CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (Hansard, 15 March 1961)

HC Deb 15 March 1961 vol 636 cc1689-706 1689

§ [Queen's Recomtnendation signified]

§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

§ [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to 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 on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act—

(i) in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act;
(ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1690 1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such cottar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid;
(iii) on any croft being declared vacant under subsection (5) of section eleven of the said Act of 1955 consequent on the death after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session of the tenant of such croft, in paying to the executor of that tenant the amount (if any) by which what would have been the value, immediately before the death of such tenant, of any permanent improvement on the croft if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the value of such improvement immediately before the death of the said tenant;
(iv) in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land, or any interest in land, which the Secretary of State is authorised or required by the said Act of the present Session to acquire in connection with the putting into effect of a scheme for the reorganisation of a crofting township, and in paying compensation to the owner of any such buildings or land, or to the holder of any such interest, as the case may be;
(v) which is administrative expenditure.
B. The payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act of 1955 attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.
C. The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Maclay.]

§ 5.28 a.m.

§ Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I presume that we are to have an explanation of this Money Resolution, which is rather long and which appears in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been here but is not now in his place, and whose name appears on the back of the Bill. I presume that there is someone on the Treasury Bench who is capable of explaining what this Money Resolution means.

§ Mr. Harold Lever (Manchester, Cheetham)
I should like not only an explanation but an assurance—especially after what was nearly a disaster on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, when we got a slipshod Money Resolution and the matter had to be brought before us again—that that fiasco of incompetence will not be repeated. I should like that assurance from the Financial Secretary, or Chief Patronage Secretary, or any other responsible member of the Government. Instead of the Committee being treated to a penitence for the errors in the Money Resolution, we were treated to truculence. In view of the lamentable way in which the matter was corrected, I am apprehensive, unless we have some explanation, that this Resolution may be as carelessly drawn as the previous one.
What adds to my alarm is the fact that the Minister seems to think that the Committee owes it to him to agree to the Resolution on the nod. I wish to ask you, Sir William, to protect the Committee from what I submit is an abuse of procedure. We ought to have some explanation—

§ 5.30 a.m.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
There has been no abuse of procedure.

§ Mr. Lever
Perhaps I used the wrong word. I hope that you will forgive me, Sir William. I have no intention of using words which are not justified. You will appreciate that sometimes a normally precise hon. Member, not necessarily myself, oversteps the line in the use of words, which he would normally use. We had an example of that from the 1692 other side of the House earlier when the Minister very properly withdrew an un-Parliamentary expression he had used; a thing he does not normally do. We all know him to be the apotheosis of courtesy. On that occasion he went over the line. If I went over the line, I withdraw it.
If it was not abuse of procedure, a general attitude of contempt for the procedure of the House seems to be creeping in on the Government benches. Judging from the way this Resolution has been presented, unvarnished, unexplained and without any assurances, the Government are giving the impression that they hold the procedure of the House in contempt.
The precedure of the House is subtle and sophisticated, and this procedure is directed at strangling it at an early stage because of the tyrannical inclinations of the Government who imagine that they can use their majority to steamroller the Resolution through without any consideration for the views of the Opposition, and without any consideration of the reasonable objections which the Opposition may have. I should like to see the procedure of the House shown more respect than has been the case recently.
It is understood that the Government are only too ready to reach for the Guillotine. The Government are ruthless in keeping the Committee sitting until this late hour and in keeping up many hon. Members who want to go to bed. Having kept us up till half-past five to get a Second Reading which could more properly have been taken at ten o'clock if the proper time had been given to it, we are presented with a most complicated Money Resolution. The Minister was here to explain the botch made of the last Money Resolution on which we voted earlier has presumably gone home to a warm and comfortable bed and left the Committee to make the best it can of an almost incomprehensible Money Resolution.
We are entitled to something more than that. I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will attempt a sort of amateur deputisation for the appropriate Minister, although it is very unfair that the burden should be placed on him.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
On a point of order, Sir William. Is the 1693 right hon. Gentleman now intervening more or less to initiate a Closure? He does not need to rise again if he answers now.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is not putting a point of order to me.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)
Hon. Members opposite must decide what they want. They first of all ask why somebody has not explained the Money Resolution and then, when I rise to do so, they tell me to sit down. They are confused at this early hour in the morning.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order. Before the Secretary of State starts to explain the Money Resolution, Sir William, surely he should obtain all the points of order which will come to him.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Points of order come to the Chair and not to the Minister in charge of the business before the Committee.

