HC Deb 16 March 1932 vol 263 cc421-30
Sir S. CRIPPS

I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out the word "flour," and to insert instead thereof the words "wheat products."

Clause 18, Sub-section (3), gives the following definition: (3) Subject as hereinafter provided, all products produced by the milling of wheat, except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be flour, and any substances mixed with such products, whether milled therewith or subsequently added, shall be deemed to form part of the flour: That is to say the term "flour" includes wheat meal, and at the present time the quota payment is to be raised on the basis of the output of flour by millers. That means that the miller who imports wheat will only pay the quota payment on the flour, and not on the offals, that he sells. As we see it, it would be far more equitable if the quota payment were spread over the whole of the products of the wheat, and not merely over the flour and wheat meal. There cannot be any distinction in the right hon. Gentleman's mind between food for human and food for animal consumption, because wheat meal as defined in the proviso substantially as being a substance only for animal consumption, is included in the term "flour," and, therefore, except where it is the sole product of a mill, will bear the quota payment just as flour for human consumption will bear it. We can see no reason for differentiation between wheat meal and offal. Both are used for animal consumption, both are sold, and both are products of wheat. The proviso only eliminates those millers 100 per cent. of whose products is wheat meal; it does not eliminate any miller who makes flour and offal and wheat meal all in the same mill, or in different mills under the same management. We suggest that it is far more equitable to spread the incidence of the subsidy, as we call it, or the quota payment, over the whole of the products which come from the wheat in respect of which the subsidy is to be paid.

Sir J. GILMOUR

As the hon. and learned Member has said, if this Amendment were carried it would require every miller and importer to pay the quota payment in respect of all wheat products. That would immediately affect the feeding stuffs of this country, it would certainly place the millers at a disadvantage in competition with importers of feeding stuffs from abroad, and it would, I think, render it impossible to hold the millers and the co-operative societies to their undertaking, which I have announced to the House, that they will not export the offals except under some regulation, in the interests of pig feeders and so on in this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS

May I ask whether this is what one might call a quid pro quo for the undertaking? Is it part of a bargain, on the understanding that the undertaking is given by the millers and co-operative societies?

Sir J. GILMOUR

We are precluded by our treaties from putting into the Bill a regulation regarding the export of offals, but both millers and co-operative societies, who deal largely in these products, recognise the fairness of giving to the breeders and feeders of stock in this country the fullest advantages, and have made what we understand as a gentlemen's agreement, which I am certain they will keep, that they will not export these offals except under some regulation, and only in circumstances where there is good reason for their doing so.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this is an arrangement to get them to assist? If that is so, of course it alters the position.

Sir J. GILMOUR

The only arrangement I have come to is that I have put to the interests concerned the desirability of keeping the offals in this country. They have agreed that that is right and proper, and with the one proviso that there might be some circumstances where, owing to their having certain stocks which they could not keep and for which there was not a home demand, they must have the right to export, they have given me an undertaking that they will keep them in this country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out the words "which would have been".

This phrase seems to be redundant. The Clause reads as well if one says, "a sum equal to what would have been the price deficit in respect of the quota of home-grown millable wheat used in the production of that hundredweight." There is no need to have "would have been" in twice. It makes the sentence clumsy and difficult to understand.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman though I do not know that there is any great advantage in omitting the words or in leaving them in.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I am prepared to withdraw in order that the right hon. Gentleman may consider it before Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Dr. SALTER

I beg to move, in page 5. line 40, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7, page 6.

The effect of the paragraph is that the provender miller shall not have to pay the levy on the stock of meal that he grinds. One of two things has to happen if the Bill remains as it is. One is that the flour he grinds will be sold at 3s. or 4s. cheaper than the flour ground by other millers. If so, the persons who purchase it will be the persons who are being subsidised by bread consumers. If he does not sell the flour cheaper, you are subsidising this class of miller himself. There is no escape from those two alternatives. I regard this Clause with very great suspicion and I should like to know what particular interests have been getting at the Minister to induce him to make this concession. I know a great deal about the flour trade. I have not the least doubt that I have bought more flour in my time than any other Member of the House. I have made very extensive inquiries amongst persons who know a great deal about the milling trade and the flour trade. Only yesterday I asked a representative of the largest milling firm in the country how many provender millers there were in the land, that is, millers who grind wheat for no other purpose than animal or poultry food, and he said he doubted if there were more than half-a-dozen in the whole country and they were very small concerns. I want to know why this concession is being made to these people, because I am told there are a number of small country millers who grind some of the wheat for animal food. They also grind that wheat for the purpose of biscuit-making and so on. If the Clause goes through, a number of those small millers, who at present are in a very bad way, will have to close down that side of their business which relates to the grinding of wheat for the purpose of producing flour for biscuit-making and so on—for human consumption—and confine their attention wholly and solely, because of the extra profit which will result to them, to grinding for the purpose of animal foods. I want to know why these very few people have been selected in this sort of way for largess, because that is what it really comes to?

