HL Deb 24 October 1946 vol 143 cc705-22

6.0 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Grants under schemes for improvement of hill farming land.

(3) In this Act

the expression "hill farming purposes" means the maintenance of sheep of a hardy kind and the keeping and management thereof in accordance with the recognized practices of hill sheep farming, and includes other activities carried on in connexion therewith; and

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3), after "includes", to insert "wintering or" The noble Lord said: My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has asked me to apologize for his unavoidable absence to-night and to speak to this Amendment in his name. On a great many hill farms it is the normal practice in the winter for the farmer to send his hoggs down to better and lower ground for feeding and to bring them back again in the spring. On the Second Reading my noble friend asked for an assurance that the ground used for this purpose of wintering would rank for improvement grants just as hill land, and the noble Earl who spoke for the Government gave that assurance provided, of course, that the farmers in question had hill land in addition to the low ground. The object of this Amendment is merely to ensure that this provision is included in the Bill for all to see. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 19, after ("includes") insert ("wintering or").—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

I appreciate the intention behind this Amendment, but I think that your Lordships will agree that the great object we all have in drafting a Bill is to make it as brief as possible and to cut out any redundant phrases or words. In fact, I think it has been my experience with draftsmen that the more words you put in the more you limit the intention of the clause. In this particular case I would like to call the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, which says that the appropriate Minister may approve schemes duly submitted to him within five years from the commencement of this Act providing for the making of improvements for the benefit of such land or of other land suitable for use therewith for hill farming purposes. I can assure the noble Lord that this obviously does include wintering. Wintering is a fundamental part of hill farming, therefore it is already included in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance and withdraw his Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

I thank the noble Earl for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Attachment of conditions as to letting, etc., of new and improved cottages.

10.—(1) Regulations shall be made by the appropriate Minister— (a) for securing that, where an improvement grant has been made in respect of cost of work done for the erection, improvement or reconditioning of a cottage, conditions with repect to the occupation and maintenance thereof shall apply to the cottage for such period from the date on which it first becomes fit for occupation after the completion of the work (not being longer than twenty years) as may be specified in the regulations, including (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) a condition prohibiting the occupation of the cottage otherwise than by the owner or a tenant thereof; and

6.5 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "made" to insert "under this Act." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is not to try to alter what I am sure is the intention of the Government, but merely to try to make it indisputably clear. As this clause stands, it seems to me that it is just possible that the regulations to be made by the Minister under this clause could be made to apply to cottages in respect of which grants had been made under the late lamented Housing (Rural Workers) Act, under which so much good work was done before the war. I know in Clause 1 there is a passage which says: the appropriate Minister may … subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act make out of moneys provided by Parliament grants (in this Act referred to as 'improvement grants')… It is possible that this phrase "improvement grants" in Clause 10 refers only to grants under this Bill. I am not entirely happy about that and I therefore feel that the words that I propose should be inserted in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 37, after ("made") insert ("under this Act.")—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Again I can assure the noble Lord that, according to legal advice, very definitely any grants made under this Act would refer only to schemes which have been prepared under this Act. I think that there is no possible cause for misapprehension. I do hope that in view of that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

In deference to the legal experts, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "thereof", where that word occurs a second time, to insert "or any of his farm servants." The noble Duke said: In view of the unavoidable absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, I hope that it is appropriate to speak to this Amendment on his behalf. Your Lordships will be aware that the agricultural executive committees and the farmers generally are already much concerned about the prospects of labour for farm work and production next year. This will apply also to shepherds on hill farms; it will apply especially in the sense that modernized houses are not available, and it will apply even more so in the case of labour and houses wanted for farm servants working on important schemes.

As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said on Second Reading, there is a generous grant towards the building of a new non-tied house, but that is not likely to meet the serious position which exists. I think that the noble Duke who put down this Amendment wanted it made perfectly plain that the cottages referred to shall be available for the shepherds and for any farm workers on the farms, and that the farmer will be assured of his labour. I expect this conflicts with the policy with regard to the tied house, and it may therefore be difficult to secure all that is asked for. I do hope, however, that the Government will realize that there is considerable anxiety, which we think it necessary to record, and will reconsider their attitude at the earliest possible date. We would, of course, like them to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 46, after ("thereof") insert ("or any of his farm servants").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I consider this is a very important Amendment because it deals with the controversial subject of the tied house. To my mind it strikes at the very root of the main trouble, or one of the main troubles, in agriculture to-day; and that is housing. It is well known that the shortage of labour is to a very great extent due to housing shortage. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that it is very hard to expect a landlord, even with this generous grant of 50 per cent., to build or recondition a house in respect of which at the end of twenty years there is a very good chance that he will not be able to use it for his own farm servants. There seems to be a great deal of difficulty in the mind of His Majesty's Government in differentiating between what I call urban rural housing and rural housing—or to use a horrible expression, truly rural housing. Might I suggest that those of us who do live in these districts realize what a tremendous problem there is? Your truly rural house is sometimes the best part of eighteen to twenty miles away from the station, and completely in the wilds.

