancy coming to an end, as though the landlord had consented to the improvements which the tenant produced. That is a very long way from this Clause.
As a final argument, the Minister says that the old Part II did not give the powers. I should be repeating myself if I said that it was quite unnecessary to give them when the Government made this their own concern and when estate management was the concern of the local agricultural committee, which was there to enforce it. That has gone, and nothing at all has been put in its place.
The landlord can do all these things. He can go to the rent tribunal and ask for a certificate of bad husbandry. On that, he can bring in the great sanction of taking the man from his home. He is taking the man not only from his business, but from his home, which is a very formidable sanction. This is essentially a partnership of agriculture, in which both the landlord and the tenant have a duty.
In all conscience, that is the justification of the landlord system, because landlordism in agriculture is not a passive thing; it involves duties which, if well organised, play a great part in the effectiveness of agricultural production. Is there any semblance of justice in saying that when the State steps out of this obligation the land tribunal for bad husbandry shall be provided for the landlord, but nothing shall be provided for the tenant when the landlord fails in his obligation?
The Minister says that the sanction which we have provided here is inadequate. I do not think that it is. If the landlord fails to comply with the order, proceedings can be taken and a fine up to £200 can be imposed. If he still does not comply with his obligations, the land tribunal can be approached again and the procedure can be followed until he does.
If the Minister is serious in criticising this and saying that it would be more effective to provide that the tenant may do the work and charge the landlord with the things the omission of which has caused complaint, when he obtains his certificate, that would be an addition which I personally think would be convenient and which I should welcome. It could certainly be introduced in another place if the Minister undertook to do so. Do not let us lose this proposal simply because the Minister feels that the sanction is inadequate.
I would not mind taking the sanction out altogether and making such a provision on obtaining the certificate from the land tribunal. It is very much simpler, more direct and more available a procedure than going to the courts under the lease, even if the lease carries the right provision. The tenant could then go there and, having got his certificate, could do the work.
We should remember that failure to comply with the duties of a good landlord is not necessarily failure to put up a new building when requested. It is failure to do his repairs and to deal with the communal water supply. It is failure to deal with the drainage system affecting drains off the farm. It is failure to deal with ditches which take the water off the farm. It is failure to do many things which makes it impossible for a man to farm his farm decently. Once he has got this certificate that authorises him, either on or off the farm, on the land of the landlord, to do what the landlord has omitted to do. There we have an effective sanction, which will solve this very real difficulty, which we know exists.
At present, there is a blank. The Government have stepped out, and they have left nothing to fill up the vacuum. They have not given the tenant effective power to protect himself when they withdraw the protection which they formerly gave him. I ask the Minister, at this stage, because, clearly he did not understand what this Clause is about, to reconsider this, because whatever else we can say, this is surely a very reasonable demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), said that he would be disappointed if the Minister did not accept the Clause. I confess that I would not be disappointed, because blessed are they who expect nothing, because they will not be disappointed.
We know from the attitude of the Minister that he is there definitely to protect the landlord against the farmer, and when he says that if this Clause were adopted it would mean a greater interference with the landlord, he is quite right. We believe that, in certain circumstances, the State and the community should have the right to a greater interference with the landlord, if it is necessary in the interests of good husbandry and increased food production.
Not only are the landlords and the farmers interested, but the community and the State also come in. When the State gives large sums of money every year in subsidies which find their way into the pockets of the landlords in increased rents, the State is entitled to interfere, if necessary, in the matter of bad estate management.
As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, it not only applies to fixed equipment. Good husbandry means other things as well. I have in mind a landlord in my own constituency who proceeded to enter on a farmer's land without giving adequate notice—not giving more than 24 hours' notice—plough up the land and plant trees upon it. I submit that the tenant should have a right to go to the Land Court and prevent the landlord, in the interests of good agriculture, from doing anything like that. I know that it would cause something of a sensation if the farmer applied to the Land Court and a penalty of £200 were inflicted on Lord Strathclyde, who happens to be the Minister who speaks on agricultural matters in the House of Lords.
These are cases in which the State is definitely interested in giving the farmer an equal opportunity to see that the landlord fulfils his obligations to carry out good husbandry. The Minister has shown that all that he is concerned about, as he says, is to see that there is no greater interference with the landlord. He is for the landlord against the farmer, and for the landlord against the community all the time.
4.15 p.m.
I, too, wish to say a few words in support of this Clause. I think that it is a good one, of which the Minister would be well advised to take note.
The Minister is an unusual Minister, something like a Test match cricketer named Bailey, going in to bat No. 5 or No. 6, giving nothing away, and a complete stonewaller. He has a habit of telling this side of the House how persuasive we are, but he, too, lacks nothing in the art of persuasion. I listened to him very carefully as he said that the farmer already has sufficient means and methods of safeguarding himself. I do not believe that for a moment, because I have had experience of cases in my own constituency. There was also one very glaring case of a young man in Dorset.
I will not bore the House with long quotations, because we have had Questions in the House about Mr. J. F. Barratt, of Knapp Cottage, Vimy Farm, Corscombe, near Dorchester. The Minister knows all about this young man, and it is no good his talking about model clauses, because this young man has been banging his head against a wall for months. He is a well-known Dorset farmer, and the condition of his farm was well known. Yet he cannot get any further forward with the means of safeguarding himself which the Minister has said are now available, and have been available for some time, for young farmers of this sort. This is the one quotation that I wish to make about this farm: The General Purposes Committee which visited the holding consisted of two landlords and the county secretary … Prior to their visit I had the very great pleasure of conducting perhaps one of the largest and best farmers in the South-West over the holding. He spent the whole afternoon with me in spite of heavy rain examining every field. He then came to the same conclusion as the above officials of the N.A.A.S. that this was an obvious case of very bad estate management. He also agreed that the Minister's ruling is completely contrary to the facts. In addition, he pointed out that in his opinion I was banging my head against 'the Tory wall', and in spite of the injustice of the case they would not admit their errors. There are these cases which come up before Members of this House, and we ask Questions about them, but get no further forward. When the Minister tells me that it is possible for a tenant to defend himself, I say that it is not so. I did not believe the Minister when he told me that what could happen in the final resort is that the tenant could take his landlord to court. Of course, so can anyone, but it is an expensive game, and people in this small farming community have not got the financial backing with which to take a wealthy landlord to court and make him admit his faults.
I submit that there is need for a sanction of this kind. Lawyers like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) can talk in legal jargon about equity and all the other means of getting a fair deal, but we are in a more mundane sphere and talk of something that cuts both ways. We should like to see a Statute that cuts both ways, not merely giving a fair deal to the landlord but giving it to the small farmer as well.
I ask the Minister to look at oases like this again, so as to provide more safeguards for such people. People like Mr. Barratt have no safeguards whatever. He will be forced out of his farm and livelihood and may be forced to leave the district. Even at this stage, I ask the Minister to look at the matter again.
I should like the Minister to reconsider his position, because I hope that we shall have a reply to the extremely important point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
The Minister referred to the powers in Section 50 of the 1948 Act. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that he could not have read that Section. The Section, a copy of which I have here, deals with the approval of the Minister to consent in certain cases. If the farmer wishes to have improvements he must seek the consent of the landlord. That is quite a different matter from what we are suggesting in the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
We are seeking to give the tenant opportunities to impress upon his landlord the need for good estate management. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has said that it would be virtually impossible for the normal tenant to take his landlord to the courts. Such a procedure is costly; it is inconvenient. It would be far better to have the tribunal procedure. Even if there were no sanction, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said, even the granting of a certificate would be adequate in certain cases.
The simple fact is that the Government are, in the Bill, showing bias towards the landlord. They are, as my hon. Friends have said over and over again, shelving their responsibility. The whole policy of the Government, the removal of certain powers and responsibility for good estate management and good husbandry, illustrates that the Government are following the ideological doctrine of past Tory Governments, and in this sense they are being doctrinaire. We have argued this over and over again. The refusal of the Minister to look at this new Clause sympathetically shows again that the party opposite is being doctrinaire. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not wish the Government, the State, representing producers and consumers, to have responsibility.
What is the responsibility we wish the State to have? To see that landlords shall manage their estates well and efficiently. We wish the State to be responsible for agriculture, and that we should have good estate management. I hope that the Minister, instead of refusing to consider our new Clause sympathetically, and following a doctrinaire policy, will look at this again, will not be doctrinaire and will try to keep agriculture out of politics in the sense that his ideology may not have this effect. It is reasonable to suggest that provision should be made for a tenant to make representations if he feels that the landlord should provide good estate management. Even if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept full power, the new Clause would still enable the granting of a certificate, which would in certain circumstances, I am sure, have a beneficial effect.
I hope that we shall have a better reply to the case for the new Clause than we have had yet. Section 50 of the 1948 Act has nothing to do with this new Clause. That deals with an entirely different situation.
With all due respect to the Minister, I think that he was misleading the House when he said that the tenant is already sufficiently protected against a bad landlord. He quoted the model clauses and also Section 50 of the 1948 Act which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) have demolished. He also mentioned Clause 4 of the Bill.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look again at Clause 4. We had a discussion on this matter in Committee, but I think it is worth pointing out again that the protection which the Minister thinks is given by Clause 4 does not, in fact, exist. The operative words of subsection (2) are: The Tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out work under the foregoing subsection unless they are satisfied— ( a ) that it is reasonable so to do having regard … to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding … The landlord can go to the tribunal and say that at some time in the future he will make rearrangements on his farms and on that holding in particular. In those circumstances the tribunal will have to decide in the landlord's favour and the tenant will lose the protection which the Minister is trying to assure us he will get under that Clause.
Subsection (2) of that Clause goes on to say that the Tribunal will have regard to any other material considerations. The landlord can bring in anything under the words "any other material consideration", and if he can make a case before the tribunal that the holding should not be improved, the tenant has no protection under the Clause.
I would ask the Minister to give us a further assurance about subsection (8) of Clause 4, which he quoted as giving protection to the tenant. When will it come into operation? We have still to find out what the appointed day is. So far as I can see the tenant is not at present sufficiently protected. The Bill weighs everything in the landlord's favour. For that reason, I cannot for the life of me see why this very modest new Clause should not be accepted. There cannot be equity unless such a new Clause is included in the Bill.
I have listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite. As I expected, they have supported the speeches made previously by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says that demand for farms exceeds supply. I am delighted to hear that he admits that the Government's agricultural policy over the last few years has created such confidence in the farming industry in the Government's policy. I am delighted that the hon. and learned Member shares my view about the prosperity of the farming industry and the confidence which that industry has in the Government.
Can the right hon. Gentleman recollect any time when the demand for farms did not exceed the supply.
Yes. When the hon. and learned Gentleman and I were a little younger, in 1930 and 1931, and possibly a little before and after those years, the greater demand than supply which exists today certainly did not exist. However, I do not want to make a purely party point on this.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was supported by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who, I think, was more honest than the hon. and learned Member, because the hon. Member for Workington said quite clearly, "I think that the normal rights which are available to the tenant through the courts are too expensive. I would much rather that all this should be done for him by the right to go to the tribunal." He was much more straightforward than the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
I am saying that there are these considerable powers which are available to the tenant through the three main sources which I mentioned: first, the model clauses and the ability to secure return for repairs if the landlord fails to carry them out; secondly, Section 50 of the 1948 Act, which enables the tenant to go in and make the repairs or improvements at his own expense and then receive compensation when his tenancy ends: and, finally, the new security which is given to the tenant under Clause 4 of the Bill. These are very considerable rights which the tenant has, and if properly exercised, I believe that they will secure his case.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) raised the case of Mr. John Barratt. It is a little difficult for me to remember the full details. As far as I remember it, a landlord, who was not well off, had spent a considerable amount of money on the holding. He was not receiving a very high rent. The tenant asked for certain improvements to be made. The case went to the county agriculture executive committee, which took the view that it was not a matter in which it was right to intervene, on the basis that, if the tenant wished those improvements to be made, he could have taken advantage of Section 50 of the 1948 Act.
In view of the amount of money already spent by the landlord on the holding and the rent, it was not, in the Committee's opinion, right or just to intervene. I will check that when I have more time, but I think that that is the answer to the particular case which the hon. Member for Rugby had in mind.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the answer to this question is. If the tenant is aggrieved, as, of course, he is very much, what is his next step beyond appeal to the county agriculture executive committee, where he does not think that he has had a fair deal? We want something above that, as is suggested in the new Clause; a higher authority to which he can go.
I hope that I made it clear that, in the opinion of the local people, who are probably better able to judge than the hon. Member for Rugby, who does not live in that part of the country, or I, it was up to the particular tenant to take the advantage of Section 50 of the 1948 Act and do the work himself. If his tenancy lapses, he is given a valuation and he is recouped for the value of the improvement he makes on behalf of the landlord.
As I say, persuasive and reasonable though the arguments have been, I would still ask my hon. Friends to reject the new Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said that the Minister was nothing but a stonewaller. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman does not do it in as grim a manner as some stonewallers I have seen on the cricket field. However, judging by what he said about the prosperity of the industry under the Government, I can only think that when he was last in Ireland he kissed the Blarney Stone. If he is trying to persuade the agricultural industry that it is more prosperous under the present Government than it ever was before, he is the only one who knows anything at all about the industry who would suggest any such thing.
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I was merely thanking the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for the unsolicited tribute he paid to the prosperity of farming in his speech.
The fact that there is still prosperity remaining is due entirely to the 1947 Act and the Government of that day.
The hon. Gentleman should not believe that.
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to look at farmers' incomes over the period since he has been in his present office and the Government have been in power. The fact is that farmers' incomes are down, and farmers are about the only section of the community whose incomes have fallen in that time. Moreover, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so clearly showed, their share of the national income has fallen, too.
I agree with the Minister that there is a demand for farms far exceeding the supply today. I can remember a time in the 'thirties, also, when the demand for farms was not up to the supply. The Tory Government of that day produced such conditions in agriculture that people would not keep their farms going and the landlords just could not get tenants for many of their farms.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has refused the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Government have produced a Bill which, as it stands, is weighted wholly in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, except in so far as it gives the tenant a right to go to the tribunal and take some process against the landlord so that he may carry out requirements placed upon him by Acts of Parliament and regulations made under them.
The Minister recognises, also, that the Bill has this further effect. The repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act removes all sanctions against the bad landlord who continually neglects his job and his estate, apart from some provisions of the 1948 Agricultural Holdings Act which, I am bound to admit—I am sure that the Minister will agree—are complicated and have not the simplicity of action provided for in the new Clause. What we propose would give a simplicity of action to the tenant which would enable him to proceed against a bad landlord in a reasonably easy way, without resort to the courts.
No one can pretend that there are not bad landlords now, landlords who have for generations neglected to provide the farmer with reasonably efficient fixed equipment with which to farm the land. The position has been deteriorating. The landlord and tenant system may break down under the bad landlord. It is our task in this House, and it ought to be the task of the Government, to find a way to deal with the really bad landlord.
Under the 1947 Act, there was power to deal with a bad landlord by supervision
and eventual dispossession if he did not mend his ways. The Minister has said that the tenant had no power to complain, but everyone knows that the county agriculture executive committees, knowing the circumstances of those cases and, perhaps, hearing from the tenant himself, did have the right, even the duty, to intervene and place a bad landlord under supervision, eventually dispossessing him if he did not do the job of a good landlord and provide the tenant with reasonably efficient fixed equipment. These rights were there. They are being removed by the Government in the Bill.
All we are saying is that we ought, at least, to preserve some right for the tenant to complain against a bad landlord and have some sanction against him. It has been said that the amount put in the Clause is not enough. I would say that even the act of the tribunal in granting a certificate would itself be a useful measure, even if the sanction of the fine we suggest is opposed. I certainly think that, if a landlord had had a certificate of bad estate management against him, his right to go to the tribunal and ask for possession of the farm would be lessened as a result.
We regard the Minister's reply as quite unsatisfactory. We regard him as representing the landlords against the tenants. In the interest of the tenant, we shall divide the House against him.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 247.
Clause 1.—(REPEAL OF POWERS OF SUPERVISION, DIRECTION AND DIS POSSESSION UNDER PART II OF AGRICULTURE ACT, 1947, AND PART II OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1948.)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end to insert: (3) This section shall come into operation on the appointed day. I make no apology for moving this Amendment, since it happens to be the only opportunity that we on these benches have of causing at least a postponement in the operation of Clause 1 and of re-emphasising our complete disagreement with the Government on this important issue. A case has not been made out for the operation of Clause 1 or for the drastic change to be made so quickly.
If this Amendment were carried, and the appointed day had to be provided, that would involve the production of an order which would do two things: first, it would enable the right hon. Gentleman to give more thought to the serious consequences that could accrue as a result of the passing of the Clause; and, secondly, give him an opportunity of doing what, apparently, has not been done even to today—discussing this question seriously with the National Farmers' Union.
Whatever virtues or weaknesses other Clauses of the Bill may have, we regard Clause 1 as being mischievous. We believe that it is not in the national interest and that it has caused fear and apprehension among farmers. It cannot do any good and we are convinced it can do definite harm. It therefore should be deferred to an appointed day to give the Minister a chance to recommence discussions and get the real truth of what the great mass of farmers throughout the country feel about the Clause.
As I said on Second Reading, Clause 1 has been opposed by every section of the agricultural industry. They have very good reasons for opposition. For the greater part of this century agriculture was the Cinderella of industries. As far as I can recall—and perhaps I have been here as long as any other hon. Member now in the House—there was never any recognisable policy for agriculture.
For the most part, the industry was grossly under-capitalised. It was hopelessly inefficient and, worse still, it was contributing very little to our national economy. Farmers' cash incomes were miserably small. Wages of workers were little less than a scandal. Yet, although our balance of payments started to deteriorate before the First World War, we made little use of our only raw material, the land. Thanks to a completely new approach after the last war, an approach approved by every section of the agricultural industry, all that has been changed.
Nearly £1,000 million has been invested in this industry, efficiency has increased beyond all praise, output has increased by 60 per cent. and the industry is undoubtedly making a major contribution to our balance of payments problem. Yet, at the first suitable opportunity the Government seek to destroy with unseemly haste an important part of the scheme which has produced those results, all in the sacred words of "setting the people free", doctrinaire ideology gone mad. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: it is sheer legislative stupidity.
The Minister has from time to time repeated that we do not need sanctions to ensure efficiency and that this is 1958, not 1947. He believes—I really think that he does believe—that exhortation, leadership and education are more effective that disciplinary powers. He knows, however, that that is first-class nonsense. He knows that without financial guarantees, combined with disciplinary powers exercised from within the industry, we could never have reached the present level of output or the present state of efficiency. More likely, instead of having had four Chancellors of the Exchequer in six years, we would have had a dozen, one for each spring Budget and one for each autumn Budget, because of the upset to our balance of payments problem.
Yet, while the nation is willing to sustain the industry and expects only in return reasonable standards of efficiency, the Government say, in effect, through Clause 1, which they want to operate speedily, "Away with disciplinary powers and the sooner the better. We must safeguard the position of our Lady Garbett farmers, whatever the cost to the nation. We cannot let our social friends down, even though the heavens fall." I must confess that I believe the Minister when he says, "We think that hon. Members opposite are sincere in their statements, but we are also sincere in ours." What I cannot understand is that in the light of our experience during the last ten or eleven years when compared with what happened during the previous twenty years the Government can believe that exhortation alone will maintain the momentum of all-round efficiency which is so important both to the industry as such and to the Treasury.
One is forced to the conclusion that despite their synthetic—I repeat "synthetic"—protest against any possible limitation in output when they voted against Clause 1 of the 1947 Bill, they are now more concerned to avoid increased output through efficiency or anything else. That is the reason they are trying to hurry the Bill through. It seems incredible to me that the Government should so lightly disregard the feelings and opinions of the National Farmers' Union on this important matter. Reassurances about Part I of the 1957 Act have proved singularly ineffective. Confidence, which is all-important, has not been restored.
