HC Deb 25 February 1954 vol 524 cc693-704

9.57 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I hope to detain the House on a rather different subject. I refer to the call-up of agricultural workers. I can imagine two objections being taken to my choice for tonight's short debate. The first is that all that can be said on this subject has already been said, that every protest has been made—I have made quite a few myself—and every argument has been reiterated and embellished. The second objection, I suppose, might be that a great deal of what I have to say refers exclusively to my own kailyard. But though no Member of Parliament should mortgage his soul to his constituents, I feel that he has a duty to represent their grievances as long as he feels that there is justification for their grievances and that they have not been completely answered. So I return to the charge of this matter of call-up.

I put down the subject in general terms, because it may be that there are other Members who wish to speak about it. For myself, I shall confine my remarks very largely to the situation in my own constituency. I think we all agree that conscription is an evil. It may be at present a very necessary evil, but, like all evils, it should be carefully examined from time to time to see how much harm it has done.

It being Ten o Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House no now adjourn."— [Mr. R. Allan.]

Mr. Grimond

There can be no doubt that conscription does my constituency considerable harm. It is a factor—one of many, I admit—in causing depopulation. It strikes at the young men, and in the country, and in Shetland especially, we want to keep our young men. Also, of course, it reduces the output of food.

I make no bones about asking for some special treatment for agriculture, and in particular for the small farmers. Let us be clear that if the Government really want to increase or even maintain the population in the countryside they must give some special attention to its special problems, and that is particularly true of the far North. If they reply that such special consideration is impossible, we shall at least know where we stand, though for my part I certainly shall not like it; but for the Government to say on the one hand that they are anxious to see the Highlands developed and on the other hand that we must make do with general legislation which applies to the country as a whole is, with all respect to them, nonsense. We shall require a radical change of attitude if we are to stop this continuous drain of people out of the countryside in the North.

The crofting and small farmers' families know that they are liable to lose their sons or young labourers when they reach 18. I shall probably be told that the number called up from agriculture is very small, and it will probably be pointed out that there are ample opportunities for appeal, and that if many are threatened with call-up, few are taken. However, the possibility of call-up is always there, and it is very disturbing to farmers.

The croft itself, of course, does not by any means always yield an adequate livelihood and the crofter often has to take other employment. For many months the croft has to be worked by his wife and his son. The possibility that the son may be conscribed and taken away is a shadow of something that may break up his whole family life.

When the boy grows up, the tribunal consider the agricultural output and the possibility of replacing the young man. We can put aside as far as my constituency is concerned the possibility of replacement. The income of many crofters and small farmers is very little if at all above that of agricultural labourers, and they could not pay for extra labour even if they could get it. In any case, they cannot get it. There are between 30 and 40 registered unemployed agricultural labourers in my constituency. Most of them are tied to a particular district or are unsuitable for one reason or another. So replacement is really impossible and, therefore, deferment is almost meaningless, because it merely puts off the evil day, and is no answer to the problem.

We know now that if a man can show that he spends a considerable amount of his time—I think 70 per cent, is the figure given—in charge of stock he can probably get deferment, and that ruling is certainly helpful, but every man on a small farm is more or less in charge of stock. He may, however, have considerable difficulty in proving how much of his time is taken up looking after it. There is little division of labour on crofts and small farms; and human beings cannot be sub-divided. Even if the amount of stock on the farm is small and the man does other things as well as look after it, it is absolutely essential that he should be there on the farm, if any stock is kept at all. The same man who looks after stock probably drives a tractor and does 101 other things. In the North tractor driving is very important. Very often the farmer does not drive the tractor himself but relies on his son or sole labourer to do it.

I suggest that these questions of acreage, output, amount of stock and so on must be looked at very differently in different parts of the country and different classes of farms. In small farms every man is a general handyman and his work cannot be isolated. It cannot be said, "That is his job and, if he is taken away, someone else can do the job." In my view, the test should be whether the farm as a unit will be seriously affected if the labourer is removed.

