HC Deb 27 March 1930 vol 237 cc768-76

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[sir. T. Kennedy.]

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I understood the Minister for Health would be here, or I would not have worried the House on the Motion for the Adjournment. I wrote him a letter today saying that, in view of his sympathetic attitude towards the deputation two days ago, and his answers given in the House, promising to consult the Royal and other societies before he puts this Tuberculosis Order into force, I did not want to worry him with the smaller matter of his attitude to the British Dairy Farmers' Association on this Order. But he wrote to me a letter in which he thanks me for my courteous letter, but hopes I shall be willing to-night to say that I find on inquiries that I was under a misapprehension in imputing inaccuracy to his Department. I am sorry to say I cannot do that, and I will give the reason. The British Dairy Farmers' Association wrote to me that they were pleased to learn I had given notice to raise the question of the Order of the Ministry of Health at the first available opportunity so that the views of the Association might be made perfectly Clear.

I must refer to the answer of the Minister of Agriculture which first of all raised this misunderstanding. I wrote to him that I was going to raise this question this evening, and that this question would come into it. In my original question I asked him whether the Royal Society had been consulted, and his reply was that the answer was in the negative. That meant that they had not been consulted, but he said that the Minister of Health had consulted the Certified and Grade A Tuberculin Tested Milk Producers' Association and also the British Dairy Farmers' Association. What happened was that the secretary of the British Dairy Farmers' Association wrote to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) an indignant letter to say that that Association had not been consulted nor were they in agreement upon it. I then asked the Minister of Health whether the British Dairy Farmers' Association had been consulted, and, if so, what was their opinion? I really do not see much use in going on if the Minister of Health is not here to answer me.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

He is coming now.

Brigadier-General BROWN

Now that the Minister is here, I repeat that the Minister of Agriculture informed me that he had not consulted the Royal Society but that the Certified and Grade A Tuberculin Tested Milk Producers' Association and the British Dairy Farmers' Association had been consulted. The Association wrote saying that they had neither been consulted nor were they responsible for the Order. Some of their members wrote to them complaining that they had agreed to the Minister's Order and they wrote a very indignant answer. On that, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the question whether he had consulted the British Dairy Farmers Association, and, if so, what was their opinion? He answered that he had consulted them, and he gave an opinion, which is hardly the opinion which they had already given him, because he had their letter by that time. They expressed the opinion that the Order was precipitate, that it severely penalised those who had embraced the movement for the production of purer milk, that it was an iniquitous reflection upon all animals outside tuberculin-tested herds, that it entirely dismissed the existence of fat stock, and placed an irritating and unnecessary impediment in the path of show-promoting agricultural societies. The statement that he made saying that he had consulted them was, as I explained at the time, and I am sure still, a misapprehension. It is quite true that the correspondence he was kind enough to send me, about an Order which began in November, 1928, had three points, as he puts in his own statement of the 20th March, which I accept. He said My department wrote to this Association on 19th November, 1928, saying that it had been brought to their notice that am- mals from licensed herds were exhibited at the Islington Dairy Show and that the condition as to separation from other cattle was not complied with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1930; col. 2097, Vol. 236.] That is segregation at the show. That was their point, that they had not been consulted on the Order, but they had discussed this and had had a meeting with the officials on the 15th September. The Minister says that suggestions were discussed, but not adopted, and that the association did not feel themselves able to comply with the Minister's requirements, but that is in regard to segregation of the cattle at their show, but nothing to do with my question about issuing the Order. The point was whether they had been consulted about the issue of that Order. They fully accept the interview and the consultation on the segregation of the animals. I do not think the Minister of Health's officials really know the difference between the segregation of animals at a show and isolation altogether, which the Order brings into force, which are two entirely different matters. He said to-day in his answer that many of those societies were willing to meet him over the segregation of animals at their show, but the same societies object to the order of isolation of tuberculin-tested animals altogether from the show. They were never consulted on the Order, and I think we ought to have been told the truth and the whole truth.

11.0 a.m.

