HC Deb 27 January 1955 vol 536 cc542-51

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[Queen's recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland, and to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and the making of grants and loans towards the provision of houses and buildings for crofters, cottars and others of like economic status, it is expedient to authorise: A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act—

  1. (i) in defraying the expenses of the Crofters Commission established under the said Act and in paying remuneration and allowances to the members of such Commission;
  2. (ii) in acquiring compulsorily land which, the Secretary of State is authorised or required by the said Act to acquire by reason of its having ceased to be required in connection with the occupation of a croft or in, connection with the putting into effect of a scheme for the reorganisation of a crofting township, and in paying compensation to the owners and occupiers of such land;
  3. (iii) in providing grants and loans to persons being the tenants of crofts situate in the counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Zetland (in this Resolution referred to as. "crofters") for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural production on crofts;
  4. (iv) in providing assistance by way of grants or loans or by the supply for payment in cash of building or other materials towards the erection, improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses and other buildings for crofters, for occupiers of holdings constituted under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, on land acquired by the Congested' Districts (Scotland) Commissioners, and for persons being the owners and occupiers of crofts who at the time of their making application for such assistance were the tenants of such crofts;
  5. (v) in providing assistance as aforesaid towards the erection, improvement or rebuilding of buildings other than dwelling-houses for owners of holdings which are situate in the counties hereinbefore mentioned, are either of an area not exceeding fifty acres or of an annual value not exceeding fifty pounds, are owned by persons of substantially the like economic status as crofters and are occupied by the owners thereof.
B. The payment into the Exchequer of sums received under the said Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser

The Secretary of State will have heard a great many speeches today containing a request not to proceed with the Money Resolution this evening. Those speeches which did not contain that request most certainly contained arguments to show that the Resolution was inadequate for the purpose which the Secretary of State said he had in mind in bringing forward the Bill. We have not been told what the Government's intention is. I devoted probably the larger part of my speech to this matter, but did not get a word in reply, so I wonder whether the Secretary of State would answer some specific questions.

Paragraph A (iii) of the Money Resolution provides … grants and loans to persons being the tenants of crofts … for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural production on crofts. I want the Secretary of State to tell us whether that provision of the Money Resolution is wide enough to enable him or the Crofters Commission to assist the crofters who labour under such a great disadvantage in the marketing of their produce, a matter which was dealt with so fully by the Taylor Commission. Is there any provision in the Money Resolution for money to be made available by Parliament to assist those people in marketing their produce? Is there anything in the Resolution to enable the Secretary of State or the Crofters Commission to assist the crofters with the burden of freight charges either on the feedingstuffs or fertilisers coming into the area or on the produce going out? The Taylor Commission dealt with these matters at great length. Is there any provision for them in the Money Resolution?

Is there any provision for giving subsidies—additional to those made available to farmers generally—to the crofters for bringing in water supplies? Is there any provision to enable the Commission or the Secretary of State to make grants available to crofters who bring in supplies of electricity? Let the right hon. Gentleman look at the neighbouring countries of Western Europe, at the Scandinavian countries and Eire, and he will find that the small farmers in the remote areas in those countries are given subsidies to enable them to bring in a supply of electricity. Surely the crofters in the North and North-West of Scotland and in the Highlands are not to be forgotten.

Are there provisions in the Money Resolution to deal with these matters with which I have dealt briefly? There will be many others, too. If there are no provisions to deal with them, then it will be clear to all of us that effect has not been given in the Bill to the recommendations of the Taylor Commission.

Mr. Grimond

I wonder whether the Secretary of State would also be good enough to answer a question of mine on the very narrow wording of paragraph (iii). As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) pointed out, it refers to production and nothing else—and to agricultural production at that. Can a grant be given for subsidiary industries? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this does not preclude any form of grant in respect of occupations outside agriculture? Would he also look at the phrasing of the earlier part of that subsection and of paragraph (v), which seems to limit very much the discretion as to whom those grants will be paid. It might be considered convenient in future that some aspect of the Bill might be applied to people other than crofters—strictly so-called.

Then I had thought that there were powers in the Bill to meet the compensation payable on crofts. In certain cases that has been a very important factor in preventing the reletting of crofts. The compensation has been so heavy as to make it difficult. I thought that was something in which the Commission could help, but I see no reference to it in the Money Resolution.

I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer my questions as well as those of the hon. Member for Hamilton. I regret to hear that he is unwell and we are all sorry that we should keep him here late at night, but no doubt he is anxious to dispose of the business.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

All who are interested in Scotland recognise the importance of this matter, especially when we are told that this is probably our last opportunity of saving the crofting community. If I understood the Under-Secretary of State correctly, when he introduced the Bill he was satisfied that all the necessary powers were contained in the Bill for the Commission to carry out the Taylor Commission's recommendations.

