SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) (FOOD)

HC Deb 27 March 1946 vol 421 cc499-518

9.55 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to move: That the Order, dated 5th March, 1946, amending the Flour Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 312, a copy of which amending Order was presented on 11th March, be annulled. I would like at the outset to say how sorry we are that "Big Ben" is not with us tonight. [Interruption.] The remark is quite a friendly and polite one. Any how, I am very sorry that the Minister of Food is not here tonight. We are assured that the Minister of Food has full confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is to reply. I wish to draw attention to the fact that on 20th February, 1946, an Order was produced by the Ministry of Food— No. 265— and a very few days afterwards, the Ministry of Food produced another Order dated 5th March amending the Flour Order, 1945. The Ministry of Food might have made up their minds about this matter on 20th February when they produced the first Order, instead of wasting goodness knows how many tons of paper in producing Order No. 265 before they produced Order No. 312, which complettly amended Order No. 265. Here I want to ask the Law Officers of the Crown a question on one small technical point. Order No. 265 was dated 20th February and some of my hon. Friends and myself put down a Prayer against that Order, because we thought it needed a certain amount of explanation. When we had put down the Prayer, the Ministry of Food produced Order No. 312. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that our Prayer against Order No. 265 would be out of Order because No. 312, although it did not nullify Order No. 265, did completely change it. I admit it may be rather amusing, but I would like to know what would happen, supposing the Ministry of Food produced Order No. 265; then directly my hon. Friends and I put down a Prayer against No. 265, they produced Order No. 312, which would make a Prayer against No. 265 impossible due to your Ruling, Sir; and if when we put down a Prayer against No. 312, another Order was produced— say No. 350— and so on ad infinitum—

Mr. Speaker

My recollection is that the hon. Member's Prayer on Order No. 265 came after Order 312 had been laid. Therefore, there can be no complaint. Points of Order which ought to have been raised at the time Order No. 265 was laid cannot be raised on this Order now, when we are discussing only Order No. 312.

Mr. Taylor

I very humbly bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will not mention it further except to say, if I am in Order in doing so, that I was not in my place when Order No. 265. was due to come up because I understood it was to be ruled out of Order. But I do feel, if I may submit this point, that this requires a certain amount of consideration by the Law Officers of the Crown and that an assurance should be given to the House that tactics of this sort will not be adopted to rule out all Prayers against Orders when they are submitted.

Now I come to the substance of the Order in question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to find a certain amount of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the first place the two Orders Nos. 265 and 312 will increase the wheat extraction from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent. I am a layman; I do not know anything about milling whatsoever, and I know very little about flour, but I feel that, before we allow such an Order to go through, we should know one or two things about it. In the first place I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she can tell us what difference there will be in the nutritional value of the bread. I know that in wartime the wheat extraction was up to 85 per cent That was a necessity, and I am asking now whether there is an absolute necessity [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course there is."] Wait a moment. I am asking, also, whether the Government are trying to teach the mothers and the fathers and the children of this country what sort of bread they ought to eat. If it is only that, I suggest that we should not teach people in this country what bread they ought to eat. They should be given what bread they like, whether white or brown. I know that other hon. Members will deal with this point in greater detail, if they are called by you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to know what effect it will have on the production of shell eggs. '[Laughter.] Certainly. The hon. Lady the Member for North Bradford (Mrs.Nichol) may laugh—

Mr. Speaker

Eggs do not come into this Order at all.

Mr. Taylor

With the greatest respect, Sir, if the wheat extraction is raised, there will be less chicken food available for those who—

Mr. Speaker

It is a very ingenious argument but I cannot consider it as part of this Order.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fax (Henley)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, Sir, surely it is very important that we should know that, if we have greater extraction, there will be less of the offals on which we feed pigs and chickens in this country. It is a matter of the greatest importance, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) is right in saying that it affects eggs.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member must remember that this Order only amends another Order which dealt with this to a minor degree, and the point should have been raised then, not now.

Mr. Taylor

With great respect. Sir, this Order and the preceding Order increase the wheat extraction from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent, and that, in my very humble submission, will make a vast amount of difference; or, if it does not make a vast amount of difference, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say what difference it will make to the chicken farmer who is hoping to produce shell eggs. Obviously, because of the wheat extraction, he will not get the same amount of offals and chicken food to enable him to produce shell eggs. But I do not go into that matter further because I understand, that, with your permission, Sir, other hon. Members will deal with it later.