There might have been a misunderstanding, but after all the Minister knows very well that he and his officials had an interview with the other two societies on the 15th January, but the British Dairy Farmers' Association were not there, and he knows that at that meeting this Order was discussed and, I suppose, settled. He is justified in saying the societies were consulted, but is he justified in saying that the British Dairy Farmers' Association were consulted on the Order, when they were not even at that meeting, but were only consulted on the 15th September about the other matter? I will read out the Order, which is as follows:— The Ministry has, however, now been informed that at most shows it is impracticable to take the precautions necessary to safeguard tested animals from infection by untested animals, and after consulting the Certified and Grade A (Tuberculin Tested) Milk Producers' Association he has decided that he cannot in future consent to the temporary withdrawal of animals from licensed herds for the purpose of sending them to a show unless the show is restricted to tuberculin-tested cattle. Why were not the British Dairy Farmers' Association mentioned in the Order? Because they were not at that meeting. I cannot help thinking that there is an honest difference and misunderstanding. In the first answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) on 27th February as to why he issued the Order he did not mention the British Dairy Farmers' Association, but in his second and third answers he did. In the Order he did not mention that association. One of these answers must be inaccurate, and that is the reason why I have raised this question. In the "Farmers and Stock Breeders Gazette" there is a letter giving the Minister's statement. There is a big headline to the article: British Dairy Farmers' Association justified. Minister makes an explanation to the House. No comment is made on the statement which appears to justify the British Dairy Farmers' Association. This association was not consulted in regard to the Order in any kind of way.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)

I have not the slightest desire to discuss the merits of this question with regard to tubercular infected cattle. I propose to address myself to the question which was put to me on 13th March last, following an earlier question put to the Minister of Agriculture, and to the statement which the hon. and gallant Member made a week ago. The hon. and gallant Member has talked about honest misunderstandings quite a number of times, but so far as I can see he has not understood the question which he put down on the 13th March, which was as follows: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown asked the Minister of Health whether he consulted the British Dairy Farmers' Association before issuing the circular which requires certified and grade A (TT) herds to be completely isolated from all other cattle; and what was their opinion? My reply was: Yes, Sir. The matter was discussed with representatives of the Association, who stated that it was not practicable at their show, to make the arrangements hitherto required by my Department as essential for the separation of tested and untested animals. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought fit, in a supplementary question, to make this statement: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretary of this association—I have his letter in my hand—denies that the Minister consulted them at all, and says that their opinion is absolutely contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said; and will the right hon. Gentleman take more care in his answers to give the truth. Subsequently the hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say: May I ask if this may be investigated by the Minister? If he finds that I am wrong, I will willingly apologise. But it was not. A false answer!"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1930; cols. 1489–90, Vol. 236.] I submit that that was a personal insult to myself and to my Department. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member has said many times that it was an honest misunderstanding, but one does not say that an answer is a false answer unless—

Brigadier-General BROWN

I do not want to have trouble with the OFFICIAL REPORT, but there was a great deal of interruption. I quite agree that it reads "a false answer," but I said that if it was not a false answer I would apologise. They did not, however, get the whole thing.

Mr. GREENWOOD

In answer to a question which was put to me, the facts were stated, and then I expected that the hon. and gallant Member would have made his apology, instead of which he rose in his place and said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I will not say what has transpired since, but I am here to answer his challenge, and I say that his statement was an unwarranted statement, and that the facts as stated by me were perfectly true. I was asked whether the British Dairy Farmers' Association—not, the only association, and indeed, on this matter, not the most important association—had been consulted before the issue of the circular. Now, to-night, the hon. and gallant Member asks why were they not consulted on the issue of the circular? If the hon. and gallant Member cannot use his native language in a way that enables him to express his opinion, I am very sorry, but I must answer the ques- tions that are put to me. The answer which I gave was true in the letter and in the spirit, and the hon. and gallant Member has never disputed it.

