HC Deb 20 October 1952 vol 505 cc820-32

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

10.2 p.m.

Major Sydney Markham (Buckingham)

It is perhaps fitting that on a day when we have devoted so much of our time to agricultural questions we should conclude by directing our attention to the most burning of agricultural questions in so far as it affects the personnel in the industry.

I want to draw attention to the dissatisfaction and inefficiency that is being caused by the agricultural call-up. I think the facts are well known. They are that since the National Service Acts of 1948 and 1950, for the first time in the history of this nation in peace-time, agricultural workers have been made liable for the general call-up for National Service. The first batches were called up just a year ago, and since then 12,000 of our best agricultural workers have been taken off the land and put into uniform. We have had sufficient time now to consider the effects of this call-up in so far as it affects the agricultural community. There are five major conclusions which all indicate the need for desirable action on the part of the Ministry.

The first of the conclusions is that the calling up of each one of these men has caused a certain amount of disruption to the farm concerned and a lessening of food production which inevitably follows. The second is that although the present Government have extended the deferment from six to 12 months, it still means that neither farmers nor farm workers can plan in terms of long distance planning so far as their own lives or farms are concerned. There is today not only unsettlement in the farming community but also great confusion and often great distress.

I have here a constituency case which I take simply as an example, I believe, of hundreds of letters which the Ministry are getting week by week and month by month. We have in this case, which comes from Buckingham, a farmer's son with a fine experience of the land, now willing and able to take on an adjacent farm, to take it on under his own steam and with his own knowledge, perhaps with parental advice which is always so valuable in these respects. It is natural that the father and son want to know whether the son's present deferment for 12 months would be continued if he moves from his father's farm to a farm of his own.

This is the answer that came from the Ministry of Labour, dated 17th October, 1952—exactly three days ago: Mr. Meadows' son is at present deferred until next April in the interests of food production on the holding on which he is employed. Should he leave this employment, deferment would automatically terminate and he would immediately become available for call-up. Should he take up agricultural employment on his own account, it would, of course, be open for him to apply for deferment. I cannot express any opinion of what the outcome of such an application would be hut, if deferment were allowed, it would be for a limited period only. There can be no question of indefinite deferment being granted. How can any farmer or farmer's son plan ahead with such indecisiveness as that hanging over his head, not for a period of months only, but so long as he is thinking of extending his potential field of operation? The present system is causing unsettlement, confusion and, quite often, intense distress.

The next point is that this call-up is a sheer waste of Army time. These 12,000 men are taken into the Army with the rest of the call-up. They are given the best that the Army can give them in terms of training, instruction, quarters and everything else, and yet the Army authorities, the Cabinet and the whole country know that in the event of war not a single one of these men, if he is still in agricultural work, would be called up for service unless we should actually be invaded. That makes the whole of this training by the Army a waste of the nation's instructional power within the Army itself. I use the word "Army" in this case, but it is equally true of the Navy and the Air Force.

If it be said—as was said in this House only a few months ago—that these men could not possibly be spared from the Army now because of our heavy commitments in Korea and so on, I would remind the Minister—and I am sure that he will not mind me doing so—that it was only three months ago that the Prime Minister made a public announcement that the call-up was to be reduced by 30,000 men. Surely, in that case, the first consideration should be given to not calling up the agricultural workers.

Turning to the financial aspect, I have pointed out that these men, as trained soldiers, would not be called up in the event of war. Let us assume that a moderate figure for the waste of training, equipment, and food for these men within the Army would be £500 a year. It is a very moderate estimate. If the man is in the Air Force, in certain categories his training may cost something like £3,000 a year, but taking the general average of £500 a year, we are losing £6 million a year at least in training men we shall never require or intend to use if there is a war. It is so obvious to everybody that if there is a war one of the first requirements of the agricultural community will be to produce the food we shall then so badly need, as we did in the First and Second World Wars.

Finally, there is a grave question on which as yet the Minister has no figures. I have asked him and I believe that his reply in the House had been accurate, to the effect that he had no figures or information; but I believe that the farming community, so well represented on this side of the House, will agree when I say that a good many of these young men who are called up into the Forces from the farming community never go back to the farm.

In the words of the song which dates from the First World War, "How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree"? How true it is that world travel tempts men as strongly now as it did in the days of the Prodigal Son, and so few return to the farm after they have had experience not just of soldiering but of seeing the world at large, and have found opportunities other than those of farming. We have to face up to the fact that these agricultural workers are being taken away from the farms not just for temporary periods but often permanently.

