§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 8.40 p.m.
§ The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like at the outset to congratulate my hon. Friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the way in which they have conducted the proceedings on this Bill on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Whatever feelings may be aroused by this Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I look upon it primarily as a matter of legislative machinery. We are, in this limited field of hill farming, applying the general principle agreed upon more than a year ago in the Housing Acts of 1952 in the wider field of housing generally.
This Bill does not in any way introduce a new principle. It removes an anomaly and it is to remove that anomaly and not to perform a piece of bureaucratic tying-up that this Bill has been produced. The Housing Acts of 1952 made grants and subsidies available without any condition that a cottage, if not occupied by the owner, must be let to a tenant. It has been argued that the grants and subsidies under these Acts are available to owners of hill farms and that it should therefore not be necessary to legislate expressly for them.
The House will remember that the grants and subsidies provided under the Housing Acts are not always of the nature of 50 per cent. as they are under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. The House also will recollect that the 50 per cent. grants under the latter Acts are payable in a lump sum as soon as the work has been performed, whereas the subsidy under the Housing Acts is more limited both in amount and scope. I realise there are different features so far as England and Wales and Scotland are concerned but I think the House will agree with what I have said. As I see it, that is an important consideration when owners are trying to improve their property and are short of capital, as very often they are.
2254 I think it fair to say that the previous Administration paid just as great regard to hill farming as we are doing. The previous Administration at that time gave grants under the housing Acts, but they also gave special grants for cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts as well. That is all we are doing in this Bill.
I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that there is a special case for helping hill farming as far as possible, and that is why 50 per cent. grants have been made available. We feel that it would have been unjust to continue to withhold this advantage from the hill farmer in this instance if and when he intends to tie his cottage, as many hill farmers in outlying districts are obliged to do. That is the general reason for the introduction of the Bill.
I want to say a few words about the criticism which has been made because we did not consult the workers' unions before we introduced the Bill. I hope the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) will accept it from me that, however much he may think that a mistake has been made—I hope that when I have finished he will not think a mistake has been made—the mere fact that no consultation took place in no way meant any disrespect towards those whose president he is. I hope in future to rely on the advice which I get from the organised workers, as I have always done in the past.
§ Mr. E. G. Gooch (Norfolk, North)
Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say why he did not consult the farm workers' unions.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
I am coming to that, but I wanted it to be quite clear that no disrespect was intended. The point is that it was not a question of consultation. It was only a matter of following on the Housing Acts of 1952. What could we have said? We could certainly have listened—maybe we should have done—attentively and sympathetically to what had been represented to us, but the principles of the Bill had already been settled by the Housing Acts of 1952, and, in addition, the Government's intention in the matter had been made plain long before the Housing Acts of that year.
2255 I admit at once that we did not consult the workers' unions, but neither did we consult the National Farmers' Union.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
No, we did not. Nor did we consult the Central Landowners'Association. It is true that representations were made by the farmers and landowners, and it was surely open to the workers' unions to do the same had they so desired.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
That is not so. There was ample time, for the Bill was actually published on 20th November, 1953. But from that date until the Second Reading no representations were made, although we were well aware of the point of view taken by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and those whom he represents in this matter.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
No, I am arguing that it did not come as a surprise to the hon. Member. He has taken part in the debates on the Bill and, quite rightly, has expressed his view, which is contrary to that of the Government.
I want to make it abundantly clear that, although we may be in disagreement about the matter and the approach to it, this is not a fundamental Bill in which a decision about principles has been taken. It is a machinery Bill designed to meet a limited case. No disrespect was in any way intended to the hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised that the Government would consider introducing an Amendment in another place to give effect to the wish of hon. Members opposite that sitting occupiers of grant-aided cottages should be informed of their position and, in particular, of the fact that they still have a tenancy despite the change which the Bill brings about.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)
I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are confined on Third Reading to what is actually in the Bill.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
I was going on to say that, in fact, this is in the Bill, and was going to show how the wishes of hon. Members, as expressed in the Committee, are now actually expressed in the Bill. I think I can, within the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, willingly undertake that those who are in occupation of grant-aided cottages which had been built and occupied under the Hill Farming Act, will, when this Bill takes effect, receive a letter explaining its effect; in particular, that the tenants and their dependants will have the same protection under the Rent Restriction Acts as they had before the passage of this Bill. Therefore, no further Amendment is necessary in this regard. I hope the House will be satisfied with the assurance I have given, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that sitting tenants will be informed that their tenancies are not affected.
There is one other point which runs parallel with that. It has been suggested during our debates that, after this Bill becomes law, the dependants of existing tenants of grant-aided cottages will be in a worse position than before this Bill is passed. Here again, I can give a categorical assurance that nothing in this Bill touches the protection given by the Rent Restriction Acts to existing tenants or their dependants.
In asking the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill, I would conclude by saying that it deals only with a very narrow point and brings cottages in the areas governed by the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with the provisions of the Housing Acts passed by this House in 1952.
§ 8.52 p.m.
