HC Deb 20 November 1957 vol 578 cc520-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

The case which I wish to raise tonight, affecting my constituent, Mr. J. M. Davidson, of High Trees, Swanbridge, in the County of Glamorgan, has a very long history. It started in January, 1949, when Mr. Davidson learned that about nine-and-a-half acres of freehold land at Swan-bridge was for sale. Part of this land had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture in March, 1941, and had been farmed by the Farms Department of the Glamorgan County Agricultural Executive Committee since that date.

I wish to emphasise that at that time Mr. Davidson could be regarded only as an amateur or a novice. He went into this business intending to grow market garden crops, soft fruit and flowers. Quite sensibly, he sought the advice of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, which is run by my hon. Friend's Department, and he was told by the Service that the land was in good heart and suitable for the purpose which he had in mind. It seems, also, that this contention was made by the agricultural committee itself, and Mr. Davidson was required to pay a sum of money to meet the Ministry's claim for the value of un-exhausted superphosphate. I am also told that he was advised that he had no claim against the Ministry under the compensation provisions of the Defence Act, 1939, owing to the supposedly good condition of the land.

There are two reasons, I respectfully submit, that we may doubt whether the land was, in fact, in good heart when he first contemplated his purchase.

I have made some inquiries about this land and have learned from persons closely acquainted with it that it certainly was not in good heart before the war, and certainly was not in good heart at the time of its acquisition by the Ministry in 1941. A friend of mine who owned adjacent land in Swanbridge, in 1939, has told me quite recently that in that year the land now occupied by Mr. Davidson was in very poor condition.

My hon. Friend may assert on behalf of the Ministry that during the years of the Ministry's occupation, through its agents, the Glamorgan Agricultural Executive Committee, the land was greatly improved, but it is doubtful whether this can be accepted, because in March, 1952, Mr. Davidson, who had proceeded with the purchase in May, 1949, again sought the advice of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. On this occasion he received a different opinion from that Service, and received a letter which stated: The land since the beginning of the war has been constantly overcropped and the texture and organic contents reduced to a dangerously low level. This was, indeed, difficult to reconcile with the earlier contentions of the Ministry's agents and, indeed, of the Advisory Service of the Ministry that the land was in good heart. It is a pity that my constituent did not receive this advice sooner, before he had committed himself and his wife to this venture.

At this stage, my hon. Friend may seek refuge in the ancient legal adage of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. That may be good advice when two persons are concerned in a commercial transaction, but in the circumstances that I have tried to outline, where a great and powerful Department of State passes on requisitioned land to a person who reveals his lack of knowledge by relying on an Advisory Service run by that Department of State, I respectfully submit that there is upon the Department an extraordinary duty transcending the strict legal obligation existing between two people; an extraordinary duty to make sure that it does not "sell a pup" to the purchaser.

My constituent contends, and has always contended, that he was, in fact, "sold a pup" by the Ministry through its agents; that he was induced to purchase this piece of land by the inaccurate representations of the vendors, who were the agents for the Ministry, and that he was misled into purchasing the land by the original advice given by the Ministry's own Advisory Service. I believe that these facts and circumstances alone merit the fullest public inquiry—

Mr. John Mackie (Galloway)

Can the hon. Gentleman give any figure of the rate of purchase for the land—the year's purchase of the tenancy?

Mr. Gower

Not now. The figures of the purchase, and so on, are well known to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) will give facts to supplement what I have to say.

As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the Ministry and my constituent later became involved in certain legal and administrative conflicts. Mr. Davidson's holding was placed under supervision in 1953. Because of the poor condition of the land when he acquired it, his financial position had naturally deteriorated. I can assure the House that having his holding placed under supervision was a very serious financial blow to Mr. Davidson, but I really wonder how anybody could be expected to have the land effectively farmed in January, 1953, when it was placed under supervision, when such an adverse opinion of the condition of the land had been expressed by the Ministry's own Advisory Service only a year earlier.

My hon. Friend is aware that there were court proceedings, in which Mr. Davidson was sued by the Ministry for certain materials supplied and certain work alleged to have been carried out.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Mr. Gower

My constituent counterclaimed for what he contended to be the misrepresentation which induced him to acquire this land. It would be improper, in this debate, for me to speak about the merits of the judgment, except this. It is a fact that in the court proceedings certain evidence was adduced, and among that evidence were certain signatures on receipts for certain commodities supplied to Mr. Davidson. He has contended throughout that some of these things were not supplied to him, and he asserted in the court proceedings, and still asserts, that some of the signatures were forgeries.

