HC Deb 27 June 1947 vol 439 cc895-918

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Snow.)

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Bramall (Bexley)

I think the House will agree with me—and I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will agree with me when she arrives—that the question of the price of food at the present time must cause some concern. On the one hand, we have the undoubted fact that the housewife is harassed and handicapped in her very laudable desire to implement her rationed food by the high prices of many unrationed foods and, on the other hand, we have very justifiable complaints from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the heavy burden which is falling on the taxpayer in the form of subsidies to keep down prices of many foodstuffs on the rationed list. Therefore, I think it will be agreed that any action, or inaction, on the part of the Government which is tending to keep those prices up —whether that is a burden which falls directly on the housewife or on the taxpayer through the operation of the subsidies—must be a matter of considerable concern. I want to indicate to the House that in a number of foodstuffs such a circumstance is occurring.

I am glad I put in that introductory paragraph because I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has just arrived, and she will be able to hear the gravamen or the main part of what I want to say. There are three foodstuffs in particular to whose distribution I want to call the attention of the House. The first is an unrationed foodstuff where the excessive distribution costs fall directly on the housewife, namely, tomatoes. The other two are foodstuffs which are subsidised, where therefore the housewife does not feel directly the burden, but where there is nevertheless a burden because it has to be borne by the Exchequer in the subsidies. Those two are flour and meat.

First, I will deal with tomatoes. I am sorry if I weary the House by giving some of the details of the distributive mechanism which operates in the case of tomatoes, but it is necessary that one should be clear as to what has happened in the present tomato distribution scheme. In normal times there were two processes which might be distinguished of getting tomatoes into the shops either from the importer, who brought in the imported tomatoes from overseas, or from the grower, who grew them in this country. The tomatoes have to be got from the importer or grower to the market and they have to be sold in the market to the retailer. One cannot say that in normal times there were two separate sets of people who carried out these operations. Sometimes an importer would convey the fruit himself from the docks to the market, or the grower would take them to the market and might even sell them there. On the other hand, sometimes the importer or the grower did not do that. The person who sold them in the market, that is, the wholesaler, also collected them at the dockside or direct from the grower.

In 1941 the Ministry of Food decided to rationalise this process. They quite rightly set up a number of centralised associations to carry out the operations so that they were not left to the haggling of the market between the separate individuals in each category in the process of distribution. In order to set up this distribution, they made by what was purely a logical abstraction a distinction between different stages in the distributive process. They said, on the one hand, that the process of conveying the tomatoes to the market from the dockside where the importer brings them into the country, or from the garden where the home grower grows them, is one process of distribution called, in the case of importing, the function of first-hand salesmen, and, for home-grown tomatoes, that of primary wholesaler. Then, they said, there is a quite separate function of selling them in the market which is clearly the function of the wholesaler.

They set up distributive agencies to embrace each of these functions. They set up an association of first-hand salesmen, an association of primary wholesalers, and an association of secondary wholesalers. When imported from abroad, tomatoes are sold, not to any individual, but to an association of firsthand salesmen. The individual, whether he be an importer who also carries out this duty of first-hand salesman, or a wholesaler who has bought direct from the docks, is entitled by reason of the fact that before 1941 he carried out that task, to carry out the onerous task of standing at the dockside—or sending one of his servants to do so—pointing out a particular consignment of tomatoes and saying, "Those are mine"; and handing them over to the agent of the association. He is thereby said to have carried out a stage in distribution, and he receives a quite reasonable reward merely by reason of the fact that he happens to be a member of this association of first-hand salesmen, even though he might also be an importer, a wholesaler and a retailer, and even though, as I have said, he carries out no function other than merely to point out to the agent of the association which is his consignment of tomatoes. For that he is entitled to draw a commission of is. 6d. per 26 1b.

The tomatoes then go on to the wholesaler proper who again draws his commission of 1s. 9d. for 26 lb. One might imagine that out of that they had to pay carriage, but in addition there are laid down in the Food (Tomatoes) Order, 1947, separate excess charges which may be added for carriage. Before the war the position was that either the importer wholesaled the goods himself or the wholesaler bought from the importer, and between them they probably netted 6d. for those 26 lb. Now we have two people who draw a commission of 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d. respectively for doing exactly the same job, and they are two people only in the sense that they are members of two separate associations. I think my hon. Friend will agree that in the vast majority of cases those two people drawing separate commissions for what are theoretically two separate jobs, are really one and the same person who has merely been split by the Ministry by a logical abstraction for the purpose of paying him these charges.

