CLAUSE 17.—(Byelaws relating to accommodation for agricultural workers.) (Hansard, 29 March 1938)

§ Mr. Foot
I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, to leave out paragraph (i).
This Clause is mandatory in form. It provides that a local authority shall make by-laws with respect to bothies, chaumers 1906 and similar premises. In Sub-section (4) it is further provided that, if the local authority fails in the prescribed time to make these by-laws, the Department themselves may make such by-laws, which shall be of like force and effect as if they had been made by the local authority. The Clause provides a large number of matters in respect of which by-laws are to be made, ending with the words "such other matters as the Department may from time to time prescribe." Those words appear to be very wide indeed—much wider than there can be any need for. There are no words of limitation at all. Their effect is that, with respect to this particular class of dwelling, the Department may require to be made any by-laws that it pleases. What puzzles me, if it is necessary to have paragraph (i), is why it should be necessary to have all the other paragraphs. It would have been much simpler to provide that the Department should be able to prescribe any by-laws it pleased. That would have been much shorter and would have precisely the same effect. We have frequently protested against legislation of this kind.
This is simply another example of a Department in Whitehall asking for powers very much wider than it can possibly need for the efficient working of the Measure. I do not think that words of this kind, and powers as wide as these, should be conferred. They certainly should not be given without some kind of explanation. I hope that we shall have an explanation either from the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General for Scotland. If it is to be the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I can only say that we welcome his visits to this House, rare though they are.

§ Mr. Maclay
I beg formally to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Elliot
It would be a pity if these words were left out of the Bill. Hon. Members will remember how it shocked us all very much when a certain unfortunate fire took place and a number of farm labourers lost their lives. It would be a pity if, through inflexibility in the Statute, we were unable to take advantage of the lesson of such an event. Obviously these authorities are not merely working in the abstract, but in the concrete. I beg the House not to tie their hands, but 1907 to give the power which these residual provisions would provide.

§ Mr. Foot
Surely, it is possible, from time to time, to draft by-laws sufficiently flexible without giving the Government unlimited power.

§ Mr. Johnston
May I put this point to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)? I live in the town where this disaster took place, and it is a matter of great difficulty for the local authority to draft by laws which would make absolute provision for the safety of a migratory population living in bothies and chaumers, where there is no regular or systematic supervision and where there can be none. As I understand it, the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee is that the words in the Bill give the Department much too wide powers.

§ Mr. Foot
Unlimited.

§ Mr. Johnston
They are not unlimited, because they are subject to appeal in this House. Any act done by the Department and endorsed by the Secretary of State can be challenged in this House. The Secretary for Scotland stands to be shot at in this House for anything he does to a local authority which makes it difficult for the local authority to function.

§ Mr. Foot
Yes; but if this argument were valid it would mean that the only check we need ever have over Government Departments would be the power to question them in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee.

§ Mr. Johnston
This is very different. It is the case of a migratory population, who are here to-day and gone to-morrow They are only in temporary habitation, and I do not think that this should be left to precise draftsmanship now, but that the Department should have the widest possible powers to protect the lives of these people. There is no question of exploitation. The Department have no interest in this except life protection. Many of these huts have no sanitation or lighting, and some are of the most primitive description. We think it desirable that the Department should have wide and flexible powers of intimating to local 1908 authorities that, in a particular case, particular safeguards should be provided. If the Department go too far, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) or anybody else can shoot at the Secretary of State.

§ Sir R. W. Smith
I also am rather unhappy about this. The Secretary of State has referred to fire, but paragraph (f) mentions: The prevention of and safety from fire. I think it is unnecessary to give the Department this very strong power. If you are going to give such a list of powers as these, it is unnecessary to add: Such other matters as the Department may from time to time prescribe. It seems extraordinary that you are going to have by-laws that will apply to certain classes of property. If the by-laws are not carried out, who is going to take action? I think it is under the Act of 1897 that action has to be taken. There, the action has to be taken by the local authority; but, if the Department draw up the by-laws, does the Act of 1897 give them power to take action? Further, are the Department going to proceed against the landlord or the tenant? Many of these provisions are going to be supplied by the landlord, such as the building. That is to be understood. But, surely, you are not going to make the landlord responsible for the bedding, for the furniture and even for the clothing in the place? It seems to me that, by Clause 17, we are creating a very dangerous principle. If you are going to do all this, you should have drawn up your Clause, saying quite clearly which part applies to the landlord and which to the tenant.