This Amendment provides the right hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to re-examine the whole matter. It gives him a chance, which I hope he will accept, for if, as seems likely, the Government thought that the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act would be welcomed with unbounded enthusiasm by the farming community, they certainly underestimated the intelligence of the present-day farmer.
I know that there are, of course, exceptions. Some sit on the benches opposite, but few of them depend on farming for their livelihood. Of course, there are many others who have always opposed Part II or controls of any kind, except the sort of control they themselves would propose, but there is a new generation of farmers. They have not been properly consulted on the questions either of Clause 1 of the Bill or of Part II of the 1947 Act and all their implications.
Many of the new generation of farmers have had experience both with and without controls. They no longer repeat the Tory parrot cry of, Hands off industry" They prefer to judge by results and, on that basis, the majority are in favour of preserving, both Parts I and II of the 1947 Act. I am sure that if they were in the Chamber they would support the Amendment to defer the operation of Clause 1 until the appointed date, because the so-called guarantees of the 1957 Act have failed to impress them. After two years' experience the original enthusiasm for that Act has completely evaporated. They feel that they have been sold a very dangerous pup.
Nor does the reminder of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, repeated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn) in a letter to the Farmer and Stock-Breeder, that the largest under-recoupment for increased costs occurred in 1951, impress the new generation of farmers, for they know that in 1951–52 the net income of farmers increased from £271 million to £326 million. That increase in net income was the largest for any year since the Price Review started. When the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset, North writes another letter I hope that he will tell the whole story.
It is a small point, but the figures that I quoted in my letter were not repeated from anything said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. They were quoted from figures published by the National Farmers' Union.
Yes, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, doing his duty when winding up the Second Reading debate, quoted the same year and the same figures. I am sure that hon. Members will not object to my telling them that we were so wise in our day and generation that we knew what was happening in the farming industry and that, despite that apparent large under-recoupment, the net income of the industry increased by more than £50 million that same year. I am only suggesting that it is wise for all of us to tell all the facts and not only half of them, and thereby mislead the public.
5.0 p.m.
We can tell all the facts, but not on this Amendment.
I quite agree that that is a side issue when we are asking for the postponement of the operation of Clause 1 of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, nevertheless, that both he and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North will have to find something more substantial to justify the passing of Clause 1 or the repeal of Part IT of the 1947 Act, or to boost the virtues of the 1957 Act, if any.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me several times. I ask him to look at these figures in the exact context of the very acute shortage of food which there was elsewhere in the world and in this country in 1951–52. If he does not take that into acount, then he, too, is not disclosing the whole of the facts.
Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also he good enough to go back to some figures in that year, remembering the increased costs of production of about £70 million due to the Korean War, to which he has made no reference? It was only because of that colossal increase, over which no Government, Tory or Labour, could have any control, that the increased costs reached such a high figure. Nevertheless, at the end of the year, the net incomes had increased by over £50 million, which was not unreasonable.
I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is drawing the right hon. Gentleman into a little more trouble.
I will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman afterwards.
Clause 1 is definitely unwanted by the industry. We are only seeking to postpone its operation by the passing of this Amendment. We know that it has created a large element of fear and doubt in the minds of farmers in almost every county. They are afraid, not unnaturally, of the traditional antipathy of the Tory Party towards agriculture, and I think that they are right. That is why I ask that this part of the Bill should be postponed to the appointed day.
I have no desire to repeat all the arguments which I used on Second Reading, but I want to re-emphasise one or two things. An old parliamentary colleague, who sat on the benches opposite and "knew his onions," said that repetition was the law of propaganda. I think that he was right. Therefore, to repeat one or two things is fairly useful. Since 1947, we have definitely seen a minor revolution in agriculture. We know, because of the confidence created, that it has been a combined operation in which scientists, research workers, advisory officers, machinery manufacturers and many others have played a part.
The value of the output has increased from £290 million in 1938 to £1,400 million today. Farmers' net incomes have gone up from £59 million to £320 million or more, and the volume of output has increased by no less than 60 per cent. The contribution which this new situation has made to our balance of payments problem exceeds £400 million a year, and efficiency, I do not think anyone would deny, is greater than ever before.
If, therefore, we want this industry to serve the best interests of the nation, is it not both stupid and dangerous to destroy the theory and practice which has produced those results? I think that it is. That is why I move this Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps for the first time during the course of our debates on this Bill, will give serious consideration to making a worthwhile effort to consult the National Farmers' Union, which has consulted its 200,000 members, and thus ascertain feeling in the countryside. If he will do that, he will please those of us who sit on these benches, do himself justice, and make a contribution both to the industry and the nation.
The purpose of the Amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said, is to make sure that Clause 1, as it now stands, will not automatically come into operation with the passing of the Bill and that the terms and provisions of the Clause will have to be operated, so to speak, by order, which will give the Minister an opportunity for reconsidering and, perhaps, adjusting the provisions of the Clause to the real circumstances of the industry. It will also, perhaps, enable the Minister to take into consideration the views of people engaged in the industry, other than the landlords for whom the Bill, of course, has been designed.
A moment ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that the need for food production now is less urgent than it was some time ago.
No.
That was the implication of the hon. Gentleman's interjection. Whether he meant to say that or not, at least that has been the argument repeated ad nauseam throughout the Committee stage of the Bill—that although, obviously, there was a tremendous need for increased food production during the war and in the immediate post-war years, the need for a further increase in food production in the country is now less urgent. I do not think that is a mistaken summary of the views expressed by the Government.
If Clause I comes into operation as at present drafted, without any chance being given to the Minister to revise his ideas, I am afraid that the chances are that food production in the country will go down. In any case, I do not agree that we on this side of the House believe that the need for maintaining a high level of food production is less urgent than it was. It is quite wrong to think of food production in relation to imports and the demand for food in the country in isolation. It is all part of our overseas trade problem and part of the problem of raising living standards in this country.
Every attempt that we make to improve industrial production and to raise our living standards means that we have to import more and more raw materials. We have to import timber, cotton, wool, iron ore and all the other metals that we use. We have also to import oil. All these improvements in industry and in our standards of living—if we can get an improvement again under this Government, which is very doubtful—will increase our total volume of imports, and if we add to that further increasing imports of foodstuffs our balance of payments problem will get increasingly difficult. If we are going to attempt, as I hope will be the case, to improve industrial production and standards of living, we have to raise the output of food production in this country.
Under Clause 1, as it now stands, by throwing over the disciplinary powers which have stimulated and kept up a high level of food production, we run into serious economic danger. That is the situation which, we believe, the Government must keep under control. The agricultural industry must be kept under control by making sure that it makes its proper contribution to the whole of our economic effort. To put into operation Clause 1 as it now stands without any further consideration on the part of the Government would, in our view, be disastrous. Therefore, we are asking that the Minister shall be given the opportunity on the Amendment which we are proposing to have second thoughts and, possibly, in those second thoughts to adapt the provisions of Clause 1 to the actual circumstances of the industry.
There is another very important point that we must not leave out of consideration. This industry is protected and receives, quite properly, heavy subsidies from the State. We need not go into the question of why there should be subsidies, and in any case I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would call me to order if I tried to do so. But the subsidies are there and are going to be paid for a long period of time. There must be one essential guarantee which the industry must give in return for those subsidies, which is that every acre of land in the country that can be efficiently and effectively farmed will be so farmed. That guarantee cannot be fully implemented unless the industry is under the control of the community to make sure that farming is carried on fully and efficiently.
In the course of the previous discussions on the Bill, the Minister said that other industries are protected which are not subject to control. Of course other industries are protected, and they are subject to Government control. For instance, the iron and steel industry has been under Government control since 1932; the road transport industry and the passenger transport industry are under Government control, and must be. The idea that industries that are protected should be under control is not new. What is new is the idea that protection should carry no control, which is the idea that the Minister has put forward in the Bill.
In these circumstances, we on this side of the House say that it is in the interests of the community that, in return for the subsidies that the community pays to that industry, Clause 1 should be looked at again, and that an opportunity should be given to the Minister to adapt the Clause to the circumstances of the industry. I am absolutely certain that the people of this country are not going to agree to pay subsidies to an industry which is turning its farms into playgrounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we know very well how farms, particularly in the Home Counties, are being bought by people for the purpose of turning them into amenity areas instead of carrying out the full job of farming the land efficiently and getting the fullest value out of it. I am sure that when the people of this country realise what is happening they will not agree to pay out public money to an industry which is not going to be controlled in the interests of the community.
Therefore, we ask the Minister to accept the Amendment which will help him and which will give him an opportunity to look again at Clause 1 and adapt it to the circumstances.
What amount of subsidy, if any, is paid on a playing field? That has just occurred to me.
We are not talking about playing fields but about farms that are used for horse riding and that kind of thing. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned from the Highland Games to give us the benefit of his agricultural experience.
A subsidy is paid on a playing field. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, certainly it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "A farming subsidy?"] If a farmer chooses to use the land as a playing field and cuts the grass for that purpose, it will put up the expense of production on his farm and a subsidy will be based on the expense. That is happening all the time.
Perhaps on another occasion we could go into the whole question of subsidies.
In any case, subsidies have to be very carefully looked at especially if all control, as now proposed, is going to be taken off agriculture and if all these disciplinary measures which the farmers want in the interest of the community are to disappear. In any case, we want to give the Minister an opportunity, as I have said, to adapt the Clause to the circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Once again, I am afraid that I cannot accept the helpful advice which has been offered to me by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was honest when he began his speech. He said that this was the only opportunity he had of really restating his whole case against the removal of the disciplinary powers. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your customary kindness, allowed the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, to go even further than he expected that he would be able to go. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said that Mr. Deputy-Speaker's customary kindness had allowed the right hon. Gentleman to go a bit further than perhaps he thought he would be able to go.
The right hon. Gentleman restated the case which he made on Second Reading and restated the case he made throughout the Committee stage, a case about which I know he feels extremely strongly. I know that the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made was made in order once again to put on record his general dislike of the fact that the present Government are choosing to do away with the powers of supervision and dispossession. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we have taken the wrong action whereas we are equally convinced that what we are doing is absolutely right. We have repeatedly had this argument.
We admit that during the war and in the years of shortage immediately after the war there was a case for compulsion and dictation, but now that we have moved into the age of plenty we feel that the rights of liberty, and so on, should be given far greater reign than they were in those earlier days.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, and I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving way. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate, because he did not happen to be in the House during the period, were the situation and conditions which obtained in the 'twenties and 'thirties. I was in the House during both periods. I know what the situation was then, and that is why I compared the twenty pre-war years and the last ten or eleven years and why I think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are wrong.
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are wrong, but we think that we are right, and we are never going to get any further just by repeating to one another exactly the same things which have been said on innumerable occasions before.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to go on thinking that he is right, but surely he recognises that every other responsible body in the industry thinks that he is wrong. For that reason, he ought to have the opportunity to think again.
I do not propose to be drawn by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, tempting as it is.
I have only one complaint to make about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He had every right to express his views and his dislike about the removal of the powers of supervision and dispossession, but what I do not think he had the right to do was to do so for purely party political purposes. During his speech, the right hon. Gentleman tried to give the impression that Government policy wishes to avoid—he used the words—"increased output or efficiency or anything else." He knows perfectly well that that is not the policy of the Government, and yet he tries to give the impression by everything he says that we are trying to pull out of agriculture. We are not, and we have made our views on that perfectly clear.
The majority of farmers have confidence in the future of farming. Therefore, I think it wrong, on this very limited Amendment, for the right hon. Gentleman to have made his very comprehensive speech which I know was for outside rather than for internal consumption. I will not repeat all the arguments, but I will say something on the matter on Third Reading which will probably be a more suitable occasion than now. I repeat, however, that I do not believe that now that prosperity has returned the State has the right to throw people out of their homes and land. I do not believe that in a normal state, such as that in which we are living today, compulsion is better than the principles of persuasion and help. Rather than harry and bully the bottom 1 per cent. of farmers, we want to release the energies of the top 99 per cent.
Because of that, I feel that I have been right to express what I strongly feel, in rather fewer words than the right hon. Gentleman used. I have no intention of accepting his advice, but in my Third Reading speech I will deploy more fully my arguments to show why I believe that the action which we have taken in Clause 1 is right and proper.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether he feels the same sentiment towards agricultural workers who are evicted from tied cottages as he does towards those farmers to whom he has just referred?
The right hon. Gentleman is excelling himself and is sprawling red herrings about the House. I feel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that having been so very kind, you might now cease to be as kind. This is not the proper occasion on which to have a detailed discussion of the principles governing our decision to insert Clause 1. I propose to deal with that matter at greater length on Third Reading.
I had not proposed to speak on this Amendment and would not have done so until the attitude of hon. Members opposite made it plain that they were in need of further instruction. It is very odd how little they seem to know about the Bill. In ringing terms, which were a preliminary canter to his Third Reading speech, the Minister said how infamous it was to threaten the security of 1 per cent. of farmers. My right hon. Friend asked him whether those principles applied to tied cottages. I ask him whether they apply to that much larger percentage of farmers whose security he is weakening.
He proceeded to say, "Now that prosperity has returned to agriculture." Has it returned"? During the period of his tenure of office, agriculture has lost nearly one-third of its share of the national income. When the Labour Party assumed office, agriculture's share of the national income was about 2.8 per cent., and it remained at that figure, almost without change, throughout the period of the Labour Government. It is now less than 2 per cent., so that agriculture has lost more than one-quarter and nearly one-third of its share of the national income during the last seven years of Tory Government. Would the Minister have said in any market place in England that prosperity had returned to the industry?
Those were observations which arose from the Minister's speech. What stirred me much more was the ironic laughter—as The Times would call it—which came at intervals during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). My hon. Friend was making statements of simple fact. He said that the Government would not continue the payment of prices over whose cost factor they had abandoned all control. That statement was received with laughter and jokes and with cries of "What an absurd statement."
I remind the Government that that is precisely the argument which their predecessors advanced on the occasion of the repeal of the Corn Production Acts. First, they removed the controls and the farmers were very pleased, but then they said that the consequences were that they could not be responsible for prices. That is why farmers and all agricultural opinion are against the Bill—let us have no doubt about that. That is why farmers are so bitterly opposed to the Bill. [ Laughter. ]
Hon. Members laugh, but I will tell them why that is. The public guarantees prices, and those prices are based on costings at the national review. So long as the Government have some control over those costings, it is reasonable for them to guarantee the prices which emerge from those costings. With the Bill they are now abandoning all control over the costings. The most important item, and one which will be very expensive, is rent. With a time lag, the Bill is none the less a fairly quick rolling over to take the lid off agricultural rents. Agricultural rents—and this is the purpose of the Bill—will steeply rise and every one of those rents will go into the costings which we pay.
How long will any Government of any party continue to provide the money for the payment of ever-rising rents over which they can exercise no control?
The question of the appointed day will not have any control over them.
The argument which I was advancing was that the operation of this Clause, dealing with the Government's power to control one element of the costings which we will eventually have to pay, should be postponed. I was indicating in passing that this was only one of the elements of the costings over which the Government were abandoning control. They are abandoning control over rent itself and over the manner in which the farm is farmed, which means that a farm can be turned from an economic farm into an amenity farm, however inefficient, but with a high rent paid for the amenity value with that rent affecting prices at the February Price Review.
5.30 p.m.
That is the effect of the Clause, because when we remove control over how the farm is farmed and over whether or not it is farmed for efficient production, it means that any farm from now on can be let to anybody, however ignorant a farmer, who thinks a farm would be a nice place to live in. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), it could be somewhere where the farmer could provide a playing field for somebody. It could be a polo ground or perhaps a jumping ground or a place to keep horses. The farm itself would be a mere sideline in the economics of which the occupier would be uninterested.
Yet, very largely, his losses would be paid by the Exchequer and he would have other income against which he could set them off. Yet the costs would be costs which would never have been intended to be economic and the rent would be one which was never intended to be a farm rent. The Government have abandoned or are abandoning their control, but nevertheless those costs go into the Price Review. They would be part of the costings of farming and would be paid by the Exchequer.
The hon. and learned Member says that we have lost control over the costings, but in each of the last two or three Price Reviews the increased costs of production on the farm has not been absorbed and paid for by the Government. Farmers have had to pay them themselves.
That is the fault of the hon. Member's Government. I agree with his grievance there, but what about his grievance now when far higher cuts are made, as they will be made? The hon. Member cannot complain when the Government have abandoned their control of the costings. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member. In a phrase, he has put the case for the farmers' grievance throughout the country. He has indicated in a phrase why the Bill, and in particular this Clause, mean the end of the guaranteed price system. The farmers know that, and that is why they are opposing the Bill fundamentally. We on this side of the House know it. It is what will happen and it is what happened before with corn production.
These are facts which are known to the N.F.U. and which the N.F.U. has made very plain throughout the country, but apparently they have not sunk in to hon. Members opposite, who oddly enough consider that they represent farming interests. Indeed, I feel that one of the most remarkable aspects of the Bill has been how it has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the N.F.U. on a Parliamentary issue and the utter inadequacy of farmer representation within the Government party in the House. These are evils which we, by the Amendment, seek to postpone. If hon. Members opposite have not wakened up to that yet, it is all the more reason why this proposal should be postponed to give them time to have another look at it and to enable them to get a little more in touch with their farming constituents.
This is one of the major Amendments that we on this side of the House have put on the Notice Paper, and I want to speak at some length to it. The Minister is so charming and speaks with such an endearing manner, but he does not realise how unhandsome his offer is. He says that he will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on Third Reading, but we suspect that on Third Reading these words will not be part of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to reply.
This is an important Amendment, in the first place, because of the treatment which everyone has received from the hands of the Government, ourselves included. It is typical of the Government's attitude throughout discussions on the Bill. Everyone will concede that there have been representations of the strongest character from the most representative bodies in agriculture, but nothing at all have been done by the Government. I do not want to anticipate further discussions, but we all know that there has been speculation from responsible quarters about this and the following Clause. It was felt that the Government were going to make proposals. That has been widely accepted throughout the industry, but—and I make no apologies for it—we have had a prolonged Committee stage which was completed only last week and here we are now on Report. This is really outrageous.
It is worse than that, because the Government gave some undertakings and we had a handful of Government Amendments on the Notice Paper on Thursday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what consideration he has given to the Committee discussions. A contemptuous list of Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper. No one can deny that, and here we have Opposition Amendments. I recognise at once that the Government have had necessarily short notice of these Amendments, but they have brought that upon themselves. We had a very flippant reply from the right hon. Gentleman to a very moderate and reasonable new Clause which we proposed, and we are having an equally flippant reply to this Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman has endearing charm, but it really will not do to escape from the implication of the Amendment by saying, "I shall make a few remarks in passing on Third Reading tomorrow", when the Amendment will not be part of the Bill under discussion. We are pleading for a proper recognition of the responsible bodies in industry, and I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this matter again. As the House knows, I could make many quotations, but I will make just one by way of illustration. I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the allegations made by the Farmer and Stock-Breeder. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, pays particular regard to that journal because, as we are delighted to know, its editor has been honoured recently.
The following paragraph, headed "Cess-pool of Politics", appeared in that journal: I cannot claim to have read all the reports of the discussion on the Agriculture True they are sent to me a day or two afterwards, but they are not always read. From those I have seen it is obvious to me that the Opposition is smarting; and I must say that I should feel much the same. There must be compromise in dealings with employees; there is, or should be, a measure of give and take between the Government and the Opposition. But after reading the Debate it seems to me that it is the Government and not Labour which is again dragging farming into the cesspool of politics. What a pity it all is. Maybe Mr. John Hare even at this stage can be less partisan thin the author of the Bill—Mr. Heathcoat Amory. Those are not the partisan remarks of any politician. They are the comments of one of the responsible journals, widely read throughout the agricultural industry.