All these are grave and sound reasons why the call-up of agricultural workers for full-time National Service should be abandoned forthwith. On this side of the House, at any rate, I think there is a great volume of opinion that is with me in this respect. But even then these men will be of service to the country in our need. I would suggest that the call-up for National Service could be replaced either by voluntary enlistment in the Home Guard or a period of service with the Territorial Forces.

For these reasons I do earnestly ask the Minister tonight—and, through him, the Cabinet—to reconsider this question of the agricultural call-up, and to leave the farm-workers where they will be of the greatest use to the country whether in time of peace or in time of war.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I want to say only a word in support of what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham). I wholeheartedly agree with what he said. In my constituency, and indeed in Scotland generally, small farms and crofts are run for the most part by a family; and if a member of that family is called up, there is no question of replacing him.

To begin with, the farmer or crofter cannot pay for the replacement and even if he could he could not get one. This means that agricultural production falls by the amount which that man does on the croft or farm, and indeed the croft or farm could be put out of production by his absence. Very often we lose that man to the countryside for ever. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, a large number of them, once they leave, do not come back.

I suggest that if we are to get the extra food the Government say they want, if we are to develop the Highlands generally, this matter has to be tackled, not from the point of view of the man running a factory, who has many employees, so that if be loses one or two be can replace them, but from the point of view of life in the countryside; and that means that if the men are to be of use to the country they must be allowed to continue on the farms in peace time and to serve in the Home Guard or the Territorial Army in war.

At present this matter does cause the widest concern over the whole countryside, and many letters must have been received by the Government on this subject which show that this is not a criticism by a few men who feel disgruntled: it is a conflict between the need for food and the need for Armed Forces. To my mind the time has come to review the whole thing, and to release those men from call-up.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir (Hexham)

No doubt everyone appreciates the great difficulties that face the Government at the present time in keeping up the armed strength of our Forces in view of their very great commitments throughout the world, and no doubt the agricultural community is grateful for the concessions that have already been made in regard to the call up of agricultural workers.

The point that I should like to make is that the agricultural community is not asking for further concessions now because it wishes in any way to be given unreasonable treatment, but because it realises that if the demand for an increased output of food is to be fulfilled the workers must be attracted to the land rather than taken away from it, as has already been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham).

It is a platitude that agriculture is our fourth line of defence, and that it cannot play its proper part in this connection unless it is given the labour to do the job properly. We know that, as a result of the call up, in spite of the concessions which have been made, many thousands of young men have been taken from the land and will never return to it. They have gone for good.

I am quite sure that the agricultural community is as anxious as any section of the community to play its part in national defence. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more loyal or steadfast section of the community, and I do not believe the members of it want to be absolved altogether from taking part in national defence. I want to reinforce the plea which has been made to the Government that they should investigate the possibility of allowing these young workers to remain in their present occupations while at the same time undertaking training either with the Home Guard or with Territorial units, and perhaps for even longer than the present two-year period.

10.16 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan (Perth and East Perthshire)

For one or two minutes before the Minister replies, I want to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said and to emphasise that in the case of an island Power such as ourselves, agriculture, the production of food, is the first line of defence and not the fourth. The other three are entirely dependent upon it. I cannot help thinking that we are not giving sufficient emphasis to food production in connection with defence.

It may be of interest to the Minister to know that figures given by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland at their conference last week showed that last year 3,000 people left the land. The decrease in the number of male workers on the land was 3,000, and of this number about 1,250 were young men between the ages of 18 and 21 who obviously almost all went in the call-up.

When we realise the immense difficulties in the harvest in certain parts of the country this year, as was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and what amounted almost to chaos in some cases through lack of labour, then clearly this situation is not good enough. I do not think the farming community wishes to be thought behindhand in its efforts on behalf of the country, nor could that accusation justifiably be made. But I believe strongly that the job of members of the farming community is to grow the food which is our first line of defence, and for which we, as an island Power, are becoming more and more dependent on our own farming. Without this food production we shall sink whether we like it or not, and however strong the other arms of our Services may be.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)

It must be seldom that an hon. Member has so fortunate an experience as I have had. On Friday I received a deputation from the farming community urging me to press this topic, and on Monday I have had the opportunity of doing so presented to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham). I want to reinforce the plea which has been made and not to repeat some of the points which have already been raised, for I am sure the Minister wants time in which to reply.

