HC Deb 05 February 1931 vol 247 cc2216-28
Captain BOURNE

I beg to move, in page 12, line 2, to leave out the second word "an" and to insert instead thereof the words "a hired."

in moving this Amendment I wish to bring to the attention of the House another Amendment—in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert the words: For the purposes of this section, the expression 'agricultural worker' shall include any person employed in agriculture, horticulture, or forestry. Those who served on the Committee which considered this Bill will remember that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) made an eloquent speech on behalf of hired agricultural hands, those who are employed at wages and work on the land. I do not think it was noticed at the time that there does not exist a definition of an agricultural worker. There are a good many different definitions of "agriculture" scattered about in our Acts of Parliament. I want to make two things clear, first of all that this Clause is applied to somebody employed for wages, and secondly, that we should apply the term "agricultural" as it is most commonly used in connection with the Unemployment Insurance. Act, making agriculture include horticulture and forestry. I think it was the intention of the Committee that a man who, say, is partly engaged in ditching and partly engaged in such work as felling trees and partly engaged in work like thatching and rick building should be regarded as an agricultural worker from the point of view of this Clause; but unless we put in some definition I am very doubtful whether that would be the case.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

I beg to Second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON

The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member would definitely be a limiting Amendment, and, as he himself says, the very attempt to define with meticulous care and accuracy what is an agricultural worker presents very grave difficulties. I am sure it is not the intention of the hon. and gallant Member or his Friends to do anything which would prevent the Minister at some future date from finding employment for someone who may be a deserving unemployed man in a, village because of some unnecessarily restrictive form of words in the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER

If he is unemployed this Clause would not come in.

Mr. JOHNSTON

That may be true, but even the word "unemployed" raises difficulties. The question of whether a man is an unemployed man raises questions of spare time and occasional employment. All sorts of troubles of that kind have arisen in the administration of the Employment Exchanges, as hon. Members are painfully aware, and it would be far better that the widest possible definition of agricultural workers should be left in the Bill, so that cases which may be deserving are not barred out. Phrases like "a rural agricultural worker" or "a hired agricultural worker," for example, automatically begin to bar out, perhaps, a man who has been a small market gardener; and I would point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and his Friends are proposing another Amendment which is an attempt to widen the definition. I put it to the hon. and gallant Member that so far from making matters easier for the unemployed rural worker he may definitely make them worse; and in view of the tremendous difficulties existing already in defining what an agricultural worker is and what is an unemployed man I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press this Amendment.

Mr. ERNST BROWN

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw the Amendment. The House will learn with regret that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) has contracted a chill and is confined to her home to-day, because she would wish to be here to forward the case which she put so eloquently in Committee for the man who works on the land. In Committee we came to the conclusion that this was a question to be interpreted by common sense, and that the intention was quite plain that such facilities as were given to unemployed town workers should be given to the men in the villages who work on the land, so that they may have a chance to get some land. I hope there will be no attempt to interfere with the definition in the Clause. I believe that it will do the work it was meant to do, namely, to give the rural dweller an equal chance with the town dweller.

Mr. SCOTT

May I ask the Under-Secretary to take this opportunity of discussing one question as to which we have given him private notice, namely, whether the term "agricultural worker" will include those men whose normal or regular employment is that of agricultural workers but who at the time of application or at the date of the commencement of this Act may be employed temporarily in some other occupation? An agricultural worker may be working in an occupation which is not agricultural, and I want to know whether that man would be included in the category of agricultural worker.

Mr. JOHNSTON

If a man obtains employment of another kind in the way suggested, he does not, under this Bill, actually cease to be an agricultural worker.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SCOTT

I beg to move, in page 12, line 2, after the word "worker," to insert the words: or for those persons whose names are on the lists of applicants kept by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by the county councils. There is a class which does not seem to fall under either of the two classes already provided for, namely, those who have lodged applications with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the county councils. Those applications include many ex-service men, some of whom have been waiting for their opportunity for many years, and their demand still remains unsatisfied. These are men who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and, if they find themselves excluded from the benefits of this Measure, they will very much resent it, more especially if they find that preference has been given to others less deserving than themselves. They are sure to feel some resentment if they are passed over in that way. There are many ex-service men who have not been able to avail themselves of these opportunities for want of capital, but now that the Bill promises financial assistance in the way of grants that disability will be removed. I mention ex-service men specially, because I think they should have preferential treatment. I would remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the Ministry of Agriculture has received no less than 6,000 applications, including 2,000 ex-service men. I hope the applications of those men will be considered in addition to the two categories provided for in this Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON

May I point out that there are already on the list of the Department a, large number of men who have shown themselves competent to work smallholdings, and who have been on the list for a number of years. I am sure there would be some feeling of resentment among those men if they were debarred from the opportunities offered by this Bill by preference being given to unemployed men in other areas. We are advised that the overwhelming proportion of these men are adequately covered under the term "agricultural workers"; in fact, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of them are adequately covered by that term. I trust, with that explanation, that the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) will be satisfied.

