HC Deb 03 December 1975 vol 901 cc1897-906

1.51 a.m.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant (High Peak)

The subject of this Adjournment debate is the beauty and the preservation of the beauty of our countryside. Let us remember that the countryside as we know it is not something that has just appeared as if by magic; it is the work and the partnership between the farmers and farm workers and nature itself. That has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. Future generations will not forgive us if we destroy this heritage. If we do anything to harm it, we cannot repair the damage.

Although at this late hour of the night or early hour of the morning I shall be referring to a part of the country which I represent, an area which is in a national park, I wish it to be known that I am speaking of the whole of the British countryside.

Let me make it quite clear that I do not intend to refer to legislation which is pending. I freely admit that I believe that productivity would be seriously affected were there to be a significant change in the tied cottage system. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Scotland the farm workers do not want a change in the tied cottage system. They realise how it would affect their jobs. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if I am wrong. I thought that the Minister was suggesting I was wrong.

I understand that there are real fears. When the Rank Centre examined the problem of tied cottages the question of insecurity emerged, and I realise the problems of the sick and of old age. In my constituency of High Peak, the local authority is fully aware of the problems. It has told me that it has found no problem concerning the sick or the tied cottage agricultural system. In its planning it has been able to ensure that when farm workers retire they are housed not in the towns but in the villages close to where they have spent their working lives.

I make two environmental points. First, houses are in the wrong places. Secondly, people are in the wrong places. Quite rightly, on planning grounds houses are not allowed in certain areas except for agricultural purposes. I believe it is right that houses which have been allowed for agricultural purposes should be so designated and should be maintained for agricultural purposes. They should not be sold as a part. They should be sold if the whole farm is sold. They should not be let.

If, as a result of a change in the tied cottage system, a position arose in which that situation was against Government policy, what would happen if the farmer lost his cottage? We could not look to him to build new cottages; he would not have the money. Somebody would have to find a cottage for the necessary worker, and if that worker subsequently decided to leave and work in the city there would be a snowball effect. This happens in the Hope Valley, in my constituency. Local people are not able to afford houses because people come in from the cities and buy them. Local authorities would have to house the farm workers either in the villages or in cheaper houses in the towns. As an alternative, local authorities might have to buy all the farm cottages and run them entirely on an agricultural basis.

That is an attractive idea at first sight. It was put forward by Lord Sandford in his report. But it presents many problems of administration. It presents the problem of deciding who is a full-time agricultural worker; it presents problems of rent collection and problems in respect of change of user in the case of the man living in an agricultural hereditament who decides to work somewhere else and who queue-jumps a housing list. Those are all administrative problems.

I want to turn to the other problem—the question of the wrong people. I turn quickly to the draft Peak District National Park Structure Plan, which is a well-thought-out comprehensive draft plan. It is in draft because the Peak Park Planning Authority wants to have full consultations with all the people concerned. The authority is fully aware of the problems of the people.

Chapter 9, paragraph 50 of the plan says that existing dwellings in the Rural Zone are occupied by families actively engaged in farming, forestry or related activities. Planning permissions for new domestic accommodation or extensions or modifications to existing dwellings will, in appropriate circumstances, be determined on the basis of this policy That is the first important consideration—that doing away with the tied cottage system in areas of beauty would make it extremely difficult to carry out that policy.

The second point concerns the point that I told the Minister I would mention. In chapter 10, paragraph 84, the plan mentions two areas. It says: The growth of employment in the Bake-well Area and in the Hope Valley has tended to increase the daily transfer of labour Many 'white collar' workers live in the Park but commute to work outside (mainly to Sheffield and Chesterfield). On the other hand, many ' blue collar' workers live outside the Park but commute in". I have never been able to find the definition of a blue collar worker. Although I have asked several people, I have received no satisfactory answer. I think it must include almost everyone who is not a white collar worker. This problem occurs in rural areas in which outsiders buy houses, so that the local people cannot afford to live in those areas.

The third example is the balanced community, which we all want. Paragraph 15 in chapter 10 of the plan states that the aim is to maintain a balanced community. Nobody would wish to prevent people from living in areas of natural beauty, but we cannot continue to build in those areas and at the same time retain the sort of countryside we want. We must go back to the idea of the partnership which has been built up over hundreds of years between all people connected with the land. That must be continued so that our heritage is maintained.

