HL Deb 04 March 1969 vol 300 cc94-9

7.30 p.m.

LORD ROYLE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek information from the Chairman of the Northumberland Committee of Inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease as to whether the Committee sat on February 15, 1969, and also how the publication, Farmer and Stockbreeder, was in a position to publish on February 4 the fact that the meeting was taking place on February 15 and were able to anticipate the Report of that Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I say at the beginning that I am very conscious of the fact that a very important Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is to follow my Question. Because of that, I shall try to make my case on the Question as short as I can. I will start by assuming that noble Lords have read the Question and that I do not need to repeat it.

May I say straight away that I have no desire to enter into any discussion of the causes of foot-and-mouth disease or the possibility of avoiding the terrible outbreak we had a short time ago. That is not my purpose. That duty falls on the committee of inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease, which was set up by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and is presided over by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland. It was set up as an independent body to hear evidence and present its Report. And if it has maintained that independence and ultimately bases its Report on that evidence, I for one shall be happy to see the Report implemented. But—and it is a very big "but"—at this moment I have some doubts about whether these conditions apply.

My doubts arise from a leading article in the Farmer and Stockbreeder of February 4. If I may, I will quote the relevant parts of that article. The draft report on foot-and-mouth disease of the Northumberland Committee recommends that on animal health grounds imports into the United Kingdom of carcass meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic should be prohibited after a year's grace, which would give those countries time to switch over to the production of boned chilled meat. Later on the article says: The Northumberland Committee will be meeting "— remember this was on February 4— on Saturday, 15th February, a year to the clay since the Minister announced its establishment, to finalise the report. If the draft recommendations are agreed it will be a victory for Mr. Henry Plumb, the National Farmers' Union's deputy president, and the only practical farmer on the Committee, who has fought throughout the year to convince his colleagues that prohibition of imports of carcass meat from endemic countries was the right policy. At one time it looked as if Mr. Plumb would have to produce a one-man minority report expressing this view. Now, with the Duke of Northumberland himself as the first convert, the majority of the Committee has swung behind the proposal.

From these quotations, I would suggest that some serious questions arise. I am going to ask these questions and not elaborate at all. First, how was that journal in the position to say categorically that the draft report recommends something before it reaches the Minister? Secondly, how did the journal know that the Committee was meeting on February 15 to finalise its Report? Thirdly, was the information—and I stress the word "information", because it was not given as conjecture—given by Mr. Henry Plumb as a Committee member and deputy president of the N.F.U.? Fourthly, if the article is correct, has Mr. Plumb acted as an independent member of that Committee or as an advocate of the N.F.U. point of view? Fifthly, I wonder whether the noble Duke is prepared to concede that he has been converted, not by the evidence and its examination, but by the fighting prowess of Mr. Henry Plumb? And are the other distinguished members of the Committee also prepared to concede their conversion to him? If they are not, why has no denial or repudiation appeared in the columns of the subsequent issues of the Farmer and Stockbreeder?

I took the trouble of looking up this morning's issue—and this is the fourth issue since February 5—and at no point has it ever been repudiated or has the Chairman of that Committee written to the Farmer and Stockbreeder to put things right. That same gentleman, Mr. Henry Plumb, in April, 1968, made the public statement: To protect British housewives we must make sure that meat is prevented from coming from the Argentine". I suggest that this gentleman has gone a little bit too far. This gentleman is not behaving in the right fashion, as a responsible member of an independent Committee of this kind.

In conclusion, I suggest that the article, so far not repudiated, shakes confidence in the fairness and independence of this Committee. It suggests that among its number there is a man who approached his task with a biased mind and who, I suggest, was not suitable to be a member of such an independent committee of inquiry. In my view, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, it is a complete contradiction of what Parliament regards as a committee of inquiry, and unless there is an unequivocal repudiation of that article to my mind the Report will be useless and will have no weight.

It may be that when my noble friend Lord Beswick replies he will be tempted to say that this has nothing whatever to do with the Government; that once a committee of inquiry has been established, its behaviour and way of working is entirely its business. I hope that he will not rely on that argument, because I believe that it is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that this is an independent Report, based on evidence and the consideration of evidence rather than on a particular member's advocacy of one particular point of view. I should have liked to elaborate on these questions but I know that other things have to be discussed this evening.