Mr. SCOTT

I thank the Under-Secretary for his courteous and sympathetic answer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel ASHLEY

I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert the words: For the purposes of this section the expression 'agricultural worker' shall be deemed to include any farmer who is obliged to quit his present holding by reason of adverse economic conditions affecting his occupation thereof. I apologise for the fact that this is another manuscript. Amendment but some time ago I gave to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a copy of the Amendment, and also gave one to the Minister. While I entirely agree with this Amendment, I move it on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, who set a good deal of store by it. It will be within the recollection of the House that Clause 7 was not in the original Bill at all. If my recollection is correct, the substance of it was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who made an extremely able and appropriate speech upon it; and the sense of the Committee in favour of accepting it was so overwhelming that the Minister at once gave in and allowed the Clause to be inserted in the Bill. It simply says that an agricultural worker shall be able to have the advantage of the smallholdings movement just as if he were an unemployed worker in the town, on the ground, largely, that he is the very person of all others who is likely to make a smallholding pay.

The Minister, with, I think, a good deal of force, said that, while he had every sympathy with the Amendment, he was rather afraid that, if its provisions were taken advantage of by agricultural workers to any large extent, there might be a serious shortage of labour on the farms. If, as many hon. Members stated to be the case, the agricultural labourer was absolutely dying to have a smallholding—if the one ambition of his life was to have a smallholding, to cease to be a man working for a weekly wage, and to become a person who, if he had not land of his own, at any rate had a stake in the land—a very large number of these excellent people would quit work on the farms and go in for smallholdings. Indeed, I think someone said that it might even almost destroy the primary purpose of the Bill by swamping the applications of the unemployed in the big towns and urban areas, and that the Bill, instead of being one for the relief of unemployment, which is really what it is, would become a Bill to enable agricultural workers to become smallholders. Personally, I think that that would be very desirable, because, if we are going to have smallholdings, for Heaven's sake let us have them worked by people who know something about them.

That statement, which, after all, is common sense, has greatly disturbed the tenant farmers of this country. They say that they are having the worst time that has ever been known in farming—worse than the eighties and early nineties—that they are at their wits' end to know what to do to make both ends meet, to pay their rates and taxes, and to get any profit at all on their capital, or, indeed, anything for their labour; and that now Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, offers bribes to their workers to quit working for them and take up some other form of employment. I am not criticising the proposal to give to the agricultural labourer that advantage, but am only trying to point out the view that is naturally taken by the tenant farmer and the freeholder working his own land.

He, therefore, says that, if his workers are going to be given the chance of a smallholding, then, in the name of justice and common sense he also should be given the chance of getting a smallholding if he is unable to work his farm in the absence of labour, and has either to go into the Bankruptcy Court or give up working at what he has been doing all his life; and he asks, if smallholdings are being provided for his agricultural labourers, and for the unemployed in the big towns, why should not the tenant farmer, who is in a bad position and cannot carry on his occupation, be allowed the opportunity of trying whether he cannot make one of these smallholdings a success? If it is right and proper that the agricultural labourer, as one who knows how to work the land, should be given that chance, surely the farmer, who has been the directing head of these agricultural labourers, who has had to scheme things out, and often to work very hard himself, should not be debarred from the chance of getting a smallholding if by the action of the State through this Bill he is put into a worse economic position than that in which he otherwise would be. The present Government at the last election said that they were going to make farming pay. They said that they had some wonderful scheme, by a magic wand, directly they were elected, or within a few weeks, or at any rate a few months, to make farming pay—

Mr. McKINLAY

The right hon. Gentleman might quote the publication.

Colonel ASHLEY

No; I should probably be out of order, but I think I have not misrepresented hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government as a whole—

Mr. McKINLAY

You said "a magic wand."