They must have been reading only the speeches of the hon. Gentleman.
I do not know. I am flattered, but I think that those responsible for the Farmer and Stock-Breeder probably read much wider than that.
That is really outrageous. All we are doing here is to make a very modest suggestion. We recognise that we are now on the Report stage, and we say to the Government, "Give yourselves time to think again and to go through the decencies of consulting the representative bodies of the industry". Hon. Members who have not read the proceedings in Committee as diligently as have those who are responsible for the Farmer and Stock-Breeder might not know that the National Farmers' Union has never been consulted about this matter. Is it not time they were consulted, even at this late stage. I remind hon. Members of what the National Farmers' Union have said about this. It is: The Government's decision to repeal the disciplinary provisions contained in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, has been taken against the advice of all responsible sections of the agricultural industry. As a Union we have at no time been invited to consider modifications in Part II, only the total repeal of all disciplinary provisions including those Sections (14 and 15) which are designed to interpose the independent inspection and judgment of Agricultural Executives Committees to protect the tenant against an unsatisfactory landlord, and vice versa."
What is the date of that statement?
It is dated 17th March this year. This has always been the attitude of the National Farmers' Union. It is true, and I will refer to it again, that in Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman referred to some consultations which had taken place. When I pressed him, he said that those consultations were confidential and he could reveal no more. I revealed the fact that those consultations had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. It was clear from the confidential minute upon which both the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary relied that these were discussions about the Arton Wilson Report, because the minutes themselves used the very words of the Report.
I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, and I challenge him now, with having deceived the Committee. He cannot deny it. The matter was referred to on two occasions in c. 51 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, where the minute is set out. The date of the minute was 10th July, 1956, just about two years ago. How ridiculous to call that in aid, when those discussions were about the Arton Wilson Report. I told the Parliamentary Secretary that he should take more care about reading out documents that were pushed in front of him. I would not like to reflect upon either the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary when I said "misleading the Committee" I would say that they unintentionally misled the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that I was deliberately misleading the Committee. I did apologise for quoting from the document, which was in part confidential. The hon. Gentleman very graciously did not press me on it. I was not misleading the Committee in saying that my predecessors were having negotiations about the Arton Wilson Report when they were having negotiations about the principles of Part II of the Act.
I do not wish to pursue this matter further. [ Interruption. ] If Government supporters want me to, I will pursue the matter further. They cannot have it both ways. This is a matter which we can pursue if they wish me to by calling for the document. I recognise that the minute was quoted in error. I recognise that we could go further with this document, but I have no wish to press for my Parliamentary rights. I recognise that the Minister was revealing to the Committee as much as he could, and I recognise his position. I do not wish to press him further, but I also do not wish to have jeers from Government supporters or I will call for the document.
The National Farmers' Union has said from beginning to end that this step has been taken against all the advice of the union and that there has never been any proper consultation about it. That was the first point on which I rested this Amendment. If there has not been consultation and if there ought to have been consultation, it is not too late, notwithstanding the fact that the Government have taken a decision in this matter, as they are entitled to do if they wish. Every hon. Member would concede that there can be consultation with the industry as to when it will be appropriate to end the operation of Part II, if the Government are determined to do so.
I would not rest my case only on the fact that the National Farmers' Union has to be consulted. There are other bodies, representing other sections of agriculture, which have not been consulted. The National Union of Agricultural Workers, the trade union, has not been consulted. It has stigmatised the Bill as "unwanted". If the Government are endeavouring, as I hope they are, to get all the co-operation they can from the trade unions, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to rectify the statement that he made. The Government ought to have consulted the union. Let them at any rate consult it now on the narrow point of when it will be proper and opportune to implement the Bill.
The Landowners' Association has not been consulted. I understand that it is not as opposed to the Clause as it was, but still I claim that it has an equal right to be consulted.
I would emphasise that the Amendment is of considerable importance and that all we are asking the Government to do is to rectify what we consider was improper, not in the sense that it was unconstitutional, but in the light of the relations between the Government and the representational bodies in the industry. So far as I know, this has not happened before, and I hope it will not happen again. Hitherto there has been the closest consultation in the industry between the two sides and the Government. I still say that even now, after we have dealt with the principle of the Clause, the Government should consult those bodies, recognise them properly and decide whether or when it is necessary, in the light of those consultations, to implement Clause 1. Surely that is a very modest proposal.
We think we can anticipate what the right hon. Gentleman will say. However moderate or modest our request, it will be turned down. Who can deny, whether he is with the Government or not, that that is a provocative thing to do? Who could deny that this is unnecessarily provocative.
The right hon. Gentleman twitted us during the Committee stage proceedings because we had not put down Amendments regarding Part II. Well, we were modest. We were content to allow the argument to go on principle. We did not wish to embarrass the Government or to delay consideration of the Bill. But having allowed that to go—we are not now returning to it—and having been voted down on the principle of whether Part II should be repealed or not, surely the Government could have gone a little way towards meeting us and have said—having defeated us on this matter which has upset the industry more than anything else for a long Ome—"While we are not willing to alter the decision we arrived at, nevertheless we are willing to discuss with the National Farmers' Union and the other bodies representing agricultural interest when this Clause should be implemented."
Surely, as all hon. Members would recognise, the Government are seeking very drastic powers. Merely to say within the provisions of a single Clause that Part II of the English Measure, and of the Scottish Measure, shall cease to have effect forthwith is very drastic. Part II has been a way of life for agriculture. It may have been—the Parliamentary Secretary looks surprised, but I will repeat what I said.
This has been a way of life for the agricultural industry. Members of the industry have relied on Part II and have acted in accordance with it. They have relied on action being taken under the provisions of Part II. Their interest and support for Part II has been shown by the reaction of the county committees to the views of the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union. So whether it be right or not, this is a radical and a drastic change for the industry. It is not being phased. It has not been taken in stages. Surely that re-emphasises the modest demand we are making that the Government should, at any rate, delay their action and provide within the terms of that delay for consultation with the representative bodies in the industry.
This is not asking for something which would result in a loss of face for the Government. We should like the Government to go back on what they have done, but for the purpose of this Amendment we are not asking that. We are merely saying two things to the Government—"Rectify the wrong you have caused by not having proper consultations with the industry, and secondly, recognise that this is a very drastic change which you are imposing on the industry and that it has disheartened most people in the industry."
I wish to deal with some of the arguments which may be deployed by the Government in favour of their adamant opposition to anything proposed by hon. Members on this side of the House. It is said that the Government were placed in a dilemma by the Franks Committee Report; that that Report put the Government in a position that they had to do something; that they had no alternative but to repeal Part II. That is not the case at all. The Franks Committee did not call for the repeal of Part II. Its Report was issued on the assumption that Part II would continue. The Franks Committee recommended another way of implementing Part II.
In fact, the Government have no case to raise on the Franks Committee Report. This is why I should re-emphasise what I have said about consultation. If the Government made proposals outside the Franks Committee Report, then there is the more obligation upon them to discuss with those affected the result of the proposals they made with regard to the Amendment or repeal of Part II. They cannot plead in aid that it was the Franks Committee Report which placed them in any difficulty, which prevented them from properly consulting, and I should have thought that they should amend their view in the light of the opinions expressed within the industry.
The other point I wish to emphasise is that sufficient tribute was not paid to the National Farmers' Union. In fact, the Union, surprisingly enough, was very reasonable in the views it expressed about the Franks Committee Report. It said … we are not prepared to oppose the suggestion that there should be an appeal against a supervision order". The union also said: In general the National Farmers' Union warmly welcomes the great majority of the recommendations made in the Report of the Oliver Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries. What greater gesture could the National Farmers' Union have made? We know the views of the union, because they were presented to the Franks Committee. Here, after the Report of the Committee, we have the union being as amenable and reasonable as possible. In the face of that, the Government refuse to consult with the union, and today the right hon. Gentleman is not willing even to take steps to delay the immediate implementation of the repeal of Part II.
This is a matter of major importance in the light of what I have said: in the first place, because this affects the good relations between the industry and the Government. Surely the Government recognise that such good relations are absolutely essential. They are disturbed, and it is not surprising when, without arguing the merits of this case, we have no consultation and we have the National Farmers' Union, in particular, being as amenable and as approachable as possible. But this is a matter of major importance because, as has been said, we are here concerned with the feeling—I will not put the matter any higher—that if public accountability goes then public support goes too.
I do not wish to go wide on that matter, I merely mention it. I do not wish, on the pretext of this Amendment, to argue the broad point of principle about which there is a great deal of controversy. All I say, and emphasise again, is that a large section of the industry shares this feeling, rightly or wrongly. That feeling will be aggravated by the fact that the Government have been so unreasonable in their consideration of this Bill.
I make no apology for speaking at some length on this Amendment. It is a matter of great importance. I can appreciate the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman about the liberty of the subject. I would concede at once that there would be no harm in having a review of the operations of the powers of Part II, but repeal is a different matter and when he talks of the liberty of the subject, I would say that in the society in which we live one of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject is self-discipline.
That is why I make no apology for speaking of a way of life. Over the past few years we have evolved a reasonable compromise way of self-discipline within the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is peremptorily destroying that and, worse still, is showing himself quite unreasonable in the face of very modest and moderate requests made to him. I hope that he will be able to give us an undertaking that he will at any rate look at this matter again and will rectify the mistakes which have been made in the past.
6.0 p.m.
I have been endeavouring to curb my impatience at listening to such an unreal debate. Perhaps I could give my experience in two minutes of what happened recently to myself and my colleagues who joined me in the little town of Tenbury as recently as last Friday night. We had an open meeting with representatives from all three trade unions, including the chairman of the county executive committee and a representative of N.F.U. headquarters in London. We spent three hours, and not one single objection was made or one single notice taken of this Clause. That is the real position, and the opposition today is completely unreal. A few weeks before that, together with another colleague, I met the county executive committee, and in the whole time that we were with them they did not raise the question of this Clause.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will not try to make the House believe that the bulk of the farmers have a feeling of great grievance over the abolition of Part II. They have not. The ordinary rank and file of farmers are perfectly happy about it, and it is unreal to try to make the House think otherwise.
The hon. Member will agree that he and his colleagues may have consulted a few farmers, most of whom, apparently, were silent on this question. Others of us have seen thousands at different meetings, usually farmers' events, where we have seen a totally different picture. The hon. Member's picture may be right for a very small part of Hereford, but my picture is right over a large part of the country.
Do not believe it.
We have had a full debate on this fairly narrow Amendment and perhaps it would be convenient if I tried to reply to one or two of the points made. The Amendment seeks to bring within the Government's powers the right to determine the date on which the Clause should come into effect. I take it that the intention of hon. Members opposite was that we should delay the operation, although they did not make that particularly clear. They have, however, given us the benefit of their advice on a fairly wide variety of points arising from this particularly important Clause.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) who said that this was an unreal debate. It is unreal. I support him absolutely in that. I admit that there was opposition to the Clause in the country, but it has completely died down, except in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I say that with emphasis and in the light of what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has just said in his intervention.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred again to the N.F.U. memorandum of 17th March. That came out the day before the Second Reading of the Bill. During Second Reading my right hon. Friend made a very powerful speech in which he put forward the reasons for which we were seeking to make the alterations. In winding up the debate. I, in my humble way, added a few more points. I am sure that there is significance in the fact that our remarks were made after the issue of the memorandum and that, subsequently, the agitation has completely died down. The Second Reading debate was very helpful. It helped farmers to crystallise their views and to realise how bogus were the fears which the right hon. and hon. Members opposite were trying to stir in their breasts.
I am fortified by that and by the fact that the opposition to the Clause has completely died down. Hon. Members opposite speak about farmers being bitterly opposed to the Clause, but it is quite ridiculous to use that sort of phrase in relation to the Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) used it. I am sorry that he is not now in his place. There is no doubt whatever that the farming community as a whole realise and accept what we are doing as being realistic and as being in the light of present-day experience of the operation of these powers.
I must recall to the House the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) on Second Reading. He made a very powerful speech on this point, stating that he had tried more than anybody else, more than the right hon. Member for Don Valley, to operate these powers and had found that, in practice, they were no longer as applicable as they had been in the past, when the right hon. Member for Don Valley was Minister. On Second Reading I gave the House, as reported in column 1396 of HANSARD, the figures of the numbers of new cases coming under supervision. May I repeat them? They are revealing. In 1951 there were 771, in 1952 there were 998—when my right hon. Friend was trying to increase the effectiveness of the use of these powers—in 1953 there were 543 and in 1954 there were 236. The number died away, although my right hon. Friend was genuinely trying to utilise the rowers to the full.
It is true that under the changed postwar conditions in agriculture, and the greater freedom which existed, it had become more and more difficult to operate these powers and, as my right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear, we have turned more and more to the use of encouragement and of the advisory services to try to encourage rather than to drive. That is the simple issue between us. Hon. Members opposite believe that we should retain compulsion. We believe that that is not necessary in present-day conditions.
Hon. Members opposite have again done their best to stir up these fears in the minds of farmers. I am sorry to disappoint them; I do not think they will be very effective.
Take the Whips off.
I do not think we need fear that. These fears which hon. Members have tried to arouse relate again and again to the guaranteed prices. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is back in the Chamber, because I was dealing with points which he had mentioned. Hon. Members opposite say that only in conditions of State control would people in this country tolerate guaranteed prices. I do not accept that for a moment, nor do the Government. We have put them on the Statute Book in the 1957 Act. The guaranteed prices are there, quite divorced from the disciplinary powers. This is not unreasonable. We are not the only country in the world doing it. Many other countries are supporting their agriculture most substantially and without these disciplinary powers. Is the British farmer the only farmer in the world who has to be dragooned? It is complete nonsense to suggest that he is, and the farming community accepts that it is nonsense.
I appreciate the sincerity of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members opposite on this issue, but, if I may use rather crude words, they are flogging a dead horse. The farming community is not nearly as vitally concerned as they seek to make out. While these powers were right under certain conditions—they were certainly right in the war and when there was an acute shortage—they are no longer right today.
When the hon. Gentleman refers to other countries, has he realised that it is only in this country that the farming community is a small minority, with trifling political influence, and, therefore, immensely vulnerable to every economy drive, and has always, historically, been the victim of every economy drive?
As to their political significance, I agree that, as regards hon. Members opposite, it is absolutely true. I certainly do not wish to follow up on political significance, but I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not true of other countries where the farming community is, at any rate, relatively small, though not, I agree, as small as it is here. In the United States of America they are by no means in a preponderance, but there they have very substantial guarantees, as he knows very well.
And very effective political power.
They have a useful lobby, I agree, but that does not affect my argument.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred to consultation. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had at some length in the Standing Committee. However, I see that in Standing Committee on 22nd April I said, quoting the N.F.U. statement of 18th December, 1957: Ever since the Government first consulted the Union on this matter"— and here, I interjected: that is, the repeal of Part II eighteen months ago, the Union has made perfectly clear what its attitude towards Part II has been. So it is not true to say that there was not some consultation, and I do not think that there is any need—
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "at some length," because he is referring to 1956, long before the Franks Committee Report?
I said that we went at some length in Committee, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not deny, so I hope that he is not making a point of that.
At the beginning of the following sitting of the Standing Committee it will be seen that I apologised for quoting directly from that document. It was quite right to say what had taken place, but I was wrong in quoting directly from it. However, the words are there on record, and I cannot withdraw them. In my opening remarks at that sitting, I referred to meetings with the N.U.A.W. and the T. and G.W.U. and also to other meetings in 1957. It is not therefore true to say that consultation did not take place, But I have never denied that the N.F.U. repeatedly said at that time that it was opposed to the repeal of Part II. Subsequently to the Second Reading debate, when cogent arguments were put by this side, we have heard very little, except from hon. Members opposite who, frankly, seem to me to be a little out of touch with farming thought in this matter.
I apologise for speaking for so long on the Amendment, but in view of the questions asked and the points raised I felt it right to put the matter in reasonable perspective.
6.15 p.m.
I have not yet learned why the Government will not accept this Amendment, which I would have thought they would have been most anxious to have. The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated the Minister in saying that opposition to this Clause has died down in the country, but he has had to admit that, as far as he knows, the opposition of the farmers through their organisation, the National Farmers' Union, still exists. Large parts of the 1947 Act, dealing with England and Wales, and of the 1948 Scottish Act are here being repealed, but both those Acts were enacted after very lengthy and careful discussion with the interests concerned.
The Government have now decided to give effect to their prejudices by repealing those provisions, and since the Government are convinced that the countryside will accept their point of view, I would have thought that they would have been most willing to accept this Amendment to delay the operation of those repeal provisions until they got the official organisations of the farmers to agree to their proposals. If the Ministers were themselves convinced of the arguments they have used this afternoon they would accept the Amendment, and propose later an appointed day for this Clause to come into operation, and could then say that they were doing so with the consent of the N.F.U.—
I did, in fact, deal at some length with this point on Second Reading, when I pointed out that the opposition of the N.F.U. was clearly due to the fact that its members were scared of what the party opposite would do if it got back to power. Since then, the farming community has become more and more confident that there is very little danger of that, which is partly why the farmers have not opposed it.
If they are more confident, would it not be better to accept the Amendment so that, in due course, Ministers could come forward with an Order naming the appointed date, and be able to say that they had by then convinced the National Farmers' Union that it was good and proper to discontinue the provisions of Part II of the 1947 Act, and Part II of the 1948 Scottish Act? If the Parliamentary Secretary had any confidence at all in the arguments he has just adduced, he would accept the Amendment, confident that he would be able to say to us in due course that in making this substantial change in the law he was taking the farmers with him.
The hon. Gentleman has repeated what was said by the Minister a little while ago, and was said on Second Reading and in Standing Committee; that the powers are no longer so applicable as they were in the days of acute shortage. This is a most unfair attack on the patriotism of the farmers. The Minister has said that by repealing those provisions forthwith he will release the energies of the farmers and so get increased production, but he says that those same farmers had to be disciplined by the committees to give this increased production when it was even more needed than it is today.
I submit that the provisions written into the 1947 and 1948 Acts, which are here being repealed, were never put in at all on the ground that it was necessary to have these disciplinary powers to require the farmers to give of their best in days of exceeding scarcity. The case was never argued on the basis of food shortage at all. What was argued was that if we were to have prosperity in the countryside, it would be necessary for the Government to use the taxpayers' money to give certain guarantees to agriculture, and that, in return, agriculture would have to give some guarantees that it would use the taxpayers' money to the best advantage in improving the efficiency of the industry.
Of course, when one thinks of the hundreds of thousands of units of activity in agriculture, one sees at once the advantage of having the powers that were so carefully worked out about ten years ago. This kind of control—what the National Farmers' Union of Scotland called the kindly control of the committees—is surely the best possible kind of control.
The good farmers of whom the Minister spoke a little while ago—the energetic, good farmers—are able to help their weaker brethren, but he will now deny those weaker brethren the assistance of those good farmers. If the Ministers are unwilling to accept that those provisions have been helpful, perhaps I may again quote the Report of the Department of Agriculture, published in April of this year. Chapter 6, on page 31, reads: Committees continued to take steps to secure that agricultural land was farmed and managed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and good estate management. Since the inception of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, they had, by the end of the year, been responsible for improving farming and management standards to a reasonably satisfactory level in 1,558 husbandry and 744 estate management cases. What does that mean? Does that not mean what it says—that the committees were responsible for good husbandry and estate management in well over 2,000 cases in Scotland? I agree there were not so many last year, because the committees were told that they had not got to do it last year. The Government issued instructions to the committees that they were to discontinue this activity.