I come now to the Order 312. Paragraph 1 (a, 3) says that the flour shall contain such other ingredients as the Minister may have authorised to be ingredients of National Flour. I have consulted the original Order, No. 1, 1945, and have tried to find what other ingredients are permitted in that flour. I should like an assurance that they are not harmful ingredients. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; I am surprised that hon. Ladies laugh: They are housewives, and this matter affects housewives all over the country. As a father of three sons I know that that is so. I would like to know what other ingredients are in the flour.

My next question refers to "W" flour. This is described in the Order as: Any flour which, by the terms of a licence granted under Article 3 of this Order — the main Order, No. 1, 1945— authorising the production of the flour is authorised to be so described. I have looked through the No. I Order. I have found a description of "M" flour and of "D" flour. On page 5 there is a reference to "W" flour, but it does not say what this flour is. I would remind hon. Members that this House passed an order relating to this flour, but I challenge any hon. Member, apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, who will know the answer, to tell me what "W flour "means. If any hon. Member would like to interrupt me to tell me what "W" flour is, I am prepared to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wallflower."] Before we pass this Order which deals with "W" flour and makes considerable reference to it, we ought to know what that flour is used for, and all about it. The Order also deals in part with what we have been led to believe is the world wheat shortage. I would ask whether it is a fact that the world is short of 7,500,000 tons of wheat. Let us have it stated now. Obviously the Order and the increase in the wheat extraction are due to the world wheat shortage. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister of Food has looked into the so-called hidden wheat reserves in the Argentine.

Mr. Speaker

We cannot discuss the wheat situation now. It was described in the White Paper, and it is outside the scope of the Order.

Mr. De la Bère (Evesham)

Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Food are absolutely uninformed about the world food position?

Mr. Taylor

With greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not believe the Order would have been produced but for what has been announced as the world wheat shortage. I cannot believe that the people of this country would have had this Order imposed on them, had it not been that there is reputed to be a world food shortage; and I was trying to suggest to the Ministry of Food why this Order was necessary. I feel that if the rumours about the Argentine wheat situation are true—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot discuss the Argentine wheat situation on this Order. There may be a shortage, but the hon. Member cannot discuss what is happening in the Argentine, or the United States, on this Order.

Mr. Taylor

Would I be in Order in referring to the world wheat shortage?

Mr. Speaker

It would be in Order, to refer to the world wheat shortage, but not to any remedies.

Mr. Taylor

I was trying to suggest to the House why this Order should not be necessary and it occurred to my humble mind that if there were wheat in other arts of the world which could be imported to this country, such an Order as this Order 312 would not be necessary. I suggest to hon. Members opposite who have shown a certain amount of hilarity on this subject, that not one of them has read the Order. Before they show such hilarity, or vote against this Motion, or mock those who are trying to raise a matter of substance, they should study the Order, and realise exactly what it does. If tonight the Prayer is not successful, the Order becomes an Act of Parliament affecting all their constituents. I hope that rather than showing further hilarity, they will consider the speeches made by my hon. Friend and myself before giving judgment on such a serious matter.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

I beg to second the Motion.

This Order has been brought about by the world cereal position and, to my mind, by the way in which the world cereal position has been handled in this country. The purpose of the Order is to raise the wheat extraction rate from 80 per cent, to 85 per cent. That comes into effect as from 10th March. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that this will affect not only the amount of wheat in the flour, but also the amount of animal feeding stuffs in the form of offal, which is of enormous importance to our food production. It is not only the matter of flour we have to consider. The raising of the rate of extraction from 80 to 85 per cent. will have the effect of producing from any given quantity of wheat 6½ per cent. more flour than we had before, but it will have the effect of decreasing animal feeding stuffs by 25 per cent. I will explain that by saying that in round figures we mill 100,000 tons of flour a week to provide our bread. Before this Order came into effect that produced 80,000 tons of flour and 20,000 tons of offal. When the Order comes into effect 85,000 tons of flour and 15,000 tons of offal will be produced, a drop from 20,000 tons to 15,000 tons, which is a reduction of 25 per cent.

That is a serious matter, and it will have repercussions on poultry keeping and livestock throughout the country. I ask the Minister whether every step has already been taken to rectify that position? Have we gone to Canada and the other wheat producing countries and ascertained what the possibilities were of importing offal so that we can maintain or even increase our annual foodstuffs in this country? Secondly, have we considered every possible alternative, such as maize, etc., so as to try to keep up our total tonnage of animal foodstuffs within the country? It is a vital point which concerns the country deeply.

