DEFENCE FORCES (FOOD SUPPLIES). (Hansard, 18 December 1936)

§ Major RAYNER
At this hour I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House, but since I have had the honour to sit at the back of these Back Benches I have listened to many important speeches on our Defence Forces, and also on the problem of our food supplies in the event of war, and I wish to bring up a subject which I consider is a natural connecting link between these two great questions and to ask the Government to give agriculture a Christmas present which would be much appreciated. I refer to the desirability of feeding the armed forces of the Crown on British beef and other British produce. I know that this matter has been raised before at Question time, but as one representing a great agricultural Division I make no apology for raising it again, as I feel that the Government should be informed of the strong feeling that exists among both farmers and farm workers regarding it. "Why do the Government," they ask, "encourage the country to buy British and feed the Army from abroad; why do they preach the urgency of agricultural revival and import much of the Navy's food, and how can they expect us to 2887 appreciate our position as a vital cog in the scheme of defence, while they clog the machinery with the grit of this kind of discouragement?"
Now I consider that there is a good deal of truth in these complaints. The Government, to this extent, do not practise what they preach, and I suggest that a statement to the effect that in future, or from such times as existing contracts expire, the Forces should be fed entirely on British beef, would indeed be a welcome one. I know there are difficulties and I realise, as do most farmers, that the general level of prices would be barely affected, but I hold that this Measure would not only increase production, but have a great psychological influence on the morale of the agricultural industry, and would forge a valuable link in the public mind between two vital aspects of the Defence plan.
The main difficulty, no doubt, is the cost, and, as a soldier, I well appreciate the service views on this factor. I have commanded a unit of 600 men and being partly responsible for the feeding of it, I have felt myself obliged to buy in the cheapest market in order to make the best use of the funds at my disposal. Equally, on the higher plane, it would seem to be the first duty of the Admiralty and the Army and Air Councils, to provide, with the money allowed them, the maximum measure of defence. They are able, however, to take a long view not permitted the regimental officer, and one feels that they should do all they can to foster home-grown supplies of meat as these are as essential in war time as armaments and as vulnerable in transit from abroad. If, in fact, the policy of buying army supplies in the cheapest market were followed to its logical conclusion, we should close our Arsenals and buy arms at half what they now cost from some cheap labour country like Japan, and though this practice is unthinkable it is perhaps equally unsound in the case of foodstuffs. Moreover, they have to consider the enormous difficulty of providing storage for chilled and foreign meat at innumerable camps, and as every soldier realises, there is no doubt that the ideal meat supply for the changing needs of mobilised forces is that which is carried on the hoof.
2888 I believe also, speaking now both as an agricultural Member and a soldier, that a very great deal could be done to keep down cost by making proper use of the secondary joint of English meat. This is said to have just as much food value as the prime joint, and a good deal more than cuts from the frozen corpses which we import, and though it requires to be cooked in a slightly different way, I cannot see any reason why service cooks should not receive the necessary training. The Forces might, in fact, in this connection easily perform a great national service unconnected with their duties by popularising the cheaper grades of fresh meat among a population in which an urge for physical fitness shows signs of awakening.
I beg to suggest, therefore, to the Minister of Agriculture that this whole question should be considered by the Government at an early date, and that the Government might be responsible for such additional cost as could not be met in the ordinary course from the respective Defence Funds. This cost would be a mere fleabite among other defence charges, and would, I think, be money well spent for reasons which, in conclusion, I will sum up. First, there is the published fact that the standard of living of the Forces was again to go up, and that only British meat would be supplied to them would be a welcome aid to recruiting. Secondly, the times are dangerous and the supply for the Defence Forces ought to come from a regular and assured source, which is unlikely to be disorganised in times of national emergency. The only assured source is a British one. Thirdly, this measure would be the logical corollary of the far-reaching defence measures which the Government have already initiated, and would also strengthen their efforts to encourage a "Buy British" mentality among our people. Lastly, this measure would give the keenest satisfaction and real encouragement to those who work on the land. This Government has done much for agriculture, but good men are still leaving the land at the rate of many thousands a year, and no effort should be spared to stop this deplorable exodus. The measure to which I have referred requires only a small effort, but I suggest that from every point of view it is well worth the making.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender)
I have only a very short time in which to put the case for the Government, but I appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend has given me as much time as he could. This is an old story, and there is very little new to be said about it. In spite of the excellence of my hon. and gallant Friend's arguments, I am afraid that he did not adduce anything very novel in the way of new arguments, but I should not like it to be assumed that we who are responsible for buying meat for the Army and for the Royal Air Force, or indeed, the Admiralty either, are in any way antagonistic to the interests of farmers. This afternoon I am of necessity speaking as junior Minister representing the War Office, but I am also the Member for a very important agricultural constituency in the country, and I am more than fully aware of the feelings which exist in the rural districts upon this matter.