For my constituency these matters are ultimately decided in Aberdeen. I have no complaint whatever about the work of the tribunal and the officials of the Ministry in Aberdeen. Personally, I have always received every courtesy from them, and they are most painstaking in their examination of cases. But of course they can act only within the directions which they receive from the Government. Aberdeen is more than 100 miles away from Orkney or Shetland. It is a different country, a different part of the world, a foreign part, and almost speaks a different language. It is like asking a farmer from Kent to present his case in Lille. I know there are Orkney representatives, but there are no Shetland representatives. In many cases the parties concerned cannot appeal and they cannot fully understand what is happening or how their case can best be represented.

I wish to quote a case I have in mind as an example. A man and his family have 29 acres of arable land, 20 to 30 head of cattle, 12 pigs and 500 or 600 head of poultry and a few sheep. He was refused deferment for his son and that refusal is persisted in, although the Department of Agriculture has actually approved a scheme for his farm under the Livestock Rearing Act. I have a file of a dozen or more cases which have arisen quite recently in each of which deferment has been refused.

I know that they are all considered by an agricultural advisory panel, but that panel is also bound by the existing regulations and, without making criticism of them, I think that on occasion they have been wrong in their decision. To take another example known to the Minister, a farmer in the extreme north of my constituency—the most northerly district in the whole of Britain, the north of Unst—an old man, took over the care of a licensed bull. The man had a merchant's business in addition to his farm. He trained a lad to look after the bull and that lad has been called up. The farmer has lately died, but the worker who was looking after the bull has been refused exemption. It may well sound as if other arrangements could be made and that this is not an insoluble problem, but I ask the Minister and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to put themselves in the position of people living in that area, as I know they will. It is very difficult in a small crofting area in that sort of latitude to make such arrangements. Labour is extremely difficult to get and young men are at a high premium.

Only this week I heard from a farmer in Orkney who told me that he may have to give up his small herd of dairy cattle if he cannot get his worker back. I know quite well that it would be out of order to suggest a change in legislation, although I feel that that is necessary. I ask the Minister to consider that, in so far as these people come back to agriculture, it is obvious that they are not going to be called up in time of war. It is inconceivable that they will be taken into the Armed Forces in time of war. Is it, therefore, a useful occupation for them to go off and be trained at some considerable expense to the country.

I hope to get out of this short debate a further airing of this matter in general, because it affects very large and important districts throughout Great Britain. I particularly ask that even more information should be given about the possibility of getting deferment, and that, if it is possible, it should be given earlier. As I said earlier, the threat that these young men may be taken away is very disturbing to their families, to their employers and, indeed, to themselves.

I also ask the Minister to look at the very word "deferment." As I have said, deferment is really deferment of the problem. In my constituency at any rate, one cannot get replacements, and it is a matter of putting off the evil day when the labourer has to go.

Perhaps the Minister and his agricultural colleagues will also look at the question of agricultural output. As I have suggested, the real test should be not only the amount of food and farm produce but the importance of keeping an agricultural unit in being and keeping land under the plough. There is undoubtedly some danger in my part of the country that a good deal of land will go out of cultivation, and the call-up is certainly not helping to keep it tilled.

In Shetland there is a very grave problem in respect of milk, for the supply of fresh milk is very difficult there. In Orkney we have a famous reputation for our cattle. All these matters—the question of keeping arable land under the plough, the question of milk and the question of cattle—depend upon keeping the trained agricultural people on the land, keeping up the rural population and keeping the young people in agriculture. I ask that the Minister's ruling of early February, which was very useful, should be extended as widely as possible, especially in the case of the small farms.

I also ask the Minister to look into the possibility of some cases actually being heard in Orkney and Shetland where they arise. I know that is difficult for geographical reasons, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is very important that people should be satisfied that they have had a fair hearing and have been able to put their case and ask questions. The Minister will also know that many people are not very good at explaining on paper exactly how their farm is run and how they require to keep their labour or, in the case of a young man, why he requires to be deferred.

There is no doubt that the Minister will point out that comparatively few people are affected. Nevertheless, in the case of those people, this is a very important problem. I will go so far as to say that it is also a very important problem for the families and the communities, at least in the North of Scotland, and it is also an important problem from the point of view of the food supplies of the nation as a whole.