It is very interesting that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and I asked my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to make an inquiry into the circumstances in which these documents were signed. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have refused to do this, but I have obtained a copy of the report of the Home Office Forensic Laboratory, South Wales and Monmouthshire area, and I propose to read that to the House. It is dated 19th February, 1955, and it says: It is abundantly clear from the photographs and also from the specimens given to the police that Davidson is not skilled in the use of a pen and for this reason it would not be beyond the skill of a forger of moderate ability to forge the two questioned signatures and leave little trace of having done so. It goes on to say: There are also certain differences between the letter design of the questioned signatures and the letter design of the signatures attributed to Davidson. I respectfully submit to my hon. Friend that even on the basis of that original letter this is a case for the most complete inquiry. My hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and myself last week at Question Time that it would be improper to reveal police information to this House. I submit that that is a most ludicrous statement. Can we imagine that in a case tried in the High Court of Justice the jury would not see evidence of this kind? Does my hon. Friend suggest for a moment that they would assume, without seeing documents of this kind, the guilt or otherwise of the defendant or the prisoner?

I submit that it is not improper that this House, which, after all, is in many ways the supreme court of the realm, should have cognisance of such important information as this. We would be neglecting our duty as Members of the House if we did not assure my hon. Friend that we intend to press him on this point, not only tonight but, if he cannot give us some satisfactory assurance, again and again.

In conclusion—because I want the hon. Member for Cardiff, West to have an opportunity of making some supplementary remarks—I submit that, in the first place, my constituent was induced by misrepresentation, either deliberate or otherwise, to acquire this land. He acquired it in good faith as a person inexperienced in agriculture. It was land which was held out by the Ministry's own Advisory Service to be in good heart. It was not in good heart, on the evidence of that same Advisory Service four years later. Secondly, the court proceedings were in some degree influenced by evidence which the report of the forensic laboratory shows to be at best extremely suspect.

I call upon my hon. Friend to reverse his previous decision and say that he or his right hon. Friend will institute the most complete inquiry into these unusual facts.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I rise to support the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) because this is a case which has caused considerable anxiety throughout South Wales. We are deeply grateful to the Western Mail and South Wales Echo for the considerable publicity they have given to this little man who is fighting a Government Department.

I regard it as one of the most serious cases it has been my responsibility to handle. The Minister will know that Mr. Davidson has for the past four years alleged that his Department submitted to the County Court at Cardiff documents which, he warned them, had forged signatures upon them. He warned the Department's solicitor, but none the less they were submitted to and accepted by the court as evidence. Now the Parliamentary Secretary may say, "These were not important documents." I do not care what they were. If they were used in evidence and accepted by the court in proving anything against Mr. Davidson then a most serious position prevails.

From time to time, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry and I have, by Questions in this House, pursued this very matter. All the time the Minister has sheltered behind his undoubted authority and refused to reveal the facts. He invited us to meet him privately. On 7th November I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary. I will read the germane part of it to the House: I promised to write to let you know the result of the investigations which the police have been making into the allegations made by Mr. J. M. Davidson. I am glad to be able to say that the thorough investigations by the police, while revealing"— I ask the House to note these words— some lack of uniformity in the signatures on the documents, have established beyond question that there is no basis for the continuance of the investigations. The person against whom the allegations are made is the Minister—his Department—and the Minister is being judge and jury and defendant in this matter. Surely, if a citizen of the realm maintains that his name was forged upon a document used by the Ministry of Agriculture, he has a right to know whether the police agree or not after their investigation. I should have thought that it was an elementary right which anyone has that a Government Department shall publish a police report which concerns its activities and not Mr. Davidson's. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make clear to the House his attitude beyond a peradventure on this question. My last point, because I know that the Minister will want full time to reply, is this. I have in my hand a letter which Mr. Davidson sent to me, one, I suppose, of hundreds that I have received from this gentleman during the past few years. The hon. Member for Barry knows that if Mr. Davidson was not competent at the pen before he is very competent now. He writes with a most characteristic handwriting, and clear handwriting. I never need to open his letters to me to know whose writing it is. I look at the envelope and I understand that Mr. Davidson is once again campaigning.