Ever since the War it has been the policy of successive Governments to buy frozen meat of Dominion origin for the Forces. The annual consumption of the Army and the Royal Air Force amounts to some 14,000 tons, costing approximately some £470,000. To replace this supply of meat with home-killed meat at current prices would add a sum of about £335,000 to this figure. That is without making any allowance for any advance in price which might materialise as a result of increased demand. If we add to the Army and the Royal Air Force figures those of the Navy, the total increased cost per annum would be about £390,000. The same considerations apply in the case of home-produced meat, the cost being even higher than that of home-killed, and likely to rise proportionately higher were this change to take place, in view of the much more limited supply. It will, therefore, be seen that the financial difficulties in the way of meeting the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend are very serious indeed.
The administrative difficulties must not be lost sight of when we examine this question. In the first place, although a good many buildings for the storage of foodstuffs have been built in this country both for the Army and for the Royal Air Force, they are not designed for 2890 the storage of fresh meat but for the storage of frozen meat and are not suitable for the hanging of fresh meat. A very considerable expense would have to be incurred to provide the accommodation that would be necessary if we made a change-over to fresh meat. Any cost of this reconstruction has to be taken into account with the figures which I have given to my hon. Friend just now. My hon. Friend made a considerable point about the circumstances which would arise in the event of our being committed to another world war. It should be taken for granted, to start with, that the field forces of the British Army would have to be fed upon frozen meat, and whatever value might accrue to the British farmer as a result of our going over to home-produced meat in times of peace certainly in times of war we should have to rely upon supplies of frozen meat. Although my hon. Friend seemed to think that we might have some difficulty in ensuring the supplies, it probably occurred to him that, if we were not able to ensure supplies of frozen meat to the troops in the field, we should certainly not be able to ensure the supply of the greater amount of food which would be required for feeding our population at home. I must come back to the original point, that it is mainly a question of finance, and the figures which I have quoted to the House this afternoon will prove what an enormously increased expenditure is involved in a change of this kind.
The other points which my hon. Friend raised are covered by what I have said this afternoon. I would like to conclude with this. Whatever advantages may accrue to the agricultural industry—and I do not deny that they might be considerable, though I think that they are sometimes exaggerated—I do not think that the cost of providing those advantages is one which should fall on the Fighting Service Votes. To give this benefit to agriculture in this form would mean no less than giving it a concealed subsidy, and we have quite enough expenditure already to face without having an additional £400,000 piled on to us for the benefit of British farmers. Though I put it in that language, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that we are not interested in the welfare of the farmers. My point is that it is 2891 not for the Service Departments to bear the additional cost of what is nothing less than a concealed subsidy.

§ Mr. DENVILLE
Time being somewhat short and the atmosphere somewhat thick with the crowded state of the House, might I take this opportunity of saying to you, Sir, and to the Speaker, to your colleagues, to the Serjeant-at-Arms, to all the officials of the House, to the Socialist party opposite and the Liberal party, which at this moment is defunct, and to everybody con- 2892 cerned, especially the messengers and servants of the House, a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think that the hon. Member's remarks were probably thoroughly disorderly, but they will be appreciated by all.