Almost the last words of the Taylor Commission were that it should also have the duty of carrying out an active policy designed to promote the interests of the crofting townships in respect of production and marketing, and the encouragement of auxiliary occupations … In Clause 2 I think those powers may well exist. The Commission has to advise the Secretary of State on practically everything, but, unless there is provision in the Money Resolution for the actual finance to be available to carry out this work, all this talk is once again deluding the people of the Highlands and Islands.

10.0 p.m.

An examination has been made of just exactly how much money is being provided in the financial provisions, additionally. I think it amounts to between £170,000 and 180,000. It is actually detailed as to the items for which it is available and there is no doubt that there is not a single penny for the purposes of marketing and not a single penny for what the Commission said is vital, namely, an active policy … in respect of production and marketing, and the encouragement of auxiliary occupations. Without those occupations, the Commission has said with all its authority, the crofting communities will die. I sincerely ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, as it is so important and this may be our last chance, that he should withdraw the Financial Resolution for further consideration.

Mr. J. Stuart

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for what he said about me. In spite of my disabilities, I will endeavour to reply to the questions which have been put. I think the Committee will realise that the Financial Resolution is drawn very widely, as I will endeavour to explain.

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who referred to these points in his speech on Second Reading, raised one or two other points in this debate. I did not want to reply at once, because I wanted to hear what other hon. Members wished to say. The hon. Member wanted to know whether the Resolution was wide enough to assist crofters in the marketing side of their operations. The answer is that it is wide enough because, if the hon. Member will refer to the Resolution, he will see that it says: to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production. The marketing and produce of crops, I am advised, comes within that provision; that is to say, marketing is one of the operations of agricultural production. It is a very necessary operation; it is not much use growing a lot of chickens or pigs if they are not eventually marketed.

The hon. Member also very properly asked about provision for water and electricity in connection with agricultural production. That also comes within the scope of the Resolution. Where I think hon. Members perhaps went wrong in the Second Reading debate—I hope this will answer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—was that they were quoting figures of amounts which it is permissible to spend under this Money Resolution. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock mentioned the sums of £170,000 and £180,000. Those figures, or figures approximating thereto, were used during the course of the debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Ross

That is additional to what is already spent.

Mr. Stuart

If hon. Members refer to the Bill, they will find Roman figures in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I should emphasise that the Explanatory Memorandum is not part of the Bill. It is what it says it is, and the Bill does not start until later.

Let us consider each case. The second paragraph under "Financial Provisions" states: The administrative expenses of the Corn-mission are estimated at £40,000 a year. Expenditure under Clause 22 (1) on grants and loans for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural production on crofts is difficult to estimate as it will largely depend on the success of the other measures included in the Bill, but it may rise to about £200,000 a year. Again, Loans to incoming tenants … are estimated to involve expenditure of the order of £5,000 to £10,000 per annum. Assistance to owner-occupiers in respect of farm buildings (Clause 31) is estimated to cost £25,000 a year … These are all estimates. The final wording is: estimated at about £5,000 a year. These are purely estimates. They are done only for the benefit of hon. Members, to give an idea of what the taxpayer—after all, we also represent the taxpayers—may have to shoulder.

If hon. Members turn next to Clause 35 of the Bill—"Financial provisions"—they will not find any figure; they will find merely: The expenses of the Commission shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State. (2) All expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Parliament always has to vote the money, but no limit is stated in the Bill; it contains nothing but estimates.

The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to electricity supplies. As, I think, we are all agreed, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has made great progress; it has been continuing and increasing progress in recent years. My most recent information is that when the Board came into being, only one croft in 100 in its then smaller, original area had an electricity supply; but now, almost one croft in two in the present wider area is connected. The figures at 31st December, 1954, were: total number of crofts connected, 10,230; still to be connected, 11,570. The number connected in 1954–1,664 crofts—was a record. This shows that the progress of the Board is being continued.

If hon. Members want further elaboration, they will find in paragraph 51 of the Taylor Report: The introduction of electricity into crofting areas is going ahead with remarkable speed and is much welcomed by the inhabitants. Before the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board began to operate in the crofting counties, not more than one croft in every hundred had an electricity supply. That, therefore, is proceeding. At paragraph 102, the Commission said: What is the minimum provision of comfort and amenity which will induce people to stay? That is, in the Highland crofting counties This question may be answered in terms of housing, water supply, accessibility, and electricity supply, in that order of priority. We discuss these matters elsewhere in this report and need only say here that the first and the last of them"— the first being housing and the last being electricity supply— are generally receiving adequate attention. The provision of water supply is a matter of great urgency. I admit that that is a matter in which we all wish to see progress made, but, as hon. Members will realise, it is not a simple problem in the scattered districts. Nevertheless, that does not mean that we do not wish to see progress made. I hope that with this explanation, the Committee will be good enough to give us the Money Resolution.