I have quoted directly from the Report of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister will not deny that the case which he has made up to now is at variance with what is said in that Report, and I suggest that if we had a Report from the Ministry of Agriculture similar to the Report from the Department of Agriculture the Ministry would be saying exactly the same thing.
All we are saying in the Amendment is that we should not throw all of this overboard until there has been a measure of agreement within the industry, and that the Minister should accept the Amendment and should only bring this into operation at a later date after there has been adequate discussion and agreement within the industry that the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) is right. He was wrong ten years ago. He may well be wrong today. In any case, if he speaks for the farmers of this country, the National Farmers' Union does not. I am a sufficiently good democrat to accept that at present it is the National Farmers' Union, and not the hon. Member for Leominster, that speaks for the farmers.
We did not have a similar Amendment in Committee, but I spoke to an Amendment which sought to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1, the purpose of which is to scrap some eight sections of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. The only reply that I got from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was the brief one to which we have become accustomed—I quote the whole of it from HANSARD— LORD JOHN HOPE rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th May, 1958; c. 280.] I hope that I shall have a better reply than that today.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but I think hon. Members will bear with me when I say that I was at the Scottish Office when this legislation went through. For some years I spent a lot of time discussing these matters, working out these legislative provisions and having consultations with the National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I explained all these provisions painstakingly to the Scottish Members in the House and in Committee. It is monstrous that all that work should be undone in this way in half a Clause in a United Kingdom Bill.
I think that Scottish Members might have had an opportunity to discuss this matter fully and that we might have had a fuller reply from the Under-Secretary than his merely claiming, "That the Question be now put." Will he now tell us what discussion he has had with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Farm Servants' Union? Would he tell us what these two organisations say about this? He might also tell us what the Scottish Landowners' Federation says about it.
In my discussions I have learned that the Scottish Landowners' Federation is unconcerned. It is not asking for the repeal of Part II, but it is not opposed to it being repealed as is proposed in Clause 1 (2). I understand from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and from the Scottish Farm Servants' Union that they are opposed to the repeal of Part II of the 1948 Scottish Act. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what consultations he has had with those two organisations?
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is all the hurry in getting Part II repealed? Does he accept the advice which is given to all of us in the Report of the Department of Agriculture of the beneficial effects of these provisions which he is now discontinuing, and will he give us any reason at all why he should not accept this Amendment and postpone the repeal of Part II of the 1948 Act until the appointed day, until a date when he can come and say that he repeals those provisions with the consent of the interests concerned? I hope that I may have a more adequate reply from the Under-Secretary on this occasion.
The Question is—
I rise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, only because I thought I saw the Under-Secretary, not exactly springing to his feet, but getting to his feet.
The only reason that I rise to my feet—at, I thought, a reasonable pace—is that whenever I have done so more quickly the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has complained at the alacrity with which I wished to address him and controvert his arguments.
I have little to add—
There is very little to add it to.
—because in Committee I explained exactly what the position was as regards consultation.
I would be repeating myself if I went into it now, but to sum it up, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I told the Committee that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland was opposed to this Bill, but on this part of it it is true to say they did not evince any particularly strong feelings. But having said that, I do not want in the least to suggest that they were not against it, because they were.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes. 205, Noes 255.
Clause 3.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO NOTICES TO QUIT AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.)
Mr. Hare.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether none of the eight Amendments to Clause 2 is to be called?
That is so. It is a tribute to the great thoroughness with which the Committee did its work upstairs.
Although we shall readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand that we are disappointed, in that Clause 2 deals with rent. We had put down what we regarded as substantial Amendments—small but none the less important—and I would not want it to be felt outside the House that those on these benches had no interest in the question of increasing rents. However, we are bound to accept your decision.
Anyone reading the Committee proceedings, as I have, would readily understand the interest of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in the subject.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 46, to leave out from "the" to the second "or" in line 48 and to insert: estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes". This is a drafting and clarifying Amendment, to give effect to the intention behind the Clause. The House will remember that during the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend explained that the Clause was designed to give effect to an agreement between the N.F.U. and C.L.A. in England. I stress "in England" because, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has already said, we have not yet reached the same stage of agreement in Scotland. There is a certain amount of doubt, from a legal point of view, whether the Clause as it stands gives effect to that agreement.
The sort of case in which difficulty might arise is that where, for instance, a landlord proposes to amalgamate two holdings on his estate. Let us assume that it is a case where the amalgamation would be in the interest of both holdings, taken together, and of the estate as a whole. The intention of the agreement was that in such a case the notice to quit should operate, subject, of course, to the proviso at the end of the Clause. However, where the land to which the notice related was being well farmed, it might well be that the amalgamation would not improve that land, although it improved the two units taken together.
As the Clause stands, it could be said that in that case the provisions of the Clause would not operate. The intention of the agreement, however—and the N.F.U. and C.L.A. have agreed to this—is that one ought to consider the two units as a whole and not merely the single unit to which the notice relates. The Amendment is designed to give effect to that agreement and to the intention which underlay the Clause as originally drafted. It is to ensure that one considers the estate as a whole and not merely the particular unit to which the notice relates.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has an Amendment immediately following this one which would fall if this Amendment is carried. However, if he catches my eye, he can make the points on this Amendment that he would have made on his Amendment.
On a point of order. Do I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the second Amendment would fall and that it would be impossible to save it if my hon. Friend felt that there should be a Division?
I think that it would be impossible to save it. It would be difficult.
I wish to raise only a few points on the Government Amendment. I do not wish to say anything about the following Amendment until I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart).
If I have understood aright the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, this is little more than a drafting Amendment to meet the intention of the parties.
The first point that I should like to emphasise again is that it is not correct to say that the National Farmers' Unions have agreed to this Clause. The N.F.U.s' view was that the purpose of this Amendment could have been obtained by administrative direction. Their case is that they discussed the Clause, as it were, under duress. The Government said that they were proceeding to amending legislation, and I gather that the Solicitor-General is saying nothing to disturb that, but merely that the N.F.U. have taken part in the further discussions and believe that this Amendment would improve the wording.
Like myself, I assume that other hon. Members have received the informative document from the Country Landowners' Association, which, quite properly, has kept us informed of its point of view during the discussion of the Bill. The Association says: During the Committee stage a number of points were raised which the Government undertook to re-examine. These points have been the subject of joint discussions between the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. Agreement was reached between the two bodies on all the paints discussed, and it is understood that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement on the agreement reached. One point requires re-drafting because there is doubt whether it gives effect to the intentions of the agreement originally reached between the C.L.A. and N.F.U. I put this matter to the Solicitor-General because I understand that he is speaking for the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure that this is a matter to which the Country Landowners' Association referred.
6.45 p.m.
This Amendment forms part of a Clause which both National Farmers' Unions would much rather be without. If they have to have it, they approve the clarity of the wording, but they would rather be without it. On the other hand, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) is one which equally plainly both National Farmers' Unions would rather have.
The effect of the Amendment is simply that a man shall not be ejected from his farm and home for reasons which are quite extraneous to that farmer. The consideration that his farm happens to belong to somebody who has some other land in the vicinity and that it would be for the convenience of the other person to get rid of the farmer is one which neither we nor the unions find attractive. We should like this proposal confined to considerations as to the farm itself.
My main disappointment regarding the Government's attitude to the Clause—I certainly have the impression that in Committee our arguments had moved them somewhat—is the manner in which estate management has been divorced from farming. Section 25 (1, a ) of the 1948 Act states: … the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming, whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise. The dominating words are, in the interests of efficient farming". First, the Minister had to decide that it was in the interests of efficient farming, and it was only then that one turned to the consideration of good estate management. Considerations of good farming are eliminated by the present Clause, and this is taken even further by the Amendment. A farmer can be got rid of because it suits the estate, regardless of how it affects the farmer.
I quoted an example in Committee that was not challenged. It was this. Supposing I have a farm which is well farmed, but which has an old house that has become somewhat derelict and out of date, and that a tenant comes to me and says, "I will spend a large sum of money on the house. I will put in garages and a couple of tennis courts. So far as farming is concerned, I shall merely use the land for grazing and that will enable me to put up some stabling in the buildings. The result of my activities will be to increase the value of the estate". It cannot seriously be disputed that good estate management would involve accepting that offer.
I happen to be concerned with estate management as a trustee. If that offer came before me and my fellow trustees, our duty would be to the trust. It would be our duty so to manage as to increase the value of the income of the trust fund. We could not fail to accept that offer. Nor could it possibly come within the proviso, because nobody could say that in those circumstances we were not being either fair or reasonable as a landlord. We would, in fact, be doing our duty as trustees. We would be acting in the interests of good estate management.
My hon. and learned Friend is wrong in constantly referring to good estate management in this context. "Good estate management" is defined in the Agriculture Acts. The reference in the Clause is not to good, but to sound, estate management. It is important to make the distinction.
I am sorry for the use of the words, but I do not think there is any distinction affecting my argument. I have put the point concerning a trustee which often arises. Nobody on the Government Bench, or, I am sure, my hon. Friend, would doubt that it is sound estate management so to manage the estate as to increase its value and its income.
I entirely agree, but that is not good estate management as defined in the Agriculture Acts.
Oh, no. That is the point I am making. Under the Agriculture Acts, the only form of estate management that was relevant was estate management as an aspect of efficient farming. That provision has gone and now we have—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me concerning the words—sound estate management. As in the example I have given, which certainly is not farfetched and which often happens now as people more and more want farms for amenity purposes, sound estate management is, not exceptionally but quite frequently, in direct conflict with efficient farming and with high production. Now, however, that form of estate management is provided as a reason for getting rid of an efficient farmer.
If by using the land not primarily for an agricultural purpose I can improve the value and the income of the estate, for that reason I can get rid of the efficient farmer. That is something new and it is introduced by the Clause. I pointed that out in Committee. I certainly thought at that time that we would get an Amendment from the Government in very different terms from this one. The Amendment is profoundly disappointing. It will be for my hon. Friends to say whether we should divide against it, although I feel that the Amendment itself is fairly harmless, but as a protest at the manner in which the Government have failed to produce the sort of Amendment which they ought to have produced.
I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The Government have been rather disappointing in this matter. We would have liked their Amendment to go much further. Our Amendment stresses the important point that a tenant should not be given notice to quit before the tribunal on matters which, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, are extraneous to his farming. To bring in other matters affecting the estate outside his farm or his holding is unfair. That is the main point and it has been stressed by my hon. and learned Friend, with his great experience, not only of law, but as a landlord, too. Therefore, we feel that the Government have been disappointing. Because of the principle involved, we should press the Amendment to a Division.
Here again, the Government are weighting legislation against the tenant farmer. We have stressed this over and over again. Our modest Amendment would have sought to protect the farmer in certain circumstances. The words in Clause 3, treated either as a separate estate or as part of a larger estate", are, in our view, unfair in the sense that they weight the tribunal against the farmer. We would like them to be deleted.
I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter, because in the Clause the Government are weighting legislation against the tenant farmer who is anxious to do well, to have good husbandry and to farm his unit efficiently in the interests of himself and of the community.
So far as I recollect them, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right on both points. Concerning the National Farmers' Union Agreement, I should have said that the Union agreed that if a Clause was required this was the way to do it and that this wording improved the Clause as it previously stood. Equally, on the second point, I confirm that the drafting point in the quotation which the hon. Member made is now dealt with in the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), wishes to look at the land to which the notice relates in isolation and at that alone. That is a point which divides the two sides of the House rather like a gulf. Our feeling, on the other hand, is that although the individual must, and should, be protected, in the interests of efficient farming one must look not only at the individual unit, but at the estate as a whole.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be careful. The whole point is that the Government have cut out "in the interests of efficient farming."
Had the hon. and learned Member allowed me to proceed, I was about to deal with that. Various phrases have been used about sound management, good management, and so on. The phrase used in the Bill is "sound management of the land"—that is, particularly agricultural land, to which the Bill refers. Clearly, there can be cases when two units can be more efficiently farmed than one. Under the proviso, there is protection for the tenant.
The question may well arise whether a fair and a reasonable landlord would evict the good tenant and turn the whole lot over to the bad tenant. Clearly, he would not, and in the normal case what would happen would be that the good tenant would get the chance of taking over the bad tenant's land.
7.0 p.m.
What about the case where there might be an amalgamation of two units, and two people, one a reasonable farmer and the other one probably much better? Surely there would be a dilemma there.
On this side of the House, we believe that the man who does the job better deserves a rather better deal, and the man who is the better farmer would get preference over the not so good farmer.
Where does the Bill say that?
Under the proviso as to the withholding of consent, when it appears to the tribunal, or to the Land Court in Scotland, that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. In that case, the landlord would have to go against the worst one and in favour of the good one, and that is the protection for the tenant, and that balances the interest of the good tenant as against the general national interest of efficient farming.
I must press this point, because there may be two cases in which those concerned may both be good farmers and farming efficiently. Surely, he will not apply that criterion in a case like that.
The nearer one gets to equality in efficiency, the less likely is it that cases like this will arise. These cases will most likely arise where one holding is going down and the other one is going up.
I have a constituent with a 40-acre farm. There was an amalgamation. What happens to the tenant who is dispossessed and who loses his holding? What appeal has he got over and above the landlord who dispossesses him?
It rests upon the decision by the tribunal in England, or by the Land Court in Scotland. They are the people who have to decide it, and not the landlord. The landlord serves the notice to quit, but the consent to the notice must be given by the proper court in the two countries. For these reasons, I suggest—
Mr. Paget rose —
Could we have more speeches and less argument? I think that it would be more appropriate to the Report stage.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given way, and when he is explaining a Clause a certain amount of question and answer is surely necessary Mr. Speaker.
I think that the hon. and learned Member rather misunderstands the situation. The right hon. and learned Member who is addressing the House has given way a great number of times, but we cannot have a Report stage conducted in that way. There have to be speeches. The hon. and learned Member must give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a chance to develop his argument without being continually interrupted.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have been too generous in giving way. I was concluding my speech by commending the Amendment to the House, and was about to say, finally, that I would remind the House that the Amendment, at least in England, has the support of the interests concerned.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland has put us in great difficulty. He admitted, to begin with, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was right in asserting that the N.F.U. in England had been in consultation with the Country Landowners' Association on this Clause, as it were, under duress. It was not that it wanted this Clause, but if there had to be a Clause it was willing to sit down and discuss its terms with the Association. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, the Scottish N.F.U. would not even sit down and discuss with the landowners the drafting of such a Clause as this.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said that it is true that the Clause now refers to "sound management," and then he said that it is sound management of the land to which the notice relates and which is agricultural land, but his Amendment takes these words out. The Clause would then read: sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that there is a significance in the use of the words "sound management", instead of "good estate management". As my hon. and learned Friend has said, good estate management is defined and is related to efficiency in agriculture, so that here we are discussing in this Amendment sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part to quote from the Government's Amendment.
I would have thought that this is bound to influence the decisions by the tribunals and the Land Court contrary to the interests of efficient farming. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rested on the proviso, and said that it will be the tribunal or the Land Court that will take the decision, but the tribunal or the Land Court will only decide on the basis of the instructions which the Act gives them. It will be for them to interpret the Act, and if we can fairly accurately interpret the Bill now it is reasonable to assume that they, too, will find little difficulty in interpreting the Act.
There is little doubt that by this Amendment—it may be so both with the words proposed to be taken out as well as those proposed to be inserted—many farmers will lose what security they have hitherto enjoyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) mentioned a constituent who has a farm of 40 acres. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agree with this? If we take a large farm of, say, 250 to 300 acres, which may be well farmed or not so well farmed, and alongside which there is a farm on the same estate of 40 or 50 acres which is being very well farmed, but on which the tenant is in need of some additional fixed equipment, the owner of the estate might say that he would much rather provide the fixed equipment for these two farms as one, irrespective of the standard of farming on the bigger farm.
If this Amendment is made and this Clause goes through with that Amendment, the tribunal or the Land Court will not be able to judge this application objectively in the interests of agriculture if they are satisfied that it would be in the interests of the sound management of the estate.
No, of the land.
I am sorry, but it now reads: sound management of the estate of which the land to which notice relates forms part. If the owner says in his application to the tribunal or the Land Court that it is in the interests of the sound management of the estate of which this farm is a part that consent should be given to the notice to quit, and the tribunal or the Land Court is satisfied that this is a decision which could properly be taken by a reasonable landlord, as it might well be taken by a reasonable landlord—and I assume that there are some reasonable landlords giving notices to quit to tenants under the Rent Acts, and that the Bill that was passed through this House the other day will have its effect in cases where there are reasonable landlords who have given notices to quit to tenants—if the Land Court or tribunal is satisfied that notice to quit would be given by a reasonable landlord in the circumstances which I have earlier described it is obliged to give its consent. It is not obliged to make an objective analysis of the position in the interests of agriculture.
As I see it, my hon. Friends and I are in some difficulty. We are inclined to believe that the words proposed in the Government's Amendment are a slight improvement on the words as they are in the Clause at present.
Slight.
A slight improvement.
We have all been informed that the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association take the view, too, that the words now proposed are a slight improvement on the words in the Bill, not because the policy has been changed in any way, but because the policy has been clarified. From a legal point of view, the new words would seem to be less ambiguous than the words in the Bill, but I believe that the policy remains the same. We for our part would much rather have the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), and we have every reason to believe that my hon. Friend's Amendment would be even more acceptable to the National Farmers' Union than the Government's Amendment. There is no doubt at all about that.
If we were to vote on the Government Amendment there is a slight possibility that the Government would win the vote and my hon. Friend's Amendment would fall. Even if we do not vote on the Government Amendment we cannot vote on my hon. Friend's because it will fall, the Government Amendment having been carried. Of course, in Committee we rejected the policy which is contained in the Government's Amendment and we are now discussing only an alternative form of words. We accept this form of words as being better than the original wording in the Bill, so it would seem unreasonable if we were to vote against it, since we cannot vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment. Therefore, we do not want to vote at all.
I am sure that if we were to vote against the Government's Amendment that would be misunderstood outside. We should like to vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment, but we cannot. Annoyed though I feel with the Government because of all this business, and though I think my construction of the Clause is right and that we are giving an improper instruction to the Land Court or the tribunal, I would advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the Government Amendment.
I reluctantly accept my hon. Friend's advice. I am sure that it is sound in the circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 to 5.
I move the Amendment to seek an answer from the Government to the request I made to them in Committee. I suggested that the Minister might have a word with the Agricultural Research Association. He welcomed that as a helpful suggestion. I ask him whether he has had such consultation.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I gladly respond to the hon. Member's invitation to clear up points which were raised in Committee in relation to this subsection (2). I am quite sure it is not the hon. Member's wish to delete the subsection and that he moved the Amendment merely to obtain an explanation.
7.15 p.m.
It is quite true that questions about the adjective "agricultural" in the context of this subsection were raised, and I think it was my right hon. Friend who undertook to look into it. I am advised that it is quite clear that the word "agricultural" in this subsection qualifies not only "research" but also the words coming after it. The provision does not make sense unless one takes "demonstration", for example, to mean "agricultural demonstration." We must describe the kind of demonstration we mean, and the Clause does that here by using the word "agricultural."