§ Mr. George Brown (Belper)
First of all, we are glad to see that a Minister of one of the Departments concerned has come to the House to accept the parentage of this miserable Bill. It is no disrespect or unkindness to either of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, who have been saddled with all the responsibility up to now, to say that, all the way through the discussion on this Bill, to us one of the most unsatisfactory features has been that, on a Bill which has a bad effect from our point of view, which is so offensive to so many people, rightly or wrongly, neither of the Cabinet Ministers concerned should, until the 2257 very end of our debates, have turned up to bear the responsibility or face the criticisms and arguments about it. Therefore, we are glad to see that, even on the death-bed, the Minister of Agriculture has turned up and himself sought to defend his own Bill.
One of the interesting things about that is that, the moment the Minister himself arrives, the whole ground for this Bill changes. Neither of his hon. Friends has, in fact, argued at any stage of the discussion that we needed to have this Bill simply because the 1952 Housing Acts had introduced this procedure, or that it was wrong, unfair or improper to retain a different procedure in the case of hill farm cottages. So far, the argument has not been that at all. It has been that in some way we needed to make the change in order to secure that more effective use should be made of the Hill Fanning and Livestock Rearing Acts, and the Minister himself will note, if he reads the reports of the proceedings while he has not been here, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and myself have repeatedly asked for evidence that that, in fact, was so.
§ Mr. Brown
No, I cannot give way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt seek to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker in order to make his point later.
One of our problems has been that this Bill, for its Committee stage, was squeezed into a most inadequate time, so that Amendments had to be hurried over in order that another debate might start at 7 p.m. Now, the Third Reading stage comes on at 8.30 p.m., at the end of a day and at the end of the week, and we are all placed under pressure to get the debate over in a reasonable time. Therefore it makes it difficult to conduct a debate in this way.
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to remind me that references were made to that matter earlier on, I reply that that is true. References were made, but the major claim was not made that that was the reason for the Bill. The major claim was that we had to get this procedure put right in this way in order to get full and effective use made of the 2258 Livestock Rearing Act. I would have preferred that argument, if there had been anything in it. We repeatedly asked for evidence and we were repeatedly told that it was not there. If there had been, there would have been something to be said for the argument.
There is nothing in the argument on the Housing Acts. They give, as the Minister has said, a very limited sum of public money for houses to be tied that normally are in urban areas. The tying principle operates there in wholly different circumstances and with a wholly different sum of public money involved. It does not follow—why should it?—that the same principle applies to the farm worker's or shepherd's cottage in isolated hill farm areas where 50 per cent. of public money will be involved. There is no reason why one principle should be applied and not the other.
The Minister says that it is an anomaly, and not bureaucratic tidying up. Why should we have the same conditions applying in the one case as we have applying in the other? There is nothing anomalous about it. The cases are not on all fours. There may be an argument that in a town or an urban street the gasworks manager, the waterworks engineer or the railway signalman do not need the protection that the shepherd and his dependants need in an isolated position. If we are giving a limited subsidy in the other case there may be some argument that it is reasonable not to give more protection in the other, but it does not follow that if we give 50 per cent. in the isolated position it is an anomaly. The cases are wholly different, and that is our complaint against the Minister in respect of compensation.
He did try to slide off tonight. In point of fact, he decided at some stage, either after representations from the N.F.U. or before, and either before or after representations from the landlords, to introduce the Bill. I am still not clear whether the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. asked for the Bill and the Minister has not cleared it up even now. I am not sure that the Bill was not born in the Ministry without any representations from anybody. At some stage he had representations from the National Farmers' Union and from the county landowners. I gather that he had those representations 2259 before the Bill came to the House. That was the sense of what he said. At no stage, before he had officially committed himself, did he go to the workers who were affected and ask them whether they had any comments to make. It is no use the Minister saying that the definition—
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is repeating arguments that have been used at an earlier stage of the Bill. Consultations, whether rightly or wrongly, are not now part of the Bill. We are on the Third Reading.
§ Mr. Brown
I accept this Ruling, although it will make things difficult for us. I am giving the major reason why the Bill should not be enacted in its present form. Consultations have not taken place such as are normal procedure for the Ministry of Agriculture on major changes of this kind. I would have thought, with great respect, that if, among other reasons, one regards the Bill as being objectionable, because no consultation has taken place with the people affected, one ought to be at liberty to adduce that as an argument for desiring to refuse the Bill a passage.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There has been a previous opportunity which has been taken, but at this stage one is confined to what is actually in the Bill.
§ Mr. Brown
I must accept your Ruling, although I regret it—and in a way am a little surprised at it. I finish by saying that this is the very first time in my experience of the Ministry of Agriculture—going back over very many years—that the workers' unions have not been consulted on a matter about which the landlords and farmers were consulted. We regard it as one of the really black marks—perhaps the blackest—against this Minister.
When we introduced the original parent Act which is to be amended by this Bill, its purpose was to make available large sums of public money for rehabilitating our hill farms, even though they might remain in private ownership. 2260 We were glad to do it, and some £10 million of public money has already been used to rehabilitate what is, after all, private property.
This Bill does nothing at all to improve that position. It does nothing to enable us to spend more money or to allow more rehabilitation to be done. All that it does—absolutely unnecessarily, and because of some concentration in the Minister's own mind, or that of his Department, on what he calls an anomaly and what I call bureaucratic tidiness—is to remove one of the earlier bases of the general agreement. It upsets the farmworkers unnecessarily and introduces an additional reason for friction with them—and as far as I can see contributes absolutely nothing.