All the legislation up to now has really been against helping to bring modern conditions in some measure, even temporarily, to the people in these glens, where houses which we all know are not entirely satisfactory have to fill in the gap until such time as new houses can be built. That time is likely to be some time hence, because there is a great lag to make up and we must try to develop a larger percentage than at present of agricultural housing, in conjunction with urban housing, if we are to keep this country sound and economically balanced. The Government are not doing this. A landlord does not care to take the risk, even with this generous grant of 50 per cent, of building a new house or reconditioning an old house where he is unlikely to be able to get the use of it after twenty years.

To my mind, there are three main difficulties at present in the case of these far-flung parts of the country. The first is that you cannot build a house for £1,700; it takes the best part of £1,700 to £1,800 to build a house in those districts. The second difficulty is this: What local authority are going to build a house at that distance, with all their heavy urban rural housing schemes? Finally, how can you expect a landlord to build without any security of tenure under the Bill? I suggest that the whole concept of the housing policy of His Majesty's Government is entirely out of touch with rural conditions as they are to-day in Scotland. You must, in my humble opinion, do what you can to provide conditions for these rural people which will make it worth their while to settle in those areas now. Yet these uplands are the absolute key to breeding in this country, whether it be of stock or of potatoes. If you have a weak stock you go and get a bull or a tup from the uplands. You cross it with the softer stuff and thereby get a more virile product. The same with potatoes: if you want a seed free from disease you go to the uplands to get it. You cannot afford to neglect these uplands, which are the key to the whole of your policy for farming.

You must do everything to fill in the housing gap by giving us back the rural housing grants for reconditioning houses. Do anything you like, but get on with that somehow and produce conditions, even of a temporary nature, which will allow us to keep the labour where we must have it. If we are to keep these people in the glens, I suggest that we must stop living on ideals and fetishes. We know our own people up there, and we know what they require. We are fully cognizant of the fact that this is entirely a temporary measure. But you must encourage the landlords to go on with what they can do until the country is again on its feet and can tackle the larger problem of agricultural housing. Then, if you like, tighten up the regulations as vigorously as you can. In the meantime, however, you must encourage and not discourage everyone to meet the need for improved housing, if we are to keep the people in those parts of the country. You are doing exactly the opposite under this Bill as it stands. If this clause is not amended you will have created exactly the situation which you do not wish to create, and it will be entirely due, I think, to the violent antagonism of His Majesty's Government to the existence of tied houses.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I cannot help feeling that I would like to add a few words on the more general question. Scotland is a country which looks very much like England, but is rather different, and one of the very great differences is that even their shortest communications are very often completely cut off by snow. What His Majesty's Government are trying to do is to charge the entire social system, and they are trying to do it too quickly. I am very glad to see my noble friend Lord Westwood here, because he will know the absolute truth of what I am saying. In the past all farm workers on the land who are married have been engaged on May 28, and they go into houses and their contract has been for one year. That has been the protection of the Scottish farm servant because, whatever happened, that man could never be put out of his house except at a time when he knew that other houses were open to his occupation and other engagements ready for the married man. That was his protection, and that is a very vital point. When you put the farm servant on a monthly engagement, as very many farmers I know have long wanted to do, you put him at the mercy of the farmer.