§ Mr. Maclay
Hon. Members opposite must straighten this out. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) gets confused. Hon. Members opposite ask me to explain the Money Resolution, and when I try to do so the hon. Member for Govan objects and his hon. Friends all stand up and want to talk. I do not see why I should not be allowed to speak occasionally in the debate. I am responsible for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said that this was a highly complex and difficult Money Resolution. When he spoke he did not have it in his hands, and I doubt whether he has looked at it, although I would not like to cast any reflection on him. I see that he is now studying it very carefully. I would say that this was a surprisingly clear, simple and easily understood Money Resolution. Sub-paragraph (i) authorises the Secretary of State to defray any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission arising from the Bill. Those words could not be more clear, and the hon. Member for Cheetham, with his very remarkable intellect, should not be in any difficulty with them. Paragraph C refers to: The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State". 1694 They are the clearest and most simple words imaginable. Subparagraph (ii) authorises the Secretary of State to pay to a crofter or cottar at outgoing any sum by which the compensation for permanent improvements that would have been payable to him under the old basis of valuation—that is, under Section 14 (4) of the 1955 Act—is greater than the compensation that is payable to him under the new "market value" basis of valuation, provided for in Clause 5 (2) of the Bill.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles) rose—

§ Mr. Maclay
I cannot give way. The hon. Member must let me explain some of the points that hon. Members have raised. In Subparagraph (iv) provision is made for the Secretary of State to meet the cost of acquiring compulsorily any interest in land which he is empowered or required to acquire in connection with the reorganisation of crofting townships, under Clauses 7 and 8. I do not expect any significant increase in cost arising from these provisions.
I could go on with the whole thing. Hon. Members should feel that this is a very clear, admirable and succinct Money Resolution, and I hope they will agree to it.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Mr. Manuel.

§ Mr. H. Lever
I had merely given way to the Minister, Sir William.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Member merely gave way I am at fault. I assumed that he had finished his speech and I called the Secretary of State on that understanding. But the House is in Committee, and another opportunity may well occur for the hon. Member to be called.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not speak to the Money Resolution and explain it fully. It is not the usual kind of Money Resolution that we get. It is a very lengthy and complicated one. If I ask questions arising from the words contained in the Money Resolution I take it that I will be in order.
It begins with the words: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with 1695 respect 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… To what grants and loans does that refer? We are told that, under the Bill, there could be aid towards the erection on croft land of buildings for ancillary employment which may not be agricultural. They could be chalets or a weaving shed. Is the assistance limited to agricultural production, or is there assistance for ancillary undertakings?
In paragraph A (ii) appear the words in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft What exactly does that mean?
Next, I should like to have an explanation of what the Money Resolution is intended to cover by the words in paragraph A (iv), in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land". I understand that it could be directed to land in the sense of croft enlargement or the creation of a new croft, but what about buildings? Would it cover the acquisition of arable land or an estate which could be joined to a croft in order that enlargement could take place?
These are but a few of the questions which arise. It is, in my view, a very complicated Money Resolution, and there are many other questions which ought to be considered.