There has never been a request for this Bill. There has been no real evidence that farmers were not making use of the grants that were available. There has never been any evidence that by 1956 we shall not use all the public money that is available. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, rather proudly, that we have already used £10 million to the end of 1953 and there are another three years in which to use the rest. There is no evidence at all that the work for which the money was made available would not be done.
There is a great difference between the scope and vision of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor when he introduced the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Act and the limited scope and vision of the present Minister. The right hon. Gentleman can see no greater contribution to agriculture than the tearing down of what his predecessor did and interfering and messing about in a miserable way with the rather grand scheme that was built up.
At an earlier stage I called this a dirty little Bill. It is no cleaner now. All our attempts to clean it up a bit were resisted at every stage. It remains a dirty little Bill; a Bill that can only muddy the waters and stir up enmity and friction. It will not lead to a single additional bit of work being done, a single additional bit of money being spent, or a single additional bit of material and labour being available.
It is a nasty interference with something which was working smoothly and 2261 well, and with the agreement of everybody. The Minister, having made up his own mind that this ought to be done for some doctrinaire and partisan reason and, without any effective attempt to understand other people's views and minds, jumped in and placed this on the Statute Book and said, "There it is. That is our view. Take it or leave it." Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House may take it, but we on this side are not prepared to take it.
Our contribution to the well-being of British agriculture will stand comparison with anything which the Government have turned their hands to since they came into office. We built; we provided things, and we expanded the industry. If hon. Members opposite want to go down to posterity as mean pullers down, mean interferers who believe in a bureaucratic tidying up of any anomaly they can find, because they have no conception of the broad plan for building up British agriculture, they may do so. For our part, we shall resist the passage of this Bill now, as we have done at every stage.
§ 9.5 p.m.
§ Brigadier F. Medlicott (Norfolk, Central)
I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will receive its Third Reading tonight. I wish to take up the point with which the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) began his speech. He said that the Minister had introduced a fresh justification for this Bill. I would remind him that the Minister appears to have used almost exactly the same phrase tonight as was used by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he first commended this Bill to the House on Second Reading. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:I should like to emphasise the latter point, and say that the need for this Bill is to bring the legislation affecting farm cottages under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts into line with existing housing legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 113.]While he was speaking on that point the right hon. Member for Belper probably realised that we were in a position to produce evidence of the similarity between the two opening speeches, and he said that the Minister had at least given a great deal more emphasis tonight to that reason than had been given when 2262 the Bill was first introduced. Even on that point the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, because, when the Bill was first introduced, the Minister said that the principal object of the Bill was to bring the legislation into line with the two previous Acts.
The fallacies underlying the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight are all of a piece with those underlying most of what has been said against this Bill. Hon. Members opposite are fettered in their approach to the Bill—as they so often are on other occasions—by their own ideology. The same thing applies to the general question of housing. For a long time before the present Government took office hon. Members opposite claimed that it was not possible to build more houses.
§ Brigadier Medlicott
I shall not pursue that point, but I want to make it clear that most of the arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members opposite have been based upon that fallacy.
The simple purpose of the Bill is to enable a larger number of houses to qualify for grants under the Hill Farming Act. Although it has been managed on most of the stages of this Bill, it would be out of place now to make any wide reference to the question of tied cottages, but they are very much within the scope of the Bill. During the 15 years in which I have represented a Division in Norfolk I have received fewer protests against tied cottages than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If these protests had existed in larger numbers I should have known about them.
All the arguments which have been used by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on the subject of tied cottages lead to the conclusion that the louder they speak now against the evils of the tied cottages the louder should speak the voices of their own consciences for doing nothing about them in the six years when they had the opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House, because it enables a larger number of services cottages to obtain the benefits which the Bill aims to provide for them, and I hope that it will receive its Third Reading tonight.
§ 9.10 p.m.
§ Mr. E. G. Gooch (Norfolk, North)
I want briefly to say why I oppose the Bill. I oppose it, first, because, despite what the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) said, I object to the principle of the tied cottage and shall continue to do so. I object to the spending of public money on projects which deprive a man and his family of security in their homes. I think that to deprive them of that security is wrong.
Next, I object to the Bill because there has been no demand for a reversal of the policy which was contained in the Labour Government's original Act, and I also object to the Bill because, despite what the Minister said, in my opinion it emerges as a result of representations on the part of the County Landowners Association and the National Farmers' Union. Further, I object to the Bill because such actions by the Government do nothing to strengthen the good relations which should exist between employers and workers in agriculture.
I cannot help thinking that the Bill has something to do with what has been happening in the ranks of the farming community since this Government took office. To say that the farm workers view the Government's policy, or lack of policy, with suspicion or mistrust is to put it mildly.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I must point out, once more, that that subject is wider than is provided for in the Bill as it stands.
§ Mr. Gooch
In this connection, I think that what the Minister is doing by insisting on pushing the Bill through the House is throwing a bone to a dog—I will put it that way—in an endeavour to appease it. Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen, but in appeasing the dog he has upset many other people.