If the Government are determined to get the big increase in agricultural production about which they are talking, they must stop the drift to the towns and keep the people in the countryside. I would remind the Minister that perhaps the most important point of all is that a very great many of the young people who are called up do not come back to the countryside. Far be it from me to spread any unfortunate rumours about the Army, but it is certainly widely believed in my constituency, and, possibly, throughout the agricultural community, that life in the Services encourages—I will not say "idleness"— a certain disinclination to do much work. It encourages a slight feeling for a six-hour day, so to speak. Agriculture is continuous and hard work. To put it bluntly, I do not think conscription is really the best training for it.

I will leave those points to the Minister for his consideration. I ask him once again to look at the matter, which is of the greatest importance for the country and for my constituency. I am grateful to him for coming here and for looking into the cases that are brought before him. I want to impress him with the fact that the concessions he has made, useful as they have been, have not been a complete answer. I beg him to consult his colleagues again and to see whether he cannot go a bit further to help farmers, and particularly the small fanner to whom this country has owed a great deal in the past and to whom the country looks in the future.

Mr. E. G. Gooch (Norfolk, North)

The hon. Member knows that I have an interest in this matter. I should like to ascertain from him exactly what he wants the Minister to do.

Mr. Grimond

I am unable to ask for fresh legislation, so I am asking whether the Minister can extend the regulations, as he has the power to do so.

Sir Ian Fraser (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

I want to thank the Minister of Labour for the standstill arrangement, which is very much appreciated in my constituency, whereby a little extra time is given for men in certain circumstances. Within the limits of the Act, the Minister can increase the number of persons he can defer for geographical or special family circumstances, and I would ask whether he can extend the consideration which is already given to men on the small farms, and to the auxiliary services.

10.17 p.m.

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

I am glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has raised this matter. It is good that we in the Ministry of Labour should have the opportunity of bringing the facts before the House, and that is all I propose to do, because they give an adequate answer to the points which have been raised. I will try to give as many facts as I can in the short time that is available to me.

I must start by saying that the Government's and the country's policy is that the call-up should be as far as possible universal. I am afraid I have a very soft spot in my heart for the Orkneys. I was there for a short time during the war, and was very hospitably treated, too; but it cannot be treated in a different way from the rest of the country. The only exceptions are in coalmining and in certain branches of agriculture and in the Merchant Navy; and for fishermen, provided that they are members of the Royal Naval Reserve Patrol.

Let me deal with the exceptions in agriculture. I must make it plain that we must deal with the cases in the country as a whole, although we try, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, to be as sympathetic as we can in cases where we know there are difficulties, either geographical, or because of replacements or problems of that kind. Let me state the existing arrangements under which young men in these islands are not called up.

They are not called up if they are agricultural workers in whose cases the conditions for deferment are satisfied, if they are fishermen, or are members of the Merchant Navy. As regards fishermen and the Merchant Navy the call-up is definitely suspended so long as the conditions continue to be satisfied. As regards agriculture, the conditions are not quite the same. They are not so absolute. I must make it plain that any agricultural worker born before 1933 is out of the call-up altogether. He is' indefinitely suspended.

So it is only the man born in 1933 or later with whom we are dealing, and I think I can show that even here we are dealing with them in a very generous fashion. I am afraid that the factors which made the Government of the day in 1951 remove the "blanket" in agriculture are no less present today, so there is no question of the "blanket" being drawn again over agriculture; and no question of agriculture not having to do its fair share of this necessary job of National Service. Nevertheless, I think the conditions are generous conditions.

Let us deal first with deferment, which is not, of course postponement. The conditions laid down are that there are not more than two whole-time regular male workers aged 17 years or over on the holding, in addition to the working principal. That is a condition which I should have thought very helpful to the working farmer. The next condition is that if there are more than two male workers on the farm the man concerned is employed substantially as a stockman. That is perhaps not so much help in crofting communities but it does take out a good number of them. But we feel that the first condition is really rather helpful in the case of the small-sized holding in remote areas generally.