Another point is that because of the great difficulty in getting about it is much more important for the farmer to have his staff on the farm, and living on the farm. I know there has been a great drive to get the Scottish farm servant into villages. When you go through Scotland you do see a lot of places which look like English villages, but they are totally different. They house a great many people whose occupations are ancillary to country life, but very seldom in Scotland—certainly not in any part of Scotland that I know well—do you get an English village inhabited chiefly by workers on the land. Even if you wish to put Scottish farm servants into villages you have not got the houses there to put them into. If you did put them into these villages they could not carry out their work on the land. I do beg His Majesty's Government in this matter to go a little slowly. Whatever change you want to introduce into Scottish country life we will do our best to make it a good social life and help it as well as we can, but at this particular moment I submit that it is not a case for hurrying but rather for going slowly. It is not merely a great change of system you are introducing, but you are interfering with a very ancient and long-established system.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I would like to say I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Airlie and the noble friend who has just sat down said, but this problem is not entirely confined to Scotland which is the impression that may be got. It applies in not quite the same degree to the whole of Wales and the Welsh border from which I come. The distances, I admit, are not quite so long but they are quite long enough to make it absolutely impossible to run the hill farm unless you have accommodation for such shepherds and stockmen as the farmer engages.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am afraid that with this Amendment we come on to rather controversial grounds. I do sympathize with what the noble Lords have said, particularly with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and we obviously do recognize the difficulties of the hill farmer. This recognition, of course, underlies the intention of this Bill. It is a step towards helping the hill sheep farmer and the owner of hill sheep land to get on their feet and to try and improve the general condition of their properties, of the land, and of the houses. Here we get to the very controversial issue of the tied cottage, but I would like to try and clear up what I think may be one misunderstanding on this subject. I am not certain if I heard the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, aright, but he seemed to think that at the end of twenty years he would not be able to control his cottage. I should like to point out again that the object of this Bill is to prevent cottages in respect of which grants are made from becoming "tied" cottages for a period of twenty years. We are trying to ensure that for that period of twenty years they shall not be "tied" cottages in the sense of becoming service tenancies.

EARL DE LA WARR

And they can be tied after twenty years?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I would not like to give an assurance one way or the other. This Act does not prescribe what is to happen after twenty years.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am not clear. As I understand it at the end of twenty years you might not be able to have your own farm servant in there. I will give an instance. Suppose you had a disagreement with a man who was in that cottage and you engaged another man, or wished to engage another man at the end of twenty years, you could not turn him out and put in the man you had engaged.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The answer is that they may be tied in twenty years' time but possibly by that time further legislation will have been brought in which will alter the situation. After all, this Bill only provides for a period of five years. Under this Bill there will be nothing to prevent cottages being tied after twenty years, but we want to ensure that for that period they will not be subject to a service tenancy. We do appreciate very much the difficulties of these remote cottages. It is an exceptional problem in hill farming, but at the same time all that this clause is designed to do is to bring these cottages within the Rent Restrictions Acts. There will still be the same machinery if, for instance, a worker leaves or is discharged. The farmer or whoever it may be, can ask for a certificate in respect of his cottage and he can then, if necessary, apply to the Courts. The only thing is that it cannot become a tied cottage in the way of a service cottage; in other words, that the man receives his cottage as part of his employment remuneration.

I think noble Lords will appreciate the feeling that exists on this subject of tied cottages. It is a great political issue at the present time and I do not think the noble Duke who moved this Amendment can really expect that we can go back and accept an Amendment which would completely nullify the intention of this clause. On the other hand, I would like to point out that obviously a shepherd or a workman in a cottage of that kind would be a tenant. All this clause would do is to limit the tenancy so that it comes within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I do hope I have made myself clear, and I would beg the noble Duke to withdraw the Amendment in view of the issues involved.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I frankly cannot understand, although I have tried hard to do so, what the noble Earl has explained to us. Are we to understand that these cottages come under the Rent Restrictions Acts, or do they not come under the Rent Restrictions Acts? If they do come under the Acts, then the farmer or proprietor will not be in a position, if a shepherd is moved who does not want to move, to turn him out in order to put another shepherd in his place. That sets up an absolutely impossible position. The noble Earl says that this is a political issue. Are we not to measure up the conditions which exist in the country which we are trying to improve? Are we on an issue of this kind to be governed entirely by politics? That seems to me to be the line which the Government are taking over this matter, and I think it is a very poor admission inded to say that we must do this thing because it involves a political issue.

