– in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 19 Ebrill 1948.
First I should tender my apologies to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for having interfered with her birthday celebrations. I feel that I must wish the hon. Lady many happy returns of the day. I had intended to bring a bouquet, but I felt that if I had brought primroses they probably would not have been acceptable and if I had brought orchids it would have added still further to the hors. Lady's blandishments.
My object tonight is to call attention to the increasing growth and activities of Ministry of Food inspectors and snoopers in general. They are becoming much more active and the country is becoming thoroughly alarmed at what is going on. To illustrate the rapid increase in their activities, I would like to quote what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said last year when he was challenged on the question of enforcement officers. He said that the number of cases where enforcement officers entered premises was very small indeed. He added:
Where it does occur an effort is made for the visit to take place by arrangement with the person concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 1290.]
That is what was said 12 months ago, and instead of this kind of activity being unusual it has become the continuing practice of these inspectors. Some of the inspectors are most courteous and show their authority. Others are overbearing and act as agents provocateurs. I would quote the well known case of Tommy Tucker which took place at the East Sussex Quarter Sessions. There the enforcement officers not only called to see what trouble they could find, but actually encouraged the assistants who were in the shop to break the law. Having done that, they prosecuted for misdemeanour. That is repugnant to the English way of life. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not uphold that sort of work.
Complaints are most widespread. I remind the hon. Lady of a reply she gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) when he asked the Minister of Food:
… if he is aware that his inspectors are visiting farms and asking the farmer's employees detailed questions about their farming business; and if he will issue instructions that that shall stop forthwith.
The hon. Lady's reply was:
I am aware of one visit of this kind. I am afraid that if the farmer himself is absent, such inquiries must be made so that the inspectors' inquiries may be made effectively and without undue waste of time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1948; Vol. 448. c. 3.]
I would call attention to two cases in Northumberland. I cannot do better than quote from two letters which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed received. The first states:
There is one aspect which is causing grave concern now that people are realising the full significance of these visits—that is the danger of political police and all that it leads to. Czechoslovakia, inland—where next? This was discussed at the Corn Exchange today. Mr. Robertson recounted to me his experience with the inspectors last week. They were most polite and civil. They produced their warrants without being asked but they asked numerous searching questions as to his farming activities.
Here is an important point:
They asked among other questions,' What do your neighbours do with their herds? '
Is it to be the practice for inspectors to come around the farms and ask the farmer what his neighbours are doing? Another letter from Northumberland said:
I am writing to you about what I call Strachey's Gestapo. The facts are that on Thursday 19th February, at about 11.30 three employees of the Ministry of Food entered on my farm. I was away from home in Newcastle. These people interviewed four of my employees and asked questions relating to my farming business. How many workers are there? How many acres does he farm? How many sheep has he got? How many cattle has he? How many hens has he?
All these reports are made by the farmer on the June return. To quote the letter again:
Now I consider that they had no right to ask my employees about my farm business, and it is nothing less than Gestapo methods. As you know, many other farmers have been visited and their premises searched before they even asked to see the farmers.
That is quite contrary to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on r3th May last. He said then that it does not often occur and arrangements are made so that the farmers can be present when the inspectors pay these visits. Quite the opposite is happening.
In my own area of Worcestershire, one of my friends, one of the biggest market gardeners in the district, came across two inspectors. He asked them what their business was, and was told that they were making inquiries. He invited them to his office and they said that they did not want any information from the office, and that they were making inquiries on the farm. Having done that, they went to a neighbouring farm where the farmer was away although his wife was on the premises. They did not talk to her, but went on the premises and found a young lad and asked him all sorts of questions about the farm and the stock. That is the sort of life we are getting into. Another inspector in Kent saw some bees and asked the good woman what she did with the honey. Eventually they went into the house to see the bottles of honey. In Yorkshire there was a case where some self-suppliers committed a technical offence, and instead of slaughtering the pigs on the premises had them slaughtered at the butcher's. The inspectors had the pigs confiscated and when a lot of fuss was made the Minister of Food apologised.
Where are we getting to in this country with this increasing army of inspectors and snoopers? We arc on the slippery slope on which Germany found herself when Hitler started in the early '30's. These are exactly the methods he took in Germany, and gradually the German people slipped into the police State. If we are not careful we shall accept that as the way of life and shall do exactly the same thing. I do not care whether it is a dictatorship of Right or Left, but we must keep the country free from it.