Supposing, however, that the young men do satisfy those conditions, how do we arrange that they are considered and given full opportunity to state their case and have deferment if they are eligible? That is done by the Agricultural Advisory Panel advising our National Service Deferment Board. I must make it plain that the Agricultural Advisory Panel sits in Kirkwall. The National Service Deferment Board is in Aberdeen, I admit, but does not see the applicant under any circumstances. It acts on the evidence supplied by the Agricultural Advisory Panel, which meets in Kirkwall. I think the composition of the panel is reasonably fair, and takes care of local requirements. All applications for deferment in Orkney and the Shetland Islands are considered by the Northern Area Panel, which consists of eight farmers' representatives, of whom four are resident in Orkney, and eight workers' representatives, one of whom is resident in Orkney. We should like more workers' representatives but, frankly, we find difficulty in getting them. If we could get more in Orkney they would be put on the panel.

Meetings are held at Kirkwall. The Orkney employer members are called in turn and the Orkney workers' representative attends every panel meeting in Kirk-wall. The point I want to make clear is that their recommendations are sent to Aberdeen, but the decision in Aberdeen is clearly based on the recommendation of the local members' panel. I am sorry that it is not possible at present to put on the panel a representative from Shetland, but we are looking with a view to seeing if we can do something to meet that position.

The rules have to be observed, and I must make it plain that deferment can only be allowed on agricultural grounds, and we must not get that mixed up with postponement on hardship grounds, which is quite another matter. I think it is rather unfair—although the hon. Member did not press it very much—to say that the panels do not try to take as just and fair decisions as possible. They have no possible axe to grind. We do not set them very close rules and regulations, except that the man should fulfil the general rules and that the holding is making a real contribution to the country's production.

Mr. Grimond

If I gave that impression, I withdraw it. I meant no accusation of that sort against the panels.

Mr. Watkinson

I am glad, because they do a difficult job. They are all practical men, and I think they try to give practical decisions.

Before the recommendation of the panel becomes operative it must be unanimous. That is another point which I want to make quite clear. We do not accept majority decisions. All the members of the panel have to agree that a man either shall or shall not have deferment. That is another safeguard. If the panel does not make a unanimous recommendation our National Service Deferment Board will not accept it, and the matter has to be looked at again. [There is no argument. The man gets the benefit of the doubt.

The deferment board consists entirely of officials of the Ministry of Labour and is located in Aberdeen. This fact appears to have led to the misunderstanding that applications from the Islands are dealt with in Aberdeen. They are not. It is merely that the evidence from Kirkwall is, as it were, fulfilled in Aberdeen. It is the evidence from Kirkwall upon which the decision is based, and that is the normal way in which this system works. Now I want to turn to the question of permanent deferment. I do not think it is fair that there should be permanent deferment, but we often give up to 12 months at a time. We are very careful and liberal, particularly in that part of the country, with the extended deferments that we grant. That is shown by the fact that, last year, out of 121 applications for extension of deferment which were considered, only two were rejected in the case of Orkney and Shetland. That is not very harsh treatment. I agree that it is worrying for any boy and his family to feel that this is hanging over him, but we do not see any other way of dealing with the matter. Nobody likes the idea of National Service; why should they? But if the people really thought that the system was unfairly operated by my Ministry, or that there was some convenient back door, we could never expect parents to support it in the self-sacrificing way in which, on the whole, they do.

Now I turn to the question of postponement arising from hardship. This is dealt with in quite a different way. I admit that in this case, although it can be granted by a duly authorised officer of my Ministry, it is otherwise dealt with by a hardship committee which sits in Aberdeen, and if a man wants to appear before the hardship committee he has to make a very long journey. We have looked at this question, but as there are relatively few cases in Orkney and Shetland it does not seem reasonable to have a special sitting in Kirkwall. But that is something which we shall always keep under review.

The case law which has been built up is now very extensive, and it is usually quite simple to give a man a quick decision in a postponement case, so that he really knows where he stands. I can assure the hon. Member that we do try to be as sympathetic as possible in cases of extreme hardship. I know that these cases do arise, particularly in crofting communities. But there are many other cases of hardship, even in the southern parts of this country, and we have to try to be as fair as we can.

I have tried to state the facts as they stand because I think they may be helpful and may, perhaps, relieve some anxiety of the hon. Member's constituents. We do try to administer the scheme as fairly as we can.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.