I am advised that it is a general principle of construction that if there are two possible interpretations one of which is sense and the other nonsense we should prefer the one which is sense. It is clear, therefore, that "agricultural" must qualify "demonstration". It follows that "agricultural" must also apply to the intervening words as well. Even if it were not so most cases which involve non-agricultural education, experiment or demonstration would require planning permission. Of course, if this were obtained notice would be given under Section 24 (2, b ) of the 1948 Act and would not go before the tribunal at all. If it were not obtained, a non-agricultural project could not proceed and the landlord could not support his case before the tribunal. So there is no need, I am assured, to make any alteration in the wording of the subsection.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the point that under the new procedure notices under this subsection might need to be limited to research, education, experiment or demonstration advised or approved by the Minister. This has been considered, but we do not think it would be helpful to restrict the landlord's right to have his case considered under Clause 3 (2, c ) by requiring that his intention must have been approved by the Minister. Hon. Members will see that this subsection specifies that the tribunal must consider whether the proposed purpose is desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration and the tribunal must rightly consider not only whether the land is needed for a specified purpose but also whether the purpose itself is desirable.
If we limited the Clause by the Amendment it would mean that unless the Minister had approved the purpose the tribunal would be powerless even to consider the case. This would tie its hands more than the present law does by making it impossible to admit evidence against the Ministerial view. Such restriction would not be reasonable or desirable. Therefore, we have decided that it is right to leave the subsection as it is.
I would remind the House that these, of course, are the words which were used in the previous Act and which have given rise to no trouble. In the light of what I have said and after we have considered the point very carefully and the arguments which were put forward, I hope the House will agree that this subsection should remain in the form in which it is at present.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given us two expressions on construction. The first one I do not disagree with. I think that "agricultural" probably must be interpreted as applicable to each of the words which follow, although if the purpose were, for instance, an equestrian demonstration, jumping, that sort of thing, I very much doubt whether the word "agricultural" would exclude that. I do not know. If the Minister wants to exclude equestrian demonstrations, I think that the words ought to have been chosen more carefully, because equestrianism is, in a sense, connected with agriculture.
Where we have a general adjective such as this applicable to the first of several words, it is rather an instance of what we lawyers call the ejusdem generis rule. Where one gets a category of things there is a presumption that they are all of the same sort, of the same genus; that rather than a general application of the adjective, the word "agricultural" in this instance. But I find his second proposition in interpretation very much more difficult to enter upon.
The hon. Gentleman says that the words "desirable for the purpose" mean not only that they are desirable for the purpose but that they are desirable in an abstract sense, that is to say, the word "desirable" is not the equivalent of "suitable for" but conveys an abstract quality of desirability in general which the tribunal would have to apply to the proceedings in general. In other words, the tribunal would have to decide not merely whether the provision of the land was desirable from the point of view of the research product which the owner had in mind, but whether the research product was itself desirable. I certainly do not think that is so.
When the hon. Gentleman says that this provision retains the words of the Statute, I say that that is not so, because hitherto this was not the Land Tribunal's decision; it was the Minister's decision. Therefore, it was clearly within the province of the Minister to withhold his decision unless the undertaking itself had his approval. But in this case the Land Tribunal can say whether it is an undertaking of the sort prescribed, that is, agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration. Having decided that, the tribunal can decide whether, accepting the end—the desirability of which it cannot consider—it is necessary or desirable that the land should be provided to achieve that end.
We suggested in Committee that if we are to grant possession for this purpose the Ministry of Agriculture, which really is primarily responsible for agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration, should be the people to decide whether this particular venture was or was not a desirable one. If the Ministry wants to wash its hands of agriculture to the extent that it now says it does, I should have thought it desirable that somebody should decide this point and that the Land Tribunal should at least assume the authority to decide whether the venture in research, education, experiment or demonstration was one which, from the general considerations of agriculture, was a desirable one. That decision is not left to the tribunal.
Once the tribunal finds as a fact that the project falls within these categories it can only look at it and then ask whether, assuming that this is the project, it is desirable from the point of view of the project that the land should be made available. That is all that the tribunal can decide. These words do not, as a matter of interpretation, give the tribunal any jurisdiction to decide on the desirability of the project itself.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised first the question of agriculture, in relation to which he gave as an example equestrian ventures. I thought it a little beyond the terms of what would normally come within agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration, but I admit quite freely that some of us, when we become equestrian, look more agriculture than others. In this case, I do not think "equestrian ventures" to be a term which I would normally use in this context.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has very rarely gone to an agricultural show which has not had an equestrian demonstration. Is not that part of an agricultural demonstration?
Equestrian ventures one normally envisages as involving people on top of the horse and not leading it. Displays are given at agricultural shows, but I should not have thought that they became agricultural demonstrations by reason of that. I am willing to be converted when I see the hon. and learned Member on a horse. But I content myself by saying that that kind of thing is not intended here and that these are matters relating purely to agricultural demonstrations, designed to demonstrate to the farming community in particular improvements in our agricultural knowledge. I think that the hon. and learned Member is fully seized of that point.
On the question of desirability, the hon. and learned Member seeks to maintain that the tribunal is debarred from saying whether it is desirable that the land should be used for this purpose. He claims that "desirable" refers only to the actual project, and not to whether the tribunal shall generally be able to decide whether it is desirable that land should be used generally for the purpose. As I understand it, the tribunal will have full powers to decide whether this is a desirable project, and it is perfectly free to decide whether it be research, education, experiment or demonstration in relation to this matter.
Simply because the matter has been taken from the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of the tribunal, I do not think that there is any need to change this form of words which, as I reminded the House, has stood the test of time in previous Acts and, as far as I can ascertain, never gave rise to any difficulty whatsoever when it was under the Ministry's supervision. I see no reason to suppose that it would give rise to difficulties if and when the matter comes under the supervision of the Land Tribunal. I do not think that a point of principle is involved here. I understand the hon. and learned Member's wish that the matter should be quite certain, but I have made inquiries and have reported to the House the result of those inquiries.
I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to allow the words to remain as they are.
I am obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, but it seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was on a good point in criticising the word "desirable" as it appears at present. I hope that when the Bill is considered in another place this point will be looked at.
As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the other fact to be considered is that the tribunal is now to decide this matter and not the Minister. It is quite easy to allow it to be decided as desirable or otherwise by a Minister. It is a very different matter to expect a tribunal solely to decide, apart from looking at the word "desirable". I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of redefinition to provide some way by which the tribunal could be informed, by some other words, that the Minister considered the project one to be supported. With these reservations assured, I hope that the Government will consider these two points when the Bill goes to another place, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 9 to 13.
I do this by way of proxy on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The Minister will remember that in Committee the point of caravan sites was raised. The matter was left not entirely clear and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into this further. It is for the purpose of clarification, therefore, that we have put down the Amendment.
I beg to second the Amendment.
There were two purposes for this Amendment, I think, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned one. My hon. Friend said that at the same time he would consider the rewording of the last part of subsection (2, 1, c ) so that the reader would not have to refer back to Section 24 (2, b ) of the 1948 Act. I take it, therefore, that this Amendment deals with those two points.
It is true that it was the hon. and learned Member for Northampton who raised the first point I have mentioned, namely, whether we could simplify the present wording and avoid referring back to the 1948 Act. I had considerable sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and so I considered his suggestion carefully. Again I took expert advice, and the answer I was given was that if we tried to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested we would make the paragraph even more cumbrous and certainly not clearer than the present wording.
It might be of some comfort to those who will read this Measure that we intend to publish explanatory material for farmers and landowners, clearly explaining the effect of the Bill. Specialists and members of the legal profession will be concerned chiefly in consulting the detailed wording of the Bill. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept as genuine my undertaking to see if I could simplify this paragraph, but the experts have told me that I would make it even more complicated if I adopted his suggestion.
On the question of the caravan sites, which is the second point, the law relating to them is fairly tricky, but in the present context I think it is not too difficult to explain. Firstly, permanent caravan sites are those which are used for more than three months in the year. These permanent sites require planning permission, and under Section 24 (2, b ) of the 1948 Act, which is not affected by the Bill, a landlord who has planning permission to put his land to a nonagricultural use, which includes the use of caravans, can serve a notice to quit on the ground that he requires the land for that use and, therefore, need not obtain consent to the notice.
In cases where a planning authority has already decided that there is no objection to the land going out of agriculture, it would be unreasonable to alter the existing law and to require the landlord to obtain consent from some other body which, in effect, would have to reconsider the decision of the planning authority. The main point, however, is that the present Bill does not alter the existing law as regards permanent caravan sites, and I do not think a strong case could be made out that it should do so.
As regards the temporary use of land for caravans, that is for less than three months in the year, no planning permission is required but I think that the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 3 will operate in these cases. If a landlord wanted to obtain a site for caravan purposes on a temporary basis he would have to come to the tribunal under paragraph ( e ) of Clause 3, and this is the same as paragraph ( e ) of Section 25 (1) of the 1948 Act. I think the House will agree with me that in such a case no tribunal could possibly agree that a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on obtaining possession in order to put caravans on the land for not more than three months in the year. We have never heard of a tribunal using its discretion in that way, and I do not believe that we ever shall.
The same argument applies where a landlord wants to set up a permanent caravan site but has not as yet had planning permission. No fair and reasonable landlord would insist on turning out a tenant until he knew that he had got planning permission for the caravan site. I hope I have made what is a fairly complicated subject reasonably clear and that, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
With regard to clarity—
The hon. and learned Gentleman has seconded the Amendment and has therefore forfeited his right to speak. He will have to ask the leave of the House if he wishes to do so.
I did so formally, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the leave of the House to speak now? I certainly did not find the speech of the Minister lacking in clarity, but I found it highly surprising when the Minister said he did not think anybody in the House could conceive of a tribunal granting possession when it was desired to use the land for a temporary caravan site. I find it impossible to believe that a tribunal would not do so, or, indeed, if it did not do so, that it would not be required by the court to do so under the prerogative procedure.
Let us suppose that I have land—I am visualising land on the Dunmow Head, Isle of Wight—whose rentable value would be under £1 an acre as it is grazing land. For the three months of July, August and September that land could be let at £100 an acre at least. Is a court going to say—because this is a purely subjective test—that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession when he was offered rent for the non-agricultural use which was a hundred times more than he would get for the agricultural use? Could any tribunal conceivably say that in those circumstances a landlord was not a fair and reasonable person if he asked for the fields at that time for a non-agricultural purpose? Of course it could not.
I have given an extreme instance. There are circumstances in which the return obtained from land used for a temporary caravan site and the return obtained from its use for agricultural purposes would be so similar that it would be unreasonable for a landlord to disturb a farmer. But in most cases the return obtained from the use of the land as a caravan site in the summer months would be much larger than any return which could be obtained from its use for agricultural purposes and I should imagine it would be impossible for a tribunal to turn down its use for that purpose, and that the proviso here was irrelevant. A landlord would not wish to take action unless it showed him a substantial advantage, and, if it did, it is to me an entirely new doctrine that a gentleman is to be considered unfair and unreasonable unless he refuses to make use of his land for a purpose which would give him a substantial advantage.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has unearthed something of more importance than the Minister would appear to appreciate. Perhaps the general threat of caravan sites should be seriously examined. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what he has said before this matter is considered in another place. I hope he will consider whether more effective means could be sought to deal with this threat to agricultural land.
I said that I hoped I had made the case clear to the House, but I am afraid that I did mislead hon. Members on the period which constitutes a temporary caravan site. It is four weeks and not three months. What constitutes a permanent site is a period of four weeks and over. I am sorry that in making my explanation I gave the wrong period for a temporary site. It should be four weeks, and to a certain extent that undermines what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He talked about a landlord on the Isle of Wight who found that it would pay him to sell land for a caravan site on a temporary basis for three months. But that period would make the site a permanent one, and not temporary, and for that planning permission would have to be obtained.
When the right hon. Gentleman refers to four weeks, does that period apply to one caravan or to a series of caravans on the site? That is an important point. Where does the three months come in?
The four-week period applies to the use of the site, for a caravan on that site.
I think that a fair and reasonable landlord would consider the interests of his tenant as well as his own. If he could use the land only for a temporary site, even if he succeeded in turning out the tenant, surely he would not insist on possession. I do not wish to detain the House. I will certainly look at this again, but I will do without any commitment because I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point of substance.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clear up a point which arises from this Clause. A case might arise where some good agricultural land has been in the possession of one landlord and his ancestors for a long time but, by reason of death, is put up for sale and bought by property developers. The new owners might then wish to turn this agricultural land into a caravan site. In such a case it is hoped that the provisions of the Bill will not provide them with a much easier method of obtaining planning permission than at present.
If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, I will look at it, but it is a little difficult to answer his point without full particulars. I will certainly undertake to examine any details, if he will furnish me with them.
In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
I gather, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would wish the following two Amendments to be discussed together, namely, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18, and to insert: it would not be fair and reasonable for the landlord to insist on possession". and, in the same line, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18, and to insert: it would not be fair and reasonable to consent to the notice to quit".
I think that that would be convenient.
Then perhaps it would meet the convenience of the House if I moved the second Amendment. These are alternative Amendments and the second is probably the better of the two.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 18 and to insert: it would not be fair and reasonable to consent to the notice to quit". We are here dealing with a matter to which we attach considerable importance. Everyone who took part in the Committee stage discussions recognises that the proviso to this subsection is of very great importance. At present, it provides that even if a tribunal be satisfied in accordance with the provisions set out in the subsection, nevertheless, to use the words of the proviso: … notwithstanding that they are satisfied … the Tribunal shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. We all recognise that this is a very important proviso and that it affects the whole consideration of these matters by the tribunal.
The Government spokesman described this not only as an umbrella proviso, but as a golf umbrella proviso. We are trying to make it a still better umbrella. I do not wish to pursue the argument at length, but it is clear from the present proviso that the test is a subjective one. The tribunal has to consider the case presented to it by the landlord, and if it decides in favour of the landlord it must ask the further question, whether a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession. That is a valuable safeguard to the tenant.
During the discussions in Committee we suggested that the test, rather than being subjective, ought to be objective. We wish to extend the scope of this proviso by bringing into consideration also the position of the tenant. At present, it is clear that although this is a valuable safeguard, the only regard to which the tribunal can give further consideration is the action that will be taken by a fair and reasonable landlord.
I do not wish to elaborate on this, because I think the point is clear enough, but we can envisage many cases in which a fair and reasonable landlord, particularly in the light of the new provision in subsection (2, b ), might, nevertheless, act to the prejudice of the tenant. We think, therefore, that the proviso ought to bring into consideration further factors than merely the subjective test of a fair and reasonable landlord.
Another reason why we strongly press this Amendment upon the Government is that I am sure that all the Members of the Committee are disturbed by what the Parliamentary Secretary said about this Clause. He talked about "over-security of tenure" and used that term in a wide sense. As some of us said in Committee, whatever the case may be about over-security of tenure—the reference which I was making to the Parliamentary Secretary appears in c. 633—we have to recognise that this is a very broad matter which has many aspects and which will demand very careful consideration.
I do not think that we should accept the Clause if the Government were anticipating its use in the light of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is an added reason for feeling that the proviso ought to be made one which would be weighted rather more in favour of the tenant than the words as they at present appear. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this as being an Amendment designed to improve the Bill, not quarrelling with the principle of this Clause or with the proviso, but recognising that in the proviso as made we are asking the Government further to recognise that even with the consideration which is imposed by the tribunal of paying regard to what a fair and reasonable landlord would have done, nevertheless this can act to the unfair prejudice of the tenant. Therefore, it would be far better to accept the objective test which we suggest, that rather than the test of the fair and reasonable landlord we should have the test of what would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
I beg to second the Amendment.
In our debates upstairs and on the Floor of the House, it is not so much what the Government spokesmen say but how they say it that matters. Agriculture is entirely unlike industry inasmuch as it is a living thing and people gain their livelihood from it. It is their life. Those who are in agriculture are not like paid employees in a factory who may be dismissed at a moment's notice and then get another job.
We should look at this in no metaphysical or subtle sense but objectively, looking at it in the context of people working and living on the land. In Committee, the Government spokesman talked about a golf umbrella. That is giving the game away. I happen to play golf myself. On the golf course, whether at Westward Hoo or anywhere else, we use golf umbrellas, whatever their colour, in bad weather; we use them only in stormy times. We do not need a golf umbrella in fine weather, because then we set the umbrella and go down the course, whether like Joe Carr hitting the ball 300 yards or whether, like some of us, topping our drive off the tee.
What is going to happen even in mostly fine weather in the life of a tenant farmer? We say that it is not good enough to defend the landlord alone and say that the landlord shall be the judge. That is a purely subjective test. We say that although the landlord may be, in good weather and bad weather, a man who stands high in the opinion of the countryside—he may be a thoroughly fine man and, indeed, a very fine golfer and not need an umbrella—it is most unfair to allow him to be the judge in this case.
If we take an objective view on all this, we should forget the landlord who is objecting and who wishes to have his own way and take into consideration other factors, the heart of the land itself and the year by year financial position of the farmer himself.
When we look at this Bill and the behaviour of the Government we think they are an "economic Government". I read a book once in which the author talked about the "Economic man". Indeed, we have an economic Government. It seems that they merely have a balance sheet here of plus and minus and do not take into account the tenant farmer himself, his wife and family and his hope of being able to live on the land on which his people may have lived for half a century or a century. The landlord does not want a feather bed in order to look after himself and his famliy.
Let us look at the position of the tenant farmer himself. I think that the object of this kind of Clause is that the Government wish to drive out the mediocre farmer. It is very difficult to say what is a mediocre farmer or a farmer who is not yet up to the terms of the economic standards which the Government or the landlord desire to work a particular estate.
The Government have overlooked the fact that in parts of an estate wemay have tenant farmers doing a difficult job. They look at a large amount of land, the whole of the estate, and say that the parts do not matter, the fractions do not matter, whether they are farmed by good farmers or mediocre farmers.
The Government or the landlord look at a map and say, "Here is a large extent of land. How can we get a few extra pounds out of it? Can we do so by amalgamation of units or by joining together the smaller pieces?" It seems to me that the Government always take the landlord's interest into account. If he is a large man his overheads will be less and he may be more efficient from the purely mechanical and economic point of view, but from the Government statements all the time it seems that in their wisdom, or lack of it, they wish to eliminate the small units or the conservative—or even sometimes Conservative—small tenant farmers whom they consider uneconomic. It seems to me that the whole of the push behind the Bill is to eliminate the small man. We think that this is most unfair. We should like the wording of the Clause changed so that it would not merely pay attention to the landlord who wants a larger unit but would take a longer yardstick, a wider viewpoint, and look after the small man.
These words are not merely subtle and a little Machiavellian. The Government need terms like "umbrella" to pull themselves out of the mess when they start defining terms. They should look at the position more closely. They should say, "Here is a man who runs a small farm. He is of yeoman stock. We will look at it from his point of view, objectively, and we will not always get behind the big battalions of the landlords to see what they want or to commend what they have in view."
I fear that if the Government continue in this fashion they will not be more economic in their organisation, although they desire to be more economic, and, what is even worse, they will tend to knock the heart out of many small farmers in the countryside. At the moment, it is difficult enough for the small farmer to farm efficiently and in good heart. I think that it is very important to keep in the countryside what I like to regard as the good social fibre of the good yeoman stock farming the land. This wording and this type of Clause sooner or later will eliminate this old yeoman stock from the countryside. I ask the Minister to look again at the wording of the Amendment and consider whether it is not a fair examination of the difficulties of the small farmers.
We think that the scales are weighted on the side of the landlord. I do not want to repeat over and over again that the Government are behind the C.L.A. or that they favour the big man or the man with the more money, but we say to the Minister that he should think a little more often about the smaller farmers. We think that all the time in the Bill they are slowly but surely being squeezed out.
8.0 p.m.