At present there are between seven and eight thousand inspectors, including 1,600. from the Ministry of Food, according to the figures of last August, going around the farms and shops. There are probably more by now. These men would be better employed productively instead of creating frustration and a feeling of hopelessness among people who do not know whether they are going to break the law or not. Practically no one is sure from day to day of the laws they may break. There are very few people who do not break some law or another. People are getting nervous. Some are afraid to employ a fresh assistant in a shop in case an inspector should come along and a prosecution follow. It is creating frustration all along the line.
There is, however, something worse than that. We are building up with these controls an increasing black market. We are teaching the people that the way of life is to try and get something under the counter, something to which they are not entitled. We are spending large sums of money educating the children, and when they get home from school they probably hear father and mother relating how they got something in the black market, or something they were not entitled to. What is the good of spending money on education when the children are being brought up in that way? We shall get to the stage when the passing-out examination will be to see not whether they are senior wranglers but whether they are senior wanglers. Then they will be fitted for their place in life.
It may be asked, "What is the remedy?" It is to set about doing away. with every control that can be dispensed with without creating hardship. It is sheer nonsense to say that there are not hundreds, even thousands, of controls that can be done away with without causing hardship. I will mention three in my own industry—the controls on eggs, poultry and rabbits. It may be said, "How many would the poor people be able to buy if the controls were done away with?" My reply is, "How many can they buy now?" If the controls were abolished you would do away with the black market. The eggs would come into the shops, the people could buy them, even if it were at a high price. They could decide for themselves whether to spend their money on beer or tobacco or on eggs. Now they do not get the chance.
Take these so-called breakfast foods—"Ruskies," and all the rest. I do not know how many there are. I would do away with all the controls on them. There was plenty of wholesome oatmeal in Scotland after the last harvest. If those oats had been taken to the mills they could have been sent to the shops as oatmeal, and people could have bought that instead of giving fancy prices for things wrapped in cartons. Do away with all these controls and inspectors and the filling up of forms that are so unnecessary. The essence of democracy consists of a combination of law and liberty. Liberty is now being swamped under a deluge of statutory rules and orders. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine all these orders which come from her office, and see if some of them cannot be done away with; see if she cannot release us from these pettifogging little controls. As Lord Acton truly said: "All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The House should remember that the hon. Member is a farmer himself, and therefore perhaps finds it difficult to look at the activities of our enforcement officers objectively and not emotionally. I can quite understand that there may be a group of farmers who feel a little cross about having this inspection for the first time since controls were imposed, but I think the House will agree that it is rather significant that the hon. Member, who came here briefed to attack my Department, was able to produce only four or five complaints from the thousands of farmers who have had their farms inspected. I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of farmers who have willingly co-operated with our inspectors. I also can produce cuttings. I have one here from Leek, in which the members of the N.F.U. are reported to have agreed that the check-up has been conducted on courteous lines and not calculated to give offence. That also is the kind of thing which reaches my Department, and the hon. Gentleman must not think that because a few farmers are feeling a little disgruntled and write to him, that reflects the feeling of the majority of farmers in the country. He quoted Captain Bomford.
Not Captain Bomford.
He did not mention Captain Bomford. But he did say a farmer met two of my inspectors in a lane—that was Captain Bomford. I have made inquiries about that case, and find that the inspectors met Captain Bomford outside his farm, talked to him and he told them that the records were about three miles away. The inspectors said, "Very well," and went off. They parted on the most friendly terms. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should come here and complain about the treatment meted out to Captain Bomford by my inspectors. I can assure him there is no substance in it at all.
He and other Members in this House who are farmers are probably a- little annoyed at what they consider is a concentrated drive on farmers in the country. I would accept that description. I ask the hon. Member to recall that after the cut in bacon and meat last year, allegations were made that there was widespread illicit slaughter of livestock and pigs. Perhaps he will remember the Adjournment some months ago when the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle), who is a butcher, used the strongest language and asked us what action we were taking to stop these malpractices. At that time we had no reliable evidence, and we decided to increase enforcement activities, and felt it necessary, in view of the fact that there might be an increased shortage of food, to adopt a system of priorities.
We decided that investigation of black market operations in meat, pork and bacon, including illicit slaughter of livestock, should be made a first priority. We also felt we should inquire into the improper operation of the self-supplier pig scheme and infringements of the orders affecting feeding stuffs. In order to do that, we had to extend our activities. Between Decem- ber, 1947, and March, 1948, 10,922 farms were visited. I ask the hon. Member to remember that number. In that number there were 21 complaints from farmers to headquarters.
The hon. Member is probably interested in the Midlands Division, as both his constituency and his farm are there. 1,834 farms were visited in the Midlands and from that number we had two complaints. These two complaints were of the most trivial nature. One farmer complained that the inspector was not as polite as he might have been and that the printing of the warrant card carried by the inspector was not big enough to be seen without spectacles. I really must invite the hon. Member to consider that very carefully. As a reasonable Member of this House, he will surely agree that such complaints are utterly trivial. The other complaint was that the inspector was a little discourteous and he interviewed an employee. I will deal with that in a moment.