In particular, I want to draw attention to one marked difference between this industry and other industries—and that is that it operates a seven-day week. The difficulties of coping with week-end working, notably in milk production, are already considerable, and the call-up of the young people who entered the industry with an enthusiasm for it is having an added detrimental effect which is particularly noticeable in connection with this week-end working.

The deferment, such as it is, was given largely to provide an opportunity for alternative workers to be found so that when a man was called up the farm did not suffer. But I doubt very much whether the Minister would dispute that in nine cases out of 10 it is virtually impossible to find an alternative worker. The result is that sooner or later the man is called up and no alternative is found for him. If the industry does not produce the extra food which is demanded from it, there is no doubt that this factor will have contributed to such a lamentable state of affairs.

10.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I am quite sure the whole House will be very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) for raising this subject tonight. It is a very important subject, and it is also desirable that the country should know from time to time the present views of the Government.

I have listened with very great care to the powerful pleas put forward by my hon. Friends, and also by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I recognise the force of the case which they have made, but I think to be fair we must have a sense of proportion in this matter, and the figure which best puts the problem in proportion is this: at the moment we are calling up from agriculture in a year only one out of every 100 of those employed in the industry.

Because we are taking only that very small proportion it is fair to say—and I have been into these figures very carefully—that 19 out of 20 farms are unaffected by the agricultural call-up. In examining this matter, therefore, do let us at least keep a sense of proportion in our minds, because there are many other industries which are asked to bear a very much heavier burden than that. Perhaps I might give just one other figure to that end. As far as we can see, the numbers called up each year will not exceed 8,000. Now that is 8,000 out of the 200,000 that we have to find each year for National Service.

Major Markham

Does the Minister agree that the figure for this year is 12,000? The OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st August goes a long way to prove my contention.

Mr. Watkinson

I will in a moment give the actual figures, which will perhaps help my hon. and gallant Friend. The fact is that in the first year we did not call up more than 8,100, and in the second year we shall not call up more than about a similar number.

Major Markham

With great respect, that is in flat contradiction of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st August.

Mr. Watkinson

I will come to that in a moment.

I have said that first of all we must keep some sense of proportion. Several other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, have raised the question whether we are dealing with this matter with proper sympathy, whether we are administering the thing as sympathetically and as intelligently as we can. I should like to say, although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham did mention it, that we had made a good many modifications to the agricultural call-up in the first year of office. We have dealt with the definition of stockmen, enlarging it to cover pigmen as well as cowmen and shepherds.

As my hon. and gallant Friend fairly recognises, we have also altered the period of deferment normally granted from six months to 12 months. In addition, we have made provision for applications for renewal of deferment to be allowed without going through the full deferment machinery because we thought that would be helpful to the industry. We have also made special provision for odd cases where a farmer is hit especially hard, and we have suspended the call-up during the harvest period, phasing it as best we could for both this country and Scotland, trying to meet Scotland's special needs. I therefore do not think it can be said that since we had this difficult job to do we have not tried to meet the needs of the farming community as sympathetically as we could.

Whatever we do in this call-up, we must be fair and be seen to be fair to every section of the population. If it is felt in any way that there is some sort of back door blanket which a man can throw over himself the whole system of National Service would crash to the ground, and would deserve to do so, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend must weigh that above all things. Whatever we do we must be fair, and we must try to apply the principle of universality of service and equality of sacrifice.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

On the question of fairness, does my hon. Friend call to mind the arrangement whereby fishermen on the sea coast of Britain may, instead of doing two years, be called up for a few weeks each year, follow their special avocation, and thus discharge their duty, which is thought to be fair? Could not we have some special duty for agricultural workers?

Mr. Archer Baldwin (Leominster)

What about the miners?

Mr. Watkinson

I shall deal with the question of the miners in a moment. I want to make it quite plain that we are trying to interpret this thing as fairly and sympathetically as we can. I think this will meet the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. Out of the total that we could call up, which is about 15,000 a year, with deferments, and so on, in the end we take only 50 per cent. I would say that we take 8,000: 50 per cent. would be 7,500.