Colonel ASHLEY

They did state that they had a well-considered agricultural policy, which incidentally would make farming pay, and also gain for them a large number of votes in the rural districts, which was probably, from their point of view, rather more important. Ministers of Agriculture come and Ministers of Agriculture go. One has been punished by being elevated to another place, and we have now the right hon. Gentleman who is at present sitting opposite me. I am sure that in his gigantic brain he has many schemes, but, unfortunately, he has never told us what those schemes are. We have been waiting for about 20 months to hear what the Government schemes are, and the position of the wretched farmers is exactly the same. From their point of view it is almost too late now for any scheme to make farming pay, and, therefore, we ask in all seriousness, since a large and expensive organisation is being set up for establishing smallholdings up and down the country, which are going to be given to the unemployed in the towns and to the agricultural labourers, how, with any sense of justice, can the same opportunity, if it be necessary, be denied to the tenant farmer—and, I was almost going to say, the landowner also, because, after all, he is having just as bad a time? I have not, however, widened the scope of my Amendment to that extent, because I always think it is best to go step by step. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say, but I cannot visualise any arguments for refusing to the tenant farmer or the freeholder working his own land the same advantages with regard to smallholdings which the right hon. Gentleman supported almost with enthusiasm in Committee when he included the agricultural labourer.

Dr. ADDISON

I am sure the whole House will have been thoroughly entertained, and also uplifted, by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving this Amendment. He has, as it were, lifted the curtain for a few minutes. It is true that most of what he had to say had very little relation to the Amendment, but it was interesting for all that. I can quite see how the right hon. Gentleman is gravitating. He is gravitating to this side of the House. What he has in mind is a sort of five-year plan. He accused us of offering bribes to the workers. That related, I understood, to an Amendment, which is now part of this Clause, whereby an agricultural worker becomes entitled in the same way as an unemployed person to a smallholding. The right hon. Gentleman is now one of the chief bribers. The next thing will be that he will ask us to take into our arms the landowners as well. Then we shall have arrived at land nationalisation. Whether he means it or not I am not quite sure. However, it is very interesting and it shows how he is moving. Before long I hope he will be a colleague of mine on this side of the House. As to the particular Amendment, as far as the farmer who has had to quit his holding is concerned, he clearly is an agricultural worker and he would be entitled to come within the provisions of the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY

Do I understand that a farmer who has been obliged to quit his holding because he cannot make it pay, or has gone bankrupt in working it, would be, under the provisions of the Bill, eligible for a smallholding?

Dr. ADDISON

That would depend on whoever made the selection of the applicants. I am not committing myself to a particular case, but certainly I should have thought he could be described as an agricultural worker.

Colonel ASHLEY

That is rather important. May I ask another question? An agricultural labourer, a Clause 7 man, is eligible for a smallholding if he is in work. If a farmer is really coming into the same category, a farmer who is in occupation of his farm but does not want to carry it on because he is losing so much money, would he also, therefore, be eligible as an agricultural worker?

9.0 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON

He might, but the question whether the committee would select him as a suitable man is another matter. He is certainly an agricultural worker and, if he lost his holding, I supposed he would be unemployed, in which case he would be entitled. Under the terms of this Amendment those who had to make the selection would be required to convince themselves that this man had been obliged to quit his present holding by reason of adverse economic conditions, not that he had done it voluntarily but that he had been obliged. If he had not been obliged, he would not be eligible. If you put nothing in at all, clearly he is eligible. If you put this in, the only men who will be eligible are those who are able to prove to the satisfaction of someone that they have been obliged to quit their holding. There is another hurdle to get over. He also has to prove to the satisfaction of the committee that he was obliged by adverse economic conditions and not for any other reason—not affecting farming generally, but affecting the occupation of this particular holding. He has to prove all that before the committee before he becomes eligible. The right hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to make trouble for the man. He is going to make it almost impossible for him to prove his case. You are not helping the man by the Amendment. You are imposing at least three almost unscaleable hurdles in his way before he can convince the committee that he is a suitable applicant because, unless he passes all these three tests, however worthy a person he may be, he cannot become eligible. I trust that the right hon. gentleman, having encouraged us by his enunciation of sound Socialist principles, will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I appreciate that the Minister does not quite like the end of the Amendment, about adverse economic conditions, but the point is whether his interpretation of "agricultural worker" is right or not. We have not had a legal opinion. Many of these small farmers are far worse off than agricultural labourers, and they would be far more qualified for a holding that 90 per cent. of the unemployed who would appear before the committee. There is no question about a man having been obliged to give up his holding. You can always find out his financial position from his banker. Anyone who takes on a tenant gets a banker's reference, and there is nothing in that part of it at all. If this is going to do what the Bill says it is, you will want the best class of candidates you can get, and this man would certainly make good in nine cases out of ten. He is the very class of man that you want, and you ought to encourage and not discourage him. An hon. Member laughed when I said many farmers are no better off than agricultural labourers. Professor Orwin has been into this matter of smallholders here, in Germany, and elsewhere. In Germany a small farmer has to work very hard if he is to make a decent living. The investigation recently held into these matters, on Professor Orwin's own showing, in a report which he presented to the Royal Agricultural Society of England, proved it is very much the reverse. He says: In Germany, a novel form of investigation of the economics of smallholdings was reported upon in 1929. The inquiry was made in Würtemburg, and the investigators each lived on a farm for a year, as a member of the household, in a district where 98 per cent. of the farmers are small peasant proprietors. In most cases the farmer was found to earn less than his own paid labourer, and in all cases less than the wage of an ordinary industrial worker. To secure this reward the average farmer and his wife both worked at the rate of just over 10 hours a day, including Sundays. In Switzerland, which is also a country of smallholdings, the official records show that for many years (excepting the War years) the typical farmer has been earning no more than is paid to an ordinary domestic servant. I think that that answers the sneer about farmers who are not earning as much as labourers. It may not be true in this country, but upon investigation abroad there is certainly a great deal in it. And those who know farmers know that it is true of a great many of our small farmers at the present moment. If it be so, there can be no justification, if you are going to help the better utilisation of agricultural land in England, for not letting these small, skilled men have the same facilities for smallholdings as the unemployed and the agricultural labourer. It is merely a matter of justice. I do not think that it would mean a very great deal. If the wording of the Amendment does not suit, I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not mind altering it to fulfil what the Minister desires. If we can get a guarantee from the Minister that a small farmer is entitled to come under the definition of "agricultural labourer," it will go a long way towards meeting our case.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON

I was very interested indeed to understand a moment ago that a. farmer could, in the opinion of the Minister, be considered an agricultural worker. I had no great hopes for any help for the farmer, but now I understand that, in the opinion of the Minister, he is an agricultural worker, I may, with some prospect of success, look to the party opposite for help for the farmer. I appealed last night for some sympathy for the farmer. To-night I am pleased to hear from the Minister that at last, under this Bill, something is to be given to him, and he is to be permitted to become a smallholder, or a farmer on land that has compulsorily been taken away from him for small farms or large-scale occupation. I suggest to the House that to the ordinary farmer there are now two occupations in front of him. Either he is going to become a smallholders or have an opportunity of becoming a director of a large-scale occupation. I am somewhat concerned in which of these positions I shall be classed. I desire to express my satisfaction that, at any rate, under this Bill a farmer is to get such little assistance that, in the opinion of the Minister, he may become a smallholder.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE

I was sorry that the Minister at the beginning of his speech seemed rather to regard the Amendment as a joke, but I am glad that when he began to consider the terms of the Amendment, he seemed inclined to be sympathetic towards the people whom the Amendment was designed to help. I should like to point out the great disadvantage from which we suffer through having no Law Officer of the Crown present to advise us. The Minister used such terms as "I dare-say he might," "I should think that he would," and "I should imagine he would," but there was nothing definite. It was all supposition. I think that he was right, however, in saying that part of the wording of the Amendment was not as good as it might be. I should like to ask him to give the matter very serious consideration with a view to seeing whether it is necessary to have further words put in to ensure that these men are eligible under the scheme for smallholdings. He agrees, I think, that they ought to be eligible, but is he certain that they are? It is all "I daresay," or "They may." I would ask him seriously to consider, before the Bill goes to another place, whether it is necessary to put in suitable words to ensure their eligibility.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR

It seems to me that the Amendment tends to raise barriers against the farmer having the opportunity which the present Bill provides should he desire to take a small holding. I think that the tendency on the other side to play off the agricultural labourer against the farmer is a policy which is neither helpful to the industry nor to the passage of this Bill. Obviously, the intention in the Bill is to provide a holding for any agricultural worker. The average farmer has in these days certainly to work as hard as the average workman and, if he is not doing so, he is up against a fence which is even stiffer than the one which our friends on the other side are raising in order to prevent him from having a smallholding. I feel, as far as the approach to this Bill is concerned, that if hon. Members opposite would endeavour to remove hurdles and difficulties rather than to raise them, we should not only get the Bill through on broader lines, but we should also get a better understanding between the industry and this House in regard to the general attitude which is now being taken towards the industry. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to realise that those of us who are engaged in the industry know full well, be he farm worker or farmer, that we are struggling for a bare bone, and to intensify our difficulties at the present time is neither helpful to the House nor to the country.

Colonel ASHLEY

Although I moved the Amendment on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, the statement of the Minister has put a different complexion upon the situation from what I thought it to be. If, as I understand, the Minister—without binding him because he has not his legal officers here—is of opinion that "agricultural worker" covers the point, then I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment, because I have got absolutely everything I desire.

Dr. ADDISON

Before the Amendment is actually withdrawn, I should like to say that I have sought advice, and I am advised that the expression "agricultural worker" means a person who works in agriculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.