§ Mr. Rankin
What is the position of the landlord under this Money Resolution? According to the Bill, a landlord will now be relieved of his duty to pay compensation in the case of those crofts which are hard to re-let, and Parliament will assume the present obligation of the landlord. Unkind people may, of course, say what I would not say, that this is the Government giving a little gift to their Tory friends; but I do not make a point of that at the moment. It is no more than a truism about the Bill. I want to be quite sure that the Money Resolution provides that Parliament will have sufficient money to pay those sums which were formerly paid by the landlord.
5.45 a.m.
The second point concerns the improvements which will be made to the croft. The Bill helps to create more buildings and opportunities for tourists, 1696 which will mean the building of chalets. Is there any limit to the building of chalets on a croft, and when a chalet has been built, will it be regarded as part of the house or part of the croft? According to the answer to that question, how will it affect the compensation, if it has to be paid? Will it affect the compensation which would be paid for the improvement, whether the chalet is regarded as part of the croft or as part of an existing house?

§ Mr. Swingler
The Secretary of State purported to give an explanation of the Resolution. We should have been only to willing to let him speak on the subject at the beginning of the debate. We wish that he had done so on the Bill. We are only too glad that he intervened to clarify this matter.
How much money is involved? What increase in expenditure is expected? Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of how many millions we expect to vote? The Committee should know the answers to those questions.
I cannot agree with the Secretary of State that this Resolution is clarity itself. It may be that the Secretary of State, being well acquainted with the Resolution, will cope with it easily, but I ask him to read A (ii), which authorises him to pay out money, and reads: (ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such cottar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid; You will have mastered that immediately, Sir William, but I find it difficult.
Surely it is possible to give the Committee an explanaiton or, even better, in the spare time of the Scottish Office or the Treasury to devise a simple Resolution for the Order Paper instead of this long rigmarole. I expect that at this stage it is too much to expect that, but before we conclude may we have an explanation from the Secretary of State of the amount involved and the increase in the amount?

1697

§ Mr. H. Lever
My hon. Friend has no legal training, and I am sure that he does not want to reflect on the draftsmen at the Scottish Office, who are very capable and eminently fitted for the difficult task which they have to perform. He may find it useful to have an assurance from me that that part of the Resolution which he quoted seems to me inevitably to be drawn in a somewhat complex way because of the complex objective it seeks to achieve. In the light of that assurance, would my hon. Friend withdraw his criticism against the draftsmen at the Scottish Office and focus it on the Minister or the Law Officer who is present and who could, if he had chosen, have given a proper explanation to the Committee earlier instead of the Secretary of State intervening in my speech to assure the Committee that it is all very simple. It is not simple, but that is not the fault of the draftsmen. I wonder if he would withdraw the criticism against the Scottish Office and apply it to both the Ministers.

§ Mr. Swingler
I am delighted to have that assurance from my hon. Friend whom I know to be extremely skilful in these and other matters. But I must point out to him that we have had tonight from the Secretary of State exactly the same kind of complacent assurance that we had the other day from the Minister of another Department, who commended to the Committee a Money Resolution which he had to admit later on was all wrong, and it had to be taken away and redrawn. No satisfactory explanation was given to the Committee. Most members of the Committee accepted complacently the Money Resolution which was all wrong, just as they accepted complacently the assurance that it was wrong—though I am certain that few understood why it was wrong—and accepted another Resolution which they passed, which only proves how often we do not know what we are doing.
Therefore, I am not altogether satisfied, in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in this matter is in alliance with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), or has his confidence—