I would stress that the principle of the Measure will cause resentment in the countryside generally and not merely in the hill farming areas. After all, public money is being spent here. I have been working for a long time to get a measure of agreement between town and country. Do the Government believe that the people who live in the towns and who have to find this money out of taxation are likely to be enamoured of the countryside and all that happens in the countryside when they know that their money 2264 is being spent for a purpose which is detrimental to those who occupy farm workers' cottages? It is not for me to go into the towns and tell the people what the Government are doing by pushing the Bill through, but I think this is a point which should be borne in mind by the Minister in connection with any legislation which he promotes in the future.
The Bill does nothing to improve the relations inside farming. Indeed, it does the reverse. I have said this repeatedly: the farm-worker in his cottage is as much entitled to security of tenure as is the efficient tenant farmer, to whom the Labour Government gave security. It cannot be denied that, instead of agreeing to this principle, the Minister and the Government have gone out of their way to show that they absolutely disagree with the statement which I have made.
I hope I shall not be called to order now, because I want to put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Bill has been brought in as a result of representations on the part of the County Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. I put it to you that there would never have been a Bill but for the agitation of these two organisations. That is the root of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to offer an explanation tonight that no offence was meant in not consulting our union when the Bill was first discussed.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member may be in a difficulty—I do not know—but he must seek another opportunity of redressing it.
§ Mr. Gooch
I appreciate that I am in a difficulty, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in my desire to bow to the Ruling of the Chair. I think that I shall have an opportunity on another occasion of repeating what I said earlier, that we must be consulted about this business, and that it is not sufficient to write to the National Union of Agricultural Workers.
§ Mr. Gooch
I will put the point this way in conclusion, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that one of the advantageous results of the debates on this Bill will be—and I think that I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's concurrence—that in future the Minister of Agriculture will follow the lead of his predecessor in these matters and consult the farmworkers, not merely when he wants to push up production, but also in regard to any piece of agricultural legislation which he has in mind.
I am going to vote against the Bill, and I hope that one of the results of the debate will be that in future the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will really talk to us before introducing any major agricultural legislation.
§ 9.16 p.m.
§ Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)
I think that we all appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) in trying to make a Second Reading speech in a Third Reading debate. Whatever may be said about consultations or otherwise with the agricultural workers' union, the fact remains that all the consultations which, no doubt, took place when hon. Members opposite were in power from 1945 and 1951 between the hon. Member for Norfolk, North and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who was then Parliamentary Secretary, did not prevent the Government of that day from becoming the largest owners of tied cottage property in the country.
What the hon. Member for Norfolk, North tried to tell the House was that, in some mysterious way, it would benefit hill farming if those who occupy isolated cottages on hill farms were denied the benefits under this Bill of having the cottages brought up to standard.
§ Mr. Mott-Radclyffe
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from his experience during the time that he was in office what the practical difficulties are. He knows that if one advertises for a shepherd and puts in the advertisement, "No cottage available." one does 2266 not get an answer to the advertisement. He knows that from his own experience, not only in relation to agriculture, but in relation to forestry, which has nothing to do with this Bill.
§ Mr. Mott-Radclyffe
None, for the simple reason that there is scarcely any unemployment in agriculture. I do not want to get out of order in this Third Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the practical difficulties, not only on hill farms, but on all other farms, where there are key men who have to live on the farm in order to carry out the work essential to that farm.
I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches this evening, have done a great disservice to the general good feeling which, I know, exists on hill farms between employer and employee. There is, in fact, no ill-feeling at all. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman himself made and the speech which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North made suggest that there is a great deal of friction between employer and employee over tied cottages, which in their hearts they know perfectly well does not exist.
I commend this Bill to the House because, as my right hon. Friend said, it brings legislation in relation to cottages on hill farms into line with the legislation for cottages on other farms. It improves the lot of those who live in isolated cottages, and it enables their amenities to be improved. For that reason, if for no other, hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to explain to their constituents their reasons for going into the Lobby to vote against the Bill.
§ 9.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) should raise the argument that we on this side of the House are trying to work up synthetic agitation on the issue of the tied cottage. We are merely saying that the Bill seeks to alter the good relations in the industry by amending Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946.
2267 The original Act has worked very well, and we have always argued that there must be a partnership in the industry. Because the Minister is introducing the Bill with the object of altering the 1946 Act, and because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has shown, he did not consult the workers in the industry, it is he himself who is reviving the whole issue of the tied cottage.
Time and time again in Committee, and even now, at this late hour on Third Reading, we have pressed for information. We have asked how the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, have been deficient, and why it is necessary to bring in this amending Bill. The Minister tonight asked us to support the Third Reading and again merely put the general case in relation to hill farming. We accept that. When we were in power we did something for hill farming by the 1946 Act, and we enabled vast sums of public money to be given to hill farmers. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has mentioned that £10 million capital has been injected into the industry and that the Act has worked very well.
Why alter the situation? Why introduce this contentious note? Why disturb relations in the industry? It is not we who are stirring up synthetic indignation. We merely say that the Minister, by asking for a Third Reading for the Bill, is tampering with an Act that has worked very well.
The case of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North is that this procedure is something which we have seen so often in the field of agriculture. The Minister said in his opening speech that owners are short of capital and need to make improvements—we accept that. That was the original purpose of the 1946 Act, and, as I have tried to emphasise, it has worked well. There has been no evidence to show that this amendment to bring the Act into line with the Housing Act, 1942, will result in the injection of any more capital into the industry. It is a very poor argument that has been put forward.