Does the noble Earl or the Government think that in fifteen or twenty years, whichever it may be, the glens are going to change, that the hills are going to change, and the places where our sheep are reared are going to change? They cannot change. You cannot change the configuration of the land unless you have an earthquake, or something of that kind. Twenty years hence these hills and glens will be exactly as they are to-day; sheep will be grazing on them as they are to-day and, if the other part of the Government's Act is successful, more sheep we hope. But it will not change the conditions so far as the shepherds are concerned, who will have to live amongst their sheep in order to be able to herd them and keep their flocks together. I suppose we have to accept the Government's decision in this matter, but I can assure the Government that it is done with the very greatest reluctance, because they are flying in the face of the whole conditions which exist in Scotland in this matter, and those, as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman has said, which exist in Wales. And not only in Scotland and Wales. I can conceive that there are places in the West of England, and other parts of England where you get similar conditions. Consequently, in this case we are being entirely turned down as an industry for political reasons.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think there is only one point upon which any of us feel that we can congratulate noble Lords opposite in the handling of this rather sorry question. We can congratulate them on the skill with which they have kept the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, off their Benches both today and the other day when we were discussing this subject. They know full well that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, is a countryman. He knows the conditions of the country; he knows the conditions under which farms are run, and he knows perfectly well that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has already said, you cannot run a stock farm, certainly not in these remote fastnesses., unless you have proper provision for your labour.

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, would have smiled as I noticed two or three noble Lords opposite smiling when the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, reminded us—and this is so—that these hill farms are at least one of the essential keys to the future of the agricultural industry. It may well be that in a few years' time when we want to rebuild the livestock of this country, not merely in the interests of agriculture but because we have got to feed ourselves, that the Government will bitterly regret this blow they are dealing at the attempt that has been made—and, admittedly, theoretically they are making it; it is their Bill—to rebuild the hill farms. As the noble Earl has already told us, this matter is not being decided on its merits at all but as a political issue. I can only say that we on this side of the House—we are not an elected body—are not going to advise our friends to divide on this issue, but we do want to make it abundantly clear where the responsibility is going to lie if, as we prophesy, the progress under this Bill is not as great as the interests of the country demand.

All we want to ensure is that the country receives the maximum benefit from the maximum development of the areas. Not only are these houes needed for the shepherds, but, as the noble Duke who has already spoken on this matter has said, the houses are going to be needed for the works that are to be initiated under this Bill. Unless the labour is there, this Bill is a dead letter, and I cannot see how the labour is going to be there unless the houses are built. Can you imagine that a landowner is going to undertake an expenditure of £1,600—or, as the noble Earl has said, anything between £1,700 and £1,800—on putting up a cottage in these remote fastnesses of Scotland, England and Wales if the moment there is any change of employment—if he loses his shepherd—that cottage is at least going to lie under the risk of there being nobody whatsoever in it who is engaged in the running of the farm?

What I would ask the noble Earl is this. If by putting a provision of this character into this Bill he is going to make it virtually impossible to get cottages built in these hills by landowners, are the Government prepared to undertake that task? The rural district councils are now the people who are looked to for houses, and are those rural district councils going to be encouraged to go up five, ten, fifteen or twenty miles into the hills and build their council cottages there? I think that is a very fair question and a very fair challenge for me to put to the Government. If the landowner is not going to be able to perform what we believe to be his duty, are the Government prepared to take that duty off his shoulders and perform that function themselves?