As far as concerns imported tomatoes I think it will be agreed that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and we get the same thing with regard to homegrown tomatoes. Here, again, we have two separate types of wholesaler distinguished as I have explained. There are, of course, two processes in the sense that the tomatoes have to be conveyed from the grower to the market and then sold in the markets to the retailers. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that in normal times when normal methods were functioning there were, in fact, two separate operations carried out by two separate people. In some cases the grower conveyed them to the market himself and in others the wholesaler in the market fetched them from the grower. Now the thing has been formalised and has been divided by this same logical abstraction. Two separate associations have been created—the primary and the secondary wholesalers' distributive associations—and the Order lays it down that a separate commission may be charged for sales through each of these agencies. They may charge 1s. 1d. in the case of primary wholesalers and 1s. 2d. in the case of the secondary wholesaler.

Let us examine what relation these commission charges actually bear to the real cost of distribution. We know that in the case of home-grown tomatoes the real task of distribution is not done by these people at all, but by people who have depots in the markets where they actually carry out the sale to the retailers. They, of course, perform a real function and incur administrative costs in having to keep their stands in the market. But the payment for this is 2d. per 12 lb. as against the commission given to the primary wholesaler and the 1s. 3d. to the secondary wholesaler. We can see, therefore, that it is much more profitable not to sell tomatoes than to sell them.

To return for a moment to imported tomatoes, in case my hon. Friend should say, "That is all theoretically possible, but it does not, in fact, happen and we do not in fact get this excessive burden on the price of tomatoes," I want to draw her attention to the fact that the operation of this system was brought out very sharply in a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) only this week. He drew attention to the fact—which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food admitted— that people importing tomatoes from Holland were paying the Dutch growers prices higher than those which they themselves were allowed to be paid when the tomatoes reached this country.

I believe that it is true to say that there is no allegation that when the tomatoes reach this country the Order is being evaded or that the importers are in fact being paid more than they should receive. The fact remains, therefore, that these importers are quite willing to pay more for the tomatoes in Holland than they are able to obtain here. We are all aware that these people are not importing tomatoes because they like their nice red colour. Obviously, they make money somewhere, and it is quite apparent that these same importers are also first-hand salesmen and, perhaps, in other cases, wholesalers, and that, therefore, for doing no work in those capacities they are drawing such handsome dividends that for the purpose of getting the tomatoes over here they are able to pay a price in Holland which is larger than that which they will receive as importers when the tomatoes reach this country. I think that that reveals an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.

I turn now to the case of flour. At the beginning of the war, the Ministry of Food took over the flour milling industry and, as an act of benevolence, pensioned it off. The industry has remained substantially pensioned to this day, and when I say "substantially pensioned" I mean substantially. Attention was first drawn to this by the Committee on Public Accounts for the year 1942–43, examining the accounts for that year. They expressed some surprise at the arrangement arrived at, and still more surprise at the fact that the arrangement was still continuing. The general scheme is that the mills are taken over by the Ministry and the costs of flour milling are borne by the Ministry. The flour millers are not in any sense risking their money in running these mills, as all the legitimate expenses of running the mills are borne by the Ministry. But a payment still continues to be made to the millers on the basis of paying to them the prewar rate of profit on every sack. The Minister of Food at the time was the noble Lord who is being recommended by the Housewives League and others as the person who should feed us again. He obviously did not intend to pamper the flour millers, but made the right and proper stipulation that the profits paid to them should not exceed the profits paid to them before the war. Obviously it was right that they should not get more profit for not milling flour than for milling flour, and that they should get only the same amount of profit as before the war. I gather that the scheme has been amended, and in view of the fact that as much or more flour is being milled as before the war, they are now allowed more profit than before the war.