We have listened carefully to the two speeches on the Amendment. I entirely agree with some of the words used by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), but he must not take unto himself the credit of being the sole protector of the yeoman farmer of this country. That sentiment is shared just as much on this side of the House as by hon. Members opposite.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the proviso is a matter of the greatest importance. He says that he wishes to strengthen the proviso and to make it clearer, but I am afraid that the Amendments which he asks us to accept would not achieve what he has in mind. I must ask the House to reject them because of their vagueness. Different people will have different ideas about what is "fair and reasonable." What satisfies this criterion in the eyes of the townsman, for example, may not satisfy it in the eyes of a man who understands farming and the problems of the countryside.
This difference will be particularly important when the assessment of fairness and reasonableness depends on weighing claims of hardship either by the landlord or by the tenant in considering the possible effect of the notice to quit on the farming of the land. The townsman, for example, would probably be much more influenced by considerations of hardship and a countryman by whether the operation of a notice would improve or lower the standards of the farming of the land or would rob the tenant of the fruits of his labour. There are many other examples of factors to which different kinds of people will give different weight when deciding whether the operation of a notice is fair or reasonable.
On the other hand, the landlord is a person with both rights and responsibilities. It seems to me that a tribunal which will include a farmer and a landowner amongst its members can reasonably be asked to judge what a "fair and reasonable" landlord would do in the given circumstances which the tribunal are considering. I am sure that the hon. Member will not quarrel with me when I say that it is essential to give the agricultural land tribunals clear principles to follow so that the farmers and landowners know where they are. My submission is that the Amendments would not clarify but would cloud and make vague the proviso.
The hon. Member for Rugby slightly astounded me by using as one of his arguments in support of the Amendment the fact that this was an effort on the part of the Opposition to prevent the Government from looking through the eyes of the landlord and that the Amendment will help the farmer and will make his position vis-à-vis the landlord easier. Before the hon. Member for Sunderland, North or the hon. Member for Rugby decide whether they wish to press the Amendment to a Division, I should tell them that the National Farmers' Union, which represents the very people whom the hon. Member for Rugby purports to represent in expressing his views, prefers the wording of the proviso in the Bill to the wording as it would read if amended. I am sure that the Amendments are put forward to be helpful, but in view of that information perhaps hon. Members
opposite would consider withdrawing them.
I am sorry that I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation. He made great play of the words, "fair and reasonable", but they are in the Bill; we have accepted his words. We have tried to make this objective test. There was a thorough discussion of this in Standing Committee, and I can do no more than ask my hon. Friends to support my views in the Lobby.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 189.
Clause 4.—(RIGHTS OF TENANTS AS TO PROVISION OF FIXED EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.)
8.15 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end to insert: Provided that where it appears to the Tribunal that an agricultural activity specified in the tenant's application has not been carried on on the holding for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the making of the application the Tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out work in connection with that activity unless they are satisfied that the starting of the activity did not or, where the activity has not yet been started, will not constitute or form part of a substantial alteration of the type of farming carried on on the holding. The purpose of this Amendment is to prevent the tribunal from serving a direction facilitating a new or recent activity which forms a part of a substantial alteration in the type of farming, and seeks to fulfil the purpose of an Amendment sponsored in the Standing Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), which we accepted in principle, subject to looking again at the wording. We have, in fact, made very little alteration—the wording of this Amendment is very similar—and the changes are really more drafting ones than anything else.
Fears were expressed in the Standing Committee that the Amendment then moved would discourage new techniques in farming, but we do not think that that objection can be sustained against the wording of this Amendment. It does not affect the technique; it seeks only to prevent a landlord from being faced with the cost of equipping a holding for a substantially different type of farming as, for example, a change from arable to dairy farming.
The Amendment would not prevent the tribunal from giving a direction to enable a tenant to extend the existing line of enterprise in which he is interested, or to modify the methods which he is using. To give an example, he may want to keep cows, or to store produce in a building that is not, at the moment, used for that purpose. If the tribunal was satisfied that this was reasonable but that the activity would contravene the statutory safety, health and welfare requirements, the Amendment would not prevent the tribunal from directing the landlord to carry out any necessary work. Nor would it rule out a direction to enable a tenant to extend his present type of farming, or to make small alterations in the type of farming
It will, however, exclude a direction to provide equipment for a really substantially new type of enterprise. To give a very simple example, a direction could still be given to promote a change in the type of enterprise, but a direction could not be given that would alter the whole nature of the enterprise and, by so doing, turn property to an entirely different use.
If the tenant wants to change to a completely different type of farming, he should apply under Section 50 of the 1948 Act for any new equipment that he needs. That, he would have to pay for himself, and get compensation at the end of the tenancy for any increased value resulting from his work. That, I think, is as far as it is reasonable to go.
The Minister has said that he is carrying out his promise, made to his own back benchers during the Committee stage of the Bill. We have nothing against a Minister carrying out his promises—we think that he should—but in this case what his back benchers were seeking to do, and what the Minister has now agreed to do, was to limit the tribunal's discretion in favour of the landlord as against the tenant.
That is precisely what this Amendment does. The intention of the previous, similar Amendment was made quite clear in Committee by its supporters. But what we say is that, having already deprived the tenant of all the safeguards against the landlord that are contained in Part II of the 1947 Act, and having defeated this afternoon our new Clause to safeguard the tenant, the Minister is now going very much too far.
The right hon. Gentleman has already given a new direction to the arbitrators in favour of the landlord as against the tenant for the only purpose, as I understand, of enabling the landlord to charge a higher rent. Already, he has been operating entirely in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. It is quite clear from this Amendment that the Government intend further to limit the tribunal's powers in the only sop given to the tenant in this Bill. The Clause which we are discussing is something of a sop to the tenants to cause them to look with a little favour on the Bill which, for the rest of its main provisions, is in favour of landlords.
I am not the only person who feels that the Bill is weighted in favour of the landlord as against the tenant. I would ask the Minister to read today's Daily Express, which says that the Government have one more chance to protect the tenant farmer against unjust increases. The Daily Express merits attention in this connection, because it was the only newspaper which was fighting for the farmer, with the Labour Party, in the inter-war years in which the Minister referred a little earlier. Consideration should be given to what is said by a newspaper which in the main supports the party opposite.
As I understand Clause 4, it says, in effect, that if the tenant is being placed in jeopardy because of statutory requirements and is unable to comply with them because of the inadequacy of his fixed equipment, he shall have the right to ask the agricultural land tribunal to issue a direction to the landlord to carry out the work necessary to enable the tenant to comply with the law.
There is a very important saving provision for the landlord, for the tribunal shall not direct the landlord to carry out such work unless the tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable so to do having regard to the landlord's responsibilities to manage the land comprised in the holding in accordance with the rules of good estate management and also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding and to any other material consideration … It seems to me that already in this Clause there are adequate safeguards for the landlord, and to which the tribunal has to pay attention. To all that the Minister goes on to add the words in the proposed Amendment.
Our objections to the Amendment can be briefly stated. It is true that we put these points in Committee but, as the Minister has moved an Amendment, it is right that we should mention them again. I certainly think that the Minister has not met the arguments that were put by the Opposition in Committee in this connection. For example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in Committee that the provision would tend to make farming a static industry. That is the last thing that any Minister of Agriculture would wish to do. Indeed, in Committee, in answer to a question of mine relating to a tenant who might wish to change from the production of beef to milk, he said: I hope that it will be the other way and that the tenant will be requiring the switch from milk to beef. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 764.] The Minister was anxious that these changes should take place, and quite rightly so. I am with the Minister on all this. But every Minister of Agriculture, of whatever party, must from time to time wish to see a change from this type of production to that, from beef to milk or from milk to beef. These are the sorts of things which every Minister must be prepared to assist as public demand varies or production exceeds demand or the balance of payments position requires. Farming must be a changing industry within the limits imposed upon us by our climate, type of soil, and so forth. Nothing that we do on Report should tend to make the agricultural industry static.
The Amendment says to the farmer, "If you have been farming a certain way, so far as the fixed equipment of the farm is concerned you must continue in that way to the end of your days or to the end of the tenancy." Farms are not so easily obtained that a farmer can get another farm, as the Minister himself said earlier today. It is also true that the farmer is not an entirely free agent in this matter of what he shall produce. The Annual Review of Farm Prices, as I understand it, is intended in some cases to cause him to change from one method of farming to another. It is done by the price method.
The end price of the product is definitely intended to encourage farmers to change from what is not needed so much within our economy to something which is needed within our economy. By price differences on the end product the Minister of Agriculture is always, and rightly so, seeking to bring about a switch from this type of production to another.
I have said before—and it has been said more than once in Committee—that, in the main, this is a landlords' Bill. It is a rent Bill. It is a Bill against the tenant, in favour of the landlord. It is a bad Bill for agriculture. Now, the only provision which the Government have put in for the protection of the tenant is to be whittled away by the Amendment. We most strongly oppose it for the reasons that I have given. The Government should have left unchanged this little sop which they put into a bad Bill, and because they have not we certainly oppose the Amendment.
8.30 p.m.
I should like to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing forward an Amendment which is substantially the same as that which I moved in Committee. I thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely for accepting the principle embodied in it.
I am rather astonished that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) should describe it as a whittling away of the tenant's rights under the Clause. The Amendment has one object only, and that is to provide a safeguard against a possible danger. There is no question of taking away the rights of the tenant and helping the landlord. It really is a bit of party pleading about what is a very sensible and necessary safeguard to a useful Clause which seeks to prevent abuse.
The hon. Member quoted the rather lengthy speech made in Committee by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). We listened to that speech with close attention. The hon. and learned Member put forward the view that the Amendment would tend to make agriculture static. I am sorry that he is not here. I have never heard such nonsense before. If a change in husbandry in a number of holdings is desirable, and that change is reflected in the terms of the Annual Price Review, every sensible landlord will agree to the change. It is only in a case where an application is made, and where the landlord has refused to give his consent to pay for fixed equipment and there is a dispute, that difficulty arises.
It is absolutely right to insert this necessary safeguard. For those reasons I say that the arguments which have been put up by hon. Members opposite, both here and in Committee, have no validity. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) even said that if such an Amendment had been passed agriculture would have become so static over the last few years that the tractor would never have been introduced. All I can say to that comment is that the tractor that he must have been thinking of at that time could have had no wheels on it.
I was talking in terms of the general idea of the development of agriculture.
All I can say is that the hon. Member was talking in terms very much broader in scope than are covered by this necessary but quite narrow Amendment. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
I should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). I agree that he knows a little about agriculture, because, in the 1946 Election, he was my opponent in South Ayrshire, and a very large section of the farmers in that constituency weighed up our relative knowledge of agriculture and decided in my favour. I understand that his reputation in his own constituency is very high because he still imports Ayrshire cattle to his farm.
As far as I can understand it, his argument is that the landlord must receive the maximum rent with the minimum amount of risk. Let us suppose that the farmer changes from one kind of agriculture to another, and makes a good thing of it. Does the landlord reduce his rent? Not at all. The whole argument of the Minister and the hon. Member for Honiton is that the landlord should get the maximum amount of rent with the minimum amount of risk. That argument is in tone with all the other arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite in connection with the Bill. They are doing everything possible to give the maximum opportunity to the landlord to squeeze the farmer.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister emphasised his faith in the reasonableness of tribunals, and said that when the Government approached a question they did so with reason and, I think someone said, common sense. By the Amendment it seems that the Minister is not prepared to trust the tribunal to exercise reasonableness and common sense in a question of this nature which may come before it. If it is in the interests of agriculture that a drastic change should not be made in the way in which a farm is worked, surely a reasonable tribunal would not allow it. It has the power not to allow it. But here the Minister is laying down a hard and fast rule that unless "an agricultural activity" has been operated for three years the tribunal shall not allow it unless it thinks otherwise.
I think that the Amendment is unnecessary from that point of view. The tribunal itself surely has common sense and reason to argue this out.
The purpose of the Amendment is entirely different. It is to prevent the extension of dairying any further. We have at present an excess of milk production. The Price Review emphasises that year after year. We know that the Milk Marketing Board is in difficulties over the excess of milk which it is receiving. It is not in the interests of agriculture generally, and of the dairying industry, in particular, that that extension of production should be allowed.
If the Minister had advanced an argument like that I could have understood it, and, what is more, I could have accepted it, because it is true. We do not want an extension of milk production at present, but an extension of other types of agriculture. We do not want arable farming to be turned over to dairying at present. Such a change would be a drastic change coming within the scope of this Amendment. I could have understood an argument like that, but the argument which the Minister and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) puts forward is not an argument at all. I venture to say that they are not putting forward the true reason for the Amendment, which is to prevent an extension of dairying to safeguard the dairy industry rather than to allow it to extend, as it is doing, in spite of everything that is being done to prevent it.
I have given my word not to make a speech, but may I ask a question of the Minister? Will he kindly consider the words that he proposes to insert in Clause 4? Why has he made it three years? The Government do not seem to know their own mind, because they switch year after year to a new tactic in farming, changing from beef to milk, potatoes to eggs, and vice versa. Why is he specifying three years? It seems a little harsh to tenant farmers to give that length of time when they are asked almost annually to change their method of farming.
On advice, three years seemed to be a reasonable time. Therefore, that period was chosen. I think that on consideration the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will realise that it is about the right time. I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in moving the Amendment. I assure the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) that it is not a disguised plot on my part to reduce milk production.
The reasons I have given were the reasons which justified my moving the Amendment. Under the Clause, which is a new concession to the tenant, it would be unfair to encourage people suddenly to switch into milk production because they had this particular power against the landlord which they do not have in carrying out other forms of farming. I assure the hon. Member that there is nothing sinister.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) could not resist saying that the Bill was a Bill entirely to do the tenant down. It was rather hard that he should have made that assertion on Clause 4, although he made a slight proviso which excuses him, perhaps, of any too sinister intentions. I cannot feel that any of the arguments which have been put forward is sufficient to change my view that the Amendment is justified.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 183.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "management" to "and" in line 19.
This is an Amendment which explains itself. What we are doing by this Amendment is to seek to reject the second thoughts of the Government. The Government reworded this part of the Clause, which in general we welcome, and we believe that in so amending the Clause they have made it less effective from the point of view of the tenant. It is for that reason that we move the Amendment.
What this subsection does is to make it mandatory—I stress this because the word "shall" is used—on the tribunals not to direct the landlord to carry out the work unless they are satisfied that it is reasonable so to do having regard to the lardlord's responsibilities to manage the land comprised in the holding in accordance with the rules of good estate management"— and here we come to the words we propose should be left out— and also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding and to any other material consideration". We believe that this provision would be much more effective and much fairer if it stopped at the word "management". We do not think that the additional words will help. We believe that they will serve only to make the decision of the tribunal more difficult. As we said in Committee, we do not think this will be a consideration which will arise in the majority of cases, but here is a matter which is placed upon the tribunal for its consideration. We think that if the words remain they could operate to the detriment of the tenant. If the landlord chooses to say—and we have been considering the provision in Clause 3 (2, b )—that he intends to seek to end the period of this holding as a separate holding, then the tribunal may find it very difficult to make a direction under this Clause.
This matter was considered in Committee. Unless the Government have third thoughts, reject their second thoughts and recognise that this is another act to the detriment of the tenant, I shall have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to support this Amendment by a Division.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for putting his point so briefly and clearly. He talks about the Government having third thoughts. I can assure him that the Government are always full of thought on this and on all other matters. He need have no fears on that score whatever.
He says that these words are less effective from the point of view of the tenant. I took very careful note of what the hon. Member said in Committee on this. I have looked again at what he said, and I am satisfied that these words are necessary to clarify the position and to show exactly what we are seeking to achieve here. I think it is right that we should make it abundantly clear that if there is a case in which it is anticipated that within a relatively short period of time the holding is to be amalgamated with another it would be wrong not only from the point of view of the landlord but from the national point of view as a waste of capital expenditure if insistence were laid on putting up buildings wanted for only a short period of time.
After all, in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1957, dealing with farm improvement schemes, we made it clear that we would not grant-aid schemes where it would be likely that there would be an amalgamation which would upset the holding. We provided that a considerable period of time ahead must be clearly seen before the money was to be spent. If that is right from the national point of view, and from the point of view of grant, it is right that we should not put an imposition on the landlord to provide buildings which would be white elephants in a short space of time.
We could well have a case where a landlord has in mind that he has a small uneconomic holding which he wishes to amalgamate with another larger holding to provide a better economic unit. He has on that holding an elderly tenant and he has decided that it would be unfair and unreasonable to dispossess that tenant, as he could seek to do under one of the provisos in Clause 3. He has decided that it would be better to leave the matter until that tenant has retired, when the holding would become available and he could then amalgamate it. Then this hypothetical tenant gets into some trouble about his buildings for milk production purposes and seeks to invoke this Clause. What would happen then, probably, would be that the landlord, unwilling to carry out the work, would seek to carry out the amalgamation. Thus, instead of helping the tenant, the Amendment would precipitate some action on the part of the landlord to secure amalgamation.
I put that as a case that could happen, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would not wish it to happen for one moment. It is not for any dogmatic reason that we feel unwilling to accede to his point of view, but for sound practical reasons. I would remind the hon. Member also that when this matter was considered in Committee no difference of opinion was expressed by a Division. Therefore, I feel somewhat surprised that the hon. Member feels it necessary to divide the House against this proposal on this occasion. These words can be of help to the tenant in the sort of case that I have cited. They are certainly necessary to express clearly the Bill's intention, and I strongly advise the House that the words should be allowed to remain in the Bill.
Whereas the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has tried to make out a case for the first few words of the lines which it is proposed to leave out— … also to the period for which the holding may be expected to remain a separate holding … —he has done nothing about the other words— and to any other material consideration … The hon. Gentleman has not given the House an inkling of what is meant by those latter words. He is so obsessed with this idea that we must amalgamate existing holdings that he wants to obliterate all the small holdings which he would describe as uneconomic holdings. This is the one great obsession that the Government have in the Bill and in the administration of their subsidies for farm improvements.
9.0 p.m.
I am sure that they are wrong. There are many very large holdings which would be more economic to this country if they were divided amongst those skilled farm workers who could make full use of them. Nowhere in this Bill does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of the one man or the large company who is getting ownership and control over large sections of the land of this country. The obsession that we must make provision whereby any landlord can get a scheme to amalgamate holdings and reduce the number of tenant farmers in this country will lead to the ruination of British agriculture, make no mistake about it. For our agriculture depends not only upon our land but also upon the quality and the knowledge of the people in charge of it.
You know the old saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these companies have neither a bottom to be kicked nor a soul to be damned, but each man who has given of his knowledge and of his skill and of his life to improve the quality of his land and the output of his products is a man who, once destroyed, can never be replaced. Yet these people want to destroy the very lifeblood of British agriculture, whether it is in the Highlands of Scotland or in the fields of Norfolk. Therefore, I want to oppose most strongly this incessant desire on the part of the Government to make provision whereby each landlord could get rid of the old man or refuse to carry out an improvement because, when they get rid of the old man, they can reduce the number of holdings.
That is one aspect of the problem. Nowhere has the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Agriculture tried to say in what way "any other material consideration" is a limiting factor. Where does it apply? Of course, the tribunal can direct the landlord in such a way, in taking any other material consideration into account, as to enable him to do anything. It is giving all power to the landlord. We could rightly have expected the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if not to divest himself of the obsession of himself and his Minister to amalgamate holdings as far as they can, to explain the meaning of that phrase and to tell us what are the limitations that can be put upon it.
I shall be happy to deal with the two points the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has raised. The first one he referred to was the phrase "any other material consideration". The best thing I can do is to refer him to column 767 of the Report of Standing Committee A. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whom I am happy to quote, said: We all know, the Lord Advocate better than anyone, that the words 'any other material consideration' are included to make it clear that the Tribunal is not to direct its mind exclusively to this matter, but must turn its attention to the rules of good estate management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st May, 1958; c. 767.] The hon. Gentleman stated the position clearly and succinctly, and I am grateful to him. Perhaps he will have a word with his hon. Friend afterwards. For those reasons, I did not seek to detain the House at this stage. I was ready to rest myself on what the hon. Gentleman had said, and I hope his hon. Friend will accept it.