One last word. We know that this is an old, old controversy, with its history away back in the past, when, as I think all of us on this side of the House as well as on the other would be prepared to admit, social customs and social ideas were quite different from now. It may well be—and I am certainly not going to say it is not—that the feelings we are really discussing to-day are justified by certain realities from the past. We recognize that, but cannot we make an appeal to the noble Earl to take this back to his colleagues? Whatever be the facts of the situation in the lowlands—and I think we all know the very considerable difficuties there are going to be if there are no tied cottages in the lowlands—cannot we differentiate in the case of these hill farms? If noble Lords opposite feel that their Party must adhere to its principles with regard to loans for tied cottages, cannot we get them to realize that here is an exceptional case? After all, there are those exceptions that I ventured to mention on the Second Reading. The policy of the Government is to have tied cottages for the employees of the Forestry Commission, they allow tied cottages for school teachers and police, and I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is going to be allowed to stay in his flat after he loses his job. There are many exceptions. Could not they say with regard to hill farms that they are prepared to consider making exceptions? Whilst not asking my friends on these Benches to divide against the noble Earl, I do ask him once more to try for a serious reconsideration of this part of the Bill with special reference to the special problems of the hills.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I have listened with great attention to the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I think, if I may say so, that this question has been a little exaggerated—not as to the difficulties of hill farming but the difficulty of getting rid of one workman from a cottage and getting another in. I would like to make clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the procedure to which these houses would be subject. They would come within the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts and in the event of the farmer or landowner wishing to get rid of his workman if he was a bad workman or in the event of the workman leaving the landowner's employment and not wishing to leave his cottage, the landowner could apply to the local committee for a certificate to be given to him—in practice it is usually given to him if the need is genuine—showing that the cottage was necessary for his farm. In that event, if the inhabitant of the cottage still refused to leave, the farmer or landowner would have the right to go to the courts and apply for the tenant to be evicted. What we are trying to stop is the old-fashioned service tenancy by which a man can be turned out at a moment's notice—his job is terminated and in the next moment he can be turned out on to the road. We are seeking to avoid that sort of tied cottage and that sort of eviction.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but actually the procedure which he has outlined may take about three months. What is going to happen if, say, at Whitsuntide you change your shepherd and your former shepherd will not go? You must apply to the courts and go through all the procedure which the noble Earl has outlined. That will probably take three months. What are you going to do with your sheep in the meantime? There will be nobody to look after them.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I admit that there may be cases in which it takes a long time, but I would like to draw the noble Viscount's attention to the fact that they are exceptional cases. As a rule, the shepherd either wishes to leave his job or, alternatively, if he is not a good shepherd he is given notice to quit. In any event he will want to leave his cottage if he finds work somwhere else; he will not want to stay on in a distant cottage in quite a different part of the country from that in which he gets his new job. I think you will find that this applies only to these very exceptional cases where, either because there are two contiguous farms involved or for some other reason, the man still stays in his cottage. Therefore this clause will apply only to what we hope will be exceptional and rare cases. We are obviously trying to help the private landowner in this case by giving him a very big grant—50 per cent.—to build these cottages. That, I think noble Lords must recognize, is a very generous grant in this respect.

I would like to mention one other point, which is that this clause affects only cottages which do receive a grant; we are not trying to affect by this Bill cottages which do not receive a grant. The cottage that is a tied cottage remains a tied cottage. What we want to ensure is that money given by the Government for this purpose shall not be used to create tied cottages. That really is the substance of this clause. I hope noble Lords will recognize that although on this occasion we cannot yield to this Amendment, we have the interests of the hill farmers at heart. We do want to help this industry. For that reason I should like to urge the noble Duke, if he can see his way to do so, to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not agree with the noble Earl that this is necessarily an exceptional case; but at any rate, who is going to lay down a lot of money now, while there is the risk that, in the type of case which is perhaps not so rare as the noble Earl says, in twenty years' time he may suddenly be ruined?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, I hope this House will always endeavour, so far as possible, to treat agriculture on a non-Party basis. The Government have asked for co-operation in agriculture and in housing, including rural housing, and I feel that this is a matter in which closer co-operation and a more practical approach would be very helpful. I trust that the Government and their supporters will in the course of time see their way to granting this concession. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

6.40 p.m.

First Schedule [Improvements which may be included in schemes for rehabilitation of hill farming land]:

LORD POLWARTH moved at the end of the Schedule to insert "24. Connexion to the public telephone." The noble Lord said: This Schedule gives a very comprehensive and generous list of improvement; that should be eligible for grants, but it seems to me there is one very important omission—namely, the installation of the telephone. Surely there is no other improvement, with the possible exception of the supply of electricity, which could be of greater benefit to the occupants of the very outlying hill farms with which the Bill is concerned. In the first place, the farmer is a business man just as much as the man in the City, and what occupant of a City office would think of dispensing with his telephone? It is indeed an essential part of his equipment. Secondly, there is the case of illness, when a doctor has to be summoned, and also the case of disease or injury to stock when the veterinary surgeon has to be sent for. There is seldom time for the farmer to make his way to the nearest public telephone, which may be ten or fifteen miles away.

I know that on the Second Reading the noble Earl who spoke for the Government pointed out that the Post Office will install a telephone in any premises within three miles of an exchange for the sum of £4 a year. Now that is all very well, but the majority of these hill farms are a great deal more than three miles from an exchange, and in some cases the cost of bringing the telephone to these places may be very considerable. The noble Earl also said that the Post Office at the moment are hard pressed. I know they are short of labour and material, but then they are not unique in that respect. After all, if we applied the same principle to all the other improvements which are included in this Schedule, we should find that at present a great many of them could not be carried out owing to shortages of labour and material, and we should be left with a very thin looking Bill indeed.