If I am to be told, as I have been told, that this wheat meal is to be used for animal and poultry foods and that therefore the concession is going to be of con- siderable assistance to other departments of the agricultural industry, I should like the Minister to answer me on several points under that particular heading. Wheat meal is used not only for poultry food but for a good many purposes in connection with animals. A certain number of pigs and prize cattle are fed on it. Racehorses, polo ponies, and hunters are given mashes of it. I see that one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing. I am not talking on theoretical grounds but on grounds of practical acquaintance with the whole subject. I could take the Minister to a number of stables to-morrow, great racing stables and stables where hunters are kept, where be would see the animals fed upon mashes containing a certain proportion of wheat meal. I have had varied experiences in my time, and some years ago I was in charge of a bacteriological -laboratory where we had over 40 horses, all of the hunter class, which we used in connection with the manufacture of anti-toxins for diphtheria and other similar purposes. All those animals, on the highest veterinary advice, because it was essential to keep them in first-class condition, were fed regularly every day upon a certain amount of wheat meal, and after they had received an injection for a toxin, and were off condition for a few days, they received a larger proportion of wheat meal. Hon. Members opposite know that a great many fancy horses are fed upon wheat meal in this fashion.

Is it for this section of the animal population that this particular concession has been made? There are also young chickens, pheasants, turkeys and peafowl. I can speak with considerable knowledge upon that point also, because I am a trustee of an estate where we breed peafowl. I can assure the Minister that those young peafowl are fed upon wheat meal, and from our point of view it will be a very distinct advantage to be able to get wheat meal at three or four shillings a sack lower than we should otherwise be able to purchase it. I ask him again: Is it for this particular purpose that the levy is not to be effected on the profit of the miller?

A considerable quantity of wheat meal is used for making dog biscuits. I understand that Messrs. Spratts and one or two of the larger firms do not use English wheat meal for this purpose, but meal made from Argentine wheat. A number of smaller firms use English wheat meal. Is it for the purpose of subsidising the dog breeding industry or those persons who keep dogs that this concession is made? A great many other animals known as fancies—white mice, white rats, fancy strains of rabbits which are being bred to-day for the purpose of furnishing furs of all sorts—are also fed on wheat meal. Is it for the purpose of subsidising luxury trades of that description that the concession is made? Is the poorest person in the land to find money in order to subsidise and perpetuate these luxury trades? People who maintain zoological collections also use a good deal of wheat meal. I believe that the hippopotamus is very fond of mashes made of wheat meal. To-day, however, I understand that the Royal Zoological Gardens are so hard hit that they have to 'substitute oats, because they cannot afford wheat meal. Is it for the zoological collector equally with the Royal Zoological Gardens that this provision is being made?

A little time ago it was my duty to visit a certain factory in relation to which complaints had been made by people in the immediate vicinity that a nuisance had been created. A tremendous amount of dust came from the factory. I found enormous heaps of buttons, broken brush backs, combs, handles of ladies' hand bags, umbrella handles and all kinds of similar articles which were being ground up into a fine powder. I ascertained that a particular type of meal was obtained from a preparation of casein precipitated from skimmed milk, and that it is a very large industry. These brush backs, combs, buttons and what not were ground into a very fine powder arid mixed with white meal to be sold as feed for pigs and prize cattle. Is that the sort of industry that it is intended to subsidise? So far as I can see, the Clause as it stands is to compel the bread consumer to contribute to the profits of a number of industries, some connected with agriculture but most of them not, and we suggest that it is distinctly unfair and wrong and outside the purview of the Bill to provide subsidies for purposes of this sort. If this Clause remains it will be a monstrous outrage on the very poorest people.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Neither the Committee nor the hon. Member will be surprised when I say that I cannot accept the Amendment. The object of the proviso, which the Amendment seeks to delete, is to make it possible for the Wheat Commission to give a certificate of complete exemption to a considerable number of small millers in all parts of the United Kingdom to grind wheat purely as foodstuff for animals and poultry. This is an administrative convenience and for that reason has been included.