This House is the champion of the people's liberties. Over Crichel Down both sides of the House showed that they were prepared to take strong action. I say that this little man, who has been fighting a lone battle through these years, has a right to hear from the Minister tonight that he is willing to allow the fullest investigation into Mr. Davidson's charges that the Department has been found guilty by the police, that it did use such documents in a court of law. I take it that the Minister's letter to me, when he says that there is "lack of uniformity", confirms that there was irregularity. According to my knowledge of the English language, "irregularity" is synonymous with "lack of uniformity."

I earnestly hope that the Minister will give not only to the hon. Member for Barry and myself, but to the wider public in South Wales, a complete answer upon this disturbing case.

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for raising this matter tonight and I am grateful to him and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for speaking as frankly as they have done on this occasion. I realise the feelings that they hold in this matter, but I shall seek to show in the course of my remarks that I do not think their strictures justified. Over a long time, Mr. Davidson has raised a whole series of allegations and, from time to time, some of them have been brought up in the House. Although the case has dragged on for several years, we have not previously had an opportunity of reviewing it in its entirety in a debate such as this, and I am glad that there is this opportunity tonight.

I should like to put the matter into perspective. The case centres mainly upon 3½ acres of agricultural land which Mr. Davidson bought privately at a time when it was under requisition by the Glamorgan Agricultural Executive Committee. In view of statements published in the Western Mail on the 12th of this month referring to irregularities in land sale signatures, I should like to make it quite clear that, as I said in reply to a supplementary question only last Monday, the Ministry of Agriculture did not sell this or any other land to Mr. Davidson. Any dispute over signatures is confined to some documents concerning some ploughing and cultivations, and I shall deal fully with that later on.

It may be convenient if I recapitulate a little and summarise Mr. Davidson's grievances collectively before I come to them individually. The Glamorgan A.E.C. had promised that, if Mr. Davidson succeeded in buying the land, it would derequisition it to him. I emphasise that because my hon. Friend the Member for Barry made a point claiming that we had induced Mr. Davidson to buy the land. That is very far from the truth. We took no steps to encourage him. The original letter from Mr. Davidson, dated 7th February, 1949, which I have in my hand, says: Dear Sir, I am writing to find out whether you would be prepared to release the field of approximately 3½ acres on the Evans Estate at Swanbridge, Glam., which I understand you hold. I have been searching around for horticultural purposes for the past couple of years, and the Evans Estate are prepared to sell me this plot of land and provided I am able to obtain possession I am prepared to buy it. That was the original request, and that was the request we acceded to. The Committee fully honoured its undertaking to derequisition, and Mr. Davidson, on his part, fulfilled an agreement to pay £10 for the unexhausted manurial value, to which my hon. Friend referred. All this was in 1949.

Early in 1953, nearly four years after he had entered into possession, Mr. Davidson was placed under supervision for bad husbandry of this and other land. In the same year, he alleged that the A.E.C. had misrepresented the condition of the derequisitioned land, had not paid heed to his representations against the proposal to place him under supervision, and had been tardy in executing contract cultivation. He contended also that officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service gave him conflicting advice, and that an officer of the Agricultural Land Service adopted an unreasonable attitude. He complained that our officers had neglected to deal with his drainage and water supply schemes, alleging also that some contract work undertaken by the Committee's machinery department was incomplete and otherwise unsatisfactory, and that his signature had been forged on certain of the contract documents.

Here then is what the Western Mail described as "the multifariousness" of Mr. Davidson's allegations. The complaints that have been made are wide in range, and, if substantiated, would reflect seriously not only on the Glamorgan A.E.C., but on a wide range of officials. A picture has been painted of a lone battle by an individual who appears convinced that the forces of authority have been mobilised against him.

I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of hon. Members that sympathy and consideration to the individual have not been lacking in this instance. I emphasise that in view of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.

Indeed, I am constrained to suggest that in this case my hon. Friend has afforded a very necessary opportunity for protection of quite another kind which Ministers can and should afford both to voluntary workers and civil servants who discharge their policies and who may be subject—as in this case I suggest—to repeated and unjust attacks on their conduct, efficiency and integrity. I emphasise that very strongly.

