HC Deb 29 April 1959 vol 604 cc1299-304
Lord John Hope

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after "crofters", to insert: and of the persons so appointed at least one shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests of farmers, and at least one shall represent the interests of crofters". The effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that the Secretary of State will appoint separate representatives of farming and crofting interests. Those Members of the House who were members of the Committee will recall that I undertook in February to consider whether we should or could do this, and I hope the House will agree that this Amendment meets the point that was raised.

Mr. Douglas Johnston (Paisley)

We are grateful that the Government have accepted in some small measure the suggestion we put forward that crofters should be represented on this Commission, but I am rather disturbed by the very limited representation that is being given. After all, crofters are receiving only one-twelfth of the representation.

Let us look at the composition of the Commission. There are to be two members who are nominees of the Nature Conservancy, and I have no objection to that. Indeed, I have no objection to any of the other representation. Then there are to be three other nominees of owners of land used for agriculture or forestry. That is a roundabout way of saying the Scottish Landowners' Federation. Indeed, if my recollection is right the document which has already been referred to puts it in under that name. Then there are two other nominees to represent the sporting interest in deer. That is just the British Field Sports Society. Indeed, its name was also included in the document.

The British Field Sports Society, I understand from information which the noble Lord kindly gave to me, appears to be substantially the same body of people as the Scottish Landowners' Federation. It operates from the same address, it has the same chairman and a number of the same committee members. Then there come three other nominees of those representing farmers and crofters, and that, I take it, means the N.F.U. There are two others from what are, in effect, the breeders of black-faced sheep.

Is it really suggested that the crofters are only one-twelfth as numerous as these other classes? I should have thought that in the Highlands of Scotland the most numerous class of person was that of the crofters. Would the Secretary of State agree with that? If that is so, their representation of one-twelfth cannot be on a numerical basis. Is it suggested that they are only entitled to one-twelfth of the representation because they have only one-twelfth of the interests of others? Surely not. The livelihood of a crofter depends upon his land and his crops, and his crops depend upon there being no marauding or colonising deer; indeed, no deer coming down upon his holding. Therefore, it cannot be that.

Is it suggested that they have only one-twelfth of the knowledge of deer and of what deer can do which these other classes have? It cannot be that, surely, because if any man knows about the damage done by deer—and, after all, this is a bill intended, among other things, to prevent damage being done to agriculture and crofting land—the crofter has more knowledge than any other person. Is it suggested that this House is interested only to one-twelfth in the crofter in the Highlands? We all know that rehabilitation in the Highlands depends on the crofters and upon the rehabilitation of crofting.

In these circumstances, may I ask what circumstances dictated that the crofters should have only a one-twelfth representation on the Commission? The only circumstance that occurs to me is that the crofters were not signatories to this document which has been so often referred to, but that is not surprising. After all, the crofters' interest is substantially different from, and indeed often opposed to, the interests of the Scottish Landowners' Federation. It is often opposed to the interests of the British Field Sports Society, and indeed, it is often opposed to the interests of the larger farmer and the sheep farmer.

4.45 p.m.

I wonder why it was that a representative of the crofters was not invited to attend this meeting. It is not possible for the Secretary of State to say that he was not responsible for the meeting, and that it was called by the Nature Conservancy, because I see that the first line of this document says: Following the invitation of the then Minister of State (Lord Home) this meeting was called. In these circumstances, what possible grounds can there be for limiting the representation of crofters on this vital Commission, which is to do so much in the Highlands—so much upon which the crofters' livelihood depends? Why, in these circumstances, should they be limited to the one-twelfth representation? Perhaps the Secretary of State will enlighten the House on this point, and tell us what dictated that the representation of the crofters should be no more than one-twelfth.

Mr. John MacLeod (Ross and Cromarty)

I am very pleased indeed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to put this extra representation on the Commission.

I sympathise with quite a lot of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), but the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that one crofter is worth twelve of the others, and I can assure him that a crofter, provided that he is representative of the crofting community, will be well worthy and well able to put the case for the crofters. I am only too glad that it has been decided to have such representation on the Commission, and I congratulate the Opposition on the part which they have played in this matter. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has seen fit to agree to it.

Mr. Grimond

I share some of the misgivings which have been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), though I am glad to see the crofters recognised as being important. I wish to ask one or two questions which, perhaps, the Secretary of State will not be in a position to answer immediately, though I hope that at some point he will be able to tell us which way his thoughts are moving.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to crofters, does he mean crofters strictly so-called, and not owner-occupiers of smallholdings? If that is so, I want to ask him how his representation of the crofters is to be chosen. What has he in mind? Does he mean a crofter, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod) seemed to imply, or is he thinking in terms possibly of somebody from the Crofters' Commission, who may not even be a crofter? The Amendment does not say that the man who is to represent the interests of crofters must himself be a crofter. Will he, in fact, be a crofter, or will he be chosen from some other body representing crofting interests?

Secondly, I should like to know whether there is a distinction drawn here between crofters, strictly so-called, and all other owner-occupiers who will, I take it, be covered by the term "farmers". There is some diversion of interest between the very small smallholder and the big farmer. The smallholder often feels nearer to the crofter than to the big farmer, and his interests should not be overlooked. They are occasionally overlooked because the farmers' organisations, I think, with the best will in the world, tend to represent the bigger farmers, and to overlook the man who is in between the crofter and the biggish farmer.

Mr. Maclay

Replying, first, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I should not like this afternoon to attempt to define precisely who is to be asked to represent any particular category. The Secretary of State's job is to find someone who can most adequately represent the crofters' view, and that is as far as I can properly go this afternoon.

As to the small farmer—and here I deal also with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston)—we have to remember the three representatives … from nominees of such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of farmers and crofters;… Farmers and crofters have many interests in common. In the whole balance of deciding the composition of the Commission it is quite clear that one looks on farmers as having interests in common with crofters, but we have added the crofters' representative because we recognised that there was a specific interest there which should be specifically represented. However, I do not think that this balance is in any way loaded against any section of the farming community —farmer, smallholder, or crofter.

Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has said, the crofter is very well able to speak for himself, and will have good company when he is speaking. Therefore, I think that it is a fairly good balance.

Amendment agreed to.