We shall certainly oppose this Measure, and I hope that we shall go into the Division Lobby against it. No reasons have been given to justify it. It is a miserable Bill; it is tampering with legis- 2268 lation that has worked well; and it is in keeping with the general policy that is now pursued in the wider agricultural field.
§ 9.23 p.m.
§ Major D. McCallum (Argyll)
I intervene for only a moment or two in welcoming the Bill and hoping that it will get its Third Reading this evening, as I am sure it will. I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Peart) and Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), that the Bill stirs up a lot of strife between employer and employee. We had that argument in Committee and on Second Reading.
For the purpose of verification, I checked up on this very point last weekend. I confess my personal interest is that I am hill farming myself. There arose the question of engaging an additional employee to assist on the farm. In my nearest village, four miles away, some cottages are being built by the local authority for agricultural employees. I asked him whether he would prefer to live in one of those cottages, with a proper tenancy and pay 25s. a week for it, or in one of my tied cottages, for which he would pay 6s. a week.
§ Major McCallum
What does anybody expect him to say? He prefers to live in the tied cottage, knowing full well that no reasonable employer would put him out. Therefore, I sincerely trust that without much more delay we shall get the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ 9.25 p.m.
§ Mr. David J. Pryde (Midlothian and Peebles)
I welcome a Scottish voice on this Bill, even if it was from the other side of the House, because Scotland is interested in hill farming. In England and Wales there are 5 million acres of hill land given over to hill farming, but in Scotland there are 11 million acres. We have more than twice the amount of acreage of England and Wales, but I find that the Goschen formula applies even in a debate on hill farming.
I want to support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), because we have a 2269 very big interest in the land workers. This Bill is not going to restore good relations in the agricultural industry and in hill farming. In this country we must of necessity pay prior attention to agriculture, and in Scotland we must give the hill farms a priority.
If we are going to have this good relationship, we must see to it that the people who are employed on hill farms have the best conditions possible. Have we got the best conditions possible? Is it not true to say that the Scottish agricultural workers' wages are often trailing behind the English? Would it not be better if the Minister did more to bring about a happy balance between the wages of the workers in these two countries?
Then there are the service cottages. I will not call them tied cottages, although the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) has talked a great deal about the problem: I wonder what the hon. Member's particular experience of it is. Was he speaking from a close and intimate knowledge of the subject? The man who owns the houses owns the worker. We in the mining industry know that to our cost, and it was only when we were able to nationalise the mines that our people were freed from the ruthless employer class.
I want hon. Members to pay close attention to the organ which is the voice of the landworkers in England and Wales. If they turn to the back page they will find a long list of evictions, where men and their families have been turned out on to the streets. Is that Christianity in England and Wales in 1954? Are these the people who go to church on Sundays and are pillars of the church?
In Scotland we deprecate that, and I am bound to say that our sheriffs in the courts dispense justice with a firm hand and a true balance. I hope and trust that this House will take particular notice of the service cottage, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to see that the landworker is given his place in the industry to which he is entitled, because, if things are wrong on the land, then they are wrong in all sections of society.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
I should like to say a word about this Bill before we part with it. I shall probably be the last speaker from this side of the House on this Bill before we send it on its journey to another place. I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to be critical in what I say. The Minister of Agriculture has put in his first appearance tonight. We thought he ought to have been here long ago. I think in particular that the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have been here long ago, but he has not even come along this evening. He has never been here during any part of the proceedings upon this Bill. It is a shocking thing for anyone to have to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister more interested than any other in this Bill, has never once put in an appearance.
Incidentally, as the discussion was proceeding on what consultations preceded the introduction of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister told us about receiving representations but did not tell us whether the Bill was a consequence of the representations or whether it had been decided upon beforehand. May I venture another guess? It is that the origin of the Bill was probably a promise made to the Black-face Sheep Breeders' Association by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no doubt that the Bill had its origins in Scotland, but the Joint Under-Secretary was not able on Second Reading, nor did he endeavour in Committee, to show that there was any need in Scotland for this Bill.
On Second Reading I offered some figures in support of my view that there was no good case for this Bill in Scotland, that in fact the farmers there were taking advantage of the grants under the 1946 Act provided for in Section 10, which is being amended. During Second Reading I recalled to the Joint Under-Secretary that in 1946 he said that after travelling about his constituency he had not found a single farmer who would make application for a grant to build a cottage. The hon. Gentleman said that by reason of Section 10 the Bill would be largely nullified. He did not say that he was hopelessly wrong then, but he has to provide me with figures which prove this fact.
2271 In Scotland on 30th November last, schemes formally approved at that time for work on farm cottages accounted for no less than £846,000. That sum of money was in respect of improvements to cottages on 978 farms. According to other information I have received from the Joint Under-Secretary, there are about four farm cottages improved for every new farm cottage built under the 1946 Act. It is easy to deduce from the figures I have just offered that, on an average, one farm cottage has been built or improved on every farm that has had an improvement scheme in Scotland.
§ Mr. Archer Baldwin (Leominster)
I want to get this clear. The amount spent has been given as 18 per cent. in Scotland and 8 per cent. in England. Could the hon. Gentleman say whether that is 18 per cent. for cottages alone or for cottages and farmhouses? My experience is that there is little being done and that the 18 per cent. and 8 per cent. were spent mainly on farmhouses.