The Committee of 1942–43 expressed surprise that this arrangement was continuing in view of the fact that at that time the Minister of Food had no idea of what profit they were paying to the flour millers. The following year the matter appears to, have been allowed to drop, but in 1944–45 the Committee raised the matter again, and at that time the Ministry of Food had some information. The information showed that they were, in fact, paying these millers, as a result of a wartime scheme, for the whole period of six years for which the scheme had been operated, at the rate of 13 per cent. of their capital. That was the rate of profit they were being paid without risking anything in the process of milling flour.

Finally, I wish to deal with meat. The Ministry of Food decided, very properly, to rationalise the whole process of meat distribution. They decided that it could not be left to every individual farmer, slaughterer and butcher to be responsible for this very vital item in the nation's diet, and that, therefore, all the meat should be brought under the ownership of the Ministry of Food. It was either imported on account of the Ministry, or slaughtered in slaughterhouses rented to the Ministry. In the wholesale stage it was entrusted to a public body, the Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association, and it was not left to the individual wholesaler to be responsible for conveying the meat to the retailers. The Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association organised the markets through which meat was conveyed, and in turn sold the meat to other corporate bodies, the retail buying groups of 50 or 100 retailers. The individual wholesaler has been cut out, and the real work is done by the Association. But many of the wholesalers work in the Ministry's slaughterhouses, or operate on the dock-sides as buyers for the Ministry, organising the purchase of the meat from the importers, and organising the introduction of meat into this country. For those operations they receive salaries.

Again, many people are employed by the Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association in the depots and are performing useful functions. Many of them are people who were formerly wholesalers and took part in the wholesale side of the meat trade. No one would criticise them for getting proper remuneration for the work they are actually doing, but it is quite clear that the money which is being paid for this process of wholesaling is something far more than is required for remunerating these people who today carry out the functions of wholesaling. The Wholesale Supply Association is paid much more than covers all their operating costs, and then there is enough to pay to each wholesaler who was wholesaling in 1938 a percentage—I think 1f¾per cent.—on each man's turnover in 1938. If a wholesaler had a turnover of £50,000 a year, which was by no means unusual, he can look forward, without doing any work for it or taking any active part in the business of meat distribution, to £1,000 a year merely from the fact that in the year 1938 he was a meat wholesaler who had a certain turnover.

It may be put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in her reply that it is necessary to compensate these people in the case of meat and tomato schemes by reason of the fact that they have lost their businesses. What sort of compensation is this? We are not in this instance nationalising an industry and taking over large capital equipment. We are merely taking over goodwill, and I think it is generally recognised in any business of this kind that in purchasing the goodwill three to five years' purchase would be quite adequate compensation. There is, too, the possibility that this scheme might end at any time and they would then still have their businesses. The tomato scheme began operating in 1941, so it is now in its eighth year, while the meat scheme has been going on for longer, and these people have been getting this considerable percentage, which is quite enough to cover a very reasonable return to them if they had still been operating their businesses. At any time if the Ministry chose to terminate the scheme they would still have their businesses which would be returned to them.

I submit that these three instances constitute a real and unnecessary burden either directly on the housewives of this country or on the taxpayers through the medium of the subsidy which has to be paid by the Exchequer. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should look into this matter very closely and see if she cannot evolve a much more workmanlike arrangement. I hope in considering these representations the Minister of Food will not draw the conclusion from the present operation of this scheme that it should be dropped and we should go back to the chaotic, laissez fairesystem of distribution that applied before the war. I believe that would be disastrous, particularly in the present state of our food supplies, and that it would be inviting a considerable rise in costs. The thing to do is to organise a proper, rationalised distribution system and see that such payments as are made to the distributors are for the functions that are actually carried out.

This places a burden on the housewives. I do not know whether I shall be backed up by the British Housewives League in the representations I am making. I rather doubt it. Abuses of this type were arranged before this Government came into office, when, in the words of the slogan of the Housewives' League, we had "Winston to lead us; Woolton to feed us." Obviously it is on the party responsible for arranging them that the greatest responsibility rests. The only responsibility that rests on my right hon. Friend, who we all recognise has had many other preoccupations, is that he has allowed them to continue for so long. I hope that as a result of the representations that I am making, and those which others will make, he will now decide that the time has come to put a stop to these abuses which have already confirmed far too long.

3.11 p.m.

Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)

I welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter in the House, and I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) upon the very pertinent points which he has raised. If he had the necessary experience in the distributive trades I do not think he would have attempted to make certain of his points. I have been engaged in the distributive trades for almost 25 years. I have been connected with the organising of people in the tomato growing industry, in the distribution of meat to the slaughter houses, and with flour mills, in addition to many other sections of the trade. One of the first things that strikes any thoughtful person connected with the distributive trades is that when people talk of the private enterprise we have in this country, they should realise that before the war it was a case of private enterprise run riot.

The best example that I can give exists at the moment in connection with the dis- tribution of fish catches. At a time when the nation is most concerned about saving food of every description, we are faced with the fact that one section of the population can say, "Because the marketing operations in regard to the commodity which we supply in the nature of food for the people, and the methods of distribution operate against us, we refuse to go out to get the necessary fish for the people." If the miners were to say that unless they got the conditions they desire they do not intend to get coal, everybody would raise a howl about their lack of patriotic duty. But if the fishermen say that they do not intend to go out to catch fish and that if they catch it and do not get the necessary price to cover the costs which they consider fair, they intend to dump it back in the sea, very rarely do we hear the same howl of indignation which we hear in the other case.

On the question of meat supply, I think that Lord Woolton tackled a most difficult problem when the war took place. He tackled it quite rightly in the only way in which it could have been dealt with at that time. In the operation of the meat markets throughout the country, with the exception of Smithfield, it was found that in local country towns there would be a market to which the farmer brought his cattle and where the local butchers and the buyers from the large butchery establishments gathered together and assessed the price of each animal separately. Sometimes they bought in large numbers and sometimes in small numbers. The system was that of open auction bidding. Then the animals were taken to the slaughterhouse, and it is there that the ordinary worker played an important part. He had rented a stall in the abattoir and he worked by contract. He was not an ordinary worker. Sometimes he was a small employer with three killers. He took a contract to kill so many head of cattle, sheep and so on, at the trade price, and, right from the moment when the enterprising drover went to the farmer to buy outside the market, or the farmer brought the cattle and sheep into the market, we had absolute chaos, competition and unnecessary expense of all kinds which was added to the cost, with the result that meat during that period was very much dearer than it ever should have been had the whole system of distribution been properly organised.

When the war was on something had to be done, and Lord Woolton had to face all these conflicting interests, from the drover to the slaughterman, the wholesaler and the retailer, and try to reconcile them What did he do? He formed the Meat Suppliers' Association, and he consulted with them and produced a scheme which has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley. People on the other side, who were taking a great part in the negotiations for bringing all this about, have never raised the matter either in this House or with the Ministry, for the very simple reason that, as we recognise, this scheme requires a certain amount of time until the desires that were felt in the period prior to the war have died down. Suppose the Minister of Food were now to go to the Meat Trades Association and say, "We are going to discontinue the operation of the present scheme." Obviously, he would get a demand to go back to the status quo,and what would be the result? He would throw the whole meat situation into a kind of scramble and black market, and he would require subsidies to keep down the price. The meat would only go to the big associations, representing several hundreds of shops and with big interests in the market and in the abattoirs, who would be able to get preferential treatment over the single butcher in a village or small town. We cannot go back to that at all.

Mr. Bramall

Is my hon. Friend saying that, because we cannot go back to that—and I did not suggest that we could—we should go on paying people for doing no work?

Mr. Scollan

No, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. What I am suggesting is this. We cannot go to the meat trade and say that we are going to discontinue the present scheme and allow them to return to the status quo, and, at the same time, allow the fish trade to exploit everybody and everything as they like. That would be completely illogical. If we are to have a scheme of food distribution in the country we must have a comprehensive scheme. I suggest to the Minister that, along with a study of' some of the present growing evils and some other things likely to become evils, he would be well advised to set up some kind of committee to inquire into the whole question of the distribution of food to see if some scheme can be brought about for obtaining the food and distributing it, to the satisfaction, not only of the people engaged in food distribution, but also of those who have sunk a fair amount of capital in the business.