I should like to deal briefly with a number of allegations which have been made before turning to the main points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry. It is simply not true to say that the Glamorgan Committee did not pay heed to Mr. Davidson's representations against its proposal to place him under supervision. The Committee arranged a meeting to hear his representations, but he did not turn up. It gave him a second opportunity and when he attended it fully considered all he had to say. The supervision order was finally withdrawn nearly two years ago.

Nor is there any substance in the suggestion that officials were dilatory in dealing with rabbit infestation on or near Mr. Davidson's land. It was first necessary to reach agreement with British railways to clear rabbits in an adjoining halt, and later surveys disclosed that there was no longer any heavy infestation.

Again, requests for machinery contract services must be dealt with in rotation, and Mr. Davidson's applications were handled as soon as possible after they had been received. I only wish that Mr. Davidson had settled our accounts as quickly as we responded to his calls for services. In fact, his accounts, totalling over £90, have never been paid.

Turning to the question of conflicting advice, Mr. Davidson contends that on taking possession he was advised to plant a certain area with fruit trees, but that on a later visit he was advised to plant the trees elsewhere. This is true, but an interval of at least two years elapsed between the visits, and, judging from the conditions found on the second visit, Mr. Davidson had not prepared the land in accordance with advice given at the first visit. As a result, certain perennial weeds had grown up and were choking the young trees. Hence the advice to replant them elsewhere.

I will now deal with the condition of the land at the time it was derequisitioned. Mr. Davidson has alleged that the A.E.C. undertook to leave it in a clean state and failed to do so. This allegation is scarcely consistent with the fact that when this land was derequisitioned it was carrying a good crop of broccoli. After this crop had been cleared, Mr. Davidson asked the A.E.C. to pull and carry away all the stumps and to plough the land. The Committee met this request, even though normal farming practice is to plough in the stumps. There appears to have been some misunderstanding about who was to pay for the ploughing, but Mr. Davidson has no cause for complaint, because the Committee later gave him the benefit of the doubt and agreed not to charge him for it.

The more controversial question is the level of fertility in the soil at the time of derequisition. I advisedly say "controversial", because the land was derequisitioned as far back as 1949, and Mr. Davidson did not lodge his complaint until 1953. It is virtually impossible to reconstruct the condition of land after an interval of that kind. We can speak only from the testimony of officers concerned, who recollect that it was in reasonably good heart and carrying, as I have said earlier, a good crop of broccoli. Our only firm evidence is a soil analysis, the results of which were sent to Mr. Davidson two months after the land had been derequisitioned in 1949. This analysis revealed no chemical deficiency—I emphasise that to my hon. Friend—and thus testifies to the technical thoroughness with which the A.E.C. had been applying fertilisers while the land had been under requisition. On the other hand, the analysis did suggest some organic deficiency, which could only be expected, where, as in this case, the land had been under arable crops since the early years of the war.

My hon. Friend has referred to an advisory letter sent to Mr. Davidson in 1952 when he himself had been managing the land for nearly three years The House may agree that the soil analysis which I have described, taken in 1949, is really more relevant to the condition of the land at the time that it was derequisitioned. That really is the position. We cannot say that in 1949 the land was bad because in 1952 certain criticisms were made.

Before leaving this particular allegation, I want to make two important points with which, I think, hon. Members would readily agree. The first is that land which may be handed over in reasonable condition for arable agricultural cultivation may require special preparation before, as in this case, it is used for soft fruit or horticultural production. The two things are different. Indeed, the National Agricultural Advisory Service gave Mr. Davidson detailed written advice to that effect shortly after he took over. I emphasise that strongly, because it is an important point which must be borne in mind.

Secondly, when taking over land, it is normal to employ a valuer. Mr. Davidson did not do so. If he had done, this dispute would never have arisen. I am sorry that he did not do so, for we should then have had a clear record.

That brings me to the allegation which has obviously caused both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West the most disquiet. I refer to the allegation that Mr. Davidson's signature was forged on a contract sheet and job cards used for some contract operations on his land. These operations were undertaken by the A.E.C.'s machinery department during May, 1950. They consisted of some ploughing, cultivating, harrowing and rolling and the charge for these operations was £9 11s. 2d. This sum formed part of the unpaid accounts which I have already mentioned and which totalled £90 11s. 4d.