§ Mr. Fraser
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because I can easily give him the answer which he might have got from the Government Front Bench. The 18 per cent. is 18 per cent. on farm cottages and, incidentally, there is another 18 per cent. on farmhouses, making a total of 36 per cent. of the money being spent on farmhouses and farm cottages. The Joint Under-Secretary is bound to admit that the hill farmers of Scotland took advantage of the 1946 Act to provide cottages where they were needed.
I asked the Joint Under-Secretary if he knew of one farmer in the whole of Scotland who, having taken the grant under the 1946 Act, had said, "I must have a tied cottage instead of a non-tied cottage. I therefore must breach the conditions and I will repay the grant that I have received." He replied that there was not a single one. It is clear that there is not a shred of evidence to offer in support of this miserable Bill which is now placed before the House for Third Reading.
We cannot allow a Bill like this to go through. We have been accused of being doctrinaire in our approach. I remind the Minister that in 1946, when what is now Section 10 of the Act was being dis- 2272 cussed in this House, my hon. Friends who feel so strongly about tied cottages were not happy with what we were doing. They asked us to take away the certificate procedure and to take away all the protection made available to the farmer. They said that, if we did not do that, then what was provided in Section 10 would be of little use to farm workers.
At that time we said that what we were doing was to provide a compromise between what the Conservatives then wanted and what some of my hon. Friends wanted. We offered a compromise in 1946, but the Government are not willing to compromise at all on this difficult subject about which human passions are raised. It is hon. Members opposite who have made the doctrinaire approach. They have brought in this Bill without any evidence to show that it is needed at all. In the circumstances, we shall invite the House to vote against giving it a Third Reading.
§ 9.37 p.m.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden)
We can all agree that we have had a very full discussion of this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee.
§ Mr. Snadden
This is a Bill which raises a comparatively narrow point. I think that that is recognised by everybody—
§ Mr. Snadden
—but it has engendered a considerable amount of argument and feeling on both sides of the House. That is a perfectly natural thing to happen. It is inevitable when the question of tied cottages is discussed in this Chamber.
I have argued about this subject for 15 years, and if the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had been in his place he would have been able to say that he had argued about it for even longer. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference of opinion on this question. The party opposite dislike the tied cottage but they never abolished it, and we believe that a service cottage is part and parcel of our farming system. There we differ, but I do not think that we have ever doubted the sincerity of each other's convictions on 2273 this issue. We hold our views perfectly frankly and sincerely on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for not being in his place, and he said that he had not appeared at all during the passage of this Bill. Actually he was sitting beside me when I made the opening speech of the debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Hamilton has made great play about the need for this Bill, as have several hon. Members. When I gave the figures on Second Reading I was accused by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) of having said that there was enormous improvement under the hill farming schemes. Of course, I said nothing of the kind. I gave the information to the House indicating the figures that were available for the information of the House.
If I had not given those figures I should have been accused of withholding some thing from the House of Commons. I provided the figures for the House so that it could debate the Bill. I think it a little unfair to suggest that what I was doing was to tell the House about the progress which has been made—
§ Mr. T. Fraser
What is the hon. Gentleman trying to prove—that good progress has been made, or that good progress has not been made? What is the position?
§ Mr. Snadden
I am trying to point out that I was accused of having said that enormous progress has been made under the Hill Farming Act but that I said nothing of the kind. I do not deny that considerable progress has been made, but, when this Bill is on to the Statute Book, we hope to see that progress very much increased. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing in this Bill. It is not right for the right hon. Member for Belper to quote me in the way he did.
I was glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) supported me in pointing out that no new argument had been brought forward about the object of this Bill. What my right hon. Friend said, in moving the Third Reading, was almost identical with what I said on the Second Reading. I do not think there was anything in the point made by the 2274 right hon. Member for Belper for, looking through the various points he endeavoured to make, I did not find anything new there.
What the House has to be clear about is that we are not now discussing the general principle of the tied cottage—
§ Mr. Snadden
No, we are not. That was debated, as hon. Members know, and was decided when we debated the Housing Acts in the House of Commons. When hon. Members opposite were Members of the Administration they recognised the practical necessities of the service cottage by continuing to offer grants for tied cottages—
§ Mr. Snadden
I am not saying that it was under the Hill Farming Act, but they recognised the principle of the tied cottage by continuing to offer grants for service cottages provided they were built in lieu of condemned cottages.
§ Mr. Brown
The hon. Gentleman admits that we did not do so in the case of the Hill Farming Act and that is what we are concerned about. Secondly, can he give one instance under the Housing Act in which we paid 50 per cent.?
§ Mr. Snadden
The Labour Government recognised the practical necessity of the tied cottage system in our farming system by continuing to offer grants for tied cottages. Why did they not abolish the tied cottage altogether? They did not do so.
By far the largest part of the farming industry at present is operating, or has been operating, in the past 18 months under the principle introduced by the Housing Acts. The figures quoted by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading were substantial evidence that there is an increased demand for grants for the reconditioning of cottages since the Housing Acts were passed by this Government.
§ Mr. Snadden
Oh, yes. I am not going over all the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend, but he did show that since the Housing Acts were brought in by this Government and came into opera- 2275 tion, there has been a very distinct advance in the number of applications for reconditioning grants.