There are some people who deplore the growing development of large multiple firms and of the Co-operative movement, with the elimination of the very small man. The multiple firm or the large co-operative society engaged in food distribution is a far more economical proposition from the national point of view than hundreds of little men. It is no use arguing that point. It may be very unpopular to say it, but it is true. The more little people we have, the more is the cost of production and distribution, and that has been the case throughout the last 40 years. Therefore, when the Minister considers the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley, I hope he will also investigate the fish position. If there is one matter to which he should give his attention more than any other, it is the question of fish. Somebody—I think it was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health—said that this was an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea of fish. That may be true, but immediately following the occasion when the Minister said that, we had the anomalous position of fish being imported from other countries. This ought to be one of the greatest fish exporting countries in the whole of Europe. There has never been any imagination in dealing with the landing or marketing of fish. Fleets go out, trawl as much as they can get as near as they possibly can, and have a competition as to who will get into port first to land the fish in order to capture the market. When they strike great shoals of fish, there is a glut and prices begin to fall. The machinery for receiving the fish is not able to handle it.

We have left the curing of fish largely to the little man, to people on the coast in various parts of the country who have found methods of curing fish such as the finnan haddock, "smokeys" and so on, but there has never been any experiment into the curing of fish for the purpose of preserving it and sending it abroad. At one time we used to send an enormous amount of fish to Russia and to the Baltic States. We used the old-fashioned method of cutting the fish, throwing them into barrels of brine, and sending them across in that fashion. But we cannot do that today. We must have a new method. The Ministry of Food will be well advised to set up some kind of experimental body to inquire into the processing and curing of fish. The present method of curing is turning people away from fish. We get kippers which have been only half an hour in the smoking, and sprinkled with the same stuff that ladies put on their legs when they cannot get stockings. Then this fish is put in the shop window, disguised as kipper. There is nothing tastier than a real smoked kippered herring or smoked haddock. Nothing could be finer, and it would sell anywhere. An ordinary yellow fish, which could be cooked in milk, used to be one of the most beautiful dishes obtainable. If it is now cooked in milk, the milk turns yellow because of the yellow dye.

This disorganisation, this desire to get something quickly for little or nothing, must be defeated, and the whole question must be put in proper perspective. Because of this national asset, people must not be allowed to play ducks and drakes with it just because it suits their convenience. Therefore, bearing in mind what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley, with which I largely agree, some kind of investigation into the distribution and processing of food in this country should be set up by the Minister. I have no doubt that it would be possible to regain many of the markets which we lost in the past owing to the blindness and shortsightedness of previous governments. If we had properly processed fish in this country, our trade with Eastern Europe would grow every day. Therefore, I ask the Minister to have an investigation into the whole matter.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Paget (Northampton)

The three instances which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) were examples of what has been a general principle in the Ministry of Food, and it arises from the fact that the Ministry of Food was started during the war as a purely temporary device. When the Ministry of Food was first formed, nobody imagined that it would continue. Therefore, during that temporary period it was felt more convenient, rather than guaranteeing or dealing with middlemen who were no longer necessary, to guarantee the prewar profits of every vested interest in the distributive trades as far as food was concerned. I do not think for a moment that in the circumstances then that was not the right thing to do; the job had to be done in a hurry, and one could not afford in wartime to have an elaborate investigation as to how everybody should be compensated. It was a simple method of getting on with the job.

However, that method becomes wholly inappropriate when the Ministry becomes a permanent Ministry. It is intolerable to be in a position where we are committed indefinitely, and for ever, to go on paying for services which are not being rendered at all—and paying an excessive figure for services, the necessity for which has been greatly reduced. That is really the general picture, of which three shining examples were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley. Once something has been started and got going, it is not easy to turn over to another system in a moment, and to wind up all these payments which have been made. It cannot be done immediately, but when the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope she will not be on the defensive about this matter; that she will not set out to defend what is being done in the three instances given, and say that it is the right thing to be done. In the circumstances, that is a quite insupportable argument. To continue this position as a permanency at this time, after the war, is quite indefensible, and I hope she will take the opportunity to tell us what real steps the Ministry are taking to move from the Woolton position to a new position, where payment is made only at a proper rate for services which are, in fact, rendered, and that she will not try to defend the continuation of payments from which the turnover has not yet been effective.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. Walkden (Doncaster)