Brigadier-General BROWN

I raised this question to put the British Dairy Farmers' case before the House, and the answers have not accurately described their attitude in this matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD

But the hon. and gallant Member is misunderstanding the point. He asked me a question in the House as to whether, before the issue of a certain Order, I had consulted the association in which he is interested, and I said that I had. and he said that I had made a false answer. Now he is quibbling, as he has in correspondence with me, on the Floor of the House at this moment. I explained a week ago, in an answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) the precise history of this matter. The history of the matter is this. I am not going into the merits of the case, but the point is that there is an Order with regard to the way in which tuberculin-tested herds have to be treated at agricultural shows. The fact is, and it is beyond dispute, that the conditions prescribed by the Order were not being fulfilled. That was brought to the notice of the British Dairy Farmers' Association. They replied in a letter last September. They were brought into conference, and the secretary, who denies having been consulted, was present, and he cannot deny it.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON

Were the British Dairy Farmers' Association consulted with reference to the issue of this Order?

Mr. GREENWOOD

I am dealing with the question which was put to me on the 13th March, where the honour of my Department was impugned, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman—[Interruption.] It seems to him to be something irrelevant, but the point is this. I will read the question again: Whether he consulted the British Dairy Farmers' Association before issuing the circular which requires certified and grade A (T T) herds to be completely isolated from all other cattle. My answer was "Yes," arid that cannot be denied by any Member of the British Dairy Farmers' Association, because they not only wrote, but they came to the Ministry and discussed this very question in all its aspects last September. One of the persons who was a member of that deputation was the secretary of the association. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman denies that they were ever consulted at all. In view of that fact and in view of the question that was put to me, I say that I ought to have received, a fortnight ago, an apology from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am not in the least concerned about what the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks about my political views, or what he says about them, but I think it is unfair of a Member of this House to ask a question and to challenge the veracity of the Minister who answers and the integrity of the Department for which that Minister is responsible. All that he has done since 13th March has been to snake the situation worse from his point of view. I have given, as he knows, every opportunity for making what I think is the response that he ought to have made. He has refused to do it.

Brigadier-General BROWN

I made the response that I thought I ought to make and not what the right hon. Gentleman thinks I ought to have made.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The hon. and gallant Member said this was due to an "honest misunderstanding." I do not accept that at all. I gave a perfectly frank answer to the question that he asked, and he said that if he was wrong he would apologise. I have given him a fortnight in which to do it and he has declined to do it.

Brigadier-General BROWN

Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD

That is quite apart from the merits of the case, which I refuse to discuss to-night because it is not at issue. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member in the interests of the cause he is trying to serve would at least realise that a Department like mine would not be guilty of falling into the mistake of what he has called "an honest misapprehension." We are as much concerned with the problem of a pure milk supply as he is. The Department will be there long after he and I have departed from public life. We are as much concerned as he is or even as the British Dairy Farmers' Association—indeed, I would say that as the Ministry of Health we are even more concerned with the problem of a pure milk supply than the British Dairy Farmers' Association—for it is concerned with quite other interests than those of public health. The imputation which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that my Department is so stupid that it cannot read plain English, that it is guilty of "honest misunderstandings" about perfectly plain facts when, as a matter of fact, there is no body of civil servants more concerned with the problem that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has at heart than the officers of the Ministry of Health. I shall leave the matter where it is, and I shall not lose by it. But I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an opportunity of withdrawing the statement that he made which reflected on the honour of my Department. I leave myself out of it personally, though I take responsibility for the Department. I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an opportunity of withdrawing the imputation which he has made against the Department. If he does not choose to do that, I will leave the matter where it is and leave it with him and his conscience.

Brigadier-General BROWN

In my statement to the House, I withdrew all charges of bad faith against the Minister or the Minister's Department, and I should like to say at once that I never intended to impute bad faith at the time, when I thought his answer was incorrect. I said that my question was misunderstood. While accepting the statement that the Minister's answer was given in good faith, I said that I would raise the question at the first opportunity, so that the position of the Dairy Farmers' Association might be made perfectly clear. I have withdrawn all charges of bad faith already, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. GREENWOOD

The hon. and gallant Gentleman still does not seem to understand his native language. He made two statements which were not statements about misunderstanding or good faith. One said this: Will the right hon. Gentleman take more care in his answers to give the truth. That has nothing to do will good faith. Later he said I had given a false answer. Those two statements still remain. What he says about my good faith does not matter. The charges he has made still remain. They remain on his conscience and not on mine.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eleven o'Clock.