§ Mr. Snadden
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that under the Housing Acts ofthe Labour Government, which carried the condition in relation to a contract of tenancy, the average number of applications in Scotland was 37 a year. They are now 1,186. That is one year after legislation introduced by this Government repealed the condition imposed by the Labour Government.
While one must admit that may not be the only reason—because the grant has been increased, and it may be that materials have become available in greater quantities—it is an odd thing that within a year ofhaving introduced a new Housing Measure, which did exactly what we are doing in this Bill, the figure jumped from 37 to 1,186. No one can be sure what will happen in future, but on the basis of what has happened under the Housing Acts I think we may look forward to a substantial advance in our improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Bill.
I say that for another reason. We are sometimes told that the agricultural Ministers in this Government are all farmers, and, therefore, they are no good—
§ Mr. Snadden
People who have passed the major part of their life in the industry—and I am one, for I have been farming for 30 years and have an interest in a fairly large hill farm—have some knowledge of this question. There is nowhere that I can think of where the service cottage is more necessary than in the high-up hill farming areas. I am confident that when this Bill reaches the Statute Book there will be an increase in the applications for cottages.
It is true that we cannot measure the size of the deterrent. We do not know 2276 how many people would have put forward schemes, had this deterrent been removed, and therefore to some extent our evidence must be negative. The real test will be in the future figures, and we are confident that the effect will be similar to what has taken place under the Housing Acts.
A great deal has been said about consultation, and that point was dealt with adequately by my right hon. Friend. I would say only that the position in England and Wales and the position in Scotland is exactly the same.
On the question of eviction, the general allegation has always been made, in criticism of the service cottage system—which I maintain is part and parcel of our farming policy—that a man can be summarily evicted. No one likes eviction, and in this Bill we have given the worker a reasonable opportunity to find another job by introducing a period of four weeks' notice.
No one appreciates the capabilities of the farmworker more than I, and there is no one who has attempted to look after him better than I have done. But we must remember also that the farmer has an interest, and there is the question of food production to be considered. The reason why we have chosen a period of four weeks, and not 13 weeks, as hon. Members opposite would like, is to make sure that we do not upset the proper running of the farm or interfere with food production.
§ Mr. P. Wells
Has any consideration been given to the suggestion that application be made to the court after four weeks, rather than that eviction should take place?
§ Mr. Snadden
That was dealt with in Committee by my hon. Friend.
I think that by now everything has been said about the Bill that could be said. We believe that its provisions will be welcomed by the agricultural community, as were the provisions of the Housing Acts, and I am certain that advantage will be taken of them. I am sure that no one will benefit more than the worker will do, because of the improved housing conditions which will result.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided, Ayes, 204; Noes, 188.2225
|Division No. 39.]||AYES||[6.53 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Baldwin, A. E.||Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Banks, Col. C.||Birch, Nigel|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Barber, Anthony||Bishop, F. P.|
|Amory. Rt. Hon Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Barlow, Sir John||Black, C. W.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Baxter, A. B.||Boothby, Sir R. J. G.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Beach, Maj. Hicks||Bossom, Sir A. C.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Bowen, E. R.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Boyle, Sir Edward|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Holt, A. F.||Osborne, C.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Hope, Lord John||Page, R. G.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Horobin, I. M.||Perkins, Sir Robert|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bullard, D. G.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hurd, A. R.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L|
|Campbell, Sir David||Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Carr, Robert||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Redmayne, M.|
|Channon, H.||Iremonger, T. L.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Jennings, Sir Roland||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Cole, Norman||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Colegate, W A.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Robertson, Sir David|
|Conant, Mai. R. J. E.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||Kaberry, D.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Kerr, H. W.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lambert, Hon. G.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lang'ord-Holt, J. A.||Russell, R. S.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Leather, E. H. C.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Scott, R. Donald|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Lindsay, Martin||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Shepherd, William|
|Deedes, W. F.||Llewellyn, D. T.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Kings Norton)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Donner, Sir P. W.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Doughty. C. J. A.||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Snadden, M. McN.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Longden, Gilbert||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Drewe, Sir C.||Low, A. R. W.||Spearman. A. C. M.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Speir, R. M.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||McAdden, S. J.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Erroll, F. J.||McCallum, Major D.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Storey, S.|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||McKibbin, A. J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Fort, R.||Maclay, Rt. Hon John||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Foster, John||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Teeling, W.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)|
|Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)|
|Gammans, L. D.||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Turner, H. F. L.|
|George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Turton, R. H.|
|Glover, D.||Marples, A. E.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Godber, J. B.||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maude, Angus||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Maudling, R.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Gower, H. R.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Wade, D. W.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Grimond, J.||Mellor, Sir John||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Molson, A. H. E.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Wall, P. H. B.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Harden, J. R. E.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Hare, Hon. J. A.||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Neave, Airey||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminister)|
|Hay, John||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Wellwood, W.|
|Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Heath, Edward||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nugent, G. R. H.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Oakshott, H. D.||Wills, G.|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Odey, G. W.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Mr. Studholme and|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Mr. Richard Thompson.|
|Hollis, M. C.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Grey, C. F.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Adams, Richard||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Orbach, M.|
|Albu, A. H.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Oswald, T.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Padley, W. E.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Paget, R. T.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hamilton, W. W.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hannan, W.||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Pannell, Charles|
|Baird, J.||Hastings, S.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Balfour, A.||Hayman, F. H.||Parker, J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Bartley, P.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Pearson, A.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Herbison, Miss M.||Peart, T. F.|
|Bence, C. R.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood||Hobson, C. R.||Popplewell, E.|
|Benson, G.||Holman, P.||Porter, G.|
|Beswick, F.||Holmes, Horace||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Houghton, Douglas||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hubbard, T. F.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Rankin, John|