7.38 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, my noble friend has a great interest in these matters, which I appreciate, and he has put his reasons and his apprehensions forcefully and clearly. May I thank him for being good enough to realise that he puts me, in some respects, in a difficult position in replying. Although he said that he had no wish to open up a discussion about this wretched foot-and-mouth disease he is in fact asking me to comment upon the contents of a Report which has not yet been published. I do not know what is in the Report, nor does the Minister, and certainly Mr. Murray, the author of this speculative article in the Farmer and Stockbreeder, does not know what is in this Report. No one can object to any active and enthusiastic journalist putting down his own opinions and prophecies and frankly I cannot see why I should be expected to comment one way or the other about the alleged contents of the forthcoming Report of this Committee.

My noble friend asked for a denial and repudiation, but why should any member of the Government have to deny or repudiate a statement simply because a journalist makes it in an article? My noble friend is saying that he never said that, but he will see when he reads Hansard to-morrow that he did indeed say that because there was no denial or repudiation, he was entitled to believe that there is substance in the article to which he refers. I say this to my noble friend, because I know that on many of these matters his opinion will be the same as mine. To put one in a position where one has to repudiate everything said in a journal or newspaper, is really encouraging some form of trial by journalism.

I will, however, deal with three of the specific points which my noble friend raised. He asked particularly about the meeting on February 15, and how it was that Mr. Murray knew that a meeting was to take place on that date. My understanding is that there was no secret about when this Committee met; it was generally known. And, indeed, it was not unusual for interested journalists to be around the meeting place to pick up some unconsidered trifle when those meetings took place.

Similarly., my noble friend made reference to the import of boned chilled meat, and he seemed to think that there was some great insight or secret information which led Mr. Murray to deal with the situation in that way. But here, again, there is no mystery about the matter. For eighteen months now there has been talk about the possibility of some control of the import of meat in this way, and it does not require a highly-skilled journalist to draw the conclusion that this subject is a likely candidate for inclusion in the Report. I must say to my noble friend that I was rather surprised at the conclusions which he seemed prepared to draw from the article about the position of Mr. Henry Plumb. Although he said that his conclusions were being couched in an interrogatory form he put them in such a way as to make them seem to most hearers to be positive assertions.

LORD ROYLE

I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but, quite quickly, may I point out to him that he is being rather unfair to me. I quoted: The draft Report on foot-and-mouth disease of the Northumberland Committee recommends… It is not, "we hear that it recommends", but, "it recommends". Where does the information come from?

LORD BESWICK

Why should I be placed in the position of having to say where the information comes front, if a journalist chooses to put that in a journal? I am surprised at my noble friend, if he is suggesting that he can quote anything from any journal and expect that there should be some denial or confirmation by a member of the Government. As 11 was saying, my noble friend appears to be saying that Mr. Plumb has swayed not only the noble Duke, the Chairman of the Committee, but the whole of the rest of the members of the Committee to a particular conclusion, presumably against their better judgment.

LORD ROYLE

The article said that.

LORD BESWICK

I am not saying anything at all about what the article says. I am referring to what my noble friend has said. He was asking for a repudiation of this. Why should one repudiate such an absurd suggestion, that one member of a Committee of eight, a very high-powered Committee, could dominate that Committee in this way? I really do not feel that, on reflection, my noble friend will think that this is what has happened in the case of this Committee, of which the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, is the Chairman. Moreover, I say this to my noble friend. There is absolutely no reason to believe, or for anyone to say, that Mr. Plumb is anything other than one effective loyal and conscientious member among a Committee of eight.

I make just one other comment about this article. It purports to know that at one time Mr. Plumb was proposing to produce a Minority Report. There is only one man who knows what was in the mind of Mr. Plumb, and that is Mr. Plumb himself. He has asked me to say that at no time has he discussed with the author of this article what he proposed or did not propose to recommend, and there is no justification for any journalist setting down in this way what Mr. Plumb's intentions were.

Like my noble friend, we all look forward to the eventual publication of this important Report. I hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree with the rest of us that the recommendations that this independent Committee will eventually put before the Minister will command the highest possible respect.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to regret that I have not the right to reply.