§ Mr. H. Lever
I wish immediately to say that I have no confidence in the Secretary of State, and I am not relying 1698 upon his assurance on this point. I am far from sharing the view of the Secretary of State. I share my hon. Friend's apprehensions in general, having regard to the very unpleasant experience we had about the previous Resolution to which he referred. I would even reinforce that by reference to a point of order which occurred earlier in the debate—I think it was yesterday—in which it was alleged, and I believe with justice, that the House voted £2,000 million—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is going far beyond this Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Swingler
It is noticeable that we have had a Law Officer here throughout the night. He has carefully restrained himself from taking part in the discussion, and it is also noteworthy that at the moment he has no intention of speaking on this Money Resolution. I can sympathise with him, because it may well be that in a week's time this Money Resolution will have to be withdrawn because it will have been found that it was not competently drafted or was not sufficiently wide, and another one will have to be produced which we shall be expected complacently to accept.
I can understand why the Lord Advocate does not wish to commit himself to the details of this Money Resolution. He prefers to leave it to the Secretary of State, so that the Lord Advocate can come along and make the apology later and move the next Money Resolution if some changes have to be made. But as it is the Committee which is involved here, I think we are entitled to probe this matter in the short time that is available and to ask the Law Officer who is present if he would give us his views and his assurance that this Money Resolution is correctly drawn and that we shall not go through another White Fish business.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
The request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) is perfectly reasonable. After all, this is Scottish legislation, and there are a large number of English Members here who are not acquainted with the complexity of Scottish law. We have the Lord Advocate whose duty it is to explain Scottish law for the benefit of 1699 Scottish Members and to give us his legal advice, which he often gives us very competently and with great experience both in legal matter and in legislative matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) who is a member of the legal profession, is mystified about certain provisions in this Money Resolution. He has been seeking my advice, and although I know the answers I do not think that I have been able to convince him, as he is more acquainted with the technicalities of the English law than those of Scottish law.
This is a complicated matter in which lawyer should explain to lawyer. I am sure that the Secretary of State can explain more or less to the satisfaction of the Committee the piovisions of this Measure, but when it comes to complicated legal technicalities we need an explanation from a trained legal adviser. That is exactly why the Lord Advocate is here. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, who has taken such an interest in this debate. should go away under the impression that, by this Money Resolution, Scottish Members have secured some kind of victory and that a great deal of money will be provided by the English taxpayers to finance the provisions of the legislation.
I feel that my hon. Friend is under the impression that millions of pounds are going to the Scottish crofting counties as a result of this legislation—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. When the hon. Member says "as a result of this legislation" he is going a good deal further than the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Hughes
I think that I have made it clear that my hon. Friend is in some doubt about this, and feels that by means of this Money Resolution Scotland is getting away with large sums from the English taxpayers, and from his constituents. His apprehensions should be allayed.
In A (i) we find: …"in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act. Does that mean that the Government have accepted the point of view of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who pleaded 1700 for the appointment of a first-class commercial man to administer provisions of the Measure? A first-class man may be drawing a considerable salary. For example, if the Government have grandiose ideas about what finance is to be allocated to this new legislation they might decide to go to the I.C.I. for a first-class commercial man, and that would mean paying at least £24,000 a year.
We therefore want to be assured that hidden under these innocent-looking provisions there are not considerable increases in public expenditure. The purpose of Money Resolutions is to limit public expenditure, especially when we are at the time when we shall be told that we must not incur any greater public expenditure as it will lead to inflation. The point about a possible increase in administrative expenditure should be cleared up.
A (v) refers to "administrative expenditure". We are entitled to something more definite that such a vague phrase, which may well lead English Members to imagine that there will be an enormous increase in some way, and that the Scottish Members are trying to get something that, in fact, we are not getting. Indeed, the criticism that we get in Scotland will be, not that we are getting too much, but that we are getting too little. We should get some explanation to satisfy both hon. Members and the people in the crofting counties.
6.0 a.m.
There will be enormous interest in the financial provisions of the Bill and what exactly they mean in terms of hard cash in the crofting constituencies. I am sure that the speeches in the debate will be read in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for CentralAyrshire (Mr. Manuel), and in the Stornoway Gazette, the Oban Times, the Inverness Courier, The Scotsman and especially in the Scottish Farmer. There will be natural anxiety to know exactly what increased financial provisions will come to Scottish crofters and farmers.
There is considerable jealousy between farmers living in the South and farmers living in the north of Scotland. The provisions of the Bill do not extend to the south of Scotland, but the farmers there are always anxious to know whether crofters are getting more than 1701 they. There are grants to small farmers under the earlier Act. The crofters are watching vigilantly what the small farmers in my constituency get, and the larger farmers in my constituency are anxious to know what the small farmers in the North of Scotland are getting.
Does the Money Resolution contain provisions for adequately advertising in the columns of those papers the changed finance and provisions? Naturally, when people see that the House of Commons has spent a whole night discussing the financial arrangements for the Scottish crofters, something which, I believe, has not happened for fifty years, interest will be caused that here is something in which an enormous sum of money is flowing into the Highlands.
Therefore, instead of thinking in these vague, abstract terms, which are not very comprehensible to the Scottish agricultural population, we should have an attempt either by the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain not only to hon. Members, but to people outside. Has any step been taken to advertise and explain clearly what increased financial grants are available to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan)? As a result, in the Western Isles, the local newspaper will be full of all sorts of accounts of the increased financial grants that will come to the Highlands. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham will be read with great avidity. People will wonder why this interest is being expressed in money that is to go to Scottish crofters if there is no money coming to them.
There should be an attempt to reduce this verbiage to hard cash. What does it mean? I feel sure that once even the approximate sum is given by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles will go home to his breakfast having no great anxieties and apprehensions.