On the other point on which the hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent, in phrases that I do not propose to follow, he referred to the claim he makes that we are seeking all the time to amalgamate holdings. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are making it possible for that to take place where uneconomic holdings exist. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want uneconomic holdings to continue, because this merely means that there are people continuing to try to obtain a living from land out of which they cannot obtain a living. Where they could obtain a reasonable living we should not seek to prevent them.
May I call in aid the word of his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). During a Committee stage debate on the 1957 Act, the right hon. Gentleman said: There happen to be already about 210,000 farms in this country of between one and 50 acres … That is a very large number of very small farms … I do not think that we should extend that number"— this was said by a right hon. Friend of the hon. Gentleman— We should be on the return journey, unifying small and uneconomic units so that both the nation and the individual producers may get whatever benefit society as a whole is willing to give to agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd May, 1957; c. 214–5.]
And not landlords.
I am dealing specifically with the point raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West—
No.
Indeed, I am. The hon. Member's point was that it was wrong to assist amalgamations. That is as I understood him. I have quoted his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley as saying that he felt there was a case for reducing the number of units. I have dealt with those two points by quoting from his right hon. and hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman will not accept my words, I hope he will accept theirs.
Apart from the quotation which the Parliamentary Secretary kindly made from a contribution of mine during a Standing Committee discussion, his replies have been thoroughly disappointing. All he said in his first reply would be met by the Clause as we seek to amend it. If the obligation were placed on the tribunal—we do not object to this—to see that the direction should be in accordance with the rules of good estate management, all the considerations raised
by the Parliamentary Secretary would be met. We object to further provision being made, and for that reason, on practical grounds, we propose the insertion of these words.
During the proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, we were considering a number of matters at the same time, and for that reason we did not seek to divide the Committee on this question. But having had an opportunity further to consider it, we believe that on practical grounds it is wrong to place this burden on the tribunal. There is also placed on the tribunal the consideration of matters of Government policy. The Parliamentary Secretary has already indicated that. I delicately hinted at some things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has spoken with good forthright Norfolk vigour, but the Parliamentary Secretary has disturbed us even more than he did in Committee. Then he disturbed us by talking about over security. Now he has disturbed us by talking about amalgamation in this context.
We welcome this Clause as giving certain powers to the tenant which he did not possess before. But when the Parliamentary Secretary talks about amalgamation, even in this context, I say to him in all seriousness that the question of amalgamation is extremely difficult and complex. It brings in many social consequences which must be considered. If, as appears to be the case, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this is a matter which should be left to individual landlords, he will run against the full-blooded opposition of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I think, most members of the agriculture industry. We say, therefore, that we are more disturbed than when we began to consider this Amendment, and we have no alternative but to divide the House.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 186.
I beg to move in line 35, to leave out "specified therein" and to insert "allowed by the Tribunal".
I think it would be convenient if we could discuss at the same time the Government Amendment in line 39.
That would be in order, if it meets the convenience of the House.
I should first apologise to the House in that when a similar Amendment arose in Standing Committee I said that it was purely drafting. That was an error. I should not have said it, and when questions were raised I withdrew what I had said. The truth is that I had not the papers before me at the time and I thought that the Amendment was purely drafting. In fact we had it in mind that we should have to insert a proviso to meet this point. I had no intention to mislead the Committee.
This is a paving Amendment to the longer Amendment which takes the words of an Amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). When that Amendment was moved I said that I would consider it. I was satisfied that a case had been made out and I said that I would look at the wording suggested and would move an Amendment on Report. This is what we seek to do. The main Amendment makes it possible to give an extended period to the landlord where that is justified to enable him to carry out the work.
The wording is … will not allow sufficient time both for the completion of preliminary arrangements necessary or desirable in connection with the work required by the direction … and for the carrying out of the said work. We merely want to ensure that if some special circumstance arises that would prevent the landlord from carrying out his duties under subsection (1) he shall be given the opportunity of further time. For example, very severe weather could prevent him carrying out the work for a period, or difficulties could arise if some materials were required but their arrival was delayed. It would apply where there was a genuine case.
We do not seek in any way to let the landlord get out of his obligations at all, but we believe that a case has been made out, where a genuine need has been proved, for an extension of time, and we thought it right to provide for it. We felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) had made out his case in Committee, and it is for that reason that I now move the Amendment.
We thank the Parliamentary Secretary for moving his Amendment in such a fair way. We regard it as a reasonable one, and shall be happy to facilitate its passage.
I only want to thank my hon. Friend for carrying out his pledge in Committee in respect of the Amendment I then moved.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end to insert: and any loss or damage which the tenant may have suffered by reason of the failure of the landlord to carry out the work by the date specified in the order". The Minister has just told us that the Government do not wish to do anything to assist a landlord to get out of his obligations, so I see no reason why they should not accept this Amendment. Surely, a tenant is entitled to justice and compensation if the neglect has been proved to be the fault of the landlord. One can easily imagine the case where a farmer has not been able to develop his herd of milk cows because of the failure of the landlord to provide the necessary buildings.
The attitude of hon. Members opposite to compensation is, surely, that in the case of, say, the National Coal Board or any of the other nationalised industries, they would insist on the maximum reasonable compensation being paid to any individual who suffered as a result of a nationalised industry's neglect. We wish this principle to be applied, and that is the whole purpose of this Amendment.
Why should the landlord escape from his liabilities when he has failed to carry out his legal obligations? I suggest that the Government should adopt exactly the same attitude here, and say that they propose to accept the Amendment because they do not wish to do anything to assist a landlord to get rid of his obligations.
I beg to second the Amendment.
In their previous Amendments we have had examples of the Government's desire to help the landlord, and my hon. Friends have been sympathetic. We hope that there will be some reciprocity, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be sympathetic to an Amendment which, after all, gives the tenant farmer some rights, and certain safeguards in certain circumstances.
If the landlord has failed to carry out his legal obligations we feel that the tenant should receive compensation. This Amendment should be supported by every hon. Member because we on these benches have been conciliatory to the landlord on previous Amendments and we merely ask hon. Members opposite to be sympathetic towards us. That is a reasonable demand. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be objective and will agree that the tenant should have security if any damage is caused to his holding or farm unit. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is a reasonable request.
I am at a loss to understand the reason for this Amendment. In Committee, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) moved an Amendment in exactly the same terms. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: … I am advised that it is unnecessary to have an Amendment of this sort in order to obtain what the hon. Member wishes. Later, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said: … in view of the otherwise sympathetic reply of the Minister, and in view of the fact that the case put shows that the legal phraseology is already contained in the Clause, I do not wish to press the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment"—[OFFICINT, REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1958; c. 779 and 785.] Now the hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment in the same form on Report and it seems to me to be wasting the time of the House.
May I, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House ask a question? Surely it is the normal procedure when a matter is reported back from Committee that we look afresh at the arguments and that if, in the changed circumstances, hon. Members feel that something which should have been put into the Bill during the Committee stage has not been put into the Bill, it is right to look at the matter again. That is no reflection on my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is merely in response to an intimation by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would be prepared to look afresh at the matter on Report.
I understood that there was an undertaking to reconsider the matter.
Yes, that is so.
I undertook to look at this matter again merely to satisfy myself that the points that I had put forward were correct in the light of the comments that had been made. I am happy to give the assurance that I have looked into this matter and that I stand by what I said in Committee. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is quite right; there is no fresh point here.
What I said then was quite valid, that under the Clause the tenant already has security. As my hon. Friend has reminded the House, in column 779 of the OFFICIAL REPORT I am reported as having pointed out that under the Clause the tenant already has security.
While, as I pointed out in Committee, I am sympathetic with the desire of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in this respect, I am assured that there is no need to write in words of this kind because the tenant has his rights to claim damages against the landlord. I think that this meets the case which hon. Members have in mind.
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that because hon. Members on his side of the House had been sympathetic to provisions relating to the landlords we should be sympathetic to this Amendment, which relates to tenants. I would remind him that we inserted the Clause for the very reason that we are sympathetic to tenants. The Clause deals with the help which is to be given to tenants, and nothing else. We have shown our sympathy to tenants quite conclusively.
I can only repeat what I said in Committee. I have looked at the matter again in the light of what was said then, and I still say that there is no need to include words of this nature, because a tenant already has his rights under the Clause. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
I am not sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply is yet satisfactory. The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) surely realises that this was a matter which quite properly fell to be reconsidered by the Government after the Committee stage. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we also had a discussion about the word "same". We cannot discuss that now, because the Amendment relating to it has not been selected, but we had a discussion about the meaning of the Clause.
In Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also said: In any case it is covered and the tenant can sue for damages".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1458; c. 780.] If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is satisfied merely in the sense that the the tenant can recover damages I do not think that my hon. Friends will be content, because they are seeking to provide that the tribunal should be able to enforce this provision. If there is a difference of view between us we would stick to our point that it is unfair to oblige the tenant to rely upon his right to damages.
It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is saying that as he understands the Clause it would not interfere with the tenant's right to proceed for damages. My hon. Friends are seeking to go beyond that and say that the tribunal should be able to deal with the matter and that the tenant should, therefore, have a much simpler remedy.
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. It is important that we should be clear what we are saying. The hon. Member is quite right; I am saying that under the Clause any work covered by the tribunal's direction would be regarded as incorporated in the tenancy agreement. That was what I thought I said; it is certainly what I intended to say. Therefore, the tenant will have the same right to claim damages from the landlord if he fails to carry out his obligation under a direction as he would if the landlord had failed to fulfil a term of the tenancy agreement itself. That is an adequate safeguard. If the landlord falls down on his duties the tenant has a clear statutory right. I would have thought that that was sufficient.
The hon. Member referred to the word "same". I must not go into that matter. I merely say that I have looked into it very carefully and I have been assured that there is no need to alter that point of drafting.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 4, line 39, at end insert: (4) The Tribunal, on an application by the landlord, may extend or further extend the period specified in a direction under subsection (1) of this section if it is shown to their satisfaction that the period so specified, or that period as previously extended under this subsection, as the case may be, will not allow sufficient time both for the completion of preliminary arrangements necessary or desirable in connection with the work required by the direction (including, in appropriate cases, the determination of an application by the landlord for a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of that work) and for the carying out of the said work.—[ Mr. Hare. ]
Clause 5.—(TRANSFER TO LORD CHANCELLOR OF MINISTER'S FUNCTIONS AS RESPECTS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNALS.)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out from "The" to "functions" in line 3.
Would it be convenient if we discussed at the same time the next Amendment in line 4, Mr. Speaker?
Yes.
These Amendments go together and they are designed to try to meet the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The Bill at present singles out my power to make Orders under Section 73 (1) of the 1947 Act and thereafter refers to my other powers under that Section as "other functions". This may be a little misleading, since it might suggest that no Order-making power was included in the words "other functions", but, in fact, those functions include a power to make Orders under Section 73 (3) of the 1947 Act.
I think that the Amendments make clear that all my functions relating to tribunals under that Section will be transferred to the Lord Chancellor except in respect of the provision of officers and servants and the payment of salaries, fees and allowances. There is no change in substance and the Amendments are simply drafting Amendments.
On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, I should like to thank the Minister for his assistance.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, leave out "that section" and insert: section seventy-three of the Act of 1947"—[ Mr. Hare. ]
Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUCCESSION TO HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND.)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after "by", to insert "or regarded as adopted by."
The Minister will remember that this point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in Committee. I do not think that it is a controversial point. The purpose of the Amendment is to ask the Minister whether he is able to take into account not only children legally adopted, but those children who for all practical purposes are considered as adopted.
I beg to second the Amendment.
The word "adopted" has a meaning in law, but the words "regarded as adopted"—although they have been used in an English statute, I think wrongly—leave the matter entirely open whether and by whom the child is "regarded as adopted" and I suggest that there is grave doubt whether A or B regard the child as adopted or whether the court will regard the child as adopted. I believe that the inclusion of "adopted child" in the family is a solution which ought to be kept in the Bill.
Without offence, may I say that it is not entirely satisfactory to be told by a Scotsman that there are words in English legislation which are not entirely satisfactory. However, as there is nothing between us in endeavouring to meet this point, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and consider whether it is possible to devise words to meet the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sure that the Government will do that, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the beginning, to insert: Except where the landlord or the tenant is a limited company and". The Amendment is designed to cover a point which has been raised with me by tenant farmers, who impressed upon me the extent to which company farming is now engaged in. We all know that land ownership is widely practised by companies and that there is a good deal of company farming. I think it fair to say that companies which go in for farming normally acquire the land and so are owner-occupiers of the land which they farm. That is not always the case, however, and I believe that there are now a fair number of companies which are tenants of agricultural land.
It would seem that the Clause has no application to companies. Subsection (3), which it is sought to amend, certainly cannot have any application to a company. The tenant farmer has hitherto bequeathed his tenancy in Scotland normally to a member of his family, but the security hitherto enjoyed by a member of the family is now being removed by subsection (3). A company can hardly bequeath the tenancy to a member of its family or to any other person, so that the company, it appears, would continue in the tenancy ad infinitum. There is no way of terminating the tenancy of the company, but only of terminating the tenancy of a family farmer.
If the subsection has no application to a company tenant, it has been suggested to me that it might not be a bad thing deliberately, by an Amendment, to take the company landlord and the company tenant out of the scope of the Clause. That is what the Amendment proposes and I hope very much that the Government will accept it.
I beg to second the Amendment.
It is true that where a company was in the position of a tenant, it could not die. To that extent, it is in a totally different position from, so to speak, a human tenant. On the other hand, where a company is in the position of landlord there is no reason whatever in logic why the provisions of subsection (3) and of the Clause should not apply.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) does not need me to repeat the arguments, on policy reasons, for the subsection—we discussed them in Committee; he will, however, agree that on their merits they would have to apply when a tenant died if the landlord so wished: in other words, if the landlord wished the legatee or the heir-at-law not to succeed to anything more than the remainder of the lease. Obviously, there is not the slightest difference whether the landlord is a limited company or a private person. In other words, the position of the limited company qua tenant and qua landlord is not on all fours, as, I am sure, the hon. Member will recognise.
Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that the case made for subsection (3), and, indeed, for the whole Clause, was the case that was made for the landlord who had spent money on his farm and who might at a future date wish to get possession of the tenant-occupied farm for a member of his family or for some other person? Was it not the case that he, as an individual, might wish to recover or to bring into his possession this farm, which had been left on a contract of tenancy or a lease, to be continued in perpetuity? When we argued the Clause, was it not envisaged that the landlord was a private individual and not a limited company?
9.45 p.m.
On the whole, it would be so, but it does not make the slightest difference to the intention or the working of the Clause. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reason for doing what we wish to do is not at all solely that the landlord may want to take the land in hand. There may be a desire for a change of tenant, and there is no reason why a limited company should not have that right, just as private landlords have the right, to change tenancies at the end of the contracts. It is exactly the same for both parties to the contract at the end of the contract, whether they be limited companies or private owners.
What is the position if the tenant who dies is a minority
shareholder in a limited liability company?
The tenant is a shareholder in the company?
A minority shareholder.
I should need notice of that question.
But this is the last chance that we have got.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 214.
I beg to move. That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
We have made extremely good progress today and if the right hon. Gentleman could give me a reasonable assurance that we shall be able to complete the Report stage and Third Reading tomorrow I would be quite happy to accept his Motion. I think that that would be the general wish of the House. Naturally, I am interested in securing the business.
If the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that the Government will not suspend the Standing Order tomorrow night, I can give him the assurance he seeks.
That is certainly good enough for me.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended ( in the Standing Committee ), to be further considered Tomorrow.
WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MARTIN REDMAYNE in the Chair]
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES (USE OF TRADE LICENCES FOR COLLECTION AND DELIVERY OF VEHICLES)
Resolved, That it is expedient to limit the cases in which trade licences under section ten of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, may be used for the collection or delivery of mechanically propelled vehicles.—[ Mr. Simon. ]
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow Committee to sit again Tomorrow.
FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
9.58 pm.
I beg to move, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved. This Order is subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and is made under the authority of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. It amends, for the first time, the Furniture Industry Development Council Order, 1948, which set up a Development Council for the furniture industry.
To enable the Council to meet its expenses, Article 6 of the 1948 Order gives the Council authority, with the approval of the Board of Trade, to impose levies on parsons manufacturing domestic furniture. Paragraph (3) of Article 6 provides that any charge shall be computed so as to yield as nearly as possible an equal sum in each period of 12 calendar months, but not so as to yield more than £75,000 in any period of three years.
Since the Council was set up nearly ten years ago its expenses have increased. The limit imposed by Parliament on the maximum amount of the levy, an average of £25,000 a year, is no longer sufficient to meet the cost of the work which the Council considers to be necessary and which the industry wishes to be done. The Council therefore asked the Board of Trade to seek parliamentary approval of an increase in the maximum amount of the levy which may be charged on the manufacturers.
The Board of Trade consulted organisations representative of the manufacturers and of the workpeople engaged in the industry. The trade unions recommended an increase in the maximum amount of the levy from £25,000 per annum to £33,000. The manufacturers have recommended an increase to £30,000 a year and that figure, as the highest common factor of the advice offered to the Board of Trade, has been included in the draft Order. The Amendment only increases the maximum amount of the levy which may be approved by the Board of Trade. The Furniture Development Council will continue to have to obtain the approval of the Board of Trade for any levy which it wishes to impose within the maximum amount.
In this Order we further propose that the maximum amount which may be charged shall be fixed for one year instead of for three years, as was provided for in 1948. This change, which is approved by the trade organisations concerned, will bring the conditions governing the levy into line with those which regulate the levy imposed by the only other Development Council, namely, the Cotton Board. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order.
10.2 p.m.
I only want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. He is requesting the House to agree to an increase in the amount of the levy that the Furniture Development Council may raise. I take it from this that it is the view of the Government that the Council is doing valuable and useful work in the industry. That appeared to be implied in what the hon. Gentleman said, but he did not say so explicitly, and we should like to have it clear that this is the view of the Government. It is certainly our view, though it may be that some of my hon. Friends who are particularly familiar with this industry may have more specific views as to which of its activities might be extended rather than others.
I will only add that I hope this is not the only form of assistance and encouragement to the furniture industry that the Government have in mind. If we were to consult those in the industry, I think they would say that from their point of view far more would be done to relieve it in its present rather depressed condition by some alleviation of the present restrictions on hire purchase than by an increase in this levy. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the restrictions on hire purchase are particularly stringent and were specially hard on the industry. Therefore, it is timely, at a moment when the Government are in certain respects easing up on their economic policy—as, for instance, in the Chancellor's decision to raise the initial allowances—that the furniture industry should at least inquire how long it is to be held in the particularly severe grip in which it has languished for over twelve months.
So I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, can we take it that the Government regard this Council as a valuable institution, and have they anything in mind, in addition to this very minor measure, to encourage and stimulate the industry?
10.4 p.m.
Whilst I wish to support my right hon. Friend in the questions he has put to the Parliamentary Secretary about relief for the furniture industry from the present excessive restrictions imposed on it by the Government, I would probably be out of order if I pursued that too far.
My right hon. Friend asked the Minister whether the Government thought the work done by the Council was valuable. I assume the answer must be "Yes" or they would not be continuing it in existence. I am certain the work it has done in the ten years of its existence has been of great value to the industry. It introduced the industry for the first time to the ideas of research, and there is no doubt that it has improved the products of the furniture industry, certainly among those firms who have taken the trouble to take advantage of its research work. When the Utility scheme was abolished, it would have been almost impossible to provide the public with any standards if it had not been for the work of the research department of the Furniture Development Council.