Dr. SALTER

The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a considerable number. Can he tell me the number?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I have no very definite figures but it may be some answer to the hon. Member if I say that there are a good many hundreds of small millers who grind wheat for no other purpose than stock and poultry feeding.

Dr. SALTER

Do they grind wheat or merely crush wheat? [Interruption.] That is an entirely different matter.

Sir J. GILMOUR

These are mills which manipulate grain for feeding purposes. I am informed that about 1 per cent. of the output of wheat meal and flour is produced in small mills primarily engaged in grinding wheat for stock and poultry feeding. I have no figures later than 1924. It was suggested during the Second Reading Debate and has been repeated to-day that the breeding of peacocks, pigs, poultry and animals will in some way be subsidised by the bread consumer because the output of wheat meal for animals and poultry food is to be exempt from liability to the quota payment. There is a free market which ensures that the stock raising and poultry industry will have to compete with millers for the supplies of home grown wheat at the market price. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that this is a subsidy to the poultry and pig industries.

Dr. SALTER

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain who gets it?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I really must ask the hon. Member to allow me to make my statement. There is no reason in our opinion for farmers to take wheat to these provender mills to be ground into wheat meal for stock and poultry feeding or to grind wheat meal in their own provender mills and then to have the quota payment added to the cost. I must again explain that if farmers have wheat ground on commission in this way it will not rank for the deficiency payment. In fact, some of the wheat so ground may not be of millable quality from the point of view of flour millers, though suitable for grinding into food for stock and poultry. On the general question it is not true to say that the greater the amount of wheat consumed by animals and poultry the greater will be the charge on the consumer. The quantity of wheat which may rank for deficiency payment is limited by the Bill to the 27,000,000 cwts. per year, and this quantity represents the home-grown wheat of millable quality and has nothing whatever to do with the question whether it is actually milled into flour for feeding stock and poultry. The Amendment is unnecessary and, in the circumstances, I cannot accept it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Is it not the case that the deficiency payment will have to be made on all wheat which may be classified by the right hon. Gentleman's technicians as "millable wheat," and that a goodly proportion of that so-called "millable wheat" for which the deficiency payment has been made, may go to the provender millers, referred to in this Sub-section? That being so, is it not also the case that the more of that wheat, goes to the provender millers, the higher will be the charge to the consumer for subsidising animal foods? If only approximately one-tenth or one-fifth of the amount of wheat produced is actually sold off the farms, we can see the possibility of a considerable proportion of the wheat upon which deficiency payment is made entering the provender miller's department and being transformed into the particular kind of animal food which that miller is supplying. To that extent the consumer's food will be bearing a charge to subsidise the feeding of animals.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The Minister says that at present only 1 per cent. of the total is milled by the provender miller who is, generally, a small man. Is there anything to prevent every single miller setting up a subsidiary company to do provender milling? Will not Spillers or any of the big millers, who mill vast quantities for provender, be able to set up subsidiary companies to do 100 per cent. provender milling? Then the extra amount of payment on ordinary flour for human consumption will be a very large sum.

Sir J. GILMOUR indicated dissent.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but surely it is a matter of arithmetic. At present, the term "flour" in the main part of the Clause is used to convey the meaning "flour milled for human consumption." Only a very small proportion is milled by the provender miller. If, of that which is milled for animal consumption, 90 per cent. is transferred to the provender milling by subsidiary companies the whole quota will have to be made up by extra payments on the flour for human consumption. That must follow, so that the danger of this proviso is that you are giving an inducement to everybody to separate their provender milling from the ordinary milling of flour for human consumption and thereby take the whole of the quota payment off the whole of the provender wheat meal and put it on to the flour. I understand that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's desire. All he wants to do is to exempt the few small provender millers who happen now to be in existence. I suggest that the form of the proviso is such that he is offering a very large inducement to all big firms who do, in fact, mill for provender, to set up separate companies to do that part of the work and thereby to get great bene- fit for that side of their business at the expense of the consumer of flour. We are afraid of that development and we ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into that aspect of the question and to consider whether he is not leaving here a large loophole, through which these big millers will ultimately be able to drive a coach and four.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I do not anticipate that the fears of the hon. and learned Gentleman will be realised, but I shall, of course, look very carefully into the point which he has raised.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.