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
In case I do not leave the Minister sufficient time to reply, may I ask, Sir William, at what time this discussion ends?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
At thirteen minutes past six.

1702

§ Mr. MacMillan
The point on which I wish to address myself is a difficult one for me, and certainly for any crofter who reads the Bill. I refer to the establishment of the open market basis—

§ Mr. H. Lever
On a point of order. It seems that if my hon. Friend properly exercises his right to speak even for eight minutes on this topic, I shall be robbed of my undoubted right to address the Committee. Am I protected in any way. Sir William? I say with confidence that HANSARD will bear out that I said readily that I would give way to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State will bear me out, as well as HANSARD, when it appears. May I be told whether I will be allowed to rise after 6.13 a.m. to continue the speech which, I respectfully submit, has been illegally interrupted?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The position is that I have no option but to put the Question at 6.13. As for the hon. Member having a further opportunity to continue his original speech, which I understood to have come to an end but which he understood had only been interrupted, the fact is, as he will remember, that he himself had the opportunity of a very considerable and lengthy intervention in a speech of one of his hon. Friends, so he has not been hardly dealt by.

§ Sir Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)
On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) is behaving like an irresponsible child, and that the behaviour of Members opposite tonight has brought their party into disrepute?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The points of order have been excessive from Members on either side of the Committee.

§ Mr. H. Lever
Further to that point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members to raise bogus points of order which are offensive to their colleagues, who have toiled through the night, —

§ Mr. Rankin
While they were asleep.

§ Mr. Lever
—when Mr. Speaker has repeatedly reminded us that it is an improper procedure for such bogus points to be raised?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
In my experience, points of order have been raised on 1703 both sides of the Committee on all too many occasions.

§ Mr. MacMillan
The Secretary of State and I now have less than eight minutes available. Will he tell us how he is to set-up the market that is required to make the process of compensation operative? This is extremely important. How is the market value to be calculated when there is no market in existence, as is the position under the present law? There is no sale available to the tenant at present.
I hope that the Lord Advocate is addressing himself to this point, because it is difficult and intricate. At the moment, a permanent improvement erected by the tenant becomes the property of the landlord, and the tenant has no right of sale. There can, therefore, be no market. The tenant has the right to compensation only on outgoing. How can this open market be set-up for the purpose of the Money Resolution? How do we get out of this situation? We have created an unreal situation which we cannot get out of. How can we have an open market valuation when there is no such thing as the right of sale on the part of the tenant?

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
Section 14 (7) of the Act to which this refers says that the amount of compensation payable under the last foregoing subsection shall be the cost as at the date of crofters quitting. It adds that the landlord shall be entitled to set off the amount so payable against any compensation payable. That is the point, and we have had no time to discuss it because of the Government's dictatorial attitude.