Having failed to obtain settlement from Mr. Davidson, we took legal action to recover the debt. The case was heard in the Cardiff Court on 13th January, 1954, and we were awarded judgment with costs. I must make the point that we never succeeded in obtaining payment and when, two years later, my hon. Friend the Member for Barry drew our attention to Mr. Davidson's financial plight, we obtained special authority from the Treasury to waive the entire debt as an act of grace. That includes the debt to which the disputed signatures refer. I stress this point because I should not like the House to be under any illusion on two points about the work the signatures for which are in dispute.

First, it has never been suggested in any quarter that the work was not done. We have had suggestions of forgery, but we have had no suggestions that the work itself was not done. Secondly, the fact is beyond question that although Mr. Davidson has had the full benefit of this work, he has never paid for it.

Mr. Davidson first questioned the signatures on the documents during the court proceedings. It would not be proper for me to comment on those proceedings. It is sufficient to say that the court did not find for Mr. Davidson. He then went to the Cardiff City Police, who investigated his allegations, and I would say that the fact that the police took no further action speaks for itself. The police reached their conclusions after the forensic science laboratory had examined photostat copies of the disputed signatures. We have had the report read out to us already tonight.

Earlier this year, it was put to me that the laboratory could form a satisfactory opinion only by examining the original documents instead of photostat copies and on my instructions these were put at the disposal of the Cardiff City Police so that everything could be done to test the allegations of forgery. The conduct of the necessary investigations and the question whether criminal proceedings should be taken as a consequence of Mr. Davidson's allegations was a matter entirely for the chief constable. After completing further inquiries, he decided that there was no justification for further police proceedings.

In reply to a Question as recently as 18th November, I made it clear that it would be improper for us to disclose the police reports. I think this is the point with which the hon. Members were concerned, but I do not propose to deal any further with that because, once again, it is exclusively a matter for the chief constable and is not one with which I or my Ministry can be concerned.

Mr. G. Thomas

Quite unfair.

Mr. Godber

That is a ruling from which I cannot depart.

It may be suggested that there are civil or moral issues involved and that a Government Department should not obtain payment for services except on the basis of properly completed contract documents. There is even now no proof—I emphasise this—that the documents in this case were not properly completed, and in any event, as I said earlier, we have not obtained any payment for these services, notwithstanding that the work was done; no evidence has been produced by Mr. Davidson that the work was not done. I do not think there is any question that the work was done, whatever he may say about the signatures.

To sum up, I must emphasise as strongly as I can that we are dealing here with the question of contract work costing in all less than £10. The work was done, and the taxpayer, not Mr. Davidson, has had to pay for it. In these circumstances, any dispute over signatures really leads us nowhere.

I want to make it clear beyond all doubt, first, that after the most careful investigation, not by the Ministry but by the police, there is no proof at all of forgery. Secondly, even if there were, Mr. Davidson would not be one whit better off. The work was done and it was done at no cost to him. Finally, it is ludicrous to suggest that the allegations relating to the signatures, or, indeed, any of the other charges, have any bearing whatsoever on Mr. Davidson's present position.

I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate from what I have said that the charges which have been bandied about so wildly in certain quarters—I am not referring to hon. Members—are simply grotesque and do not stand up to examination. Much time has been spent by many people, including my right hon. Friend himself, my predecessor in my present office and myself, in trying to convince Mr. Davidson that his allegations are groundless—I regret to say, to no avail.

I am, therefore, particularly grateful for this opportunity to put the whole affair into its proper perspective, and I hope Mr. Davidson in his own interests will now cease to follow a course which really is leading him nowhere and for which, I assure the House, there is no justification at all.

Mr. Gower

There is one matter which my hon. Friend has not, to my mind, satisfactorily explained—the report of his own advisory service that the land, since the beginning of the war, has been constantly over-cropped. Does not my hon. Friend think that really needs greater explanation than he has given?

Mr. Godber

I thought I had dealt with that. The land was carrying a good crop at the time we left it, but a horticultural crop would need certain additional ingredients of an organic nature—I am speaking with some technical knowledge of this—to be successful for horticultural purposes—ingredients which, of course, were not necessary for the purpose for which we had been using it. For horticultural purposes it should have had those additional ingredients. It was Mr. Davidson and not the Ministry who wished to use it for horticultural purposes, and I think it was his duty to put those ingredients in.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.