Suddenly, within a month, our extraction rate of flour has been boosted by 5 per cent. I wish to draw attention to the fact that when these shortages were foreshadowed by those who studied statistics, no steps were taken to raise the wheat production in this country. The whole of the autumn sowing season was lost. The Minister of Food talked to the farmers and told them there would be no direction regarding cereals. This went on until suddenly, on 5th February, the Minister had to announce to the House the grave position in which we in this country find ourselves. There was a hurried hotch potch of an agricultural programme to plough in three-year ley and raise wheat production. All the good sowing time in the autumn was lost, due to lack of foresight. My objection to this Order is that it would not have been necessary had the facts been studied as they should have been. The Minister informed the House that we had lost the rice crop from India, which was a valuable cereal to this country, due to the failure of the rains. He told us that on 5th February, but the monsoon rains in India which produce the rice crop come at the end of August, and he should have been informed what the position was long before then.

I ask the hon. Lady for an assurance that every step has been taken to see that this position in which we find ourselves today, which is now unavoidable, is mitigated as far as it can be, especially in relation to the livestock and poultry industry. The House must remember that, even in the worst days of the war, we were only forced to go to 85 per cent, extraction, and at no time did we ever produce for this country anything but a wholly cereal loaf. I feel that this Order has been put before the House in a hurry. I think it is obvious that is so, because these two Orders, 265 and 312, have followed each other so closely. It is obvious a hurried decision has been made. I feel the Minister has been living from hand to mouth, in a fool's paradise and has not been studying the world position of cereals. That is the reason why the Order has had to come before us, and why the extraction has to be raised to 85 per cent, from 80 per cent, in the short time of one month. That was never done in war time.

I would also mention the point that during the war, even in the worst times of the submarine campaign, we never had less than 14 weeks' wheat supply in this country. I hope the hon. Lady will tell us what the position is today. How does our larder stand? Have we got 14 weeks' supply today? What adulteration will have to be introduced to keep up our bread supply, to keep up the supplies we need? I would refer to paragraph 1 (3) of the Order which gives the Minister the right, or the discretion, to direct what dilution or adulteration shall go into our flour. The Order lays down a standard for national flour but it does not lay down a standard for national bread. It directs what the wheaten content of flour shall be— milled at 85 per cent, extraction— but the Minister is given powers to add other ingredients as he may decide. I think we are entitled to know what those ingredients are going to be and what is the percentage that is going to be added, because that will be a reflection of the position of our stocks and supplies. Oats, rye and barley were all used during the war. If I may suggest it to the hon. Lady, there is a very profitable use to which barley could be put instead of its being put into the loaf today, if we could afford it. In adulterating the loaf we have to realise what we are doing. If we put in oats and barley and rye, the normal process of fermentation when we put yeast into the dough does not act as it should. As we know from our own experience in the dining room, the crisp and crackling crust is now reduced to a sodden soggy slice. I ask the hon. Lady to tell us what is the position of our wheat stocks today, and what is the intention of the Minister regarding both the percentage of adulteration in our loaf in the future, and materials which are to be used.

10.24 P.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I do not want to detain the House long and, unlike some Members who say that, I mean it. I support the Prayer for the annulment of this Order and the point I want to emphasise is that of the effect on the poultry farmer. In my constituency, and I fancy in most rural or semi-rural constituencies, the poultry farmer represents a large and valuable part of the community. On 5th December last, they were informed that they could keep up to one-third of the prewar stocks of poultry, as opposed to the one-sixth which they were allowed before that.

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid we cannot discuss poultry stocks. We must not discuss poultry in general at the moment; we can discuss only questions which are covered by the new Order and how poultry stocks are going to be affected by it.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

This Order, No. 312, is headed "Food (Flour, Feeding stuffs)." Surely, Mr. Speaker, that does suggest that a reasonable latitude might be allowed in this discussion?

Mr. Speaker

That is the heading, but it is not in the Order, and we must deal only with what is in the Order. I am clear, in my own mind, about it, and that is quite definitely the position.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, if I am in Order what the effect of this Order will De. Its effect will be very serious on poultry farmers, and I hope some consideration will De given to them. They will suffer very severely under this Order. I am all for the higher percentage of extraction, from one point of view, but. if it is a matter of having feeding stuffs as well as flour, there should be a proper proportion between the two. I feel that poultry fanners have been let down by a totally false promise which, two months after it was made was withdrawn.