§ Mr. H. Lever
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) will allow me to make this point. He has touched on it, and I am very anxious to make it. The effect of this part of the Resolution is, briefly—I do not know whether the Committee realises it—that the tenant gets less compensation from the landlord. Who gains? The landlord. The landlord dare not let the tenant suffer this outrageous loss. Who pays the loss that the landlord would have had to suffer? The public purse. The Resolution is one to let the landlord have some compensation and to quieten the tenant at the expense of the public purse.

1704

§ Mr. MacMillan
The general difference still remains that here we are talking in terms of something which, under the present state of the law, simply cannot exist. I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree with me. There is no such thing as a sale; there is no possibility of such a thing because the tenant has a right only to compensation for the improvements but has no property in the improvements themselves. May we have an answer to this?

§ Mr. Maclay
I find myself in a dilemma in that I have had all sorts of tempting questions dangled in front of me in the last few minutes, but, through no fault of my own, I find myself with only about a minute in which to speak. Perhaps I might in fairness say that, much as I should like to answer the very interesting question posed by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), it is really a Committee point and not a Money Resolution point. I have been tempted to go through the Bill, but—

§ Mr. H. Lever
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot accept the Motion.

§ Mr. Maclay
How many more minutes have Ito go?

§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillan
As the Money Resolution cannot—there has been no argument to show otherwise—be operated at all because of the absence on the open market of the right of a tenant to a sale and, therefore, the absence of a market, I should like to move, Sir William, to report Progress, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), on the ground that the Committee is completely persuaded that the position of the tenant—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. I must now put the Question.

§ It being thirteen minutes past Six o'clock a.m., three-quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).

1705

§ The Committee proceeded to a Division—

§ Mr. H. Lever
(seated and covered): On a point of order. I am aware that at 6.13 the discussion upon this very important Resolution falls and that you have no choice about bringing it to an end, Sir William. However, might I seek your guidance? Suppose that an hon. Member is in the middle of submitting a point of order when the time expires. Is it in order for the Chair then not to put the Resolution notwithstanding that the time has expired? I was about to submit a point of order but had no opportunity to do so because the time limit seemed to have expired and you put the Question—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The position is that the Chair has no option but to put the Question after three-quarters of an hour, and that meant at 6.13. Complying with Standing Order No. 1A, I put the Question.

§ Mr. GIBSON-WATT and Mr. G. CAMPBELL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

§ Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to 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 on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act—
1. (i) in defraying any increase in the expenses of the Crofters Commission attributable to any provision of the said Act;
2. (ii) on compensation becoming payable, after the commencement of the said Act, under subsection (1) of section fourteen, or as the case may be, subsection (I) of section twenty-eight, of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, in respect of a permanent improvement on any croft or on the subject occupied by any cottar, in paying to the tenant of such croft or to such costar, as the case may be, the amount (if any) by which the sum which would have been payable by way of compensation in respect of such improvement if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the compensation payable as aforesaid;
3. (iii) on any croft being declared vacant under subsection (5) of section eleven of the 1706 said Act of 1955 consequent on the death after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session of the tenant of such croft, in paying to the executor of that tenant the amount (if any) by which what would have been the value, immediately before the death of such tenant, of any permanent improvement on the croft if the said Act of the present Session had not been passed exceeds the value of such improvement immediately before the death of the said tenant;
4. (iv) in acquiring compulsorily any buildings or land, or any interest in land, which the Secretary of State is authorised or required by the said Act of the present Session to acquire in connection with the putting into effect of a scheme for the reorganisation of a crofting township, and in paying compensation to the owner of any such buildings or land, or to the holder of any such interest, as the case may be;
5. (v) which is administrative expenditure
B. The payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act of 1955 attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session.
C. The payment into the Exchequer of all sums received under the said Act of the present Session by the Secretary of State.

§ Resolution to be reported.

§ Report to be received this day.