HC Deb 16 April 1958 vol 586 cc313-22

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

10.40 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

I regret that I have to trouble the House once more with the question of the inspection of farms in Scotland, but I claim that it is entirely due to the vacillation and evasiveness of the Scottish Office and the agricultural executive committee involved, or, at least, the officials acting for it.

This debate does not arise only from the questions that I raised at the end of last year. Prior to that, I had written to the Secretary of State on a number of occasions and had met him to discuss the problems of these inspections, and one in particular, before raising the matter in the House; and it was only because I could not get satisfaction that I was compelled to raise the matter publicly.

When I first raised the question, I thought that only one farm was involved, but I was not long in finding out that there were thirty such cases of farms which had been inspected under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. While I accept the figure that the Secretary of State gave me, I am bound to say that, despite very close investigation of the whole problem, I failed to discover any of the other twenty-nine cases. However, I was shown by the Secretary of State—I am grateful to him for it—a list of twenty farms which were to be inspected. It was contained in a minute of the committee dated November, 1955.

As a result of that, I asked the Secretary of State a Question in the House on 17th December. I asked whether it was not peculiar that, in view of the length of time since the Act was passed, and the fact that there had been only thirty cases in all, twenty of them should be listed at that time, and I inquired why the farms had been inspected following notices which were illegal. The Secretary of State said he preferred to describe the notices as "incorrect". He also said that the farmers raised no objections. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I must add that since then he has told me that his reply was perhaps a little misleading and that the cases had been spread over a rather longer period than I had thought—the one indicated to me in the minute. Even if one accepts that. one finds it difficult to understand why all these farms were listed in the one minute of the committee if the cases were spread over a much longer period.

For the purpose of the debate, I will deal with the one farm with which I am familiar. In 1956 the owner of the farm, which is in Roxburghshire, received the notice of inspection under the 1948 Act. Later two civil servants came along to inspect the farm. It is important to note that they were not farmers or members of the agricultural executive committee but civil servants.

The first thing they admitted to the owner-occupier of the farm was that there had been no complaint about the standard of husbandry. When he asked them what was the reason for the visit, they explained that this was a preliminary canter. Five months later, after considerable correspondence between the farmer and the agricultural executive committee, the secretary of the committee said that it was a preliminary fact-finding survey. This was not satisfactory to the farmer and he again wrote to the agricultural executive committee and on this occasion, five weeks later, he was told that it was a routine farm survey.

Those two definitions of what appears in the first place to have been called a preliminary canter were the two definitions also used by the Secretary of State for Scotland in a letter to me, personally. Whatever description was given, one thing was becoming clear as a result of this correspondence, and that was that this was a survey being carried out not by the Department of Agriculture but by the agricultural executive committee, or at least the committee was being used as a tool for the purpose.

The two inspectors, whose qualifications have never yet been disclosed by the secretary of the committee, despite repeated requests for him to do so, carried out this illegal inspection. As I have said, the Secretary of State prefers to call this an "incorrectness in form", but in my view "incorrectness in form" is legal jargon for saying that the contents of the notice were so badly worded that they did not clearly indicate to the farmer what the statutory powers were under which the committee was acting, because it is clear that the committee could have sent the farmer a thousand notices, whether they were correct in form or not, but this notice, under the present law, could never have empowered the two inspectors to inspect the farm.

It is perfectly clear from the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and from the Orders that have since been made that an agricultural executive committee cannot empower inspectors to perambulate any farm, no more than it can empower the Lord Advocate and his new appointee, Mr. Fraser, to go round a farm and carry out an inspection. There is no power for such a committee so to do.

The illegality arises—and I am glad that the Solicitor-General is present and I challenge him to defy us on this—when inspectors imply by their behaviour that, as a result of a notice issued by the agriculture executive committee, they are entitled in law to enter a farm, and then proceed to do so. It should be clearly understood that the notice was issued under the 1950 Regulations which permit no one, except members added to a sub-committee of an agricultural executive committee, to enter land to inspect for good husbandry. That is clearly and specifically laid down in those Regulations. No inspector can enter land without the special authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was admitted by the Secretary of State in a letter which he sent to me when he admitted that no person can enter land without his express authority. These two so-called inspectors—these two civil servants—entered this farmland without that authority. It does not matter in what form the notice was given; the inspectors had no right to be there as servants of the agricultural executive committee.

Arising from that last point comes a point of some public importance. The 1948 Act does not allow any casual interchange of inspectors or of paid officials between the agricultural executive committees and the Department. This is expressly laid down in the Eighth Schedule to the Act. The Department can, as of right, attach members of its staff to work for the agricultural executive committee only with the approval of the Treasury. I shall expect a reply to my question whether a Treasury Minute exists giving approval to the inspection to which I have referred, or to the other inspections about which the Secretary of State reported. I want to know who has paid, and if I do not get an answer tonight I can tell the noble Lord that I shall take other steps to find out, because this would be a matter for the attention of the Public Accounts Committee.