My hon. and gallant Friend might also like to know that out of the first applications for deferment we have allowed 82 per cent., and out of renewal applications for deferment we have allowed no less than 94 per cent. That makes the difference between the total of the age group we could call up and the actual numbers which in the end will be called up. I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend and I feel that we have gone as far as we can to interpret this thing sensibly and fairly. I must again point out that unless there is a feeling in the country that there is equality the thing would crash to the ground.

I have been rightly asked about the coal miners. Coal mining is, above all things, a special case. It is a job where there is a certain amount of physical danger to be competed with, and to that extent it is more on all fours with service in Her Majesty's Forces than any other industry which could be selected. That, I think, is one of the reasons that weighs with us in leaving coal mining out of this scheme.

I have just one other thing to say which I think may help to put this into perspective. Let us remember that in the engineering industry there has recently been a certain amount of talk because we have given two years' more deferment in a few cases—only about 3,000—after a man has served his full five years' apprenticeship. The point I want to make is that, even so, nobody escapes. A man may get a few years' extra deferment, but he does not escape the net and he does not escape his obligation. The engineering industry and all other industries are not treated nearly as generously in numbers out of the very large group deferred. Farming, with nearly 50 per cent. deferment, fares far better than any other industry.

I have been asked: Are we really wasting money and wasting valuable time in training these young men taken from the agricultural industry? I am not prepared to accept that we are. Are we quite sure, anyway, that in the new pattern of a war which we may have to fight, if unfortunately it should come, that to have a nucleus of trained men all over the country may not be just the sort of thing that we want? I feel that is a case for continuing the training of men in the agricultural industry, rather than a case for discontinuing it. Quite apart from that argument, I think that my hon. Friends really know that, at the moment, notwithstanding the foolish things said in the country at weekends, the Services just cannot meet their obligations if we cease this call-up.

I want to clear away any misconception about the figure of 30,000, which was incidentally cleared up later in the debate. That figure of 30,000 arises entirely because we are calling up one more age group this year than we are next year. It is not a surplus at all, and as we see it in the Ministry of Labour at the moment, we shall be short of men next year in the Forces unless there is some major reshuffle which we do not see at the moment, rather than having a surplus We shall be hard pressed to meet requirements even with the 8,000 people we are taking from agriculture.

There is one other thing which I should like to say to my hon. and gallant Friend who sits for the fair city of Perth. I was there not long ago, and I sympathise with his point of view concerning Scottish agriculture. Nevertheless, if people are not coming back to agriculture that industry only faces the same problem as the engineering and other industries, and I am afraid that agriculture must try to keep in touch with its men and attract them back to agriculture.

We have tried to make a concession, and I want to make it quite plain that we are always reviewing the general details of the call-up over the whole field, and not only in agriculture. That is a continuous process. Generally the view of Her Majesty's Government on the agricultural call-up is that it must, on grounds of fairness and everything else, stay as it is, and it must continue to make its contribution to the national effort of this country.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Would not my hon. Friend agree that food is far more important than any other industry in the world? This has nothing to do with sympathy but with the hard, brutal fact that we must have food production.

Mr. Watkinson

I am afraid that we shall not have it unless we manage to fulfil our defence commitments and this country remains safe.

Major Markham

May I thank the Minister for his extremely courteous and thoughtful reply, and thank him very much for the concessions which the Government have already made. I should like, however, at the same time, to say in the most implacable terms that I can that we are not satisfied. This is a very grave question of principle and we shall continue to fight for it by every recognised Parliamentary constitutional method that is known.

Mr. Watkinson

I would not expect my hon. Friend to do anything else. That is entirely his duty, as it is my duty to try and put the national interest which I still think is perhaps a little more important than the sectional interest of agriculture, great and important though that industry is. After all, our duty at the Ministry of Labour is to try to secure fair play all round. I notice that none of my hon. Friends has tried to attack me on that ground. I think that this, above all, is a most important consideration, because once we let the people—and I repeat this, because I think it is the most important thing—of this country believe that we are not doing this distasteful job as fairly and efficiently as we can, we cannot expect anyone with loyalty to follow and to work this scheme as most people are loyally following and working it today.

I sympathise with my hon. Friends. They are doing their duty, and I am trying to do mine. We have had a very enjoyable argument on this subject, and I do not think that I have overstated the case in saying that the general consideration which my right hon. Friend has to bear in mind is fairness and equality of sacrifice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.