Mr. Willis

I have listened to the Secretary of State with very great interest, and, knowing he is not feeling very well, I should not detain him if this were not an exceedingly important matter and if he had replied, as he has not replied, to the question—

Mr. Ross

He has been completely out of order.

Mr. Willis

—asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The Secretary of State quoted Clause 35 of the Bill to show us the very wide financial powers he has, but that is not in accordance with this Money Resolution. He has powers only in accordance with the Resolution, and those powers are very limited and very specific. The first sub-paragraph deals with the payment of the Commission and allowances; the second is in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land; and the fourth and fifth deal with buildings.

The third, which the Secretary of State claims to be so very wide, provides only for assistance to agricultural production. The burden of the debate has been that out of 22,000 crofters 17,000 depend on other, auxiliary occupations. What we have been asking is to what extent this Bill attends to that, and the argument is that if the Bill does not give us powers to deal with those 17,000 crofters out of 22,000 then the Bill by itself will not achieve what the Secretary of State said it will achieve.

Mr. J. Stuart

A croft is an agricultural holding. The Money Resolution deals with agricultural production. We are not now dealing with wool making or herring fishing. We are dealing with agriculture.

Mr. Willis

If the right hon. Gentleman has read the Report of the Taylor Commission he will know quite well that what I have said is right and that out of 22,000 crofts 17,000 are spare-time and part-time crofts. That is the bulk of them. The Secretary of State knows as well as anyone in the Committee that the crofters depend on other occupations, and if they cannot get those other occupations they cannot carry on their crofts.

All we ask, and I think this is a legitimate request, is that in view of the very great importance attached by both the Taylor Commission and by the House, as it showed in the debate today, to this matter he should reconsider that third sub-paragraph of the Money Resolution or consider adding another which will enable us to discuss the matter fully. I should have thought this a perfectly legitimate request to make. It is not asking a great deal. We are not opposing the Money Resolution. All we are asking is freedom to make the Bill what we feel it should be made.

The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider this in the spirit in which the request is made, because I am confident that even hon. Members on his side of the Committee would like to see wider powers given. Indeed, they asked for them in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill. It would be a courtesy to us, the Scottish Members, and it would serve the crofters themselves better, if further thought were given to this matter in the light of the discussion that has taken place today.

10.15 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). We have had a very good debate today. There has been the greatest co-operation between both sides, and I am sure it is the wish of everybody here that the very best that can possibly be done should be done for the crofting counties. We on this side are very much afraid that this Financial Resolution is drawn in such a way that the very best will not be done for the people in the crofting counties.

We must remember what an important part they can play in the economic development of Great Britain as a whole. A number of instances have been given but the Secretary of State in his intervention pointed out that the Bill merely dealt with agricultural matters. Surely it is clear that the terms of reference of the Taylor Commission required the Commission not only to find out how to make full use of agricultural resources, but how we can derive the maximum benefits therefrom. If we are to secure the greatest economic benefits from the crofting counties and to give the people in those counties a better standard of life and some hope for the future, we must take into account not only the things which are outlined in the Money Resolution but those things to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East.

We do not want to vote against the Money Resolution. Hon. Members on both sides want to make sure that there will be nothing in the Money Resolution which will prevent the Bill when it becomes law from being an instrument that will make it possible to ensure the future of these areas. I beg the Secretary of State to say that he will withdraw the Money Resolution, think over it for a few days and then bring back a Resolution which will include provisions to ensure that the Bill will meet those things which are dealt with so admirably in the Taylor Report.

Mr. J. Stuart

I think it is the fact that on all sides we want to do the best we can to deal with this problem. It is no wish of mine in any way to hamper the operations of the Commission when it comes to be set up, if the House and Parliament so approve. But we are dealing with crofting in the Bill, and not with the ancillary enterprises to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) referred. I know that it is of vital importance to the majority of crofters to have such outside occupations. They used to fish more than they do today, as well as farm the croft, and there were other occupations such as the knitting done by the women and the wool industry and so forth.

The Crofters Commission would be in a position to make recommendations and to advise any Secretary of State as to what it thought would be in the interest of the crofting community. There are already in existence other Boards, such as the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board, the Forestry Commission and so on and we do not want to set up a multiplicity of overlapping authorities.

Schemes are already in existence for rural water supplies and roads and other matters and therefore I honestly say that I do not think it is necessary to withdraw the Money Resolution. I have read and re-read it. It is in very wide terms. No limit is placed. It is a question of the Commission making the recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, doing his best to obtain the necessary funds to carry out the recommendations if they are wise ones. No limit is placed upon the operations of the Commission by the Money Resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.