It is difficult to understand why the policy in Scotland diverged so drastically from that in England. It will be remembered that the Wilson Committee, in 1956, showed that these surveys for bad husbandry in England and Wales had virtually ceased to exist, and it is very difficult to understand why, in that case, Scotland—which has a very high reputation for its farming—should have to suffer this indignity. I would remind the noble Lord that the Wilson Committee also stated that: Another matter to which we would draw attention is the desirability of Committees "— that is, agricultural executive commitees— clearly stating their reasons for all action under the Act. Neither the Scottish Office nor the agricultural executive committee involved has ever given any reason for the action taken in regard to this farm, and it is extremely difficult to understand why there should be this silence on the part of the committee. Is it because it was merely the tool of the Scottish Office in this case, or that it has become so paralysed by the Scottish Office that it is unable to speak up in its own defence?

In case it should be thought that this farm was an inferior one, I am bound to point out that all reports prove it to be a farm of very good standing. As a matter of fact, three months after the inspection took place the lambs from the farm were sold at the sales in St. Boswells, and topped the price list. Anybody who knows anything at all about agriculture knows that any farm which produces animals of that kind for a market of such good standing as that of St. Boswells has to be good.

In addition, in the past two years the farm has earned over fifty Prizes at horticultural shows in the Border area. One would have thought that with a record of that kind no inspection was required. In fact, the whole thing is regarded as a most unjustifiable reflection not only on the farm itself but on the very good farm manager who works from morning to night to keep it in its present perfect state. The farm has been described by one of the best-known of our Border farmers as a model and "of a standard to be envied".

If the Joint Under-Secretary wants further proof of the standing of this farm I would remind him of what the agricultural editor of the Scotsman said: The whole idea of inspection of such a farm by inspectors not entitled to do so, and the absence of the a.e.c. members, was simply fantastic. All along, this farmer has had to undergo this treatment, which in many cases has been downright cruel, from officials of the executive committee. Certainly the matter has never been cleared up. We hope to get a satisfactory reply from the Joint Under-Secretary tonight.

I am a little surprised—this is not critical of the Joint Under-Secretary—that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been informed, has not even seen fit to be present. His English counterpart came to the Box on an occasion similar to this and, having made his explanation, resigned his office. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to do that, because that would require great courage, but I am a little disappointed at the treatment he has given me. I hope that the questions I have crisply and sharply asked the Joint Under-Secretary will receive adequate answers.

10.56 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope)

I must start with a word in connection with the criticism levelled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not being here. The hon. Member compared the Secretary of State's absence with the presence of a previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on a great matter, as a result of which he resigned. The difference is, as I shall hope to show, that this is a storm in a teacup.

In answering the hon. Gentleman, I shall confine myself to a simple statement of fact concerning the matters he has raised. The case starts on 5th December, 1955, when the Roxburgh sub-committee of the Border Agricultural Executive Committee was deciding whether or not certain farms on its farm survey list required action under Part II of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, because of defects in husbandry.

The farm survey had been proceeding since 1949, when it was launched under the auspices of the party opposite, to improve the standards of farming and to effect maximum production. By 1955, the survey had lost most of its initial impetus in most committee areas, but there were still farms here and there which were being considered from time to time in this way. There is ample justification for it under the 1948 Act.

In the case we are discussing, the subcommittee decided that not enough was known about the farm and, to make sure, it added it to the list of farms for inspection under the survey in the ensuing season. Accordingly, on 21st July, 1956. the farmer concerned received a formal notice of entry, explaining that it was proposed to enter on his farm seven days afterwards for the purpose of ascertaining the standard of husbandry. This referred to a preliminary fact-finding inspection of the usual type in the carrying out of the statutory duties of the agricultural executive committee. What happens in these cases is that the relevant sub-committee of the agricultural executive committee gets officials of the Department, attached to it to help in its duties, to make this preliminary fact-finding inspection. If the sub-committee decides, as a result of the officials' report, to look further into the husbandry of the farm, it then carries out a further inspection by its own members.

It is to an inspection of the latter type that the formal notice which the farmer received in this case should apply. In other words, the notice was technically inappropriate to the preliminary inspection by the fact-finding officials. This, of course, has been admitted.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Was it inappropriate or wrong?

Lord John Hope

Inappropriate and wrong. Here I should like to make two points. The first is that members of the inspectorate do not generally carry an authority to enter land as of right. What normally happens is that a farmer is informed some days in advance that an inspector proposes to visit his farm for a specified purpose. If the date is inconvenient to the farmer, it is adjusted. The inspector is relying on the co-operation of the farmer in carrying out his duties.