|Bowden, H. W.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Reeves, J.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hynd, H (Accrington)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Rhodes, H.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Irving, W J. (Wood Green)||Richards, R.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Janner, B.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Ross, William|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Shawcross, R. Hon. Sir Hartley|
|Carmichael, J.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Short, E. W.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Keenan, W.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Clunie, J.||Kenyon, C.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Coldrick, W.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Collick, P. H.||King, Dr. H. M.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Corbet, Mrs Freda||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Craddock. George (Bradford, S.)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Lindgren, G. S.||Snow, J. W.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Logan, D. G.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Daines, P.||MacColl, J. E.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||McGhee, H. G.||Steele, T.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||McInnes, J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||McLeavy, F.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Deer, G.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Delargy, H. J.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Swingler, S. T.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Manuel, A. C.||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Edelman, M.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Mason, Roy||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mayhew, C. P.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Mellish, R. J.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Messer, Sir F.||Thornton, E.|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Mikardo, Ian||Timmons, J.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mitchison, G. R.||Tomney, F.|
|Fienburgh, W.||Monslow, W.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Finch, H. J.||Moody, A. S.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Morgan. Dr. H. B. W.||Usborne, H. C.|
|Follick, M.||Morley, R.||Viant, S. P.|
|Foot, M. M.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Forman, J. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Moyle, A.||Weitzman, D.|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.||Mulley, F. W.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Murray, J. D.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Glanville, James||Nally, W.||West, D. G.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||O'Brien, T.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Oldfield, W. H.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Wigg, George||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)||Yates, V. F.|
|Wilkins, W. A.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Willey, F. T.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Williams, David (Neath)||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.||Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.|
Question put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 40.]||AYES||[9.50 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Hare, Hon J. A.||Osborne, C.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Page, R. G.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn,W.)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Heath, Edward||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Barber, Anthony||Hirst, Geoffrey||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Barlow, Sir John||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)|
|Beach, Maj. Hicks||Holt, A. F.||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hope, Lord John||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Redmayne, M.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Robertson, Sir David|
|Black, C. W.||Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Bowen, E. R.||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.||Russell, R. S.|
|Braine, B. R.||Iremonger, T. L.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Scott, R. Donald|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Kaberry, D.||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Bullard, D. G.||Kerr, H. W.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Leather, E. H. C.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Carr, Robert||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Channon, H.||Lindsay, Martin||Speir, R. M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Llewellyn, D. T.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Cole, Norman||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Storey, S.|
|Colegate, W. A.||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Longden, Gilbert||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Crouch, R. F.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Teeling, W.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||McCallum, Major D.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Macdonald Sir Peter||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||McKibbin, A. J.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Drayson, G. B.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Turton, R. H.|
|Drewe, Sir C.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Vosper, D. F.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wade, D. W.|
|Finlay, Graeme||Marples, A. E.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Wall, P. H. B.|
|Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Foster, John||Mellor, Sir John||Ward, Mils I. (Tynemouth)|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Wellwood, W.|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Neave, Airey||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Glover, D.||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P||Wills, G.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Cough, C. F. H.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Major Conant and Mr. Legh.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)||Beswick, F.||Brockway, A. F.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Blackburn, F.||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Blenkinsop, A.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Blyton, W. R.||Burke, W. A.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Burton, Miss F. E.|
|Bence, C. R.||Bowden, H. W.||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood||Bowles, F. G.||Callaghan, L. J.|
|Benson, G.||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Carmichael, J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Royle, C.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Short, E. W.|
|Collick, P. H.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Keenan, W.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Kenyon, C.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||King, Dr. H. M.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Deer, G.||Lindgren, G. S.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Logan, D. G.||Sparkes, J. A.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||MacColl, J. E.||Steele, T.|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||McInnes, J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Fienburgh, W.||McLeavy, F.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Finch, H. J.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Follick, M.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Forman, J. C.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Manuel, A. C.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Glanville, James||Mason, Roy||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mayhew, C. P.||Thornton, E.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Messer, Sir F.||Timmons, J.|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Mikardo, Ian||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Monslow, W.||Usborne, H. C.|
|Grey, C. F.||Moody, A. S.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Morley, R.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Mort, D. L.||Weitzman, D.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Moyle, A.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hannan, W.||Murray, J. D.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Nally, W.||West, D. G.|
|Hastings, S.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Oswald, T.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)||Padley, W. E.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wigg, George|
|Holman, P.||Pargiter, G. A.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Holmes, Horace||Parker, J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Haughton, Douglas||Peart, T. F.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Popplewell, E.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Porter, G.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Proctor, W. T.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsdon)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pryde, D. J.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Rankin, John||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Yates, V. F.|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Rhodes, H.|
|Janner, B.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Ross, William|
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.