I am glad that, in addition to the levy, research work is being supported by a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. One of the reasons for the increase in the income of the Council is that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research expects the industry to support its own research work, if the Government are going to support it as well. One of the reasons, apart from the increase in competition to which the industry is now subjected—and, incidentally, competition from abroad is increasing as well—is that this increased competition undoubtedly makes it necessary for the industry not only to increase its production efficiency but also to improve its standard of designs.
At present, there are increasing numbers of new materials, new types of timber and forms of construction and new types of finish which are used in the industry. Undoubtedly research is needed for their application, and the industry, especially smaller firms, needs guidance in the standards by which these new materials should be applied. Apart from the research work and the information work following from it—which I wish were supported by more firms—I wish that more firms were members of the Research and Information Committee of the Council than is reported in its annual report.
Of course, there is work on training, particularly in the fields of management and supervision, method study and costing. I believe that about 70 firms have introduced the Development Council costing scheme, which has raised the whole level of manufacture in the industry. Like myself, the Parliamentary Secretary is more used to working in metal, and problems of working in timber in some cases are much more difficult. The problems in the upholstery section are even greater. It is interesting to see that the Research Department of the Council has undertaken research into the upholstery section, and the confidence displayed by firms in the Council is shown by the grant by Dunlop of £1,000 a year for three years for research into furniture upholstery.
I am glad that the Government are continuing the life of the Council and giving it power to raise an increased levy which I am sure will be of great benefit to the industry in the very difficult times through which at present it is passing.
10.8 p.m.
I, too, am a strong supporter of the principle of development councils for industry. In fact, I remember that in the debate on the Bill which brought these councils into form in 1948 I was one of those who advocated that they should have stronger and more widespread powers in order to become more effective. It may be that because they have not those wide powers—this Council, in particular, operates on a very small budget—they are not nearly as effective as I should like to see them.
I should declare an interest in this matter, as I am one of the contributors to the £30,000. May I hasten to add that I do not begrudge in any way the increase asked for, which cannot rebut the increase in costs during the last ten years. A figure of £30,000 does not enable much research work to be done. I wish to add a few things to those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in the way of directing the Minister's mind to whether the remit of this Council is sufficiently comprehensive, or whether steps are being taken to direct the minds of its members effectively along those lines upon which it can most assist the industry.
I am aware that it is in consultation both with employers and representatives of trade unions in these matters, but, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), it has confined itself almost exclusively to research. Although that research has in many ways assisted and benefited sections of the industry, particularly those sections and firms which have shown themselves willing and able to benefit from the results of research, I feel that the industry as a whole would be far more interested, shall I say, in finding ways, through the Development Council, of helping firms to be more effective as an industry and more able to assist their living as an industry, than perhaps in the antics of the lesser boll weevil.
I find it very sad that in those ten years since the Furniture Industry Development Council has been in operation the development in the industry has been more or less all one way—and all the wrong way—in so far as volume is concerned. For example, a very few years before 1948 the number of firms in the industry was over 4,000 and now it is fewer than 2,000. In recent years, the decline in employment and in the number of skilled craftsmen employed—craftsmen who cannot very well be replaced—is catastrophic. I do not know of any other industry in the country where there has been a similar decline in the employment of skilled craftsmen. I am not merely talking about those who are unemployed, but those who have been driven out of the industry because there is no effective employment for them.
I should have thought that the Board of Trade might well have directed the attention of the Council to avenues in which it might more effectively help the industry as a whole. As the Minister is well aware, the Economist Intelligence Unit recently conducted an invaluable survey of the industry, which, I am sure he will agree, gives an extremely full and comprehensive picture of the industry as it is today, the causes of its decline and suggestions for its improvement. That survey was not carried out by the Development Council. It was not financed by the Council, but by the Retail Furniture Federation, out of its our resources.
There is also the question of export markets. I am not suggesting that furniture is a commodity which lends itself readily to export. There is, of course, the difficulty of bulk and of packing, and the difficulty that most countries have indigenous industry suited to their particular civilisation or standards of living.
I think that the hon. Member is going very wide of the Order.
I was suggesting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these were matters to which the Furniture Industry Development Council, through the Board of Trade, might direct its inquiries in order to secure the objective of development in the industry.
This Order deals with charges, the maximum permissible amount.
The Board of Trade, as I understand, is asking for powers through this Order to increase the amount of money available to the Furniture Industrial Development Council so that it may better carry on its work. I was suggesting to the Minister that these were some of the things on which it might spend money for the better development of the furniture industry. I hope that I shall be in order in suggesting that the Council might pursue research into the possibility of increasing the export market for furniture.
The Order deals only with the amount of money to be raised.
Naturally, I will abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that it would have been in order, when we are suggesting that more money should be made available to this Council, which has as its objective the development of the furniture industry, to say how that money should be spent.
That was originally decided, and now we are asking for more money.
On a point of order. Presumably it is in order to discuss the purpose for which the Council wants the money and the way in which it might be spent.
Yes, but I allowed a good deal of latitude before I stopped the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins).
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will leave the point about exports.
I also suggest to the Minister that one of the difficulties which the industry is now experiencing is in connection with the dumping of furniture from Iron Curtain countries. These and other matters are points to which I at least feel that the attention of the Council ought to be directed.
I feel that the Council should be a strong and good force for the industry. It should be an example of what can be achieved and an example to other industries where the principle might be extended and developed. A great deal of good could be done. I hope that this money will be spent in defined ways of developing the industry and helping the manufacturers to get a living, as well as helping the skilled workers to obtain and keep employment in the industry in which they have their skill rather than being obliged to go to other industries.
I hope that the money will be spent in this way, that the Council will flourish and that the suggestions which I have made to the Minister will be noted in the right quarter.
With the permission of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been made in this short but interesting debate. Replying to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), it is true that this Order increases the maximum total of the yield which may be raised, but it will not of itself necessarily increase the rate levied. That is a matter which is fixed from year to year.
It is fair to say that the Government approve of the Furniture Development Council. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, we should not be putting the Order forward if we disapprove. On the other hand, it must be recognised that this is a Council which the industry as a whole supports, and if it wishes the Council to continue its activities we feel that the least we can do is to give the Council the necessary powers to raise the money which it requires for its activities.
Presumably the Government have a view of their own and consider that the work which the Council is doing is valuable.
Most certainly. I do not want to appear to be too non-committal. The Government approve of the work which is being done. I took an opportunity not long ago to visit the Council's research laboratories in North London to satisfy myself about the work which they were doing. I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Edmonton, that it is sometimes more complicated to work in wood than in metal.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) referred to rather useless research into wood pests, but I can assure him that that is valuable work to do if it affects the product—good domestic furniture. The hon. Member for Edmonton spoke of the need to improve standards of design and new materials. An important part of the Council's work is to make sure that the exciting new materials which are increasingly becoming available are made known, particularly to the smaller firms, who might otherwise not have an opportunity to keep abreast with all that is going on in this progressive world.
May I say in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury that I have read the Economist survey with great interest. I do not think it matters in the least that it was not produced by the Council. I am pleased that a section of the furniture industry took the initiative to publish its own survey on the prospects of its industry.
The hon. Gentleman also made a number of points about work that the Furniture Development Council might undertake. I am sure that the Council will study his speech with great interest, and adopt his suggestions, where they are practicable. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
GRAIG HOSPITAL, PONTYPRIDD (MEDICAL STAFFING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Sir G. Wills. ]
10.21 p.m.
I sought this opportunity to raise the matter of the insufficiency of the medical staffing at the Graig Hospital, Pontypridd, because of a widely-held view that the time is overdue for this hospital to have a full-time medical staff. The hospital management committee, too, has held such a view for some time past, and repeated representations have been made to the Welsh Regional Hospital Board—all to no avail.
Like most hospitals of its vintage, the Graig Hospital is a barrack-like building. On the other hand, since the National Health Service Act, 1946, I am conscious that much good work accomplished has been directly due to the quality of the people serving the hospital. All honour to those who have done so much.
In the main, the hospital is for chronic sick, and caters for a thickly-populated industrial area. The hospital load itself is, no doubt, coloured by the consequent social and environmental factors. There are 283 or more beds, of which 180 are classified for the chronic sick, 64 for general medicine, and the rest for other illnesses. However, the position of the chronic sick is so desperate that the beds are most probably filled with that type of patient. One is pressingly aware of the urgency of this problem, because of an ageing population and because present-day social trends make it increasingly difficult for people who are seriously ill over a long period to be cared for in their own homes.
At present, in this hospital of at least 283 beds, two local, busy and, I may say, very respected general practitioners are giving eight sessions each week, Which amounts to about 28 hours. When I raised the matter at Question Time on 20th May, the Parliamentary Secretary informed me that an additional consultant had been appointed. I must point out, however, that such a consultant is to give only one session of three hours per week. To me, that has just a flavour of paint and unreality. With this totally inadequate concession, the Welsh Hospital Board propose to defer consideration of any further appointment pending experience of the effect of this increase in staff, and the result of the general review of hospitals for the chronic sick now in progress—in that area, I take it, or in the whole of Wales.
I submit that the effect of this appointment is easily assessed, as it means only three hours a week of the consultant's time. Clearly, therefore, it will not fulfil the medical needs of the hospital.
On the question of the general review of the services for the chronic sick and, possibly, the acceptance of the urgent need for complete revision of these services, what hope does the Parliamentary Secretary hold out that money will be made available for a full-time medical staff and at least of a consultant geriatrician at an early date? The point at issue is that of an adequate medical staff to investigate the condition of each sick person, with ancillary staff to ensure whatever degree of rehabilitation is possible.
So many of the chronic sick at Graig Hospital are the silent people who have not spoken yet. They are grateful for the kindness and the skill shown but would appreciate further arrangements for a periodic medical check-up. My concern is to improve the facilities, and though one might be critical, this does not involve failing to give credit where it is properly due. Is not the present part-time medical staff too hard-pressed to give the detailed attention needed? Is the care of the chronic sick in this area the Cinderella of the National Health Service Act, 1946? Certainly the medical staffing has been niggardly, and its improvement is essential. For the patients and their near ones there is the need that they should feel that behind the sick is the fullest medical provision possible.
Much of the value of hospital treatment like that at the Graig Hospital, if it meets the needs and aspirations of the family and friends, is of great value to the morale of a large industrial area like this. Proper geriatric treatment is sadly lacking, though I am glad to admit that nursing and food are first-class.
I want to put a question on the wide variation in the standards of medical staffing between this and similar types of hospitals. What variation in the nature and amount of work done is there between that in the Graig Hospital, with over 283 beds, with only a part-time medical staff, and, say, St. David's Hospital, Cardiff, where there are only 194 beds for the chronic sick, with three full time medical officers, that can warrant the denial much longer of a full-time medical staff in the Graig Hospital?
A more vigorous interest is developing in the hospital care of the chronic sick in the area concerned. Relatives and friends want the reassurance which is so helpful in giving a sense of satisfaction. I believe they are entitled to have it. I am very disappointed that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board has given such faint indications, judging by the staffing standards, of fulfilling the Ministry's aims in the geriatric services and the care of the chronic sick as set out in the memorandum of 7th October, 1957. Much firmer lines of advance should be forthcoming for this hospital.
I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary can give me real hope that something will soon be done in the matters that I have brought to the notice of the House. I feel from the depth of my heart that it is a sore and pitiless prospect if there cannot be provided for a hospital of this nature containing over 283 beds a full-time medical staff.
10.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) has presented a very strong case to the Minister for his very serious consideration. It requires no eloquent plea in the wake of what my hon. Friend has said, as the facts speak for themselves. If only the House could appreciate the psychology that has been centred around this hospital for many years prior to the introduction of the Health Service. There has been a very strong prejudice against the hospital owing to its antecedents.
The local hospital management committee has been very much aware of this fact and has concentrated a great deal of its efforts in attempting to break down that prejudice which has been lodged in the minds of the people in the valleys who avoid the hospital. The committee has succeeded to a very large extent in overcoming the reluctance on the part of people to go to the hospital because of its past reputation.
The hospital management committee should give far more serious consideration and weight to the knowledge of the people on the spot and should attempt to meet what in my opinion, particularly in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, is a very modest request.
One of the weaknesses of the present administration of the hospital—and I speak with the greatest respect for the two medical practitioners who have been elected to work at the hospital—is that it cannot work very successfully. Here we have two general practitioners in a very largely industrialised area in South Wales who from general reports about which we read are so much involved in their general practice that they have little time for leisure.
If that is the case—and that is the conclusion one must come to having read so many reports about the arduous responsibilities of general practitioners—these two doctors can give the attention required from them at the hospital at the expense of their general practice. They are therefore faced with a dual loyalty, a loyalty to their general practice and a loyalty to the hospital. Quite frankly, their first priority must always be their general practice, because that depends on them giving their patients the best attention possible. Therefore, there is a weakness in preserving the present administration. With all the best intentions in the world, these two doctors cannot give a very satisfactory service to this hospital if they are deeply involved in their own practices. For that reason, like my hon. Friend I am of the opinion that the present situation should be altered.
I do not know what motives or influences bear upon the regional hospital board in this matter. I hope that it is not on grounds of economy that it is refusing to grant this modest request. Unless the situation is altered the prejudice which still exists will harden. I have had letters from some of my constituents who are patients and complain that they do not receive the medical attention and treatment to which they are entitled. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the point. We want to encourage the people in our valleys to show a greater willingness to enter the hospital when the necessary facilities are available. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will do something to prevail upon the hospital board to alter its attitude.
10.37 p.m.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) for the agreeable manner in which he has raised this matter, which is of great importance not only in his constituency but also in the surrounding area.
The Graig Hospital at Pontypridd is, as he has said, a former public assistance institution, with 276 staffed hospital beds. Of these hospital beds, 160 are allocated for long-stay chronic sick—and the bur-then of the hon. Member's argument, and also of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) was that the elderly people were not being sufficiently provided for—64 for general medicine, 13 for skin diseases and nine for mental cases. There is also a separate block with 30 beds for children, which is now little used. The average occupancy during 1957 was as low as seven, and consideration is now being given to putting these beds to other uses. The building is an old one and is seriously in need of modernisation. Perhaps it would be a crumb of comfort to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends if I say that the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, in its forward planning, has earmarked £50,000 of capital development money for this purpose.
Most of the argument this evening turns on the staffing problem—whether the hospital, in relation to the calls made upon it and the comparable services elsewhere, is adequately staffed. The present medical staffing consists of two consultant physicians—one recently appointed to cover the field of geriatrics as well as general medicine—and two general practitioner clinical assistants. The consultants between them devote two half-day sessions a week to the Graig Hospital, and the clinical assistants eight sessions. In addition, members of the specialist medical staff of the group visit the hospital as required.
It is true that as long ago as 1954 the hospital management committee put forward a proposal for the appointment of a whole-time medical officer of senior status, relating the proposal particularly to the needs of the chronic sick. Meanwhile, approval had been given to the appointment of an additional consultant physician for the group; and the regional hospital board's consultant adviser, following a survey of the needs of the group, recommended, as the hon. Member knows, that the committee's proposal should be deferred until experience had been gained of the results of this consultant appointment.
In making appointments of this character, the regional hospital board naturally has to consider the needs of Wales as a whole, and it was not until this year that it found itself financially able to fill the Pontypridd and Rhondda post.
Reference has been made to the organisation of geriatric services as a whole—
Will the hon. Gentleman give some attention to the difference in the staffing between the hospital I named—St. David's Hospital, Cardiff—and the Graig Hospital, where there are three full-time appointments for a much smaller number of beds?
Indeed I will, but if we compare those two particular hospitals we are not comparing like with like. The Graig Hospital, as I have shown and as the hon. Member well understands, is largely for the chronic sick, but St. David's, Cardiff, has 262 beds for the chronic sick and general medicine and 258 for other specialties, which means that only about half of its effort is devoted to the chronic sick. Therefore, a comparison between one and the other is not strictly valid.
However, as I was about to say, following a nation-wide survey of the services for the aged chronic sick, a circular was sent last year to hospital authorities and to local health authorities—this was the circular to which the hon. Member referred—suggesting that they might act in concert in setting up comprehensive geriatric services covering domiciliary as well as hospital facilities for their respective areas.
In pursuance of that suggestion, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, through a special sub-committee set up for the purpose, is preparing plans on which it intends to consult local health authorities and others with a view to the launching of services of this kind. I make a point of this, because I would not wish it to be thought that the needs of the elderly chronic sick in this area have in any sense gone by default.
The consultant physician recently appointed for Pontypridd and Rhondda has a record of special interest and successful work in this field elsewhere, and his advent opened up the prospect of an early start in this work in this area. With this prospect before it, the regional hospital board has, wisely I think, decided to await a report from him, when he is in a position to make one, before taking any steps to this end. Among the matters thus in abeyance is that of additional medical staff. By this is meant not only staff for the Graig Hospital, but for a geriatric service in general for the locality.
It is only fair to say that the newcomer took up his post only seven weeks ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect him or the regional hospital board, after so brief an interval, to make any pronouncement until a little more time has elapsed.
How long is that "little more time"?
If the hon. Member will give me more time, I hope to come to that.
The hon. Member made a point of comparison with other hospitals. If medical staffing is to be judged by comparison with other establishments, there is a difficulty in that no hospitals are to be found in South Wales, I am informed, closely comparable with the Graig.
Its function, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is preponderantly the care of the chronic sick, and 160 out of its 276 beds are devoted to this purpose. It does not cater, as other hospitals do, for other specialties over a wide range, and it has no out-patients' department. For a fair comparison one has to look further afield, to West Wales and North Wales, where there are three hospitals, each catering for up to 150 chronic sick patients and nothing else. Their present medical staffing is roughly half that at the Graig.
Therefore, we should not make too much of the point that the Graig is worse off in its medical staffing as compared with hospitals doing the same kind of work. But I fully accept that the criterion of comparison is not necessarily the last word, especially in view of the developments to be desired in geriatric services, and the Welsh Regional Hospital Board has by no means closed its mind to the hospital management committee's proposal.
I cannot help thinking that the reasonable conclusion is that this question, which may be more far-reaching than the hospital management committee has supposed, should not be hastily decided but should be held open a little longer for the benefit of the specialist advice which the board may expect to receive when the consultant has had time to assess the needs of the hospital and the area.
The hon. Member made a point about the attitude of the hospital management committee to this and its earlier feelings in the matter. I am bound to say that the Committee's attitude lias not been wholly consistent. As recently as 3rd April last, it informed the regional hospital board that it would be content to await the outcome of the board's further consideration, adding that its medical staff committee might have something else to say. Shortly afterwards the medical staff committee also decided to wait and see. With this decision before it, the hospital management committee early this month resolved unanimously, so I am informed, to press for the immediate appointment of a full-time doctor for the Graig.
One can well understand that every hospital management committee worth its salt wants the best possible deal it can secure for the hospitals under its control. That is absolutely human and understandable, but my whole point in this debate is that the committee concerned cannot and should not consider its problems in isolation from the needs of the other hospital services which are necessary in the area, I say to the committee, through the hon. Member who has raised this point with great fairness and moderation, "Give this experiment a chance to work out. Let us have the benefit of the recommendation which will be placed before the board."
The hon. Gentleman has asked me how long will that be. I cannot say precisely—perhaps six months or perhaps as much as a year. But let us get the benefit of what this appointment has set out to do. As I said earlier on, the mind of the Welsh Regional Board is by no means closed to the hospital management committee's proposal, but I think it will be able to arrive at a fair and more appropriate conclusion if it has the benefit of the results of this experimental appointment behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.