It is because I can find in the consultative document no evidence that this environmental problem has been considered that I ask the Under-Secretary of State—in whom, having known the office in which he was trained, I have confidence—to assure us that he will tell his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the damage that this system is likely to cause to the environment.

2.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Our insistence since taking office as a Government that we intend to keep our promise to end the tied cottage system in agriculture, coupled with the announcement in the Queen's Speech of a Bill this Session, has predictably provoked considerable debate. I therefore particularly welcome the temperate and constructive tone underlying the remarks tonight of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant).

I hope, however, that what I am about to say will demonstrate that we are not proceeding with the legislation without regard to its implications for both sides of the agriculture industry, local authorities and those who are interested in the proper planning of the use of the country's resources. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the preservation and enhancement of the countryside and the provision of the requisite amenities and facilities for enjoyment and relaxation by the general public. I appreciate the arguments which he has put forward and I pay tribute to the co-operation shown in the Peak district by the local authorities and the planning board.

I want to deal first with an issue about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. It concerns whether there are circumstances in which it is essential for a farm worker to live on the job. It is all too easy but not too helpful to come to a general conclusion based on extreme cases. We are examining very closely the evidence submitted in response to the consultative document and considering how best we can safeguard the genuine needs of agriculture while achieving the overriding aim of separating farm workers' rights and obligations as tenants on the one hand and as employees on the other.

As the consultative document indicates, there are two basic facts which have to be borne in mind. First, if application of a Rent Act code were to prove the best means of affording security to farm workers, the availability of suitable alternative accommodation would be the chief ground upon which a farmer could regain possession of a cottage.

Secondly, the industry has made a notable contribution to housing its own work force but at the same time local authorities are at present called upon to rehouse a considerable number of farm workers or ex-farm workers leaving tied cottages each year, frequently under the disturbing threat of court proceedings. The question here is to what extent and how local authorities should in future assist towards housing farm workers and ex-farm workers.

We are grateful to those who tackled this question during the course of consultations, even if their answers did not unanimously point towards a universally-agreed answer. We ourselves are studying it with the utmost care. It would certainly be rash for me to speculate prematurely on how it might best be resolved, and I have no intention of doing so. But I should like to believe that, by posing the question in the first place, and by making it clear now that it is well in our minds, many current misunderstandings about our pledge to end the agricutural tied cottage system could be removed.

The second matter which I want to tackle is the concern expressed by the hon. Member about the planning implications of the proposed legislation. I have been dealing up till now with an aspect of the legislation which is bound to affect farmers, farm workers and local authorities throughout England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman, however, laid considerable stress on a further aspect which is of particular interest in his constituency, namely, the planning implications. He emphasised his point by referring to the draft Peak Park Structure Plan, which if approved by the Secretary of State will provide a strategy for the development or other use of land in the park.

Without wanting to anticipate my right hon. Friend's ultimate decision, I can understand the case for maintaining or creating a balanced community, and I see no reason why ending the tied cottage system should jeopardise that aim. There is, admittedly, one possible area of conflict between planning considerations and the legislation which we envisage, though I would hope that it is more apparent than real.

It is indeed the case that many rural authorities in their planning capacity have long recognised the need to prevent development from marring the countryside or from taking place in unsuitable areas, while at the same time acknowledging the need for the agriculture industry to have its work force housed.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas (Mon mouth)

When a farmer finds that a worker in a tied cottage is leaving, is there not a danger that he will be tempted to allow outsiders to occupy it because the return would be much greater? That would take it out of the tied cottage system to the detriment of any livestock system that the farmer was operating.

Mr. Armstrong

The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to anticipate the forthcoming legislation, but we have the aspect he has raised very much in mind.

To meet both those objectives, these authorities have frequently attached to a planning permission for a new dwelling the condition that it shall be occupied only by a person employed in agriculture. Some of the more modern tied cottages undoubtedly have attached to their occupation a condition of this kind, which could, if unaltered, conflict with the objective of the legislation we intend to introduce.