I want to remind the hon. Member that these inspections are being made, not to irritate a comparatively small number of farmers, but in order to protect the interests of the consumers. I am a little surprised that he comes here tonight with this complaint, because he and I have often crossed swords and I have found that when he presses a question, there is generally some substance in his argument. But I think he will agree that tonight, in putting the case for a few disgruntled farmers, he has forgotten the case which should be put for his. constituents—the ordinary consumer—whose interests are being safeguarded by my Department.
It has been stated that certain farmers have said that some notice should be given when we are about to visit a farm. Surely, if notice were given to a farmer, the whole purpose of the visit would be defeated. Suppose we gave notice to a restaurant at which we were anticipating finding some infringement of our regulations. Do hon. Members think we would find anything wrong by the time we reached the restaurant?
Can the hon. Lady say what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury meant when he said that when it does occur, an effort is made for a visit to take place by arrangement with the persons concerned?
We try. When the inspectors went to Captain Bomford's they did not insist on going into the farm. The hon. Member himself mentioned that the inspectors met the farmer, and when he said that the records were elsewhere they did not press the matter. It is true that the inspectors deal with the farmers' subordinates if the farmers do not happen to be there, but it will be recognised that time is of great importance on these visits. We have to cover a very wide area, and if the farmer is not there, there is nothing wrong if an inspector asks the farmer's wife. Of course, if there are suspicious circumstances, I can quite understand a farmer being annoyed; but for the most part farmers are responsible people and they welcome our visits.
Emotionally?
Not emotionally. This is exceptional. It must be because it is Primrose Day. These farmers are cooperative, and are only too happy that we should discuss the matter with their wives or with a senior employee. When the inspector decides that there is a prima facie case and action may have to be taken, nothing is done until a report is made to the farmer, and the farmer himself is invited to make observations. The hon. Member mentioned that the agricultural committees had certain returns and that if we wanted certain figures we need only refer to them; but there is a lag between the time when the figures are collated and given to the agricultural committees. It is necessary that we should keep up to date.
I want to come to the conduct and behaviour of the inspectors, because I agree that the very few complaints we have received concern the conduct of the inspectors.
Will the hon. Lady say that the National Farmers' Union has not made any complaint about the snooping going on?
Most of the complaints of which the hon. Member is speaking have been made by the National Farmers' Union. I am now telling the hon. Member of the complaints made to us direct by farmers. I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of the conduct and behaviour of our inspectors because I am rather jealous of their reputation. These men, for the most part, have served in our Police Force, and the hon. Member will agree that the standard of our police is admired by every country in the world. These men are specially selected. Before they begin their operations, they are told that they must exercise the greatest tact and courtesy. I cannot believe that the behaviour of these men changes immediately they enter the farm gate. I want to pay a tribute to these men for the work they have done. The hon. Member will agree that they have entered many thousands of farms during the last few months with surprisingly little complaint. Some of them are brusque; but, after all, we cannot all have a "bedside manner." There have been one or two cases where there was a complaint about the men being a little impolite, but the hon. Member can rest assured that my Department is only too anxious that the farmers should be treated with the courtesy they deserve.
There was a point, and a very significant one, which he raised. He said that food had been seized where only a technical offence had been committed. I agree with him that there were two or three cases of that nature, but we have given instructions that where only a technical offence has been committed the food should not be seized. He may be interested to hear of the results of our operations during the last few months; 580 offences—prima facie offences where we might take action—have shown that this drive has been fully justified.
The hon. Lady says prima facie cases.
Well, we are continuing our investigations. We investigate further, of course, before a prosecution takes place. We are talking about the period between last December and March, and many prosecutions are pending. I am only telling the hon. Gentleman that these are the reports we have to handle. Apart from prosecutions and the penalty attaching to these offences, he must realise the importance of the preventive aspect. We think that having a number of enforcement officers operating with mobility and surprise has a very salutary effect, and I am quite certain that in those areas which have already been inspected we shall possibly find more eggs coming to the packing stations, more pigs reaching the bacon factories, and that the millers will have an influx of grain to deal with. In fact, this has proved to be the case. We are looking into this matter now but it is quite clear to me that what the hon. Member and a few of his friends may find very distasteful is something which is in the interests of the community.
Can the hon. Lady tell me how many inspec- tors she has, the number of motor cars supplied to them, and the amount of petrol with which they are issued?
There are 751 inspectors. I should need notice before I could answer the other questions.