The second point is that the practice of using inspectors to make purely fact-finding inspections was established soon after the 1948 Act came into force. I think at that time the hon. Member was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. Committees consist of voluntary members who are mostly busy farmers, and it is obviously impracticable for the relatively small number of committee and sub-committee members to make every inspection in their area. What is important is that any formal action taken against a farmer should be initiated only by an inspection made by a panel of committee members. Where, therefore, an official inspection reveals a situation that may justify committee action, that official inspection is always followed by a panel inspection. The principle that a farmer can be judged only by his "peers," so to speak, is thereby preserved. I emphasise again that an inspection by officials is made only for the purpose of laying facts before a committee or sub-committee and any decision is made by the committee members on the basis of those facts. If the facts seem to involve action against the farmer the committee sends some of its own members out to see for themselves.

Mr. Hoy

Will the noble Lord look at this point? No inspector can enter a farm without the express approval, the authority, of the Secretary of State. Was that in fact given?

Lord John Hope

He has got that by paragraph 4 of Part 1 of the Eighth Schedule of the Act of 1948.

To return to the case in question, the sub-committee—and I stress that it was a sub-committee and not the Secretary of State—listed this particular farm for inspection at its meeting on 5th December, 1955. In July, 1956, a notice of proposal to enter was sent to the farmer who raised no objection. The inspector and his assistant called on the stated day and were hospitably received. A report was in due course submitted to the subcommittee which had called for it, and it was considered at the first subsequent meeting. The sub-committee decided that no action was called for and the farmer was informed accordingly.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Could the noble Lord explain whether the initiative in this case came from the committee or from his office? That is one point which has not been made clear. Was the initiative for the inspection of the farm from the office of the Ministry, or from the agricultural committee?

Lord John Hope

I am obliged for that question, which is a very clear and perfectly fair one. The answer is that the initiative had nothing to do with my Department.

It has been suggested that there was no need for the inspection to take place at all on the ground that at local sales the farmer frequently made top prices and at local horticultural shows he frequently carried off prizes and that therefore it must have been common local knowledge that the farm was well managed. All the comment I can make on that is that the local sub-committee is the best judge of the state of local knowledge, and that winning prizes at local horticultural shows and obtaining good prices for sheep at local sales is not proof that the farm's general husbandry is sound, though it may indicate excellence in particular branches of husbandry.

I should like to say a word about the inappropriate notice of entry issued to this farmer. This particular mistake has occurred on a number of occasions since 1951 when the first example of it in the Border area occurred, and my right hon. Friend has taken prompt steps to see that it is not repeated. It is, however, wrong to found upon this incorrect notice the thesis that illegal entry had been made in this or any other of the cases concerned. An illegal entry can be made only where there is no power to enter or where, in defiance of a farmer's objections, entry is made without formal authority being produced.

In these cases entry was invariably made with the concurrence of the farmers concerned and no illegality was involved. If an inspector's authority to enter were to be challenged in any particular case, he would be expected immediately to leave the farm and to postpone his inspection until he had obtained a formal and specific authority signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)

Does that mean in effect that if a burglar enters one's house and takes away one's possessions with one's knowledge but without one's agreement, that is all right?

Lord John Hope

The hon. Member can scarcely have listened to the speech of his hon. Friend or to my answer. This was the entry on to a farm and has nothing to do with burglary. Perhaps the hon. Member came into the Chamber late in the debate.

I think that the account of the case which I have given disposes of any suggestion that this farmer was singled out for any unusual treatment.

Mr. Hoy

Yes, he was.

Lord John Hope

It simply was not so. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do. The procedure adopted has been followed since it was established under the party opposite at a time when the hon. Member was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. There can be no reflection on the sub-committee's conduct in the matter and no reflection on the qualified inspector or his assistant who visited the farm. Both the members of the sub-committee and the officials have been deliberately subjected to insinuations and accusations which are not in the slightest degree warranted by the facts as I have put them before the House and as they exist. I very much regret that such insinuations and accusations have been made.

Once it is admitted that they are clear of blame, it becomes evident that what the hon. Member is really objecting to is the operation of the powers contained in Part II of the 1948 Act. That being so, it is a little hard to understand why he voted against the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill now before the House. He will have an opportunity in due course to make amends, and I very much hope that he will take it.

Mr. Woodburn

I understand that in this case, whether it is coincidental or not, this inspection occurred at a time when this farmer was involved in some other kind of dispute with the Scottish Office or the Legal Department of the Scottish Office. Was that purely coincidental—that is what everybody wants to know—and is it not connected in any way with the other dispute?

Lord John Hope

I have only a few seconds in which to reply, but the answer is that it was purely coincidental. I do not think the right hon. Member believes for one moment that it was anything else.

Mr. Woodburn

I was asking the question.

Lord John Hope

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked the question. If anyone thinks this was other than a coincidence, I cannot help him. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, by implication, has suggested that perhaps in the minds of others connected with the matter, who are not in the House, there may be some imagined connection between the two things. All I can say is that such people are greatly mistaken and the sooner they disabuse themselves of this ridiculous illusion the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.