10.27 P.m.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

The mover of this Motion said that this has been done in a hurry. [Interruption.] Well, the seconder said it had been done in a hurry.

Mr. De la Bère

And in a muddle.

Mr. Stokes

Perhaps hon. Members on the other side will carry their minds back to the way in which the wheat extraction percentage was altered with the previous case, when, with a complete disregard of the recommendations of the official advisory committee, the wheat extraction rate was put down from 85 to 80 per cent., to the disadvantage of the consuming public of this country.

Mr. C. S. Taylor

The last case was on 20th February, 1944. The hon. Member obviously has not been reading his Orders in Council.

Mr. Stokes

I know the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) is a good debater, but that is only a debating point. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I am referring to that disreputable reduction made last year, when, to the disadvantage of the whole community, the percentage was lowered from 85 to 80. What is happening now? With due regard to the necessities of the poultry-interests of this country— [Laughter]. Certainly. The Minister of Food, in his discretion and with the support of all the recognised authorities of the country, decided, quite rightly, that the wheat extraction rate should be put up again from 80 to 82 per cent., and again to 85 per cent., and he calculated, too, what would be the effect on the poultry farmer and the effect on the feeding stuffs situation of the country.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

On a point of Order. The hon. Member is referring to a wartime measure introduced for wartime purposes. Our contention is that the war is over.

Mr. Speaker

That the war is over is not a point of Order.

Mr. Stokes

So far as I can make out, the war is not over, as indicated by the reaction of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the state of things which they imagine should come into being when peace breaks out is quite different from what we imagine should happen. We now have people on the Front Bench who have regard to the interests of the population. [HON. MEMBERS: "Houses and coal."] I am not talking about coal. That is for another occasion. I recognise that the medical authorities in this country have said, despite the disadvantage to the poultry— and I regret very much having to bring in the hens and chickens— that it will be to the advantage of the people of this country as a whole, to put up the wheat extraction again to 85 per cent. or even higher. Not only will it be of benefit to the people of this country; it will be to the advantage of the starving millions across the water, and that is unanswerable. We know that is a fact and we know that the health of the country was better in wartime, which was due to the high extraction of wheat. I trust, therefore, that the House will with no uncertain voice reject the Prayer that has been moved tonight.

10.31 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox (Henley)

I rise to support the Prayer against this Order and I hope I shall be in Order if I follow your last Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and discuss how far the poultry stocks will be affected.

Mr. Speaker

What I said was that the Parliamentary Secretary had been asked a question about poultry, and she could answer it, but that we were not discussing that subject.

Sir G. Fox

I take it I would be in Order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to say how the poultry stocks will be affected. The other day I directed a Parliamentary Question asking for this information, and I was told that it was not available at that time. I personally do not mind darker bread, which is what this increased flour extraction means, but I assure the Minister that I am concerned about the fact that the country has been promised more shell eggs by the Minister of Food, and the question that arises is, How can there be more shell eggs if there arc less chickens, and poultry, and less food with which to feed them? I ask the Minister to explain exactly how this Order is going to affect the poultry situation.

10.33 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill)

I think I detected a little confusion on the part of the hon. Member for East bourne (Mr. Taylor) when he moved the Prayer against this Order. I think he suggested that when he put the Prayer against Order No. 265 on the Order Paper last week we deliberately tried to thwart him—

Mr. Taylor

I never said that.

Dr. Summerskill

Well, that is how it sounded on this side of the House— that we deliberately tried to thwart him by making Order 312.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Lady will forgive me, I am sure, if I interrupt to say that I never said that. I was putting forward the hypothetical case of the Ministry producing Order after Order, and thus denying the House the right to make a Prayer against the original Order. I would never accuse the hon. Lady of doing such a dirty trick as producing the Order to thwart hon. Members on this side. I knew that the other Order was made after we had put down our Prayer, but we still wanted to pray against the original Order.

Dr. Summerskill

I certainly apologise to the hon. Member if I interpreted him wrongly. May I say that perhaps I was wrong in thinking he was confused over that. His confusion arose out of the procedure we are adopting. I want to explain to him that it is the normal procedure to amend a main Order as we did when he made Order No. 265. Then one can make a further amendment and the second amendment revokes the first.

