HILL FARMING BILL. (Hansard, 30 October 1946)

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, before this Bill goes through its final stage, I think it only right to say something about it which, so far as I know, has not hither-to been said in debate. As your Lordships will remember, on the Committee stage we had a great battle over the question of the tied house. It was pointed out that three months might elapse in getting possession of a vacant cottage at the end of twenty years, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that we on this side of the House had rather exaggerated the difficulty. There are three persons concerned—A, B and C: A, the proprietor; B, the tenant, and C the shepherd, who is the occupant of the cottar house. If B and C quarrel—at the end of the twenty years I am talking about—then C, the shepherd, has to find a new place, and B, the farmer, has to get a new shepherd. If C, being angry with B, decides to stay on in the house, then under the Rent Restrictions Acts, according to the noble Earl, he will take three months to move.
848 The point is that A is put in this position—either he may suddenly be called upon to pay back to His Majesty's Government the whole of the grant with interest, or he may have to leave his tenant unable to get a shepherd and to put him in a house and to carry on the flock. Shepherds are not fools. They will know very well where the trouble lies because they will realize that no proprietor can be expected to put his head in a noose in that way. Some of the proprietors, weighing up the whole thing, may consent to it. Amongst the old landed proprietors of England and Scotland you will find more men whose lives are conditioned by duty than in almost any other walk of life, and some of them may consent to do that, although it is not a business proposition. One of the results, if the Bill operates as I have suggested, will be that hill farms will cease to be hill farms. The land may be used for other things, but the hill farms cannot be used for sheep. Moreover, the effects of the Bill will come into operation long before the twenty years are over, because if we cannot improve the cottages of our shepherds up in the distant regions, where they have to live by their work, then we shall not get shepherds. People will not bring up their sons to go into a business where they cannot be properly housed and looked after, and in that way the hill farming industry will be very much endangered.
I remember a long period when sheep were a very bad paying proposition in farming. It was right at the beginning of this century, and at the time when sheep began to improve it was not very easy to get the shepherds for the expanding flocks, because shepherds are particularly highly trained men. I remember going to see a shepherd passing his sheep through a gate. There were about three hundred sheep and I said: "Are they all here?" He looked and said: "I do not see the gimmer with the black spot on her nose," When Milton talks of "And every shepherd tells his tale under the hawthorn in the dale," he is not talking of an operation of counting; he is talking of an operation of recognition as the sheep pass the hawthorn tree. It is true, as is said in the Bible, that the shepherd knows his sheep. There is this about it, that shepherds can leave sheep and go to cattle; most shepherds are pretty good cattlemen. The reverse is not true, that cattlemen can become good shepherds. Shepherds 849 require a very particular training. If the supply of shepherds falls off then the hill-farming industry is bound to languish, and the land may go to other uses which none of us desire. In that case, it will certainly be His Majesty's Government who must take the responsibility for having brought that to pass, because I am sure it will be acknowledged on the other side of the House that we have made the strongest possible representations on this particular point.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
My Lords, I am very glad that this Bill has had, on the whole, an extremely good welcome in this House. I think noble Lords have realized that we have done our best in this Bill to implement the two Reports, that of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is very satisfactory to the Government to find that that is appreciated and that, on the whole, the Bill has had a very good reception. There are, however, one or two points on which noble Lords were not quite satisfied in the Committee stage, and which I should like to amplify.
One question concerned the Amendment dealing with draft or cast ewes. I should like to point out that the reason why we did not accept that Amendment is that it would be an impossible task for any valuer to pick out such ewes from the list of prices given to him. He would not see the animals themselves but only a list of prices and the task would really be an impossible one for him to do. In any case the landowners or farmers can make provision in their leases as these provisions will be applied only to future and not to past agreements. Also, under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule, the general condition of the flock will be seen by the valuer and he will put the value up or down. I would like to leave this subject now, for although we realize that the provisions may not be perfect, this is a straightforward scheme; and if, later on, it does not work out as we anticipate, there is nothing to stop it being amended or modified.
The only other point is that which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has just brought up: that of the tied cottages, which I am afraid has caused a certain amount of controversy in connexion with 850 this Bill. I would like to point out that what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and other noble Lords are really asking for, when you get down to the substance of it, is that the owner should have power to turn a shepherd or worker out of his cottage in a week rather than a period which might be as long as three months. That is really the difference between us, a week as against a possible three months.

LORD SALTOUN
May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? In the country where I come from these engagements are always for a year and the man always knows whether his engagement will be renewed or not. They generally leave at Whitsunday and they generally know, as the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, knows very well, in February or April, if they have not made arrangements.

§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON
I know about that. I was thinking more of the shepherd who might have an accident. He might die and his widow be left in the cottage; or he might be dismissed, or he might give notice and go off. In that case it would be just the difference of time. I submit to the noble Lord that in earlier Readings, it was represented that this point might wreck the whole Bill, that landowners might not go forward with building cottages in spite of the very generous grant of 50 per cent., owing to the fear of this extra time. I think that that is an exaggerated fear. I would like to say finally that we do realize the difficulties of the hill farmers as being exceptional. They have gone through an extremely wearisome and troublesome period. It is for that reason that the Government are trying to rehabilitate the industry, to give them every chance to help themselves. In view of those considerations I hope that noble Lords will give this Bill a Third Reading and finally let the Bill pass.