HC Deb 02 April 1947 vol 435 cc2183-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace (Chislehurst)

I must apologise for the fact that officers of this House are detained at this late hour, but I wish to discuss this very important matter. It is an important matter, because certain developments may take place in my constituency in the morning which will very greatly affect the happiness of at least three families. I would like to say, straight away, that I realise I must be extremely careful in keeping within rules of Order on any remarks I may make concerning tied cottages. We have a saying in this country that an Englishman's home is his castle, but, in my opinion, the tied cottage is nothing more than a ball and chain hampering the individual. It is something which is a survival of serfdom. I cannot suggest that tied cottages should be abolished, because that would be out of Order, nor that they should be brought under the Rent Restriction Acts, because that, too, would be out of Order. But I can, from personal experience, talk of evictions under the tied cottage system. I am facing, in my constituency, a problem which is becoming increasingly difficult to cope with. I have co-operated 100 per cent. with the Dart-ford Rural District Council in this matter, and up to date we have, by requisitioning and by other means, managed to cope with all the problems which have arisen so far. But we are at our wits' end trying to find the wherewithal to rehouse these families. I have recently discussed the matter with the full Council, and I can report to this House that the Council passed the following resolution: That the Dartford Rural District Council is of the opinion that no tenants be evicted from tied houses unless suitable alternative accommodation be provided, and that representations be made to the Member of Parliament for the Chislehurst Division to this effect. I have received a copy of this resolution and I have passed it on, and I cannot make further reference to it tonight or I should be out of Order. It is to the credit of the Council, and to the Ministry of Health, that all prefabricated houses are up and occupied, and the Council is following the principle of building houses by direct labour. But we cannot keep allowing people from tied cottages to go into these permanent houses at the expense of other people.

I realise fully the difficulties of hon. Members who are here at this late hour in getting home, but I must tell the House these facts. Tomorrow morning, three families in their cottages, living on one farm in my constituency, will appear before the county court in order that the normal operations shall follow. Of course, I cannot make any suggestion as to what should be done. That is beyond the powers of this House and myself, but what will happen to these people, I simply do not know, especially if the normal machinery of the law is brought into operation. The facts are that a farm was sold and three workers dismissed. They were then snapped up by another farmer but this farmer does not possess any cottages and, therefore, having lost their jobs, they are being replaced by new employees. That is an important point to bear in mind.

I am putting this bluntly to the House in view of the shortage of cottages that we are facing now: is it to be the institution for these people in 1947, when we are talking about the age of freedom for the individual, or what is to happen to them? In the course of facing up to this problem recently, I found that if a man was in work, strictly speaking he was not destitute, but my right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question, did clarify that situation, and they can go into an institution. But is it necessary that farm workers, in work, should have to go into an institution in 1947 when this country is crying out for additional labour on the land? That is a point which should arouse some interest on the part of every Member of this House and, particularly, outside the House, as well. I have another case pending where, I believe, a Polish general, or an officer of high rank, has bought a farm and a farm manager has lost his job. At least, he has been told to clear out. A large number of relatives are involved, but that man has left the industry and gone into a factory, and he is a man of great experience. He should not have gone into the factory. What will happen to the whole lot when they are evicted, I do not know We, in this particular urban district, are at our wits' end but we manage to keep the families moving somehow or other.

I always try to stress the human side of this problem and perhaps the House would like to hear at least two cases out of the large number in which I have interested myself personally, and where we have managed to solve the problem. The first case is of a man who was unable to carry out his work satisfactorily for reasons of health. He is an invalid ex-Serviceman—mark that point—and because his health gave out working on the land he was evicted five days before Christmas along with his wife and seven children. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I cannot reveal how I came to be interested in this case but this man was moved from a sick bed, in an ambulance, and taken to a requisitioned property where we managed to get him in at short notice. In another case I have here, a man, for health reasons, was unable to carry out his work satisfactorily. We talk about the casualties of industry, in the mines, but there are other casualties in industry and this is a case of a casualty in a very important and vital industry today.

I will not weary the House because I know other Members want to speak and, in any case, the time is going. But I want to stress the fact that, like most hon. Members, I like to keep in personal contact with the people I represent, and I can tell the House that these cases today are arousing bitter feeling, because the farm worker of today has got an organisation. He is a different type of man from the farm worker of past and very seldom "touches his cap." He is not the humble, submissive individual that he was many years ago. He is a changed man, and these people are inclined to fight very strongly for their rights.

I have had many cases of this type but they never seem to get public attention in the newspapers. Not long ago I had a case which was published all over sections of the Press, the Kemsley Press included, of a woman living in a fruit pickers' hut with several children. The facts were well known, but the picture was just published as a sort of whip because of the alleged failure of the Government to deal with the housing situation. The true facts were not published in any paper. Decent hard working people who are turned out as a matter of routine never get this attention, and it is time that they did, because we have to rally round this section of the workers as well as everyone else.

I know the limits of this Debate, and, therefore, I have given some considerable thought to the matter. Even now I do not know whether it will be in Order for me to suggest what I intend suggesting, but I do suggest that there should be an Order in Council tightening up the present position as far as the issuing of certificates of possession is concerned, or for creating additional tied cottages. I am informed by a farmer friend of mine, who feels as strongly on this issue as I do, that there have been 1000 tied cottages created in 12 months. How far that is true I cannot say, but I am inclined to think it is so and that we are increasing the problem instead of reducing it.

I suggest that we should try to see if an Order in Council cannot be brought in. Apart from that, I suggest—and here I think I am in Order—that stricter supervision by the Ministers of Health and Agriculture should be observed in the issue of these certificates. The Ministries of Agriculture and of Health should watch all cases which are reported to them—and they should be reported—of eviction and orders for possession, so that they know what is going on before it is too late. I agree that the final solution is the building of a large number of houses in the villages, but that cannot be accomplished in five minutes. We are suffering from the neglect of the past. I do not want to make an undue party point, but the facts are obvious, and cannot be denied. Immediate attention must be given to this problem. It is of long-standing and is not only affecting the freedom of the individual, but is acting against the interests of the whole nation. The agricultural workers are among the front line troops in this new Battle of Britain. I am sure, coming from Kent, that the people of Kent will take their part in the new Battle of Britain as they did in the other Battle of Britain.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Gooch (Norfolk, Northern)

I am sure the farm workers of the country will be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. G. Wallace) for bringing this subject before the House. Thousands of men and women working on the farms today have not the slightest security in their homes. They live under a fear which clouds their whole existence—the nightmare of eviction with no other place to which to go. During the last 25 years the Rent Restriction Acts have been enforced and have protected urban dwellers against the dangers of eviction in the absence of suitable alternative accommodation. I think it is a grave injustice and a scandal that farm workers, upon whom the country will to a large extent depend in the days that lie ahead, and who are more important than any other section of the community, are placed at a distinct disadvantage as compared with urban dwellers. Farm workers in tied cottages have no security under the Rent Restriction Acts as the law stands, even if they have nowhere to go, they can be evicted and their furniture placed in the highway and they can be fined for causing obstruction.

It is, of course, absurd that because a man is in one of the most vital of occupations, he should have less protection than the pawnbroker's assistant or the bookie's clerk. That is actually the position of the agricultural workers of today. Farmers and others believe in the retention of the tied cottage on the ground of necessity. They say that they must have tied cottages so that the workers can live near their jobs. Yet there are a good many cottages today which are not near farms. There are cottages situated in villages which, as my hon. Friend has said, have been bought over the heads of their occupiers, and although the people may have lived in those cottages for a quarter of a century, they wake up one morning to find that their cottages are tied and the farmer forthwith proceeds to secure a certificate from the agricultural committee, which he takes to court and these people are soon out of the cottages. My hon. Friend is quite right about the number of certificates that have been granted. In answer to a Question last year the Minister said that certificates for possession of cottages were being granted by agricultural committees at the rate of a thousand a year over the last five years. Thus, under wartime enactments, the tied cottage situation in the countryside has been aggravated to the extent of a thousand cottages a year for the past five years. I am convinced that tied cottages are not essential to the practice of farming. There are many farmers who have no tied cottages, and the recent national survey has shown that these farms are in all countries and of all types. Sometimes farmers are frank about this business and confess that it is not necessary that cottages should be in the farmyard in order successfully to carry on farming operations.

This question of tied cottages has been a burning grievance with farm workers for generations, and abuses of the system have led to such misery that the party with which I am associated has come down time after time on the side of the farm worker in protest against the continuation of the tied cottage. I need not recall the numerous resolutions that have been passed at Labour Party conferences and T.U.Cs. condemning the tied-cottage system, and speaker after speaker has declared that when the Labour Party came to office with complete power they would seek an early opportunity of introducing legislation that would end this vicious system in the countryside. I suggest that there should not be any hesitation on the part of our hon. Friends on this side of the House in facing up to the serious position which obtains in the countryside. Here are men to whom we are looking, during the next few months especially, and on whom the country will to a large extent depend. They deserve well of the nation, and I hope it may be possible to secure protection for them in their cottage homes on a par with what the Agriculture Bill gives the tenant farmer.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, West)

This is an extremely important matter. Many thousands of people are concerned, and it cannot be denied that there is considerable feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country on this point. It means that men and women are driven from the countryside instead of being attracted there, because they have not got security. It would be out of Order to suggest legislation to deal with this matter but there is a method of doing so within the purview of the various Acts that prevail. I would suggest that the Ministry should be in earnest about this and should adopt similar proceedings to those already adopted when the Ministry of Agriculture recommended to the agriculture executive committees that they should take precau- tions against the giving, of certificates. That, of course, is possible within the Acts. I suggest that my hon. Friend might consult with the Ministry of Agriculture in regard to those certificates. Also I suggest that there is a way in which to deal with this matter of requisitioning. In the same way as it is possible to have a requisitioning order for dwelling houses which are not within the connotation of tied cottages, so there is a possibility of exercising those rights that are already within the powers of the Ministry and preventing the ejection of tenants who are in tied cottages, even though orders may be made against them. It is done in ordinary cases, and if it were generally made known that tenants would be protected in those cases where they would be ejected by order of the court, I think this evil might be met even without legislation.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should adopt these methods speedily. If we want people to remain in the countryside and do not want them to rush, or to be pushed, away from the country into urban areas, we must protect them from being dealt with in a manner that is different from what obtains in the towns. I hope the Ministry will take note of this and act accordingly

11.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards)

My hon. Friends have drawn attention to a very important and significant social problem. Their difficulties are perhaps not as great as my difficulty in keeping within the bounds of Order when trying to give some sort of reply, especially to the points where hon. Members almost went over the bounds of Order themselves. Let me say at the outset, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that we do not like any system under which the security of a man's home depends upon his employment. The system becomes to us particularly vexatious at a time when there is such a scarcity of houses and it leads to evictions and to suffering of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. G. Wallace) described.

I think it will be agreed on all sides that the real remedy for the kind of case to which attention has been drawn is by the provision of an adequate supply of houses. An hon. Member interpolates, "Not solely". If there were enough houses, although the system might be objectionable there would be no hardship of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not propose to elaborate this point. The Government are doing everything they can to build new houses. I am not sure whether I shall be out of Order now. There certainly will not be any time in this Session to deal with the problems arising out of the occupation of existing houses. These things, which involve rent restriction problems and so on, must be attacked comprehensively in due course. I cannot proceed very far along that course, which would involve a discussion of legislation.

There is one point which I should like to make clear. It is important for us to distinguish between the tied house in the sense of houses occupied not under a contract of tenancy—and, therefore, occupied by virtue of a contract of employment—and houses outside the Rent Restriction Acts, which are often referred to as tied houses and which are in a different category, being occupied by virtue of employment, but where an actual tenancy exists and rent is paid and where, therefore, the house is covered by the Rent Restriction Acts.

The point I want to make is that it is only the second category of houses to which the certificates refer. I have some figures which I will give the House for purpose of putting them on record, of the actual number of certificates which have been granted. During 1946, for the four quarters respectively, the number of certificates granted was 328, 335, 233 and 302, being approximately something less than half—

Mr. Janner

How many were refused?

Mr. Edwards

I am giving the figures now—something less than half the applications made for licences. The suggestion has been made that it would be possible for, presumably, the Minister of Agriculture—it is not my Department—to do something about the conditions under which these licences are granted. That is a point which I will refer to the Minister of Agriculture, but I would remind my hon. Friends that what happens here happens under Statute. If they look up the Statute, they will find that there is a certain difficulty in the matter. It is nothing to do with my Department, but I will pass it on.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)

May I put a concrete point? The courts have decided that the court which considers these applications cannot go behind the certificate of the war agricultural executive committee, cannot examine the merits, and cannot find out whether it was genuinely granted, genuinely considered or genuinely applied.

Mr. Edwards

I am sure that is so, but what my hon. Friend says is that we should refer to the 1933 Act where it is quite explicit. What the hon. Member says is perfectly true. All I said was that I doubted whether, under the law as it now stands, the Minister of Agriculture had any power to make any suggestion or give any guidance in that field. That is not my Department, but I will pass on the view which has been expressed.

Mr. Gooch

Was not the granting of certificates a wartime measure?

Mr. Edwards

The provision is in the 1933 Act. I cannot give the Section but, as I understand it, if a certificate is granted under the 1933 Act, the court has to accept it and there cannot be any argument about it. Within the limits of this Debate and considering all that would be involved if we were to tackle this problem comprehensively by way of legislation I can only say that the truth of the matter is that the only way open to us at the moment to deal with the problem is to press on with our provision of new housing and to ease the immense hardship which we all know exists, and which we all deplore. At any rate there is no difference between us about that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.