Mr. Taylor

No.

Dr. Summerskill

This second Order, No. 312, which we have made, of course, revokes the first.

Mr. Taylor

May I again interrupt on that point, and ask whether Order No. 265 is now withdrawn, whether it is annulled or whether it is revoked, because it is an important point of procedure? I should like to know whether Order No. 312 washes out Order No. 265?

Dr. Summerskill

I always thought my diction was clear. The word I used was "revoked."

Mr. Taylor

What does that mean?

Dr. Summerskill

Washed out. Although Members opposite have suggested that we have "muddled through," I think I shall be able to explain that we have adopted what is a very necessary procedure in the circumstances. The Order in question came into force on 10th March, and, as I have said, was the second of the two Orders for the purpose of raising the extraction rate from 80 per cent.— the rate prevailing before 24th February— to 85 per cent. The first Order came into force on 24th February, to raise the extraction rate to 82½ per cent.May I recall the events which led up to the making of these Orders, and say that I am sure the House does not want a Debate on the world food situation to night—

Mr. Stokes

We want it, but we cannot get it.

Dr. Summerskill

We are shortly to issue a White Paper on the position, and I think it is generally known that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council promised, a little while ago, that there would be a Debate in the House on the world food situation.

The decision to increase the extraction rate was announced by the Minister of Food on 5th February, on his return from Washington. He pointed out, at that time, that there was a very grave deficit — about 5,000,000 tons— of wheat. He said that all importing countries had to make heavy sacrifices, and that His Majesty's Government had accepted a reduction of nearly 250,000 tons, in the United Kingdom wheat imports, for the first half of 1946. This reduction could not be met out of stocks and it was, therefore, necessary to take steps to make greater use of our wheat supplies for direct human consumption. This could only be done by increasing the extraction rate.

I want to explain why it was necessary to introduce these two Orders in rapid succession. It was done in order to avoid, so far as possible, a run on stocks, due to a possible desire on the part of the public to stock up with flour of a lower extraction rate. The House knows that flour of a lower extraction rate is of a lighter colour, and more attractive to many people, although its nutritional value is not so high as that of the darker flour. It was decided that no public announcement should be made of the dates on which the new extraction rate should come into operation. The reason for making the change in the two stages was the desirability of avoiding a sudden change in the appearance of the flour. If we had gone suddenly from "near white" to darker flour it would have been unpopular, and the public would not have accepted it as they have accepted the new loaf today. The gradual change has been facilitated by a lower percentage of imported flour, mixed with the home milled flour. That is the simple explanation. If the hon. Member for Eastbourne had come to me, and asked me why the successive Orders had been made, I would have explained to him that it was in the public interest. I am sure he would have been the last person to have wanted a run on flour—

Mr. Taylor

I did not want information privately, but in this House.

Dr. Summerskill

I have no desire for a private party with the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite willing to discuss this matter on an intellectual plane, without wasting the time of the House.

I want the House to realise that the annulment of this Order would have the effect of restoring the 80 per cent. rate of extraction, which would give us no more wheat. Many hon. Members have asked me whether we have made inquiries in every country in the world concerning wheat supplies. I really think that, at this stage of the proceedings, that is a rather frivolous suggestion. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the Minister of Food has been in the United States recently. He was there at Christmas. We have had delegations from different countries in different parts of the world who have come to us to discuss the shortage of wheat, and we did everything in our power to increase our wheat stocks before we took this step.

Mr. De la Bère

Will the hon. Lady allow me? I do not interrupt ladies as a rule. Is it not the fact— I am quite serious about this— that the Ministry of Food is well known not to have the world figures of wheat? Is it not a notorious fact that the Ministry of Food is less informed at the present time than it has ever been in its history? The trade will endorse my statement. I am not. speaking without knowledge. It is a most regrettable and deplorable fact that the Ministry shows this ineptitude at the present time.

Dr. Summerskill

I am surprised that the hon. Member knows more about the stocks in this country than the Ministry of Food. Perhaps, afterwards, he will tell me what the stocks are—

Mr. De la Bère

Gladly.

Dr. Summerskill

And I will tell him if he is correct. I want the House to realise that if this Order were annulled, the result would be a dangerous drain on our stocks, which would rapidly fail below the level necessary to maintain a satisfactory standard of distribution. We have said time after time why we are not prepared to reveal the amount of the stocks. A businessman would not con sider disclosing, while negotiating, what amount of stocks of any commodity he happened to possess. The Ministry of Food to a large extent is a trading concern. I think I have answered—

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Southpor)

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but this is a most important statement. She said no business man would disclose the stocks he held. This has considerable relevance to a Debate which is to take place tomorrow. Will the hon. Lady qualify that statement, which applies only so long as the Ministry of Food is a bulk purchaser?

Dr. Summerskill

I certainly will not repeat the words which the right hon. Gentleman would like me to repeat. I stand by what I have said.

Mr. Hudson

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. She will regret it tomorrow.

Dr. Summerskill

I want to say a word to those who are concerned with the shortage of feeding stuffs.

Lord William Scott (Roxburgh and Selkirk)

Would the hon. Lady deal with adulteration?

Dr. Summerskill

I propose to answer that specific question in a few moments. This increase of extraction has inflicted considerable hardship on livestock producers, but we have had to choose whether we shall feed human beings in this country, or feed animals. Unfortunately, we are faced with this difficulty. It may mean that milk production, meat production, production of shell eggs, may go down. But we have to face up to that difficulty. It must be borne in mind that the reduction in supplies of animal feeding-stuffs in the United Kingdom is not entirely due to the increase in the extraction rate, but also to our reduced imports of coarse grains. The hon. Member asked me whether we intended to put these coarse grains— oats, barley and rye— into our bread. We cannot say at the moment whether we intend to adulterate the bread any further; it depends upon the world wheat supply. The hon. Member asked me in what other way bread was— I know he did not say "adulterated "; the right word is "fortified "— in what way bread was fortified during the war years. We put a certain proportion of calcium into the bread; whether we shall do so again will depend on the advice of our scientific advisers.

Mr. C. S. Taylor

Chalk.

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Gentleman and I do not appear to have the same vocabulary.

Mr. Taylor

It is ground chalk.

Dr. Summerskill

I was asked whether the extraction rate of 85 per cent. had a good or bad influence on the nutritional value of the loaf. I, as a doctor, say it is excellent. Another point that the hon. Gentleman was not clear about was what "W flour" means. "W" stands for wholemeal. Farmers are allowed to mill a certain amount of flour for the consumption of their own families and, under the Order, they can mill it at a higher rate than 85 per cent.

Mr. Taylor

Can the hon. Lady say where we can find a reference to "W flour"?

Dr. Summerskill

I think the hon. Member will have to take it from me that that is the meaning of the term. He may find it in the original Order. I must confess that I forget the source of my information, I got it from some tome; I will find out exactly the reference and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)

Can the hon. Lady assure us that the trade is aware of the meaning of "W flour "? Traders who have to carry out these Orders will have to be aware what flour "means.

Dr. Summerskill

I can assure the hon. Member that the trade knows it. I think those were the chief questions that were raised. I want the House to realise that this step has been taken deliberately, and that other countries are doing the same thing; many countries have an extraction rate of 90 per cent. some have 100 per cent. The United States are now going up to 82½ per cent. from about 75 per cent. and we find that it is the most useful way, at the moment, of increasing our wheat stocks. Therefore, I hope the House will not assent to the Motion.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

I apologise for not being present during the early part of the hon. Lady's speech; I would like to know whether, as a result of this Order, bread is to be uniform throughout the country. The Order specifically excludes Canadian flour, and presumably Canadian flour, milled at a considerably lower extraction, is coming and has already come to this country. As, presumably, imports of Canadian flour will continue, the effect will be that there will be a mixture of Canadian flour, milled at a lower extraction, and English flour, milled at a higher extraction. Will it be uniform throughout the country, or will different parts of the country enjoy different mixtures? In other words is the loaf to be darker in some parts of the country than in others. Could the hon. Lady make this point clear?

Dr. Summerskill

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Canadian flour is coming over and I believe it is milled at an extraction rate of 72 per cent. We are, of course, using it, with the result that the loaf has gradually got darker as I explained to the House. We are hoping to give a uniform loaf throughout the country.