Take, for instance, the case of electricity. The electrical industry is, I should think, every bit as hard pressed at the moment as the Post Office. They are just as short of poles and wire and the labour to put them up. By the time the schemes come through under this Bill surely things will be beginning to become much easier. After all, the Post Office starts with an advantage in that it is already nationalized, whereas the electrical industry is still awaiting the great benefits which are going to come from this process. I am not asking the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General, to do a favour to one section of one industry in the country. That would be too much to ask, but I am asking the Government to help the hill farmer to pay the bill for the installation of a telephone, a bill which may be very much increased owing to the remoteness of the place where he has to carry on his business. If it would make my Amendment any more palatable, I should be very glad to accept the limitation of the grant in those cases where the farm is outside the limit for connexion at a standard rate, and to limit the amount of the grant to the additional cost above the standard rate. I am sure that no hill farmer would grudge paying the ordinary cost of connexion. In any case, I do hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, the good effects of which will be out of all proportion to the sum of money which will be involved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 39, at end insert ("24. Connexion to the public telephone.")—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Quite briefly, I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. It is no good beating about the bush, but from the way they have been talking I have an idea that His Majesty's Government have got no conception at all of the conditions in these places and I do not believe they care. I am sorry they are such strong words, but I do not believe they care. Most of you just pull a plug or you turn on a tap, but these fellows are living in conditions of which you have absolutely no conception, and this is one of the essentials which they have got to have. I can give you an example of a farmer who is nine miles away from an exchange and who has to pay £25 a year for the use of a telephone. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is in his place. That is a pretty good sum to have to pay, apart from installation, and it is absolutely essential for him to carry on his business. I hope the Amendment will be added to the Schedule.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Again I sympathize very much with this Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. Obviously hill farmers need telephones and probably in many cases more so than people in urban areas. In these remote places it is a necessity, not only for business but for use in an emergency. But there is a difficulty about this. This Bill, as your Lordships have seen, provides for a 50 per cent. grant to be made for various schemes. The present arrangement, as I understand it, is that telephones are provided not on a basis of the payment of a capital sum but on an annual payment to the Post Office. In fact, apart from a purely nominal charge of fifteen shillings, no capital charge is made by the Post Office at all for the provision of a telephone service. Payment takes the form of an annual rental.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Which is £25 in the instance I gave.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I heard what the noble Lord said. The standard rental for business purposes is £5 18s. per annum where the distance from the nearest exchange does not exceed three miles. Above this distance an additional charge is made of £1 per furlong per annum with a reduction in the charge if two or more persons share the line. I think your Lordships will see that in these circumstances it would be quite impracticable to give a 50 per cent, grant towards what is a continuing annual payment. Therefore I do not think we can accept this Amendment or have anything of the kind under this Bill. At the same time His Majesty's Government thoroughly appreciate—and sympathize with—the need of these telephones, and I will consult with my noble friend the Postmaster-General to see what can be done to provide them. I do not think, however, that under this Bill we could accept the Amendment as it stands.

LORD GIFFORD

I know nothing about hill farms, but surely in all kinds of business an interest or annual charge can be capitalized and vice versa. It seems the most extraordinary argument.

THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

I should like to support the need for telephones in remote parts of the country. We are most anxious that people who live in remote parts should get the telephone service at the earliest possible moment. I know the noble Earl will appreciate the fact that it means employing a very great amount of labour, carrying telegraph poles as a rule over long distances, and the labour is just not available at the moment. I am sure your Lordships appreciate that there is a long waiting list in the towns and that would require less labour to be cleared off. But I do assure noble Lords that we at the Post Office are most vividly aware of the need and we shall meet it just as soon as we possibly can.

LORD GIFFORD

Surely the remedy is to insert a rider that this particular part of the grant shall be delayed until the Post Office can meet the requirements.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I do not think that would be possible.

LORD POLWARTH

I appreciate that there is this difficulty about the question of capital or annual rental, and, in the circumstances, I see that this Amendment cannot be made to the Bill, but I hope that the noble Earl and the Postmaster-General will do their best to bring about a levelling down of these charges for rental, and will follow the example of another of the services for which the Postmaster-General is responsible—namely, the postal service. After all, a man who happens to live in a remote hill farm does not have to pay extra for having his letters delivered; the cost is spread over the whole community. Therefore, even if it is impossible to make a standard rate for the whole country, I hope that the noble Earl will endeavour to level out the rate to the greatest extent possible, so that those living in the remoter parts of the country are not penalized for the fact that they do so. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule: