Clause 3.—(SCHEMES FOR THE PROVISION, OTHERWISE THAN BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION.) (Hansard, 16 October 1952)

HC Deb 16 October 1952 vol 505 cc395-467 395

§ 3.51 p.m.

§ The Chairman
I think that the first two Amendments, in the names of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and his hon. Friends, might be taken together. They are in page 3, line 26, after "for," insert "those members of," and, in line 26, after "population," insert: such as stockmen whose principal duty is the charge of livestock.

§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "for" to insert "those members of."
I am placed in a peculiar position in that, since we have to discuss the details of the Amendments before we discuss the principle of the Clause, I am discussing the details of something which is only a part of a principle to which we object in toto. In regard to the question of tied houses, my right hon. and hon. Friends, equally with everyone in this Committee, are deeply concerned to ensure that agricultural workers get good houses. I think that we are all agreed on that, and there is no division of opinion.
We want the houses, but we object to the conditions imposed upon farm workers who occupy those houses. So long as the occupancy of agricultural houses compels farm workers to live under the threat of immediate and dictatorial eviction, we must register our opposition to any grant of public money to farmers and landowners for purposes of building or repairs. I have to take this occasion to oppose the Government's method of aiding the farmer, and when we reach the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill, we shall register our oppositon to the principle by voting against the Clause.
396 Labour is not opposed to aiding the farmers; indeed, from 1945 to 1951 farmers in this country were assisted to a degree and in a manner never experienced before in farming history. The agricultural charter which we passed made a partnership of the State, the landowner and the farmer. It seems almost a paradox, when we think of the attitude the farmer and the landowner normally take to the Labour Party, that it should have been the Labour Party, of all parties, which finally gave the landowner, or land manager, a function in society and acknowledged his position as a partner on the land. By passing that Act we brought the land, for the first time, into a comprehensive plan as a part of the nation's economy, for which the State had to accept responsibility.
As one of the partners—and a dominant partner—in agriculture, the State has from 1947 onwards pumped some hundreds of millions of pounds into the land industry of this country with a view to improving its efficiency, raising its standards and making this country more and more independent in regard to its food. Much of that money which has been pumped into the land has been used for the purposes for which it was intended. I think that in our country agriculture during that period made steps forward unequalled in any other part of the world. Our purpose is, of course, eventually to raise the standard still further so that the farmers who have not yet attained a good standard may at least approach the standard of some of the best farmers.
Of course, there are difficulties about providing subsidies, and even capital, for farmers. If it is done in the way in which we did it and put into the farmers' hands in the form of increased prices, not every farmer seems to recognise the purpose for which the State makes the money available. I had an instance the other day—not in Scotland—of a farmer telling me that his neighbour has about 300 acres and still needs to improve his equipment on the farm tremendously; but that, instead of using the money for that purpose, with the inducement of the 60 per cent. initial charges relief on income, he bought a Silver Wraith Rolls Royce. His machinery is falling into decay. Fortunately, that kind of farmer is an exception; but, because of that danger, I have always been rather in 397 favour of these subsidies being directional and the subsidy being given in such a way that the purpose for which it is given is indicated and it is carried towards that purpose—the fertiliser subsidies, lime subsidies, beef subsidies and machinery subsidies, and things of that kind.
Some of that money given in those years could quite well have been directed into the building of houses for farm workers, which were absolutely necessary; but the Government of which I was a member took another view. They provided the money for the building of farm cottages and allocated building materials and labour for farm building to the local authorities, whose duty it was to provide cottages for farm workers. We believed in and gave grants for the building of houses for farm workers. Last night the Secretary of State for Scotland gave figures of a considerable number of houses built for this purpose and among them houses in existence under local authority schemes. Some of these houses are really a pleasure to look at. In my constituency I have seen farm cottages attached to villages and farm workers living in them in a different atmosphere from that in which most of them have had to live for many generations.
This Bill provides for the granting of subsidies for the building of what are known as the "tied cottages." I recognise quite well that these things exist all over Scotland and all over Britain. I recognise that there is no practical way of eliminating them immediately, and also that it is a problem that is not easy to solve. I think that to some extent the party opposite and ourselves are the victims of a psychology that exists in the agricultural industry in much the same way as the mining industry was for many years the victim of its history.
The difficulty that exists in regard to tied houses of the agricultural community is due to one fact, and one fact alone. It is that farmers want to retain an almost feudal right of industrial life and death over their employees. The Farmers' Union says that there are no arbitrary evictions. I have discussed the matter with them, and they tell me that these do not exist. Here again, it is a question of fact, and I do not think it should be difficult to ascertain the facts. The agricultural workers, on the other hand, insist that these evictions take place, and 398 my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) last night gave examples from his own almost recent experience of families being turned out in the snow or in inclement weather without any notice whatever. I am satisfied that the public of this country will not tolerate inhuman treatment of that kind.
4.0 p.m.
Of course, if the farmers insist that they must retain that power, then beyond question we on our part must refuse to allow any public money to be granted which would in any way condone such treatment of the workers. The fact that it does not happen to all workers in the farming industry does not alter that conclusion. The fact that the farm workers feel that this threat is hanging over them is sufficient to justify the public having some say in what happens to the treatment of farm workers.
Everybody recognises that in any certain occupations, houses and jobs go together. Local authorities have to deal with their police, their janitors, their caretakers; the Coal Board has to deal with miners; the Army has to deal with soldiers; the railways have to deal with railwaymen. Even this House has to deal with the Prime Minister in that way. Some of these houses go with the jobs, but no one ever dreams of evicting people without giving due notice or without giving them some opportunity to find alternative accommodation.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of the Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Woodburn
I think he gets due notice and an opportunity to find some place to which he can remove his furniture. I am quite sure that he would not be thrown out into Downing Street in the snow to look for some other place in which to live.

§ The Chairman
I would point out that the Amendment deals with agricultural workers.

§ Mr. Woodburn
While that problem concerning the Prime Minister may arise shortly, I am sure it will be dealt with humanely. The fundamental difference in the case of agriculture is that farmers insist on the right of ruthless eviction, 399 even if they do not exercise it. That is foreign to every other occupation in this country, as far as I know, and it is quite foreign to the spirit of modern relations and of setting people free. We cannot condone by grants of public money such a relationship between the employer and the employee, because it has no moral or reasonable justification in modern society.
Moreover, we are also convinced that it is not good for the industry, because, if we are to attract workers into the industry, then the conditions under which they take occupancy of houses must be such that their families will be willing to go with them and will not have to suffer humiliation or indignities imposed by abitrary decisions. As far as I can see, there is neither sense nor justification in this refusal by the farmers to realise that feudal law has gone from the land. It is not the business of Parliament to use public money to perpetuate such arbitrary power of punishment without crime.
We learned from the discussions last night the even more deplorable fact that the Secretary of State has taken powers to compel local authorities to spend money on those houses, as well as having his own powers to spend money. In spite of their conscientious objections to using public money for this purpose, he has accepted the power of enforcing this upon them. We protest against this invasion of local authority rights.
We recognise and appreciate the vital need for agriculture and of good conditions for its workers. We have demonstrated that by our actions in the last five or six years. Indeed, we even recognise that if the farmers want to ensure the efficient working of their farms, it may be necessary on occasion for them to obtain possession of property in order that the workers may be able to do their jobs. But the farm worker is entitled to proper safeguards and to conditions in his home and work which are as good as those of any other citizen.
Of course, we cannot vote against the principle until we have disposed of these Amendments, and if we were properly to preserve our rights to vote against that principle, we should fail to take any opportunity available to improve the Bill, if eventually we are not able to defeat its purpose. We have taken this precaution, however. In the event of the 400 Secretary of State not being willing to remove the Clause, then at least we seek to improve it, as the next best step.
These Amendments are therefore designed to meet what seems to be the only possible case—certainly the only case which has been put forward—of difficulty on the farms caused by the acceptance of the principle that the local authority should provide houses for farm workers. The argument which has been advanced for the Bill is that people dealing with livestock must live within reach of the livestock, and we have certainly no desire to compel people to cycle long distances in the early morning and in inclement weather in certain parts of Scotland to look after livestock. Moreover, we have to consider the effect of such a situation upon the animals. We recognise that it may be convenient for the workers to live very near to the stock and that that is a plausible case for the perpetuation of a situation in which houses are segregated from villages.
If the principle is to be forced through in the Bill, we propose that the granting of public money should be limited to cases in which workers are dealing with stock, which would make it possible for the local authorities in the normal way to provide houses for the great number of people who follow ordinary agricultural pursuits. Nobody will suggest that in great stretches of East Lothian it is necessary for the men to live isolated from their fellows and out of the villages. Even in Ayrshire, in the great dairy centres, it is possible in many cases to have villages, and in great parts of Scotland the farm worker can live in a village—in Clackmannan and places like that—and go to his work in the same way as any one else.
The worker has the occupancy of a house, and if, eventually the farmer wishes to obtain possession of it for another farm worker, then he can use the normal processes of the law. In the main, farm workers are quite reasonable people. Indeed, I agree with the farmers and with the farm workers that all over Scotland this question is settled reasonably in perhaps 99.9 per cent. of the cases. But that justifies our attitude that it is quite unnecessary to retain this power—a power which gives a feeling of servitude to the farm worker which is quite foreign to the dignity of man.
401 If the Secretary of State will not, with his usual charm, withdraw the Clause altogether, then I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment. I have a suspicion that he may not withdraw the Clause, and I move the Amendment in the hope that, in such an event, this power will be retained only in the case of stockmen, in which case some justification has been advanced.

§ The Chairman
I would respectfully remind the Committee that if we are to have a wide debate on the Amendments, I shall feel it my duty, when the time comes, to put forthwith the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and not allow a debate upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am bound by Standing Order No. 45, and I am only seeking to do my duty.

Mr. Hector McNeil (Greenock)
On a point of order. There have been some conversations, as there usually are, and there is some hope that occasionally, for the convenience of the Committee and in order to save time, more than one Amendment will be taken together. That inevitably leads to a wider debate than would take place on a single Amendment. I shall be anxious, as no doubt will my colleagues, to be guided by you, Sir Charles, but I would respectfully suggest that if, as a consequence of grouping Amendments, the discussion runs a little wide, it would not be appropriate to apply Standing Order No. 45. My submission is that if it is your feeling that we should apply the Standing Order, then we shall be compelled to ask that the Amendments be taken singly.

§ The Chairman
First of all, of the two Amendments we have been discussing, one is consequential, and the two must go together. All I did was respectfully to point out to the Committee that I am bound by Standing Order No. 45 that if the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, he may … then forthwith put the question 'That the Clause … stand part of the Bill'"; and that I shall do if I am of that opinion.

§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
May I submit, Sir Charles, that there are many matters arising on the Clause which may be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but which 402 it would be quite inappropriate to discuss on an Amendment. I think that it would assist the business of the Committee—and I should feel happier myself—if you would narrow the discussion on the Amendments and allow a fuller discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ The Chairman
If that is the wish of the Committee; but I shall be strict, and do my best to restrict debate to the Amendments.

§ Mr. Woodburn
May I beg your pardon, Sir Charles, for having infringed that rule? But I think you will agree that it was a rather difficult problem. We were moving an Amendment which seemed to be accepting a principle which later on must be accepted in full, and therefore, in moving the Amendment, I thought it necessary to state the position with regard to the principle. I promise that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I shall not repeat that argument.

§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
As I understand it, this Amendment raises a very important question as to the class of people whom this Clause is designed to help and it is to that important point that I wish to address my remarks.
It has been represented to hon. Members on this side of the Committee that this Clause is primarily designed to give assistance to occupants of tied cottages. I must say candidly that I do not see how in the north of Scotland it is possible to carry on agriculture without the tied cottage. It may be different in the south. I admit at once that the tied cottage system is open to abuse. We may get a farmer taking a grant for a tied cottage and using the cottage for other purposes besides agriculture, or we may find a farmer who is oppressive to his workers. But in the north of Scotland where we are without villages and where there are vast expanses of country and remote farms. I do not see how we can get on without those cottages. I understand that is agreed and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment.
If that is so, it seems to me essential that we bring these cottages up to a reasonable standard. If we are to get the necessary agricultural population, there is nothing, or few things, more 403 necessary in the north of Scotland than decent houses. I am primarily concerned to see that the agricultural population have decent houses rather than with whether those houses are tied or otherwise, provided there are safeguards to see that farmers do not turn out their tenants without adequate reason.
May we have from the Government a statement as to whom they think this Clause, as it is at present drafted, is designed to help? It seems to me that it applies to the small owner-occupier and landholders of various types, the crofter and the cottar—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I undertand it, it does raise this very question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall abide by the Ruling of Sir Charles, and I hope that when we come to discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," that will be made clear.
In my view, the Clause goes a great deal wider even than that. It can apply, as I said, to the ordinary owner, the crofter and cottar, people who are helped primarily by other Acts, and the benefit they get under other Acts may be more suitable than that under this Bill. It would be useful if we could know whether these people are eligible. I hope they are. I do not think we can confine agricultural housing strictly to people who are engaged on farms. The agricultural community is one. There is the cottar, the farmer and the crofter, and there are also men engaged in fishing and forestry and subsidiary industries.

§ The Chairman
This Amendment is within quite narrow limits. It deals only with stockmen in charge of livestock.

§ Mr. Grimond
I shall confine my remarks to that. But when it comes to the question of confining it to one class of people, those in charge of livestock, I think it would be very useful for the Committee to have the Government's view about whom this Clause, as at present drafted, should help; and whether it is intended to help other classes besides those living in tied cottages.

§ 4.15 p.m.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden)
There has been an apparent desire to get at the principle underlying this Clause, but I do not think the Committee will expect me to deal with the general question 404 raised with regard to the tied cottage system. I propose to take the Committee back to the actual Amendments on the Order Paper. Later the principle may be discussed and perhaps at that stage I can answer the question regarding the particular types of people who will rank for benefit.
The effect of the two Amendments would be to limit the class of agricultural occupants for whom houses may be built with assistance under Clause 3 to stockmen or persons whose principal duty is to look after livestock. That is the meaning of the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I think we shall make more progress if we take this question by itself.
The only question that arises is whether it would be sensible and workable to introduce this rather narrow and extremely vague limitation, or whether it would be wiser and better to stand by the Bill as it is drafted. I admit that in the past I have offered the argument that the stockman, or the person who looks after livestock, if there are any priorities, has the prior claim to be on the actual holding. But we feel that to narrow the scope of this Clause by confining the grant aid to stockmen alone—even if we could define them, which is extremely doubtful—would create anomalies and would lead to a certain amount of discontent within the farming community.
For example, the grieve, an extremely important person on the farm, would be excluded. That would be one of the effects if these Amendments were carried. It would mean that some houses on the farm would be available for one type of worker and others would be left as they are. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that one type of worker or the other type have equal rights to good housing conditions. If it comes to that, so have their families. If this Amendment were carried, the family of a worker who was not a stockman would be denied the improved conditions offered to a brother worker, and his family. Arbitrary conditions of this sort would probably lead to discontent among the farming community.
There is another example which I could give and which reveals another aspect of this question. I quote it because it is within my own experience during the past year. It often happens, if one is trying to be what is called progressive, 405 that one has to change the economy of an agricultural holding. It may be that one farm is pushed in with another, because of some change of policy. Under these Amendments, if a grant were received in respect of a stockman on farm No. 2, and at a later date the farmer changed his economy and took the stockman to another farm, the new occupant of the vacated house might not be a stockman, and therefore the owner would be in breach of agreement and would have to repay his grant. That would lead to confusion and create a certain amount of discontent.
We take the view that, if we are to offer a grant, it should, in the interests of the industry, be made available for all members of the agricultural population, and not be confined to one class of worker. We wish to offer these grants to all members of the agricultural population, which really answers the question put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Under Clause 3, assistance is given for the building of a new house, whether it is to replace an unfit house or not and whether it is tied or not, for all members of the agricultural population as defined in the Act of 1950. If the hon. Gentleman cares to turn up the definition in that Act, he will find full particulars as to the people to whom we are offering assistance.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I think all hon. Members of the Committee will agree that the Under-Secretary has been most painstaking in giving the Government's reasons for resisting this Amendment, but he will not be surprised when I say that he has not entirely convinced some of us.
He has said that this proposal will leave the position in a most unsatisfactory and vague way. We do not claim that these words and only these words could give effect to what is obviously intended by those who put this Amendment on the Order Paper. I should have thought that, if the Government had any sympathy at all with what we are seeking to do, they could have found words which would remove that vagueness.
However, the Under-Secretary went on to say that, if this Amendment was 406 accepted, we should spend taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to build a house for the grieve, who is a farm manager——

§ Mr. Snadden
The grieve is not necessarily a farm manager. The term is used in Scotland very often for a senior workman on a farm, and, if the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I confess I am rather surprised.

§ Mr. Fraser
I am sorry to quarrel with the Under-Secretary, but I do know what a grieve is, and he is not an ordinary worker. He is a farm worker, but not in the ordinary sense, and we find a grieve employed on a farm because the farmer himself does not live on the farm or manage it himself. I suggest to the Committee that we have no more right to give the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to the landowner or farmer, in order that he may build the house for his grieve, than we have to give it to the local co-operative society to build a house for the store manager.
The Committee will surely bear in mind that, on every occasion on which we have discussed the tied cottage in agriculture both in Committee and in the House of Commons since 1945, hon. Members on that side have made the case for the tied house on the basis that the tied house was absolutely essential to the farm worker who is in charge of livestock. We give them that in the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the agricultural worker in East Lothian. There are so many agricultural workers who have nothing at all to do with livestock. They are engaged in cropping agriculture or they work on the farm buildings. Has anyone suggested that a tractor driver must live on the farm? Is there any more reason why a farmer or landowner should get a grant from public funds to build a house for a tractor driver than that the British Transport Commission should receive a grant to build a house for a local truck driver? The two men are doing very similar jobs. The ordinary driver employed by any public works contractor in driving a mechanical implement is not very different from the tractor driver.
It really is monstrous that at this time the Government should propose that public money should be given to the landowners and the farmers of this country ad lib to build houses for whoever they will. Nobody will contradict 407 me when I say that, in over six years at the Scottish Office, I had innumerable discussions with the National Farmers' Union and the landowners, when they made representations to me about the tied cottage, in which they never once asked for the tied cottage for anyone other than a person in charge of livestock.

§ Mr. John MacLeod (Ross and Cromarty)
Did the hon. Gentleman allow the farmers to build ad lib during his term of office?

§ Mr. Fraser
I do not want to indulge in any discussion which would be out of order, but I will say that I am not aware of any farmers who wished to build in recent years who were not permitted to do so.
This is the important point. Since 1945, the landowners and farmers of Scotland, in making their representations, consistently asked for permission to build, and for public assistance in building, cottages for those workers who were in charge of livestock. It is monstrous that at the present time the Government should feel obliged to resist this modest Amendment, which seeks to limit the use of public money for this purpose to that very class of person whom they have chosen to use for so many years as the very person in agriculture for whom a tied cottage is absolutely essential.
There is no justification for it at all. The farmer and landowner are to be given public money to provide houses for their employees and in a way in which no other employer in the country is able to enjoy such assistance from public funds. I think that is wrong, and I hope that the Committee will agree with me in the view I have expressed.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)
We must be quite frank about this. We certainly have no intention of delaying the passage of the Bill, but we also have no intention of allowing the wild misrepresentation which went on hour after hour yesterday to continue without reply. Here is an attack designed to deprive the tractor man of the benefits of a new and cheap house, and we are not standing for it. That is the argument of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) who has 408 just spoken. It is an attack on the tractor driver. Why should he have a house cheap, says the hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. T. Fraser
That is not my argument at all. We have provided in Clause 2 of this Bill, which we cannot now discuss, that the tractor man may enjoy the benefit of a house provided by the local authority.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Anybody who listened to the speeches yesterday, or who has read them today in HANSARD, will realise that the whole basis of the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite yesterday was that, under the provisions of this Bill, the local authorities would stop building. They said so in terms, but here are people willing to build. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) said so.
Here are people who are willing to build far more cheaply to the community and to the occupiers of the house, and willing to build houses with every single amenity for which they asked—drainage, hot and cold water, inside sanitation and all these things. [Interruption.] Certainly, all these things will be provided; admittedly, they will be provided under this Clause. But they will be forbidden if the Amendment is carried. Therefore, says the hon. Gentleman opposite, forbid it. It is not true that the local authority will be able to build and to forbid anybody else to build.
The result of this sort of argument, which has often been brought before the Committee and the House of Commons on such occasions as this debate, is this attempt to stop the provision of good houses at low rents for agricultural workers. That is the intention, and that is the ground upon which it was defended by hon. Members opposite. Nobody thinks that the rents of these houses will be far below what would have been charged by the local authorities.
Everyone knows that a local authority cottage commands a rent far above the figure at which an agricultural worker can pay for his accommodation. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows, too, that in many cases these houses are refused by agricultural workers because they do not wish to pay those rents. But out of pure prejudice, particularly in the case of the hon. Member for Hamilton, who had the honour for so long to have 409 high responsibility for agriculture in Scotland, it is said "Forbid it," and the hon. Member for Hamilton cites the tractor man as a specific example.
4.30 p.m.
He ought to know; he must know—he is a very intelligent man who has been in close touch with these matters for years—that the agricultural industry of Scotland is one of stock and crops and that it would be practically impossible under such an Amendment as the one we are discussing to draw a dividing line and to say that people such as those mainly concerned with stock should have this benefit, but that no other agricultural worker should.
What kind of definition could be applied to all our West Country, and to all the northern farmers mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? A few cases of purely arable agriculture exist in Scotland. They are not the majority of cases. The majority are mixed agriculture, which is the glory of Scotland and which has been its standby in many different conditions in the past. These are the people to whom we think good houses at low rents should be made available: these are the people for whom we shall vote when we vote down this Amendment, and I trust that the Committee will stand by us in this.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I think something ought to be said about the remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). First, I want to ask him with what authority he speaks for the farm workers of Scotland. He may have some special authority to speak for them, but the Union of Farm Workers in Scotland entirely repudiate his point of view. He may say that the Union does not speak for all the farm workers, but I have had experience, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), of discussing this matter with both farm workers and farmers.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said, that the only argument put forward by the farmers is one in favour of the necessity to have tied houses for stockmen, which is the Amendment before us. They have never tried to argue the case for tied houses for the normal agricultural worker who can get home to his village.

410

§ Mr. Snadden
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises that the Labour Government legislation of 1946 actually increased the grant, and that grants are available today for tied houses, provided they are built to replace other houses, for all classes of agricultural workers?

§ Mr. Woodburn
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that position in regard to this matter, then we are prepared to reconsider our attitude towards both the Amendment and the Clause. If the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance on behalf of the Government that he accepts the principle laid down by the Labour Government at that time, then we are prepared to reconsider the matter. Is he? I see he is not.

Mr. McNeil
The interjection was pointless.

§ Mr. Woodburn
We will get back to the real argument. The farm workers take the view that they are the only people free to speak for the farm worker because at the moment a worker in a tied cottage does not feel free to express his opinion. That is one of the problems associated with tied cottages. So long as a man has not only his own livelihood, but the very roof over the heads of his wife and children threatened if he dares to show any liberty at all, he suffers a fear which is not justified in a modern community.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that there are no Labour members among the agricultural workers of Scotland, that there are no members of the Labour Party who attend Labour meetings and who speak on Labour platforms?

§ Mr. Woodburn
I know there are plenty of intelligent farm workers in Scotland who vote Labour, but that is a different point altogether. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that a personal friend of mine could not at one time even go to a Liberal meeting in his constituency without his job being threatened. That shows that at one time such people could not even go so far as to express a Liberal point of view, let alone a Labour point of view.
The fact is that so long as people have that fear something must be done about it. It does not matter whether the fear 411 is justified or not. The point is that there should not be the cause for that fear. I do not think that the Minister can justify the principle that without any notice of any kind a farmer or his wife should be able to threaten the farm worker and his wife with immediate eviction and without any appeal to any other authority. That principle cannot be justified in modern society.
We are not denying the farmer the right to have possession of the cottage, nor are we denying him the right to subsidise the rent and to give his employee a cheap house. All we are asking for today is that the farm worker should be given the same rights as those enjoyed by every other citizen in the community.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
That is not the Amendment. The Amendment says that certain people are not to get the benefit of the Clause; they are to be cut out of the Clause. Stick to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
We are proposing that the benefits of this Clause should be given to the people on whose behalf the farmers have argued. Therefore, if the farmers are prepared to argue that it is only essential in the case of stockmen who have to live near the livestock, then, if the Clause is to be carried, we are prepared to say it should only be carried for the purpose for which it has been asked and not in order to give authority to build houses for grieves and all sorts of other people who receive sufficient wages to enable them to live in a decent house of their own. There is no reason why a grieve should not live in a village. The idea that he must live on a farm is nonsense. There is not a place in Midlothian where a grieve is compelled to live on a farm, and with motor cars and modern transport available to people nowadays there is no reason why he should.

§ Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray (Berwick and East Lothian)
I think the right hon. Gentleman would find that the majority of grieves in East Lothian if given the choice would elect to live on the farm and not elsewhere.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Then we have to protect the wives and children of the farm workers.

412

§ Major Anstruther-Gray
Against their husbands' choice?

§ Mr. Woodburn
Their children are entitled, at any rate, to have schools within reasonable distance of their homes and to be required to travel a large number of miles to get to school.

§ Major Anstruther-Gray
Hundreds of miles?

§ Mr. Woodburn
No, many miles.

§ Major Anstruther-Gray
Transport is provided.

§ Mr. Woodburn
An ideal arrangement is to have the schools within easy reach of home. There are very few farmers in Midlothian today who cannot afford to provide their grieves with cars in order to facilitate their work. This insistence on trying to provide houses on farms for everybody is just nonsense in an era of quick transport such as we now enjoy. Motor cycles and cars are available to the higher paid employees on the better farms in Midlothian.
We say that if the Clause must go through, it should be limited to the people for whom the farmers have argued. I do not think hon. Members are justified in claiming for the farm workers more than the farmers themselves have asked for. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. David J. Pryde (Midlothian and Peebles)
I wish to say a word about something said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). When you, Sir Charles, were laying down the conditions that we must observe in these debates——

§ The Chairman
I did not lay down any conditions; I am governed by the Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Pryde
—I thought that, perhaps, the Government Front Bench may have arrived at something like a compromise, because, after all, life is a compromise. The Front Bench opposite will agree that this Amendment is a compromise from this side of the Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove rose in desperation to try and save something from the wreck. Like a drowning man clutching at a straw, he grasped at the tractor.
413 I want to go back to what the Joint Under-Secretary of State said about building houses for agricultural workers in certain areas. Farmers and landlords ire Scotland have always based their arguments for the tied cottage on the man who looks after the stock. The Joint Under-Secretary says that we would have difficulty in defining who is in charge of stock. His right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour has no difficulty in determining that point, because applications for deferment are decided by the Ministry of Labour, and therefore the farmer has no difficulty in determining the matter.
What sort of house can one build in an isolated part in Peebleshire? There is no piped water supply, no drainage, it is far away from schools; and rural schools are being abolished. Is it not far better if the farm worker is housed in a community established by the county council where it is easy for the authorities to educate the children and where there is piped water and drainage? We on this side of the Committee, recognising all the practical difficulties, have arrived at this compromise, and we ask the Government to accept it.
The stock of this country is valuable. Hon. Members should consider the prices obtained for stock in southern Scotland to-day. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove said that I had stated that the local authorities in south-east Scotland were going to refuse to build houses. I was referring to the Convention of Border Burghs which met in Peebles a fortnight ago. Is it not perfectly true to say that that was the statement which was issued to the Press after that meeting? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cares, I will take him to burghs in Midlothian where the authorities say that the conditions laid down in this Bill will make it impossible to build.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Surely the hon. Member is emphasising the point. If the local authorities are not going to build,

414

§ that knocks the whole bottom out of his case, and the houses have to be provided otherwise.

§ Mr. Pryde
The Conservative Party have laid it down that they will build 300,000 houses. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have emphasised to their own Front Bench that they should see that those 300,000 houses are built. Now the Government are placing on the Statute Book a Bill under which the local authorities will find it impossible to build the houses. We on this side of the Committee are providing the Government with a means whereby they can be helped to build some of those 300,000 houses. But we refuse to give them arbitrary power of life and death over the bodies and souls of men, women and children.
4.45 p.m.
On the benches of the silent Members opposite, surely there is at least one kindly soul who reacts to the Christian ethic. Or is there? I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to give this matter full consideration and to remember when he is exercising power that the Good Book did not give to any section of the community power of life and death over fellow men and women.

§ Major Anstruther-Gray
The reason I support the Government in opposing this Amendment quite simply is that I see that the Amendment will restrict the benefit of the Clause to stockmen. Hon. Members opposite accept the fact that it will be a benefit to stockmen, but they are anxious to exclude from that benefit tractor drivers and grieves. I think that tractor drivers and grieves and their families in many cases will prefer to live close to their work at the farm rather than elsewhere. For that reason I believe that this Clause will be welcomed by the bulk of the agricultural community in Scotland.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 189.

415

Clunie, J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Collick, P. H.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Keenan, W.	Ross, William
Crosland, C. A. R.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	King, Dr. H. M.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Daines, P.	Kinley, J.	Short, E. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lewis, Arthur	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dodds, N. N.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	MacColl, J. E.	Slater, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	McInnes, J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Field, W. J.	McLeavy, F.	Snow, J. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Sparks, J. A.
Forman, J. C.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Steele, T.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Glanville, James	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Manuel, A. C.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Grey, C. F.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mellish, R. J.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Messer, F.	Sylvester, G. O.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mitchison, G. R.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Moody, A. S.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hamilton, W. W.	Morley, R.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hannan, W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hardy, E. A.	Moyle, A.	Timmons, J.
Hargreaves, A.	Oliver, G. H.	Watkins, T. E.
Hastings, S.	Oswald, T.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Hayman, F. H.	Padley, W. E.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hobson, C. R.	Paget, R. T.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Holman, P.	Pannell, Charles	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Parker, J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hubbard, T. F.	Paton, J.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Poole, C. C.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Popplewell, E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Proctor, W. T.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Pryde, D. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Rankin, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Janner, B.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Mr. Kenneth Robinson and
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Mr. Royle.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Rhodes, H.

NOES
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Heald, Sir Lionel
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heath, Edward
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Arbuthnot, John	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Crouch, R. F.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ashton, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Baker, P. A. D.	Davidson, Viscountess	Hirst, Geoffrey
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Holland-Martin, C. J
Baldwin, A. E.	Dtedes, W. F.	Holt, A. F.
Barber, Anthony	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Horobin, I. M.
Baxter, A. B.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Beamish, Maj. Tuften	Donner, P. W.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Drayson, G. B.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Drewe, G.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Birch, Nigel	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hurd, A. R.
Bishop, F. P.	Duthie, W. S.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Black, C. W.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Erroll, F. J.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Fell, A.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Finlay, Graeme	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H	Fisher, Nigel	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Kaberry, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Keeling, Sir Edward
Bullard, D. G.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lambert, Hon. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Lambton, Viscount
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Butcher, H. W.	Gower, H. R.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Linstead, H. N.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert	Grimond, J.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Channon, H.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hare, Hon. J. H.	McCallum, Major D.
Cole, Norman	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	McKibbin, A. J.

417

Mr. McNeil
I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from "assistance," to the end of line 42, and to insert: (b) the house contains a bathroom with a fixed bath and hot and cold water provided, a kitchen with a sink and hot and cold water provided, a water closet and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance, and (c) the house is in replacement of an existing unsatisfactory house or other premises occupied as a dwelling by a member of the agricultural population. For the purposes of this subsection "unsatisfactory house or other premises" means houses or other premises which are unfit for human habitation and which are not capable of being rendered so fit at reasonable expense. I take it that it will be convenient if we take this Amendment together with the other Amendment standing in my name: In page 3, line 42, at end, insert: (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection no assistance under this section shall be given in respect of the replacement of any house or other premises unless such action has been taken under Part 2 of the principal Act as will secure that the house or premises will be demolished on the completion of the house provided in replacement thereof or will not thereafter be used for human habitation.

§ The Chairman
I think that we should also take the Amendment in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 3. I think the three Amendments go together.

Mr. McNeil
I quite agree. I do not anticipate that this will be a long discussion. I am considerably fortified by the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—who, I am sure, will soon be back 418 in his place—has already indicated his willingness to support us in the substance of the Amendments standing in my name, and I know from the discussion which our colleagues had on the English Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing is also kindly disposed towards the intention of our Amendments.
Since the right hon. and gallant Member has just returned to his place, I ought to say in courtesy that I am fortified by the assurance which he gave during the preceding discussion, that he was in favour of the substance of these Amendments. If the Government resist them I shall look for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in our Lobby, because we shall certainly divide upon this issue.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
It is on the development of the argument that I hope to be able to support the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil
That is very flattering; but I am much more cheered by the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman flatly committed himself to the support of the principle without waiting for the argument to be developed. That is an attitude of mind which I expect in such a distinguished scientist as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because these proposals are self-evident. In the first place we argue that where public funds are to be made available for the building of tied cottages, these tied cottages shall conform broadly to the same standard of amenities as those which 419 would be found in houses constructed in any urban area and attracting public funds.
Secondly, we argue that these proposals should not attract public funds unless there is an undertaking that on the completion of the building the previous unfit dwelling shall be so taken care of as not to be available for human habitation. This is not a new or revolutionary proposal. Since the Act of 1938, passed by a Government in which the right hon. and gallant Member was a very influential Member, that principle has been adhered to, and it would certainly be a most extraordinary sight to see Her Majesty's Government proving themselves even more reactionary than the Government of 14 years ago.
We are being driven to a curious position when Her Majesty's Government decides to be more backward than a steel master; more 19th-century than any reputable haulier, and now more reactionary than the Government which is usually remembered as the 1938 Government. It will be very interesting to see if any hon. Member opposite tries to support resistance to this Amendment.
We are not arguing in a vicious fashion. We are saying, first, that if an agricultural worker suffers the disadvantage of being a tied worker he should not be further imposed upon by being forced to accept a lower standard of housing than his fellow citizens in the towns or the cities.
5.0 p.m.
Secondly, we say that if public funds are to be invested under these penalising conditions in houses in respect of which the farmer enjoys a power of life and death which few other employers in the country enjoy, the Committee has an obligation to see that public funds are wisely invested. That means that elementary standards must be safeguarded.
The standards for which we ask are not at all ambitious. We ask that there shall be a bathroom and a kitchen, and that these shall have a supply of hot and cold water. We ask that the kitchen shall have a sink and we ask that the family shall have a lavatory. It may be argued that it is not possible to provide such supplies in all cases. I suppose that that may unhappily be true, but that is not the proposition.
420 The proposition, unless this Amendment is to be accepted, is that such sub-scale development should attract public funds, and that would be a most extraordinary position. Her Majesty's Government are in this case even more suspect than usual because the Committee will recollect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has already committed himself to the proposition that we should rush ahead with the provision of sub-standard houses.
To be fair, the hon. and gallant Member the Joint Under-Secretary of State last night gave us an assurance that that was not the Government's intention. I wish to be perfectly fair to him and to admit that the assurance was not given in relation to this Clause, but I think and certainly hope that he meant it as a general undertaking. The hon. and gallant Gentleman nods his head. That is splendid. I take it that he will accept the Amendment?
I must test the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intentions against the words of the Bill. Does he intend to say to me that he finds the words used in the Amendment to be a little indelicately drawn or something of that kind? I invite him to intervene and say that the substance of our Amendment will be taken care of, and we can then get on to the next part of the Bill.
I see no response, and in view of that it is quite plain that the Government are not going to honour this undertaking that only houses conforming to certain elementary standards will attract public funds. That is a great disappointment, a most reactionary attitude—more reactionary, I repeat, than the 1938 Act.
Our second proposition brings us to that Act. It will be an entirely new development if a Member of a Government is to argue to this Committee that public funds should be made available to continue to increase the number of sub-standard houses in our country. That is why we follow on inevitably and logically with our second Amendment, which provides that the sub-standard houses—those premises unfit for human habitation—shall no longer be occupied on the completion of the house which attracts subsidy.
There is impartial and expert advice upon this subject. We have had the report of a committee upon it. That 421 report states that it would be improper that these agricultural workers, forced to live in tied houses, should have the double penalty imposed upon them of having to live in sub-standard tied houses. We have had an indication from the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he disapproves of it, and we have had an undertaking from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, a little more precisely perhaps than from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it is a proposal which he also supports.
Here is a chance to proceed against agricultural slums. Here is a chance to use public funds to see that our agricultural population shall not be further diminished. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an unambiguous undertaking on both these points, otherwise we shall be compelled to divide, and we shall rejoice in finding the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove with us.

§ Mr. J. Stuart
I hope that the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) will be satisfied with at any rate part of my reply to the first part of his Amendment, because I wish to make it clear to him at the beginning, and to assure him most sincerely, that there is no intention on our part of seeing public funds used on what he called sub-standard houses. That is far from being the case.
I hope, however, to be able to satisfy him and the other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen associated with him that there is no need for at least the first part of his Amendment. I say that because, although it is quite true that the 1938 Act did specify the conveniences mentioned in the Amendment, there are reasons why that is not necessary today. For example, internal piped water and sinks are made obligatory under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.
Further, conditions change, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree, and we hope they will continue to change for the better; and ideas as to what is desirable and necessary are liable to change in this respect. For example, we now consider that both a proper larder and fuel store are necessary conveniences in new houses, and they will be insisted upon.
As soon as this Bill becomes law, if it does, as I hope it will, a model scheme will be introduced forthwith and published to local authorities, giving them guidance on all these points, and the 422 conveniences mentioned in the Amendment will be included in that model scheme. There will be additions to those conveniences specified in the Amendment.

§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)
Will the scheme confine itself exclusively to houses for the agricultural population, or will it relate to houses generally?

§ Mr. Stuart
It will deal with houses for the agricultural population.
I would, therefore, ask the Committee not to press this matter because there will be no delay, certainly no undue delay, in publishing the model scheme. Therefore, there will be no undue delay in local authorities being able to get ahead with their plans. As I say, all the conveniences mentioned, and others, will be incorporated in the model scheme.
The other effect of the Amendment is to restrict the scope of the Measure to the replacement of unsatisfactory houses or other premises occupied as dwellings by members of the agricultural population. The Government's object, of course, as I think the Committee will be aware now, is to widen the scope so as to give assistance to all houses built for occupation by members of the agricultural population. We do not any longer wish to restrict it purely to replacement. I may fail to carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in connection with this second part of his Amendment, but I think it is much better that I should make that statement quite frankly. That is our intention.
We want to encourage housing for agricultural districts—good housing, up-to-date housing. It is probably one of the most important factors today in maintaining a healthy, happy agricultural population, and encouraging it to stay in those areas; which is itself so important for our food production drive. I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

Mr. McNeil
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I would say that I do not want to be unreasonable. We all know the legend of the good Secretary of State. Would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, say to us that he will see if he can find a form of words to amend subsection (1) of Clause 3 under which he has power to make schemes— 423 to amend that to indicate that a scheme would have to embody those minimum standards?

§ Mr. Stuart
I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will examine that point. I will. I have not considered it, and I do not know what form of words is possible. As I pointed out just now, these things are liable to change; and, of course, to specify definite conveniences in an Act of Parliament would necessitate legislation to amend that Act if we wanted to add something like a porch—whatever it may be: I mention a porch only for example. I will look into the point.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I hope the Secretary of State will remember that yesterday evening we had a rather heated discussion on an Amendment, which was followed by a Division, he having resisted the Amendment on that occasion because the words we were seeking to leave out of Clause 1 of the Bill were words that were contained in the Act of 1938. His only justification for them was that those words were contained in the Act of 1938. Well, the second paragraph of the Amendment he is now resisting was lifted in its entirety from the 1938 Act, so if the argument was of any value at all last night it is a great pity he has not sought to repeat it today.

§ Mr. Stuart
It is hardly a similar point.

§ Mr. Fraser
It is a much more valid one, because this is a much more valuable provision in the 1938 Act than the one the right hon. Gentleman insisted on last night.

Mr. McNeil
It may facilitate the work of the Committee if I indicate that, with that undertaking, I am prepared to withdraw the first part of my Amendment.

§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)
I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNeil
I think it would be unreasonable to carry to a Division the first part of my Amendment in the circumstances, but, on the other hand, the second part of the Amendment has not been taken care of.

§ The Temporary Chairman
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the second 424 Amendment? It is consequential. If the first Amendment fails the second Amendment will fail.

§ 5.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil
I was thinking of paragraph (c), but, although I am a little surprised by undertakings from the Government to meet such points of view as ours, I think I had better withdraw the whole Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert: (4) No assistance shall be given under this section in respect of any application if the applicant owns any other house within a distance of two miles from the site of any proposed additional house in respect of which assistance is sought and such other house is occupied by a person other than a member of the agricultural population or is unoccupied and is fit for occupation. In view of the response we have received for some of the earlier Amendments of ours I am not very hopeful this one will prove acceptable to the Government. I think I may, however, say in a few sentences what it is we have in mind. We are seeking here to deny the assistance to the farmer or landowner who has a house within a reasonable distance of the site of the proposed new house and such other house is occupied by a person who is not an agricultural worker or is unoccupied and is fit for occupation.
We know of cases—I could mention the names of individual farmers, but it would be wrong of me to do so in Committee—and particularly on the Ayrshire coast, of houses which were formerly farmworkers' houses which are now let as holiday houses. They are occupied only for part of the year. They were originally farmworkers' houses. I should think myself that it would be wrong—wrong of us, wrong of the Government, wrong of the local authorities—to give to the owner of that house a grant from public funds to enable him to build a house in which he would accommodate a farmworker who really ought to be in the holiday house. I should think that there would be common agreement on that point, and I should like to think the Government were sympathetic to the point of view I am now expressing.
I think it possible, however, that the Amendment I have put down is not one 425 which deals with that case alone, and that it will deal with other cases; maybe there are some technical objections to the Amendment as it is presently drafted. That, however, is the kind of case we have in mind. Let us all appreciate that when we pass an Act of Parliament those who can benefit from it will take the utmost benefit out of it.
Again, I know of cases of farmers who have got possession of a house which has been occupied by a tenant for 30 or 40 years and that tenant has been protected for the last 30 years under the Rent Restriction Acts—cases where the farmer has bought the house and, having bought that house, was able to get a certificate to terminate the tenancy of the tenant. There have been many cases in Scotland.
There can be few sheriff courts, if any, in Scotland that have not considered cases for the eviction of tenants, and supported by certificates from the Department of Agriculture. Having done that, the farmer has in some cases—I cannot say in many cases, but in some cases—in a very short time found the house no longer needed that he got as essential for the worker on the farm, and has sold it to an owner occupier. He has sold it, making a fat profit. I do not suggest for a moment that that is a common occurrence, but it is happening.
Let us see what could so easily happen if we do not impose the kind of restriction which I seek to impose by this Amendment. A farmer can get assistance under the 1950 Act for the improvement of an existing farm cottage. Having got it he may decide to let somebody else into the cottage and then build another cottage for the farm worker, getting a grant under this Bill to build a cottage for that same farm worker. He gets two grants in respect of the same worker. Again, I do not say that will happen on every farm in Scotland, but it is something which could easily happen, and will happen unless we protect ourselves against it.
I ask the Government seriously to consider, either accepting this Amendment or between now and Monday evening, when I understand we are to have the Report stage, putting something on the Order Paper which will prevent the kind of abuses which will undoubtedly arise if the Clause remains unamended.

426

§ Mr. Snadden
I am afraid that we cannot find it possible to accept this Amendment, which apparently seeks to confine the payment of grants to cases where, in the absence of other houses near at hand in the same ownership, there is no alternative to the building of a new house. One could say here that the yardstick which would be applied would be "is your house really necessary?" That is about what it seems to me to come down to. For my part, I cannot imagine anybody wishing to build a house today at present costs, even with grant aid, unless the houses were really necessary to the proper working of an agricultural holding or property.
If there is any doubt as to whether or not the house is necessary, surely it would be better to leave it to a local authority; it is within their discretion to decide whether or not a grant should be given; they have a lot to do with the financial part of it; they are in possession of all the facts, and their local representatives know the local set-up in regard to a property or a farm. We feel that it would be very much better to leave the decision to them than to lay down arbitrary conditions in a Bill of this sort, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Amendment.
I have some sympathy with what he said about the certificate system. I think it can lead to hardship. But I think he would agree that there the onus is upon the agricultural executive committee, and where an injustice does somehow or another arise it must be because that particular committee has not been attending to its work. When he occupied the position I now occupy he found it necessary to retain that system, which operated during and after the war years. Nevertheless, I agree that there are some things about the system which can lead to trouble.
If we were to put these proposed words into the Bill I can see a number of difficulties arising. It is true that under the certificate system eviction could be secured; but that is if a person were there under the Rent Restriction Acts. It does not necessarily follow that it would be secured; it is problematical; the sheriff has the power to turn down the application, even in such a case.
What I think would be more serious would be if an owner were applying for 427 a grant and this Amendment were accepted, and there were within two miles of him a house in which the widow of one of his own workers were living. There was a case of which I know not far from me, where an aged farm worker who had given very long service of about 26 years found a house quite close to the holding. I am sure neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else would want us to go out of our way to encourage the eviction of such people—widows, dependants and aged farm workers.
The biggest problem today in rural housing is to find alternative accommodation for the aged farm worker when his time is up. These people have served their day, and if the proprietor or farmer is a reasonable person as most of them are, and has a decent frame of mind, he will try to find a little house for the man who has served him all that time. Under this Amendment we would have to put such a man out of the house, and I do not think that would be very sensible. I hope that for these reasons the Committee will think it wiser to leave the Clause as it is, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles)
Frankly, I am not happy with the wording or form of this Amendment, although I have some sympathy with what it sets out to try to put an end to, namely, the abuse of assistance from public funds which are used in creating values in properties from which profits for individuals are later taken from other people without regard to the real purpose or intention of the assistance originally given.
I feel that I cannot support the Amendment as it stands, because I think it could give rise to very serious cases of injustice. I know that was not in the minds of my hon. Friends in framing the Amendment, but such cases are possible. Under the literal application of this Amendment it would be possible for very serious injustices to certain occupiers to arise, and I therefore could not support it. I am not in sympathy with giving funds to landowners to build houses to be retained as their property. But, accepting that that is to be done, how does this Amendment apply?
428 Let us take the hypothetical case of two farm landlords, one wealthier than the other. The wealthier of the two wants to house five stockmen; he wants assistance, he is able to prove his case, and so gets his assistance for all five houses. Then along comes his neighbour who is not so wealthy, who also wants assistance for five stockmen, but he happens to have on his land a cottage or two, which he may have built himself, or may have bought with the farm, possibly quite recently. Because he already has, within two miles, cottages with tenants or occupiers, he does not get assistance for housing from public funds. His intention to house his stockmen with public assistance is frustrated right away, and the only alternative is for him to build them himself with his own money.
Above all, the conditions laid down in the Amendment could be harsh indeed in their effect on some tenants. It is all very well to refer to the "holiday tenant" who occupies a cottage for only a few weeks in the year; but under the implied suggestion of the Amendment a person in humble circumstances, not able to find alternative accommodation in the county which would be suitable for his or her work and needs, could be evicted. If the tenant has a full tenancy with protection under the Rent Restriction Acts, it might or might not be possible to evict and secure the house for a landworker. But, except under very great difficulty and pressure of greater hardship it would not be desirable to get the tenant out at all.
Again, if the tenant is a tenant at will without any protection he is a much more pitiable case and deserving of compassion rather than the rough treatment under this Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
It is all very well to say that we have the extreme case of holiday tenants. There may be other classes, too, who would not suffer unbearable hardship by losing the use of a second or casual cottage or house. But we must, above all, concern ourselves with avoiding real hardship and injustice to the residing occupants of these cottages which, in terms of this Amendment, would be taken over for stockmen or others. It would have to be proved that the persons being removed have alternative accommodation no worse than that from which they are to be evicted.
429 These are difficulties in my mind, and I feel that I ought to express them, because if the Amendment does involve any possible injustice, I feel that one should not support it in its present form. But I suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary of State should consider the purpose of this Amendment, and whether it is not possible to bring in some provision to meet the point of my hon. Friend and avoid the abuse of this assistance which is being offered. I think that it should be possible to tighten up very considerably the conditions regarding the future disposal of these properties assisted by public funds. I cannot, in honesty, support the Amendment in its present form while it involves the possibility of injustice to tenants whom it would not be reasonable to turn out of their homes.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
In view of what has been said, I do not feel disposed to press the Amendment. I think that the Committee will remember that when moving the Amendment I said that I was not very happy about its drafting, and that I appreciated that there were many objections to it. I appealed to the Joint Under-Secretary to listen to the arguments so that he might appreciate what it was we were trying to do. I ask him to consider whether he can do something himself between now and Monday next to provide the protection for which I have been looking.
I had in mind the position of the farmer who was a good farmer and a kindly farmer and who did not seek to turn out the widow of a previous worker, and of the farmer who did not seek to turn out from what had been a tied cottage the worker who had retired. I would be the last to ask that such a farmer should be less well-treated than his neighbour who turns out the widow a week after her husband has died or who turns out of his cottage the farm worker a week after he has finished his employment on the farm. I do not want any provision in the Statute which will lead to discrimination against the best kind of farmer.
I appreciate that the Amendment as at present drafted is inefficient to deal with the abuse to which I have called attention and at the same time to offer reasonable protection to people whom we would not like to see disturbed in the tenancy or accommodation which they enjoy at the present time.
430 It would be foolish of me to continue this discussion, but I asked the Joint Under-Secretary to consider whether he can do something before Monday. It is possible that he may find ways to meet the case which we have put forward. The Joint Under-Secretary has expressed some sympathy with what I have said and, therefore, with these few comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert: and shall communicate the grounds of refusal in writing to the applicant.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we also discussed the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—page 4, line 9, at end, insert: Provided that in any case where assistance under this section is refused the local authority shall specify the grounds of their refusal.

§ Mr. Rankin
In moving this Amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friends, I hope that the Government will give consideration to it on two grounds. The first is that the Amendment, which is a fairly simple one, commands support not only from this side of the Committee but also from the Government side, in view of the subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), which is on the same lines as the one which I am now proposing. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, if he pays no attention to his own side, will at least pay some attention to this side of the Committee.
The second reason is this: We are not suggesting in any way that a local authority will have anything but sound reasons for any decision to refuse financial aid when it decides to do so. We make no allegations along those lines, but all refusals for financial aid will naturally cause disturbance in the minds of those who have made the applications. We feel that it would be of great help to the individual and also to the local authority if the reasons for the refusal of financial assistance were clearly communicated in 431 writing to the individual who has made the application. I think that would be quite a sound practice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley (Angus, North and Mearns)
I hardly anticipated that in the course of today's proceedings I should find myself in the position of seconding an Amendment put forward by an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee. I have great pleasure in seconding the proposal made by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), although not perhaps for the reasons he has adduced. It will be apparent that Clause 3 (6) gives the local authority absolute discretion to turn down any applications for a grant for the improvement of a tied cottage. I think that it is not outside the bounds of possibility in this imperfect world that a local authority composed in the main of the political supporters of the hon. Member for Tradeston might, because of their bias against the tied cottage system, turn down the applications.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I should like to make one point clear. We are not interfering with the farmers building their own tied cottages. We are discussing giving public money to farmers and giving public approval to a principle which is the farmers own business.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
The right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that we have moved far away from those considerations. We discussed them one and a-half hours ago. We are now considering the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tradeston which deals with the fairly narrow case of subsection 6, under which the local authority has the power to refuse arbitrarily its approval of grant aid for the impovement of cottages. I was merely suggesting that a local authority composed of supporters of the hon. Member for Tradeston might, because of its dislike of the principle of tied cottages, seek to refuse a grant. If it is going to do that it ought to divulge the reasons for its refusal. That is where I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member, though possibly for different reasons.
I had brought to my notice the case of a proprietor who applied to a county 432 council; the application was refused, and he asked the reason why. He was told, in effect, that, after long and careful consideration by the appropriate committee, the application had been refused and that since no reasons for the refusal had been minuted it was not competent for the official who was replying to the letter to say why the application was refused.
If an applicant is to be denied the benefits of modernisation, it should not be done without his being given the reason. I believe that the reasons ought to be made public. My Amendment goes a little further than that proposed by the hon. Member for Tradeston, but I am prepared to support his Amendment and to say that the reasons should be divulged in writing to the proprietor. Because I agree with him and am prepared to narrow my desires to his narrower wording, I am very pleased to support his Amendment.

§ Mr. J. Stuart
I have given careful thought to both Amendments, and I realise that there are strong arguments in this case. One of the arguments is that there are cannons to the right of me as well as cannons in front of me. I want to help the Committee as far as possible. At the same time, hon. Members will recollect that last night we heard a lot about setting local authorities and the people free, and I did not want to impose a lot of additional strain and responsibility upon them.
However, I am impressed by the point which has been made, and I am grateful to the Committee for dealing with the matter briefly. I should like to try to meet the Committee so far as I can, because I realise that it would give an applicant the satisfaction of learning the reasons why his application was refused, and it might be that, as a result of learning those reasons, he would be able to resubmit it in an amended form at a later date or at some more appropriate time. If the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) will withdraw the Amendment now, I will give a definite undertaking to do my best to find suitable words by the Report stage.

§ Mr. Rankin
My hon. Friends, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, are very grateful for what the Secretary of State 433 has promised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
If I had moved my own Amendment I should have been happy in the circumstances also to ask leave for its withdrawal.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 5.45 p.m.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert: (7) An applicant for assistance under this section who is aggrieved by the decision of a local authority either in respect of a refusal by a local authority to grant assistance or of a decision by a local authority to grant assistance at a rate less than the maximum rate provided in subsection (2) of this section may appeal to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State shall, after consulting the local authority, either confirm the decision of the local authority or direct that the amount to be given under subsection (2) of this section shall be increased by such amount within the limits specified in subsection two of this section as he may determine or that the application shall be approved in whole or in part as the case may be. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State cannot possibly say "no" to me. I imagine that the principal reason for giving an applicant who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision the grounds, in writing, upon which the authority took the decision is that he will want the information to enable him to do something about it.
When the 1949 Act was discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment with the same purpose as mine. At that time the Government were not sure that it would be a good thing to give the applicant a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We said at the time that the matter was necessarily experimental, and I wonder whether experience has proved the decision that we then took.
Schemes under the 1949 Act were made in 1950, and I was in office only a very short time after they came into operation. I remember a very bad case, and if there were many of the kind it would warrant an appeal to the Secretary of State as I propose. A co-operative society which had applied for an improvement grant complained that it had been offered 25 per cent. of the cost of the improvements and that every other applicant had got a grant at the maximum rate of 50 per cent. from the authority. I asked the Department of Health to ascertain from the town clerk the reason 434 why only 25 per cent. was offered. The town clerk replied very briefly saying that he was not obliged to give us the reasons.
At that time I thought that since the Act had been in operation only a short time Ministers had a duty to get to know how it was being administered, and I asked the officers of my Department to communicate that view to the town clerk and ask him if he would kindly tell us why the applicant had received only a 25 per cent. grant. The officers of my Department did so, and the matter was again discussed by the town council.
I got a minute of the meeting and I also got a copy of the local newspaper which reported the meeting, and I found that the only reason why the town council offered a 25 per cent. grant was that the applicant was the Co-operative society, which had not many friends on the town council. Every other applicant, irrespective of his ability to provide or to improve houses at his own cost, was given the 50 per cent. grant.
That seemed to me to be an abuse of the powers given to the local authority under the Act, and I confess that I regretted at that time that the Secretary of State did not have power to consider an appeal from the aggrieved applicant. That was only one instance, and it may be said that one instance does not prove my case absolutely, but it may be that there have been others since. That instance occurred a few months after the Act came into operation, and I have no knowledge of what has been happening since then.
However, as I have said, if an applicant is to get his grounds of refusal in writing he will want to do something more about it, and there will be little point in his writing another letter to the town clerk because the town clerk will politely tell him that the committee took the decision on, say, Tuesday evening last and that the matter cannot be considered again for at least six months. I should have thought that the applicant who gets the ground of refusal will only be happy if he is able to take his grievance to a higher court, and that higher court can only be the Secretary of State. In the circumstances, I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, or, at any rate, its spirit, in the same way as the Secretary of State did the previous Amendment.

435

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)
I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Member, and I am very sorry about it. I agree that the decision arrived at in the case he has brought to the notice of the Committee was most unfortunate, and I hope there will not be many local authorities or, indeed, any who will act in that way.
The situation here is that the Secretary of State is being asked to act as a court of appeal—to decide on an increased grant when the money has to be paid by the local authority. For many long years now it has been the decision of successive Governments, composed sometimes of hon. Gentlemen opposite and sometimes by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, to stand by the local authorities' right to decide such matters as these. After all, they have the local knowledge and normally they are best able to judge on the merits of the case. It seems unreasonable to require them to increase a grant.
I should have thought it was to be hoped that the words which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider will, if adopted, be a deterrent to any local authority acting in the way in which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) described. We want to trust the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has seemingly felt that the trust which the Government of which he was a member reposed in them was misplaced in cases of this nature. We are moving towards the system of providing those whose applications are refused with reasons for the refusal. That is a deterrent, and we hope that the local authorities in the future will act in the spirit of the Bill. It is for that reason we shall continue to trust them, and I am unable to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile what he has just said with the discussion we had last night, where the Secretary of State took powers to ask local authorities to provide schemes. We contested that on the grounds that the local authorities should be left a discretion, but the Secretary of State last night insisted he ought to have the powers to compel them to provide schemes. It seems difficult to reconcile that with the position now taken up, that he has no duty to see that a scheme is 436 carried out even if it is submitted. Would the Under-Secretary at least give an undertaking that when a scheme is submitted some precaution will be taken to guard against abuse?

Commander Galbraith
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a somewhat different subject. What we are discussing on this Amendment and what was emphasised by my right hon. Friend last night are two different things. Indeed, it may well have been that had my right hon. Friend not insisted last night on having the powers which he obtained he could not in the last resort have taken any action against a recalcitrant authority.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I do not want to continue the discussion unduly, and I do not think it is necessary to have a Division. There are strong arguments in favour of the Amendment, and there are also strong arguments against it. The Secretary of State acts as a court of appeal in many instances. Every week he considers appeals from people who are aggrieved by the decisions of a local authority, and I thought we could have added just a little to his burden. In view of the need to make progress and complete the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
I beg to move in page 4, line 9, at the end, to insert: Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of an application for assistance in respect of development for which planning permission has been granted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. This is continuing with the case of subsection (6), which says that a local authority may in any case refuse to give assistance under the Clause on any grounds which seem to them sufficient. I want to give as an example the case of a local authority which has been required to submit a scheme by the Secretary of State under the powers which we debated last evening. The scheme has been approved by the Secretary of State, the promoters have obtained permission under the 1947 Act, and then the local authority decides that it will turn down the scheme altogether.
The purport of my Amendment is clear, and I do not need to spend a long time elaborating it. Its purpose is clearly to say that where planning permission has been given by a local authority or by the 437 planning committee of the county council, the county council ought not to turn down the scheme. I do not think it will occur often, but may I say, in passing, that the same thing applies under Sections 100 and 111 of the principal Act?
I have put down Amendments in the form of new Clauses which may or may not be called, but if this Amendment is accepted—as I trust it will be—then I imagine there will need to be consequential Amendments in the same sense. At the moment I am advocating only the case in the somewhat narrow field where planning permission has been given.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has just told us that planning permission and approval are often asked for from the same authority. That is so in most cases, but not in all cases
Here is one aspect of the matter which I hope the Government are already bearing in mind. Application may be received by the planning authority for permission to build a house on a certain site; there are no objections to that on planning grounds, so the certificate is issued. After that the applicant makes application for assistance under the scheme, and then the local authority will have to take into account those things which the Joint Under-Secretary of State told me a local authority will take into account when he was asking me not to press the Amendment on the subject of the two miles.
I do not want to elaborate the point, but it is quite clear that when a planning committee of a local authority is considering whether or not to give planning permission, the considerations are completely different from the considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether or not a grant shall be made under the scheme. In the circumstances, I hope that this Amendment will be resisted.

§ 6.0 p.m.

§ Mr. J. Stuart
I cannot accept the Amendment. The arguments which have just been presented to the Committee by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) are correct. This Amendment would remove from the local authority the right to refuse a grant on any grounds. The fact that planning 438 approval is given should not necessarily involve the local authority in expenditure on a house, because the authority have to be satisfied as to housing requirements.
Another point which makes the Amendment impossible to operate is that, in the case of a small burgh, the county council is the planning authority, whereas the burgh is the housing authority. It would be impossible to have two different authorities, one ordering another to spend money. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that I could not accept the Amendment.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. J. Stuart
I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, at the end, to add: (8) In relation to a house in respect of which assistance has been given under this section, being a house which is for the time being occupied in pursuance of a contract of service by a member of the agricultural population, section one hundred and one of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were included among the conditions specified in that section the following condition, that is to say, that if the contract is determined—

(a) by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer;

(b) by dismissal of the employee without notice; or

(c) by the death of either party;

the employer or his personal representative shall permit the employee (or, in the case of his death, any person residing with him at his death) to continue to occupy the house free of charge from the determination of the contract until the expiration of a period of four weeks, beginning with the date on which the notice is given or, if the contract is determined otherwise than by notice, with the date on which it is determined. In this subsection "occupied" means occupied otherwise than by a tenant: and "occupy" shall be construed accordingly. The Amendment is almost identical in form, with the one difference of the period of time mentioned in paragraph (a), to the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 37, placed on the Order Paper by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Reference was made in the earlier proceedings this afternoon to the rightness or otherwise of the powers which farmers possess in this matter. Representations have been made to us from Scotland on this subject, but I am not aware of any grave feelings about it.
I want to help the Committee to get on with the Bill, and I do not want to stand in the way of the Committee by having 439 to refuse everything. I have done my best to meet the Committee in certain respects. I do not want to take up a lot of time in moving this Amendment. There may be some discussion upon it, and so my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to answer questions.
Anybody who studies the two Amendments will see that I accept the principle of a period of notice, but I cannot accept the longer period suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I ask, Sir Charles, whether I am correct in thinking that we can discuss now the Amendments which are on the Paper to the Amendment which I am moving?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)
When the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been moved, will call the Amendments to it.

§ Mr. Stuart
Then I will not get out of order by referring to them. The only point on which we have to concentrate our attention is the provision in paragraph (a): by less than four weeks' notice given by the employer. I cannot accept a longer period, but will listen to any arguments in its favour. A longer period would make things very difficult for the management of a farm. The Committee will be aware that in Committee on a somewhat similar Bill affecting England there was pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House, supporters of the Government, for a period of four weeks' notice, and that that was agreed to by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not want this Committee to think that it is necessary to follow slavishly in those footsteps. I do not regard the notice as necessary for Scotland, where the normal process is for application to be made to the sheriff when a farmer wants possession of a tied house or cottage. Farmers do not attempt to evict without notice.
However, in order that there should be no doubt about the matter and to do the best I can to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite who tabled the Amendment to which I have referred suggesting a period of three months, I have placed this Amendment on the Paper. I hope the Committee will regard it as a reasonable attempt to meet the views that have been expressed. I hope 440 also that I shall not be accused of taking up a great deal of the time of the Committee in moving this Amendment. I will wait to hear the discussion.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), to leave out "four weeks'," and to insert "three months'."
When I opened the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause, I covered the arguments for preventing arbitrary eviction. I am satisfied of my own knowledge of the industry that in 99 cases out of 100 these provisions will be entirely unnecessary because farmers and farm workers will be able to come to a reasonable arrangement. We are really providing for persons who behave unreasonably, and such cases are unfortunately not those for which we can legislate in any calculated way. They are usually matters of human temperament where friction arises. It is not a question of the efficiency of the farmer or of the farm worker, but very often of a clash of human temperament. It may not arise with the workmen themselves but perhaps with the ladies in the house, or something of that kind.
There are other cases, such as death or the dismissal of a person without notice on unreasonable grounds. To insert "three months'" will not hamper the working of the farm but will be an inducement to people to behave reasonably. It is true that in Scotland the farm worker very often has the protection of the sheriff, but the provision of this term of notice may prevent cases from ever reaching the sheriff. This is like the law which protects shopkeepers against arbitrary eviction and which prevents many cases of hardship from arising, since nobody attempts to do anything of that kind because of the sanction which lies in the background.
We want to counter the power of the arbitrary person used against a helpless employee or his widow. We think it is desirable to put in "three months'," believing that it will not hamper the farmer but will impose reason where unreason has prevailed. I am glad that we are legislating for a very small minority of cases and for something which is the exception rather than the rule.

§ Mr. Pryde
I want to add my appeal to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) in 441 asking the Secretary of State to give this matter a great deal more consideration. He has told us that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will reply. Already the hon. Gentleman has told us that he has had his eyes fixed on certificates for some time, which leads us to believe that there is a tendency in Scotland to grant agricultural certificates on a scale much beyond the demand.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in Scotland there is always the recourse to the sheriff court. I want to correct that impression. I know of several cases where there has not been recourse to the sheriff court, and I should like it to be laid down by the House that in Scotland there must be recourse to the sheriff court before any agricultural worker is evicted.
I can cite one instance of an old agricultural worker, one of the most skilful who ever plied the trade in the great county of Midlothian. In a part of the constituency not three miles from my own homestead, I saw a man who had gained a long service medal summarily evicted from his cottage.
That is an indication of what we are trying to prevent in this Amendment, and with the changing conditions I think the Secretary of State will agree that the local authority, whose bounden duty it is to re-house the people of this country, cannot always supply a house at three months' notice. They must have some time to face the housing problems of their area, and I am sure it will be agreed generally that four weeks is too little notice.
On the back page of the "Land Worker," the organ of the agricultural workers of England and Wales, will be seen a long list of evictions month after month. In most cases the sheriff gives agricultural workers time to find both a house and a job. I am sure that I shall have the co-operation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in this respect, and that together we shall be able to persuade the Secretary of State to introduce three months intend of four weeks.

§ Mr. Snadden
I had thought that there might have been more discussion on this Amendment, but I shall try not to keep the Committee long, although there are one or two points which should be explained. The Government have put down this Amendment in almost exactly similar 442 terms to the one put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, the only difference being four weeks instead of three months.
The effect of the Government's Amendment would be to make it a condition that if a cottage built under this Clause is tied, grant will be paid only if the occupant has received not less than four weeks' notice of removal or, in the event of his death, any person residing in his cottage at the time of his death. The principal argument that has always been employed, and will probably be raised again when we come to the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill, is that it is wrong to give a grant of public money in respect of a cottage from which the occupant can be summarily evicted. We have put down this Amendment in a sincere attempt to meet that criticism.
6.15 p.m.
Nobody likes eviction. All of us would be glad if in no circumstances whatever were eviction possible, but when we look at the facts, that is not the case. For example, a railway worker, a station master, a policeman or a schoolmaster who sit under what are called service tenancies, as apart from service occupancies, if they lose their job they can be told to remove by a certain date and, if they do not do so, the authority concerned can apply to the sheriff to have them evicted. So it is wrong to say that there are not other kinds of evictions, because there are evictions in all types of tenancies.
In Scotland today, as far as agriculture is concerned, and because of the custom that has grown up in our country, our Crown Office in Edinburgh has been, working over the years to build up a custom in the rural areas that where a person stays on too long the solicitors who are consulted are recommended to advise farmers and others never to put a man out but to go to the court for a court order. That is probably the reason why in Scotland we have had no complaint of hardship or any pressure put upon us on this question and we are informed that, where eviction has taken place, in 99 cases out of 100 it has arisen as a result of an application to the court.
At the same time, the possibility of summary eviction still exists and we have put down this Amendment in an attempt to bridge the gulf between both sides of 443 the Committee on this question. We are giving legislative effect to what in Scotland has been the practice in 99 cases out of 100. We are putting it upon all owners who take grants under this Measure, whether proprietors, farmers, or owner-occupiers, to observe some decent code of conduct where there is a minority who do not follow the practice of the overwhelming mass of people.
We have given careful consideration to the Amendment to substitute three months. Our objection to it is that it would be quite impracticable and might affect seriously the efficient and harmonious working of our land. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is not in his place at the moment, but he will realise how impracticable this would be, because he was looking after agricultural affairs when he was in the Scottish Office. It seems to me significant that I do not find his name supporting that Amendment. Probably the reason is that he knows enough about the practical part of agriculture not to do so.

§ Mr. Rankin
That is a wrong deduction.

§ Mr. Snadden
Perhaps I am wrong, but the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with agricultural affairs and from a practical point of view no doubt he realises that three months would be unworkable.
We can all envisage circumstances where, because of a rather explosive temperament, the employer and worker do not get on well together. We also know of the worker who is not much good and who will leave to get another job a few days after he has been told that he has to go. It would be reasonable to say that if we are to bind the owner to three months, so must we bind the worker. Yet if we were to put it to the union, they would not be prepared to accept that, since many would lose jobs because of the interval being too long. It would have to be a mutual agreement.
We think that three months is too long and would in many cases seriously affect the proper working of a farm, and would adversely affect food production. We have, therefore, chosen the period of four weeks. First, this meets the criticism—one that has some weight, I think—that summary eviction is wrong. We now say 444 that we will insist that where a grant is given, four weeks' notice must be given and that the other conditions in the Amendment also must be observed. In this way, we feel that we are not running the risk of upsetting the proper working of a farm. I hope that, with this explanation, the Committee will see its way to accept our Amendment and to reject the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McNeil
I do not propose to detain the Committee long, because I have no doubt that several of my hon. Friends who have expert opinions and a wealth of experience on the operation of the Clause will have various reservations to make and criticisms to put forward.
We have not disguised that we have thought it a fairly unsatisfactory Clause. True, it is now a little better than when it was first offered. It is a little better because the right hon. Gentleman has gone part of the way to meet us by the Amendment which we have just carried. It is a little better because, as I understand the Secretary of State, he has given an undertaking that no tied cottage will attract public funds unless it conforms to certain minimum standards, including the provision of hot and cold water and of bathroom and kitchen equipment, and that he will make provision for that in the model scheme which he is to publish should the Bill, unhappily, go through.
Even with these Amendments, however, the Bill falls far short of what we would like to see the Government being willing to do. First, there is the question, which my right hon. Friend debated last night, of the strange whim by which the right hon. Gentleman is taking to himself powers to compel local authorities to make provision for agricultural workers in relation to tied cottages. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a most forceful point last night which the Government cannot laugh off. We have got to a ridiculous position when the Secretary of State here takes powers to deal with the tied cottage for the agricultural worker but 445 does not take powers to compel provision in the case of the non-tied cottage for agricultural workers.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has so far resisted any pressure to deal with those backward local authorities in the urban areas. There would have been a great deal of relief on this side had he told us that he was going to follow up by addressing himself to the backward local authorities such as, for example, Edinburgh. Now, these backward local authorities will continue unspurred and unprodded by the right hon. Gentleman, but as far as the tied cottage is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman goes out with all the panoply of a great Secretary of State to use his powers perhaps to compel an overburdened local authority to make a scheme on behalf of the farm workers. It is a strange development, and not at all satisfactory.
My second point is that when I withdrew the Amendment in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends relating to standards, which the right hon. Gentleman agrees he will meet by his model scheme, I at the same time removed the Amendment incorporating the proposed subsection (3, c). Under that, we had hoped to go back to the practice laid down in the 1938 Act that public funds would only be available when the tied cottage replaced a dwelling which would no longer be used for human habitation.
It is only fair to say that I want to consult with my hon. Friends and, perhaps, to offer an Amendment upon that point on the Report stage. To us it is a very important point. It is quite wrong that public funds should be available and should so enable a farmer, or anyone else, to continue utilising these dwellings which, by the very definition of the Act, are unfit for human habitation. [Interruption.] I thought that the Joint Under-Secretary—does he wish to speak?—who enjoys the reputation of being a forward-looking farmer, was perhaps blushing for the backwardness of the Clause and was going to volunteer to use—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is certainly not going to brag about it, is he? I thought I heard him say that he was not blushing. I am quite sure that he will not brag about this proposal. He would not brag about it even in his own constituency.
We must earnestly suggest that the Government should think again about 446 this and not be more backward than their colleagues of four Governments ago. For these reasons, and others which, I have no doubt, will be offered, I feel compelled to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Motion.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to an important matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond): that is, the exact definition of "agricultural population" under the terms of the Bill. Under the terms of the principal Act—the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950—the words "agricultural population" were defined as meaning persons who are … engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture. … The word "agriculture" was defined as meaning the use of land for agricultural or pastoral purposes, or for the purpose of poultry farming or market gardening, or as an orchard or woodlands, or for the purpose of afforestation. … Under the terms of the scheme of assistance in connection with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, however, which was allowed to lapse by the late Government in 1945, grants were available in respect of dwellings for occupation by agricultural workers or by persons whose economic condition is substantially the same as that of such workers. 6.30 p.m.
I hope that the advantages of this Bill, in the terms of this Clause and, perhaps even more particularly in the terms of Clause 6, will be available not only for agricultural workers in the narrowest sense of the term but to forestry workers, estate foresters and others whose economic conditions are substantially the same as those of agricultural workers and who in any sense of the term are as greatly in need of improved cottages as are farm workers.

§ Mr. Rankin
I wish to direct my remarks to one specific point. In subsection (2) of this Clause, the Government present the applicant for financial assistance with what appears to be an extraordinary option. He may, on completion of the house, either be given a lump sum not exceeding half the total cost of the house, or, in the case of a three-apartment house, the sum of £240 and, in the case of 447 a four-apartment house, the sum of £300. There seems to be an extraordinary gap between the two options. He has half the cost of the house, or, in the case of the three-apartment house he has £240.
I do not think it will be disputed that today it is almost impossible to build a three-apartment house for less than £1,300. If I am wrong the Secretary of State will correct me, I hope, when he replies. It seems to me that if the total cost of a three-apartment house is in the region of the sum I have indicated, half the total cost of that sum of £1,300 will be £650. The alternative for a three-apartment house is £650 or £240. That is a gap which I hope the Secretary of State will at least make clear to me, if I am the only hon. Member in the Committee who is in a fog on this issue.
I do not think a four-apartment house could be built for less than £1,700 or £1,800 and, therefore, £900 will be the lump sum which could be applied for, as against the £300 which is offered. That is something which the Secretary of State may feel inclined to say a word upon, if not to clarify the mind of the whole Committee, at least to make the matter clear to me.

§ Mr. Grimond
I am interested in this Clause as it affects the small owner-occupier, the crofter and the cottar, and not primarily as it affects the landlord of the tied house. I think a great deal can be done in the Highlands and Islands to improve rural housing if crofters, cottars and small farmers are given assistance to get on with their own building. That has certainly proved very satisfactory in my constituency. It provides houses suitable for the conditions of climate and puts them in places where they are wanted, and it means that they are attached to the land.
My criticism of this Clause is, first, that the grants it is to make are quite inadequate at today's prices. If the Secretary of State would increase the grants, he would get cheaper houses and save public money thereby. I know that grants are offered under other Acts and that there are other forms of assistance, but this Measure can assist people to help themselves. Let us see that the help given is adequate.
Under the Measure, the grant must be given in a lump sum on the completion of 448 the house. The people of whom I am talking are not men of means, but have considerable difficulty in financing the building of a house. I should like to see local authorities free from the obligation only to pay on completion of the house. I should like it to be left to their discretion to make a payment as the work goes on, if they are satisfied that the man is doing the work satisfactorily and that he is a deserving case.
I should like to support what has been said about the importance of interpreting the phrase, "agricultural population" as widely as possible. In my opinion, everyone who lives in the Highlands and Islands area should have a bit of land if possible. That should apply even to the worker on a hydro-electric scheme or the man in a small light industry. I deplore the tendency to divide the countryside into townspeople and country people. Their interests are the same—at least in the Highlands and Islands one cannot draw a distinction. I hope that the Secretary of State will make the phrase applicable to the fisherman and forestry worker. I would go so far as to make it available to the weaver and the man engaged in light industry.
I hope that this Clause, with the powers in other Acts will enable better housing to be given to the people in remote areas. Better housing is most important to these people if they are to be persuaded to stay there. But I hope that the Secretary of State will very carefully examine whether the help given is adequate at today's prices. I hope he will see whether he can raise the grants, and make the conditions more flexible and as widely operative as possible.

§ Major D. McCallum (Argyll)
The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) who, I am sorry to see, has had to leave the Chamber, said something about my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State blushing because something was or was not in this Clause. If anyone in this Committe ought to blush, it is hon. Members opposite for their performance last night. I have never heard the like of all the fantastic, hypocritical rubbish that was talked here last night.
My right hon. Friend was taken to task for interfering with the powers of local authorities and taking away from them certain powers in regard to housing and 449 the tied cottage. May I ask right hon. and hon. Members opposite who took away from the local authorities the hospitals, transport, electrical services, gas, and practically stripped the local authorities of all responsibilities except, it may be, for a few things like burial grounds, and so on.

The Deputy-Chairman
I hope the hon. and gallant Member will confine his remarks to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

§ Major McCallum
I am sorry that I digressed, but I am afraid I was tempted to do so by last night's exhibition.
May I ask the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about a reference he made to having consulted the Scottish Farm Servants' Union on the question of the tied cottage. I am sure he knows, as well as we all know, that the Farm Servants' Union represent exactly 11 per cent. of the farm servants in Scotland and practically none in the Highlands. I am certain that when he was Secretary of State, and went on his journeys in the Highlands and Islands, if he ever asked farm servants in the glens and on the hills in the Islands and Western Highlands they would have told him that the tied cottage was the only system in those sparsely populated areas which could be applied to Highland farming.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), to whom I am sorry to have to refer in his absence, referred to many cases of eviction of which he had heard which had brought about the greatest possible injustice to agricultural workers. I am quite certain that he was not referring to the majority of farms in the Highland areas, and one of the most important men in the Highland areas is the shepherd.
I take it that in the Amendment moved by Members opposite referring to men in charge of livestock, they intended to include shepherds. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton knows full well that it is the custom and tradition in the Highlands for shepherds, if they are leaving, to be given notice to leave at the term and that the "term" is very often six months hence. I know of cases in which shepherds who have themselves been leaving have not troubled to give 450 anything like that length of notice. To accuse the poor farmer of always being a man who metes out injustice to his agricultural servants is to represent something which is quite untrue.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for the first time or almost the first time in this debate, introduced the question of the Highlands and Islands, because from all we have heard said, mostly by hon. Members opposite, one would think that one of the most important farming areas in Scotland—the Highlands and Islands—was not concerned with this Bill. In fact the Highlands and Islands are very much concerned.
I wish to point out that the question of confining this Clause to tied cottages only in respect of men in charge of livestock would have created a serious injustice all over the Highlands. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) returning; he knows quite well that in his own home area in Ardnamurchan there are farms none of the workers on which—tractor drivers or whoever they might be, quite apart from whether they look after livestock or not—could live in the villages of Salen or Strontian and get to his work in time. It is giving, I will not say a whole false, but a half-false picture of the whole position when those vast areas are left out of consideration.
Also the former Labour Government exhorted all those in the Highland areas who could do so to undertake afforestation to build up the forest reserves of the country. To do that meant laying out large areas of woodlands and plantations. Surely it is necessary for foresters to be located where the forests are planted. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the forest is safer if the forester lives in the village far down the glen instead of living near the plantation?

§ Mr. Woodburn
Might I save the hon. and gallant Member the trouble of arguing a case which is not being discussed so far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned? We have not been discussing the existence or the abolition of the tied cottage but the much narrower point of whether public money should be given for tied cottages.

451

§ Major McCallum
The point has been made by some of my hon. Friends that, by giving public money in respect of this type of housing, the Government or the local authority are being saved the expense of putting up these houses, even if they could do so. What Highland local authority could put up individual houses in the various glens? Of course they could not do it.
6.45 p.m.
This is one way in which the Government, in solving this acute housing shortage in the Highland areas, will get the houses, or the local authorities will do so, much cheaper than if they had to undertake their own building at the bottom of the glens.
I am glad that the Government have been able to bring forward the Bill. I sincerely trust that it will soon become law and that the local authorities will give approval, where approval is necessary, for the building of such houses. There was an Amendment by hon. Members opposite about including in the Bill conditions such as the putting of bathrooms, lavatories, etc., in houses for which a grant is given.
Surely no local authority, certainly no Highland authority, would ever dream of giving approval unless the plans included such amenities. Through my duties as a Member of this House, I know that applications have been made to a local authority in numbers of cases, and the sanitary inspector or whoever was the appropriate official has insisted on plans which must be adhered to, and these have contained bathrooms and every other amenity.
As my right hon. Friend said, however, it would be a mistake to lay down the individual amenities to be provided, because in the process of civilisation changes in amenities and additional amenities may be required later. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to introduce this Bill, and I trust that the Committee will accept this Clause

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
We are now dealing with the provision of housing for agricultural workers. We should bear in mind that, much as we deplore the housing of the people in the cities of Scotland and how bad it is, nothing worse can be found than the slums of the countryside of Scotland.
452 The 1937 Report on rural housing of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee had this to say: We are satisfied that in general no section of the population is compelled to live in such consistently bad housing conditions as farm servants. That was after a hundred years of the tied cottage system. We are being asked by this Clause to extend by public grant that system, which is contrary to the aim of all those who have been progressively concerned with housing for the past 30 years.
We have only to turn to a 1917 Report on Scottish housing, where we find that a Royal Commission on Scottish housing had this to say: In any event we cannot believe that pubic sentiment will permit of public funds being used to erect houses whose occupation shall be in the complete control of the employer. More than 30 years ago a Royal Commission in Scotland said that we should not spend public money on the creation of tied houses.
In 1937, the Advisory Committee to which I have already referred, reporting on the conditions of rural workers, said that the same should apply. I am really amazed at the Government coming forward at this time to suggest we should now extend the tied cottage system, in view of the fact that every report between the wars which has dealt with this problem has condemned the system.
The Caithness Committee's Report, in 1936, said: We are satisfied that under the tied house system it is not possible for the worker to achieve any real independence. The point is that the Advisory Committee stated, in 1937, and it was accepted subsequently by the Government, that the definite aim of housing policy should be to reduce tied houses to the minimum.
The 1938 Act, which is referred to in this Bill, and which has been constantly referred to in speeches, only permitted the replacement of unfit tied houses by new tied houses. Here we are being asked to increase the number of tied houses, completely contrary to the policy laid down by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee in 1937. I have heard nothing today to justify us in accepting this.
There is one thing which is different in the debate today compared with last night. The hon. and gallant Member for 453 Argyll (Major McCallum) has been talking about having heard a lot of rubbish last night. I do not know of anything in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which prevented him from getting up to speak last night. It is rather amazing that last night, when we discussed the plight of local authorities——

The Deputy-Chairman
I called the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) to order on that, because it was no part of the Clause or of the Amendments to it.

§ Mr. Ross
I thought, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you called him to order for talking about transport and electricity. But the fact is that last night, when we discussed the other Clause dealing with the plight of local authorities and the financial difficulties in which they find themselves, there was not a single word from hon. Members on the benches opposite. Today, when we are dealing with this Clause, when we are granting funds, or suggesting that funds should be granted, to the landlords of Scotland to subsidise tied houses, those who were so ingloriously mute last night have suddenly found voice. I do not think it is any coincidence at all that that should be so.
We have constantly referred to the tied house, but the question is not whether or not there should be tied houses in Scotland, but whether or not public money should be expended in the creation of tied houses. Even the farm workers in Scotland organised in the union so much despised by some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not object to the tied house. If a landlord wants a tied house, there is no power on earth to prevent him from building it. But let him spend his own money to get that power of happiness or misery over a family which does exist, and which was recognised as long ago as 1917 by the Royal Commission. For goodness sake do not come to the House of Commons and ask that we should subsidise an ex-aggregation of an evil recognised so long ago.
There is one other point about which I should like to question the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). On 28th February he made a very interesting speech—we have heard echoes of this speech before—when, in a 454 moment when he was not quite attending to the political consequence of what he was saying, he told us what was wrong with Britain. He said there was too much loafing going on in this country. He probably remembers that speech; he has been reminded of it before. He had this to say as well: There are far too many people in this country today receiving help who ought to be capable of helping themselves. Does that apply to the landowners? Are we to understand that there is no landowner in Scotland who is able to build tied houses for himself or for his own convenience or necessity if he wants to, and that there is no question of a means test for this form of subsidy to the landowners of Scotland? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be true to the statements he made, he should see to it that expenditure of this public money is carefully scrutinised so as to ensure that the people who can afford to build houses for themselves or for their own convenience or the convenience of their own tenant farmers, are forced to do it.
There is another question which troubles me and which I spoke about last night. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland about it. It is this question of that first phrase we wished to clarify: A local authority may, and if so required by the Secretary of State shall, submit to the Secretary of State a scheme… That is in subsection (1) of Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the power to compel local authorities to submit schemes to him. Then, in subsection (6), we get this: A local authority may in any case refuse to give assistance under this section on any grounds which seem to them sufficient. I wonder what will be the position of a local authority which objects root and branch to this principle of granting ratepayers' money to landowners to build tied cottages. In the one case the Secretary of State says he is going to force them to submit a scheme. What is a scheme? What does it involve? What obligation does it lay on the local authority, the actual submission of a scheme? At the same time the Secretary of State says that a local authority may refuse to give assistance under this section on any grounds which seem to them sufficient. I am worried about this, because we had a very revealing phrase from the 455 Joint Under-Secretary of State in a recent reply. He said, when he turned down our Amendment to delete those words about the insistence on the power of the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Gentleman took that power in order that he would be able—and here are the Under-Secretary's own words—to have the power to take action against recalcitrant local authorities. What does that mean? Irrespective of how little the Secretary of State for Scotland skims over this—non-interference with the local authorities and what-not—his Under-Secretary has said that he is to have power to deal with recalcitrant local authorities. How on earth can we have subsection (6) saying they have the power to refuse when the Under-Secretary has already said that the Minister is going to take action against recalcitrant local authorities?
All the money for this does not come from the Government; 75 per cent. of the grant comes from the Government and the other 25 per cent. from the local authorities. So we have this admission, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is somehow or other going to bring power or influence to bear on local authorities who, sitting in democratic assembly, have come to the decision not to grant assistance—it may well be on the ground that they detest his whole principle—and he is to bring power to bear on them in order to spend ratepayers' money. I think we want an explanation of this business of taking power to deal with recalcitrant authorities.
This Clause is something which is even more dangerous from the point of view of the agricultural community, quite apart from the financial limitations on local authorities today. We have been told, and we shall be told again, that one of the limiting factors on house building is the amount of materials available. The Government have shown us, by putting this particular power for the Secretary of State in Clause 3 and leaving it out of Clause 2—and the words of the Under-Secretary of State also have demonstrated it—how much importance they attach to this building of tied houses, subsidised by Government money, by and on behalf of the landlords.
The more of these houses that are built in any agricultural community, especially in a community where labour is scarce, the fewer will be built for the local 456 authority. I started by saying that we recognise the evil of the housing position, but the way to get over it to the satisfaction of farm workers and to give them that independence in their own homes which they are now denied by the tied cottage systems, is to ensure that local authorities do their job properly.
Let the Minister go to Ayrshire. I do not know how many people realise that Moscow is in my division. There is a village in my division called Moscow. Even the stream that flows nearby is known as the Red River. Let him go to Moscow, and he will find a small agricultural community, a miniature village, built under a local authority scheme such as could be done under Clause 2. And, as we oppose this Clause, we tell him to use all the powers possible properly to extend building under Clause 2, to the satisfaction of the agricultural population.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has already stated clearly that we shall oppose Clause 3 in the Division Lobbies.

§ 7.0 p.m.

§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has twitted us on this side of the Committee with not having responded to some of the arguments put forward on the earlier Clauses last night. The fact is that, in the discussion of the earlier Clauses last night, there was no argument that had not been put forward during the Second Reading debate and, therefore, it was quite unnecessary for any of us to rise and answer them.
On this occasion, however, the hon. Gentleman has put forward some arguments that were not used on Second Reading. In his first argument, he said that the more the farmers and local authorities availed themselves of this Clause, the fewer houses would be built for the agricultural population under Clause 2. Surely, after the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman was lost, we are in agreement on the point that there is a necessity, to put it no more than that, for tied cottages, at any rate for Scotland. There are certain people who have to live close to their work, and, if that is so, inevitably, there must be a limit to the number of houses that can be built by local authorities for the agricultural population. I am not at all certain that, to some extent and in 457 certain areas, that limit has not already been reached.
What has happened? An agricultural worker may get a house, but, sometimes, he may remain an agricultural worker for a very short time indeed, and then goes into another job. Where the rub comes is that, under Clause 2, the subsidies for houses for the agricultural population are higher than those for the rest of the population, so that, in actual fact, what has been happening has been that a subsidy has been given for a certain purpose and that purpose has not been fulfilled. That means, of course, that a fraud on the ratepayers and the taxpayers has been carried out.
Considering that we agree that there is some case for the provision of houses for stockmen and people who must live close to their work, surely we can also agree that these houses should be in keeping with the rest of the housing that is being provided for the population? Why should there not be allowances and grants made in order to make those houses as good as possible for the rest of the population? The only reason against that is the strong prejudice which has existed on the other side of the Committee, which has, to a large extent, stopped the provision of houses for the agricultural population of this country.
This Clause is helping the solution of this problem. It is going to make it possible for new houses to be built. The hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Yes, but why build new houses, instead of houses in replacement of old houses?" In general, over a period, and in spite of the fact that agricultural production has increased, the agricultural population has dropped. The increasing means of production has enabled production to be raised with less manpower, but there are cases in certain parts of the country where it is desirable, and it may be even necessary, to increase the number of houses. Why should we stop that? Why should we make it a necessary condition that for every new house that is built an old house should go out of use?
There is another important consideration that should be borne in mind. It may not be possible in every case for agriculture itself to provide all the houses that are necessary for the farms. There are also pensioners to consider and those 458 who retire from work. It may not be possible to provide new houses in every case for those who retire, and they may very well go on occupying a house, if it is suitable for continued occupation, without its being replaced by a new house. These are good arguments, but the hon. Gentleman opposite says. "Well, if the case is so strong, why do we need to lay an obligation on the local authorities to provide the house? Will they not do it on their own initiative?"
Surely, there is this answer to that. It is true that housing generally is a local authority responsibility, but agriculture is a national responsibility, and it is in the national interest that we should have the houses which agriculture requires. This Clause will enable the houses to be provided for agriculture where they are needed and for whom they are needed. That is a very great advance, and it is all the greater an advance in that this Clause will enable them to be provided more cheaply by the nation as a whole than would be the case if the houses were built under the provisions of Clause 2.
For all these reasons, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Clause.

§ Mr. Thomas Hubbard (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
It would appear from the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that his inference is that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not anxious to see agricultural workers properly housed. That is so far removed from the truth that I find it impossible to sit still and allow it to go unchallenged. Nobody suggests that agricultural workers should not be properly housed.
It was this party which insisted that agricultural workers should have proper houses and be provided with all the amenities which other people enjoy in the towns. The standard of housing in the countryside ought to be no less than that in the towns, and there is no suggestion whatever that houses ought not to be built for agricultural workers. What we are concerned about is that, when we build them now and a grant is given for the purpose of building them, somebody must pay for them and somebody is going to gain something because they are built.
459 Surely, in the name of common sense, the first important point is that the person for whom the house is built, who may be producing something very important for the country—and I agree that agriculture is very important and that we require an expansion of agricultural production—is going to benefit from it? It is a wrong principle that people who have an earning capacity in the industry should ask other people to pay in order that they may extend the earning capacity of that industry.
Another point which is vital to consideration of this matter is this. How would any hon. Member opposite like to be in the position today of doing a job here in London—even as a Member of Parliament—and, if he lost his seat, being liable to be turned out of his house? That is a very common occurrence. In all good faith, a man may go into one of these houses built by other people's money, and then may have a row with the boss and out he goes. He is rendered homeless immediately. I agree that it is necessary that certain types of agricultural workers must be housed round the farms, but such a man who works on a farm may find that his wife has had a row with the farmer's wife, and, for that reason, may have to lose his house.
The whole principle of the tied cottage is bound to be wrong, and, if houses are to be built adjacent to farms, let them be built as a charge on the industry—not something that everyone else has to pay for and which puts more profits into the pockets of the few and restricts the number of those engaged in agriculture.

§ Mr. N. Macpherson
Will the hon. Gentleman say how it puts more profits into the pockets of the few? Is he aware of the rent paid for an agricultural tied house compared with the rent paid for an ordinary house?

Commander Galbraith
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said that he rose to his feet because he resented the suggestion made that hon. and right hon. Members in the part of the Committee from which he spoke were not anxious to see agricultural workers properly housed. I would be prepared to agree with him that they are anxious to see the agricultural workers properly housed, but what I find so difficult to understand is why they always take such a 460 firm stand to see that they do everything possible to make sure that they are not properly housed. There is no question here——

§ Mr. T. Fraser
The Joint Under-Secretary is suggesting that we do everything possible to stop agricultural workers from being properly housed. When he comes to speak during the Third Reading debate on Monday, will he make a comparison for us between the number of houses built for agricultural workers in the five years between 1946 and 1951 with any other five-year period in which records have been made?

Commander Galbraith
Although the hon. Gentleman made that gallant effort, on which I congratulate him, he has only really touched the outer fringe of the subject. There is no doubt in my mind that the local authorities simply cannot compete for the provision of houses on farms in these distant and remote places in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland today.
Reference has constantly been made throughout the last 24 hours to the fact that local authorities are finding the burden already far too heavy for them to bear, and that, in consequence, they may feel that they cannot continue with the housing programme. While telling us that in one breath, hon. Members opposite say in the next that local authorities are capable of building all the houses required by agriculture. One of the statements must be absolute nonsense.
Hon. Members opposite refuse to take any notice whatsoever of the financial implications. They spoke yesterday about the enormous cost of the houses, and certain hon. Gentlemen quoted the figure of £2,600 as the cost of building such houses in remote places. But here we have the opportunity of getting private persons to provide the houses at only a cost to the Exchequer of, in some cases, £240, and £300 in others, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite turn it down and prefer to place the burden on the taxpayer.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
Read the Clause.

Commander Galbraith
The hon. Gentleman asks me to read the Clause. I would ask him to read it.

§ Mr. Manuel
Subsection (3).

461

Commander Galbraith
The point raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) was, what is it that is offered here? It is half the cost, or £240, or £300 in the case of the four-apartment house. That is the limit. If half the cost is more than that, they can only get the £240 or £300.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
We must amend the Bill before Monday because it does not say so.

Commander Galbraith
That is the meaning of the words in the Bill as it is at present.

§ Mr. Fraser
It is not.

§ 7.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith
If the hon. Gentleman disputes that, I am willing to take it into consideration and make certain that what I have said is correct.
We have had an enormous number of references to the stranglehold which the farmer has over his workers. I must meet quite different people from those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite meet, and when I am told about the poor farm workers who dare not say a word to their employers, then all I can say is that they are not the workers I meet. Those I meet can say a whole heap to their employers, and they do not hesitate to say it either. There is as much fear of their being turned out of their houses—but there, the argument is just too ridiculous. For people to talk in that way in modern circumstances—and that is the kind of thing that has been coming from the benches opposite today—makes me think that they have never seen a farm or anything to do with a farm in their lives. I admire the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) enormously, but really the kind of sentiment we have had from him today made me feel positively ill.
There is another point I wish to draw to the attention of hon. Members opposite. We constantly hear about the tied house, but the only tied house they wish to get rid of is the agricultural house. There are hundreds of others. What about the railway worker's house, the signalman's house?

§ Mr. Ross
Stick to the Bill.

Commander Galbraith
I am sticking to the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that one could no more run 462 the railway system without tied cottages than one could work the agricultural system without them.
The powers which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took yesterday to enable him to make local authorities produce a scheme was referred to by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I gave an answer to that when, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman who had been here all the time happened to be absent for just a moment. My right hon. Friend explained most clearly that he hoped the powers he was taking would never have to be used, but that he had to keep them in reserve. The reason for his doing that is simply this. Unless, for instance, my right hon. Friend had these powers, if an authority continued to refuse to implement the provisions of the Bill then the procedure under Section 169 of the 1950 Act could not be brought into operation. For that reason it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to retain these powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) dealt, I thought, very fairly with the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite about replacement. The right hon. Gentleman, who places such great trust in the local authorities, as I am sure he does, accused my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of not blushing. He said he ought to blush. If a house is not fit for human habitation, then surely the local authorities can be trusted to see that a demolition order or a closing order is put into operation so far as that house is concerned?

Mr. McNeil
The same farming interests dominate the council.

Commander Galbraith
The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that when farmers dominate the council they always act in the best interests of their own workers.
I think I have already dealt in what I had to say earlier on with the point raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston. The whole point is that we as a nation have to get the most out of our land. That is admitted on all hands. There has been a great increase in mechanisation, and it might have been supposed that we should have been able to get along with fewer workers on our farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said that there 463 were, in fact, fewer workers, but he pointed out that there were many farms on good land where, in spite of mechanisation, we still needed more workers. We have to have more houses. If we can get them in this way I think it is to the benefit of all concerned.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke of there being no worse slums than there are in the countryside. That is what we are trying to get rid of. It is the earnest hope of the Government that this Clause will give to the agricultural population modern facilities in their homes and better houses than they have ever had before. That is the reason why we have put the Clause in the Bill, and I trust that now the Committee will see its way to let us have it.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Can my hon. and gallant Friend give an answer to a point which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and I raised about the definition of agricultural population and whether foresters and estate workers are included?

Commander Galbraith
I thought it would not be necessary to do that, because I believe the actual definition of agricultural population as given in the original Act was read out in the course of this debate. It does include everyone who is employed, or has recently been employed, in agriculture and every industry that is ancillary to agriculture. It will include all those who are employed on a farm and their dependants. It will include such people as blacksmiths, ditchers, hedgers and drainers and all those who are necessary to keep our agriculture turning. Anyone who is actually ancillary to agriculture is included, as well as forestry.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
I am most grateful, because the point whether the estate forester who does general work on an estate is included has exercised a great many of us. He often lives in a cottage adjoining those of farm workers, and it has been hoped very much that he was not going to be excluded. I think I can take it from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said that he is included and I am very glad.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The Joint Under-Secretary in about three minutes has 464 engendered more heat in the debate than has been produced in two days, and that is saying something in a Scottish debate. I take it that he is not anxious that all the provocations to this side of the Committee should be answered, as I am sure all my hon. Friends are anxious to answer them.
A great deal of feeling has been expressed on the question of tied houses, but nobody on the other side of the Committee seems to have gathered, from all that has been said so definitely from this side, that we are not discussing the abolition or non-abolition of tied houses. The tied house is there and will be there whatever is decided in this debate. Therefore, it is quite beside the point to argue about the merits or demerits of tied cottages. As to what the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) said, there are quite good houses. The difficulty is to get people to occupy them and not to evict people from them in many parts of the Highlands. Therefore, these questions do not arise.
As was stated when we opened the discussion on this Clause, we desire to vote against the principle embodied in the Clause of applying public money to provide more tied houses. That is a principle on which my hon. Friends wish to register a vote. That is not the point which many hon. Members have been discussing, and it has nothing to do with any opposition to the provision of houses for agricultural workers. We provided for them in local authority legislation. If the Joint Under-Secretary thinks that the local authorities have not enough money to provide these houses under existing legislation, he will receive all support from us when he brings in legislation to provide funds for that work.
That is a fair offer. We are ready to support him in providing a proper type of house for agricultural workers. But in the meantime my hon. Friends wish to record their votes against the principle embodied in the Clause of providing public money to build these tied houses.

§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 124.

417

Division No. 236.]	AYES	[4.47 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard	Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Bence, C. R.	Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Beswick, F.	Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Blackburn, F.	Callaghan, L. J.
Awbery, S. S.	Bowden, H. W.	Carmichael, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Bowles, F. G.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Balfour, A.	Brockway, A. F.	Champion, A. J.
Clunie, J.	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Collick, P. H.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Keenan, W.	Ross, William
Crosland, C. A. R.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Shackleton, E. A. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	King, Dr. H. M.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Daines, P.	Kinley, J.	Short, E. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Shurmer, P. L. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lewis, Arthur	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dodds, N. N.	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	MacColl, J. E.	Slater, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	McInnes, J.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Field, W. J.	McLeavy, F.	Snow, J. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Sparks, J. A.
Forman, J. C.	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.	Steele, T.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Glanville, James	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Manuel, A. C.	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Grey, C. F.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mellish, R. J.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Messer, F.	Sylvester, G. O.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mitchison, G. R.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Moody, A. S.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hamilton, W. W.	Morley, R.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hannan, W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hardy, E. A.	Moyle, A.	Timmons, J.
Hargreaves, A.	Oliver, G. H.	Watkins, T. E.
Hastings, S.	Oswald, T.	Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Hayman, F. H.	Padley, W. E.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hobson, C. R.	Paget, R. T.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Holman, P.	Pannell, Charles	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Parker, J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hubbard, T. F.	Paton, J.	Wilkins, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Poole, C. C.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Popplewell, E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Proctor, W. T.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Pryde, D. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Rankin, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Janner, B.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Mr. Kenneth Robinson and
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)	Mr. Royle.
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Rhodes, H.
NOES
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Heald, Sir Lionel
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Heath, Edward
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Higgs, J. M. C.
Arbuthnot, John	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Crouch, R. F.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ashton, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Baker, P. A. D.	Davidson, Viscountess	Hirst, Geoffrey
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)	Holland-Martin, C. J
Baldwin, A. E.	Dtedes, W. F.	Holt, A. F.
Barber, Anthony	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Horobin, I. M.
Baxter, A. B.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Beamish, Maj. Tuften	Donner, P. W.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Drayson, G. B.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Drewe, G.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)	Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Birch, Nigel	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hurd, A. R.
Bishop, F. P.	Duthie, W. S.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Black, C. W.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Erroll, F. J.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Fell, A.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Finlay, Graeme	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H	Fisher, Nigel	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)	Kaberry, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Keeling, Sir Edward
Bullard, D. G.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Lambert, Hon. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Lambton, Viscount
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Butcher, H. W.	Gower, H. R.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Linstead, H. N.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert	Grimond, J.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Channon, H.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hare, Hon. J. H.	McCallum, Major D.
Cole, Norman	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	McKibbin, A. J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Storey, S.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Powell, J. Enoch	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Sutcliffe, H.
Markham, Major S. F.	Raikes, H. V.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Marlowe, A. A. H.	Redmayne, M.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Remnant, Hon. P.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Renton, D. L. M.	Turner, H. F. L.
Maude, Angus	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Turton, R. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Robertson, Sir David	Vane, W. M. F.
Mellor, Sir John	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Roper, Sir Harold	Vosper, D. F.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Russell, R. S.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Nicholls, Harmar	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Scott, R. Donald	Wellwood, W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P	Shepherd, William	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Wills, G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Snadden, W. McN.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Speir, R. M.
Osborne, C.	Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Partridge, E.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Mr. Studholme and
		Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

465

Division No. 237.]	AYES	[7.25 p.m.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	Nugent, G. R. H.
Arbuthnot, John	Gower, H. R.	Oakshott, H. D.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Baker, P. A. D.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Osborne, C.
Baldwin, A. E.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Partridge, E.
Barber, Anthony	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Peyton, J. W. W.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton	Heald, Sir Lionel	Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Higgs, J. M. C.	Powell, J. Enoch
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Raikes, H. V.
Birch, Nigel	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Bishop, F. P.	Horobin, I. M.	Renton, D. L. M.
Black, C. W.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Robertson, Sir David
Boyle, Sir Edward	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Roper, Sir Harold
Brooman-While, R. C.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Russell, R. S.
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Hurd, A. R.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rechdale)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Scott, R. Donald
Bullard, D. G.	Hutchison, Lt. Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Shepherd, William
Butcher, H. W.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cary, Sir Robert	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Kaberry, D.	Snadden, W. McN.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Lambert, Hon. G.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Cole, Norman	Lambton, Viscount	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Storey, S.
Cranborne, Viscount	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Linstead, H. N.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Studholme, H. G.
Crouch, R. F.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Sutcliffe, H.
Davidson, Viscountess	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Deedes, W. F.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	McCallum, Major D.	Turner, H. F. L.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Turton, R. H.
Donner, P. W.	McKibbin, A. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, J K
Drayson, G. B.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Vosper, D. F.
Drewe, G.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Duthie, W. S.	Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E	Wellwood, W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E	Markham, Major S. F.	While, Baker (Canterbury)
Fell, A.	Maude, Angus	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Finlay, Graeme	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C	Wills, G.
Fisher, Nigel	Mellor, Sir John	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
NOES
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R	Frasar, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Gibson, C. W.	Lewis, Arthur
Balfour, A.	Glanville, James	MacColl, J. E.
Bence, C. R.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	McInnes, J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Grey, C. F.	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Blackburn, F.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	McLeavy, F.
Bowden, H. W.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Brockway, A. F.	Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hamilton, W. W	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hardy, E. A.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Hargreaves, A.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Carmichael, J.	Hastings, S.	Manuel, A. C.
Champion, A. J.	Hayman, F. H.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Clunie, J.	Hobson, C. R.	Mellish, R. J.
Collick, P. H.	Holman, P.	Mitchison, G. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hubbard, T. F.	Morley, R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Moyle, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Oswald, T.
Delargy, H. J.	Janner, B.	Padley, W. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Paget, R. T.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Jones, David (Hartlepool)	Pargiter, G. A
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Keenan, W.	Paton, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W	Poole, C. C.
Field, W. J.	King, Dr. H. M.	Popplewell, E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Kinley, J.	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Follick, M.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Proctor, W. T
Forman, J. C.	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Pryde, D. J.
Rankin, John	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Timmons, J.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Snow, J. W.	Watkins, T. E.
Rhodes, H.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Sparks, J. A.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Steele, T.	Wilkins, W. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Ross, William	Sylvester, G. O.	Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Royle, C.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Shackleton, E. A. A.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	Yates, V. F.
Short, E. W.	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Question put, and agreed to.

467

§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.