Mr. Hudson

I asked the question particularly because it will be within the hon. Lady's recollection— or at all events if she asks her officials they will tell her — that that was not always so—

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Hudson

There is one short point that I should like to make with the leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames)

I should be most grateful if the hon. Lady would clear up one point. In the course of her speech she informed the House quite clearly that this Order S.R. & O. No. 312— which annulled, or, as she preferred to put it, "washed out." — [Interruption]. The effect of the hon. Lady's observation was that this Order put out of action— to use a neutral term — S.R. & O. No. 265. I should be most grateful if she would tell the House how that was done. If the hon. Lady will be good enough to look at the S.R. & O. No. 312 she will observe two things. First there is no specific annulment of the previous Order, and secondly, and more significant, if she will look at note (b) of the present Order, referring to previous amendments of the original Order, she will see that the S.R. & 0. No. 265 is actually referred to there. It is surely the case that an Order which annuls a previous Order, will not, even in a foot note, refer to it as an existing Order. There is clearly some confusion here, and the point I should—

Mr. Speaker

This is a drafting point and has nothing to do with the merits of the Order before the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

With very great respect, surely it is in Order on a Motion to annul S.R. & O. No. 312, to submit that the effect of this Order is to leave the position obscure as to previous Orders. I am particularly anxious, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make this point as one who shares the view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that an increased rate of extraction is desirable. The only point I desire to make is that the way in which the Ministry of Food have seen fit to effect this— to my mind admirable— re form, is confused. With great respect to the hon. Lady I submit that it is not quite clear whether the present Order does or does not revoke the previous one. If it is not clear and explicit, then it leaves the law in a state of some con fusion, and having regard to the great public interest and the great public importance—

Mr. Speaker

I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I explained to him before that I considered that this matter did not affect the merits of the Order before the House. I stated that I considered that it did overrule S.R. & O. No. 265 and therefore he is now challenging my Ruling.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Of course, I bow to your Ruling, Sir. My point is this, that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the hearing of the House, made a perfectly clear statement. It is surely, therefore, in Order for me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to the House the reasons for the statement that she gave, and that was my sole purpose in rising. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be given the opportunity of justifying her observations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid Bedford)

The hon. Lady said a moment or two ago that it was her hope and intention to try to have as far as possible a uniform loaf throughout the United Kingdom. Are we to take it that the Order applies to Scotland? Scotland has hitherto had a higher proportion of Canadian flour than other parts of the United Kingdom. As representing an English constituency, I and a number of others would like to hear that the practice is now to be assimilated. I should like reinforcement of that view.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. C. S Taylor

I believe I have a right to reply. I would like to say first of all—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that one has a right to reply. There is no right of reply. The Member who moves a Motion of this kind is allowed to make a second speech.

Mr. Taylor

Thank you very much for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the two Orders were produced within a matter of days, to enable the country to overcome the effect of the change in the colour of the bread. I suggest that we might have better organisation at the Ministry of Food, and have one Order to say that from a certain date flour shall be of such an extraction, and from a certain date onwards another extraction. That would save time, paper and everything else. I commend it to the hon. Lady for consideration by her Department. I must resist the complaint by the hon. Lady about frivolity. There was no frivolity about this whatever. There was no frivolity on this side of the House. If the House of Commons is to agree to a law being made — as in the case of this Order— the House of Commons, as such, should consider these proposals. I feel that I was not so stupid after all in not knowing what those initials meant. I do not know what "N" flour and "D" flour mean. There is no reason why I should know, and I do not believe that any other hon. Members knew what "W" flour meant until the hon. Lady explained. If a reference is made to "W" flour in the Order in Council, it would be better for the Ministry of Food to say "wholemeal flour" instead of "W flour" so that we could understand what it means. There is one technical point on which you, Mr. Speaker, could give guidance. I know there will be hilarity 3 gain on the other side when I mention this point. Suppose we are fortunate enough to annul Order No. 312, what will the position be then? Will Order No. 265 remain effective or will it stand revoked— will it be washed out? Shall we then go back to the original Order of 1945? If not, what will be the position of No. 265?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

On a point of Order. I asked the hon. Lady a matter of the very greatest importance. Does it apply to Scotland?

Mr. Taylor

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance? If we are successful in annulling Order No. 312 what will be the position? Will Order No. 265 still be effective or what will the position be?

Mr. Speaker

As a personal view I should say that both would fall together but I do not think that question ought to be put to me. It is one for the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General.

Mr. Lennox Boyd

This is a matter on which the livelihood and interests of many thousands, indeed millions, of people depend.

Dr. Summerskill

So far as the extraction rate is concerned, it will apply to Scotland. Whether the admixture will be exactly the same in every part I could not say, but I will let the hon. Member know that detail.

Question put, and negatived.