It would not be satisfactory to accord protection to farm workers only to find that if they chose to leave agriculture their security might be vitiated by the type of planning permission attached to their home. But the precise means of resolving the potential conflict must not mean that sensible planning has to be abandoned. Where there has been a good case hitherto for halting the spread of building in the countryside, it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if dismantling the tied cottage system led to a reversal of policy.

Although it is here again too early for me to say precisely how we shall deal with this, there are two factors which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind. First, I have already mentioned the part at present being played by local authorities in housing farm workers and former farm workers, and the way in which a future réle might be shaped. I see no reason why whatever part local authorities play in housing former farm workers should prejudice proper planning. Secondly, I am encouraged by the existence of agricultural use planning conditions, not because of their aptness in any particular case but rather because they demonstrate that local authorities in their planning capacity are already aware of and responding to the special needs of the agriculture industry.

The hon. Member was also concerned lest the end of the tied cottage system could lead to farm cottages passing out of agriculture irrevocably because of sale to commuters or to owners of second homes. There has been over the past few months a considerable amount of loose speculation on the chances of this taking place. This presupposes in advance of our settling legislative proposals that the agriculture industry will no longer either want or be able to play any significant part in providing accommodation for farm workers and will thus be under an incentive to sell off existing stock as and when it can do so. I have every expectation that in the event fears of this kind will prove unfounded, and my hope at this stage is that the dangers of self-fulfilling prophecy can be avoided.

It is hardly fair to the agriculture industry itself to jump to the conclusion that, because farm workers are to gain at long last a security so long denied to them, farm cottages will be disposed of to outsiders with almost indecent haste. In the meantime, the hon. Member can be sure that I have taken careful note of his concern. He will, I am certain, agree that it can best be met by our making every effort to work to the guidelines we have already set ourselves in the consultative document. In particular we are aiming at a scheme which can, whatever eventually occurs, command the acceptance and the confidence of both sides of the agriculture industry.

Finally, let me turn to an anxiety which the hon. Member put forward in all sincerity—the spur which our proposed legislation might, as he fears, apply to the decline in the agricultural labour force. As far as existing farm workers are concerned, there seem to be few enough grounds for fears of a massive exodus. Vociferous opponents of our policy have stressed to me the unique working relationships which exist in agriculture and the need for these to be maintained. If our legislation can provide farm workers with a sense of security which they have hitherto lacked, surely their attachment to agriculture is likely to deepen rather than become loosened.

It may well be, of course, that some farm workers, as at present, may choose or may by circumstances be compelled to quit agriculture either temporarily or permanently. The difference, however, will be that they will be able to change their job without the worry of losing a roof over their heads. Legislation will certainly not be drafted so as to encourage farm workers to leave the industry in greater numbers than takes place already.

Reg Bottini, in a Press notice issued today, tells us that Some 300,000 farmworkers have left the land since the War—mostly from choice—opting for better wages and conditions.

Mr. Le Marchant

I thought that the letter written by Mr. Bottini was ably answered by the cowman in The Times on Monday. Living at 1,000 ft.—and I was in my constituency only 12 hours ago—may I say that in present conditions, if cottages there, at a height of 1,000 ft., were to go out of farm occupation, it would be physically impossible, as it was last weekend, and almost impossible now, to gain access from villages below.

Mr. Armstrong

If circumstances arise in which a farm worker wishes to work elsewhere, he will not want to live in a remote place, so that there is a balance that can be achieved. Reg Bottini went on to say: Bitter experience of the tied cottage has driven many of them away—never to return to agriculture. As for new recruits, I should have thought that the prospect of secure housing would be an enticement into agriculture rather than a disincentive. Indeed, one of the points on which we sought comments in the consultative document was the need for farm workers to spend a qualifying period linked in some way to service in agriculture before becoming eligible for full protection.

My conclusion from the broad consensus is that recruitment is unlikely to be impaired and may even be strengthened by ending the tied cottage system.

I conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman yet again for raising this topic in the way that he did. A prosperous farming industry is essential to the life of the countryside. It is a vital national resource producing food for the nation. It has an important part to play in conserving natural beauty and amenities. It is because I believe that the industry's long-term interests will be best served by giving those who work on the land and those whom we hope to attract to the industry the kind of security in their homes that the rest of us take for granted that I am able to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that his concern to preserve the best in our countryside will be helped rather than hindered by the legislation that we are now urgently preparing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Two o'clock.