Captain Shaw
I am inclined to support the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) on this matter, because it is very necessary that these powers should be very clearly defined. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) talked about the dangers that there were, but there is a danger, under the Clause as it stands, that people would be very much worse housed than they are at present.

Mr. McKie
I think that if we consent to these words remaining in the Bill, we shall be running a serious risk of having 1909 all sorts of arbitrary by-laws, far beyond what is the intention of the Secretary of State. I am quite satisfied that, on the wording of the Clause, responsibility as between the landlord and the farmer for the housing of these workers will be properly apportioned. But if the Secretary of State will see his way to agree to the deletion of these words, he will go a long way towards meeting what, on reflection, I think he will realise are very reasonable fears, I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), but I think that, on this occasion, he has voiced real Liberal principles. If we consent to these words being retained in the Bill, we shall run serious risk of the Department making by-laws which the Secretary of State would not wish them to make, but which some hot-headed official in his Department might rush into making.

§ Mr. Neil Maclean
I hope the Minister is not going to yield to this unholy alliance between the National Tories and late National Liberals.

§ Mr. Foot
What about the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches?

§ Mr. Maclean
That is a holy alliance. I think the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is quite sound, and, while I have always been opposed to legislation by the method of bringing regulations into this House, on this occasion it is justified, considering the purpose for which such by-laws are likely to be used. They are to deal with migratory workers in Scotland, who are generally brought across from Ireland or even from large towns in Scotland. The ordinary accommodation, such as they might find in their own homes, is not available, and there is only temporary accommodation found for them. It is surely necessary, therefore, to see that they are provided with accommodation of such a kind that their lives may be safeguarded, as well as their comfort secured.

§ Sir R. W. Smith
I think the hon. Member is referring to seasonal workers, who are only there for a short time. But there are a great many farms where the workers live for the whole year. Is there not already power for dealing with the position of seasonal workers?

§ Mr. Maclean
While that is quite right, I fail to see why the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) made the speech he did. This is to safeguard not property but human life. It will enable the Department of Health for Scotland, the Secretary of State and his officials to prepare by-laws which will safeguard human life.

§ Mr. Elliot
There have been questions raised which I can answer only by leave of the House. It might be to the convenience of the House if I replied to one or two points. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith) is right in suggesting that there is power in regard to seasonal workers in the existing Act; and that, I think, answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), that some hotheaded official might press through unreasonable regulations. I think it also answers the case of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who seemed to think that there was something entirely novel in this. He will, in fact, find that, as far back as the Act of 1925, there were similar provisions for dealing with particular cases. Surely, he would not suggest repealing the Act of 1925 in this respect?

§ Mr. Foot
I should certainly suggest the cutting out of a provision of this kind from any Act.

§ Mr. Elliot
We find ourselves at issue there. I think that it is desirable that this provision should be made in the Bill. I will reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith) as to the question upon whom the responsibility will fall. The responsibility will fall upon the farmer, and that will be made clear in the by-law. There is no necessity for making it clear in the Clause. The question of who shall be the responsible person is inherent in the power to make by-laws. The duty of enforcing the by-law would fall upon the local authority even if the by-law were made by the Department. That, I think, meets the specific point made by my hon. Friend, and upon the general point, I hope that the House will not take a retrograde step.

§ Mr. Foot
The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point behind the Amendment, which is as to why such very wide 1911 and general words need be used. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman use words something like these, "Such other precautions as may be necessary to safeguard the health and safety of those living in the dwellings." I do not say that I have framed the words very well, but words of that kind frequently appear in Acts of Parliament. It would have been a simple matter to get some phrase of that kind which would have met the point of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) instead of using words which are so general that, with respect to these dwellings, they give power to acquire any by-laws whatever.

§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and his hon. Friends have legal advice at their disposal, and the hon. Member himself possesses legal skill, and if he had placed some such an Amendment on the Order Paper I would have considered it just as I would consider an Amendment from my own side of the House or the opposite side. The question before us now is whether we should omit these powers or not. I cannot see my way to omit them, and I beg of the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether he wishes to press the point.