I wish to emphasise the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) from the angle of the compensation being paid to these "displaced persons"—because they were displaced persons at the beginning of the war—who, instead of soaking the rich are soaking the poor. They are soaking the consumer in a very deliberate fashion because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, Lord Woolton began it, and we are now continuing it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us: "That which Woolton began I will stop forthwith." I remember drawing attention to one anomaly in regard to flour, meat, tomatoes, and I also mentioned dried fruit. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that these "displaced persons," who are receiving compensation for rendering no service whatsoever in regard to dried fruit, are actually taking, in terms of profit—that is, personal gain for themselves—more money than they ever knew or could recognise as profit for themselves from their businesses before the war. One man, interned in the Isle of Man during the war, received over £3,000 a year in this racket. One could go on giving this kind of evidence, but I did not know that my hon. Friend was going to raise the matter in so much detail. There is a much bigger issue involved. It is a question of the whole method of distribution in Great Britain, in connection with which the Linlithgow Committee produced a very valuable report in 1934. It was shown that we were importing £650 million of food a year, and that it cost the consumer £1,500 million to buy it back. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) put down a Question the other day, which showed that onions were controlled at 10d. per pound, whereas the grower was receiving only ½d. per pound. This kind of thing must be stopped.

I know that hon. Members opposite regard it as an abuse. It is not an anomaly, but a curse on human society. It is disgrace to the trade, and those like my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who have been in the distributive trade for years, are ashamed of this new code which has grown up and fastened itself on the trade since the war. A vast margin of profit is being gathered by irresponsible people, who have no responsibility whatever to society other than exploitation. We ask the Minister not only to examine the narrow point, but to come down to the House at an early date and tell us what the Government propose to do in regard to these high costs of distribution. We hope that the Government will deal with the marketing situation generally. No country in Europe could afford the margins of profits in distribution which are imposed on the people of this country. I beg the hon. Lady to be positive and definite, and to eliminate not only these displaced persons, but every form of exploitation taking place as a result of these higgledy-piggledy arrangements.

3.34 P.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning (Epping)

I rise to call attention to the very great problem of distribution which exists at the present moment. The position is so chaotic that it is increasing the costs to the housewives. It arises from the problem of having the same wholesaler selling commodities, like potatoes, which are in very short supply and are controlled in price, and at the same time selling green vegetables for which there is no controlled price. I spent some of the early hours this morning in Spitalfields Market, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is complete chaos in that market at the present moment. I do not take quite the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), but the situation as regards small traders trying to get supplies is pitiful. Many of these small traders supply our poorer friends in small streets, and sell from barrows, and, hitherto, they have been able to do this without adding any undue cost to the price of their commodities. But for the people who wish to buy in the markets today the position is almost impossible.

I met a widow who had no one to support her, who had to close her shop for a day if she wished to buy any potatoes in the market. If she had added a little to the cost of the potatoes to compensate her for having to close her shop for the day, undoubtedly she would have been prosecuted. People know that there are potatoes in the market. They know that they can buy, at an exorbitant price, a sack of peas, or cabbages, but often when they take them home, after having been charged so much, they find that much of the food has to be thrown away because it is rotten. There is not the slightest doubt that in distribution today a condition of sale is imposed in our markets. I am sorry to say that when I went to the market my name spread around before I had been there long, and it was very difficult for me to get the information I required. But I am sure that if anybody goes to the market unknown he would find, after being there only half an hour, that conditions of sale are being imposed today [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the inspectors?"?] I do not want to say too much about them, because they have a very hard job to do. Tempers are very short in the markets today, and hard words are being thrown about.

As I say, people know that potatoes are available. If they can afford to wait a day they see potatoes being wheeled out in sacks, and being piled up in the lorries in the streets. The ex-Service men to whom we have granted licences to set up small businesses say, "Five or £10 means nothing to some people, but means a lot to me; I cannot afford it." That brings me to another point. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that what is going on is adding to the cost of distribution. If somebody pays something to be allowed to buy something, he makes somebody else pay for it. The money does not come out of his own pocket.

Something must be done to reorganise our markets. Everything is in a state of chaos, and things are going on that are wrong. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the things which are going on are a disgrace and a slur on a trade which in the past has been a very honourable trade—the distributive trade. I feel sorry for the wholesaler, who says, "The 'spivs' come in here and buy potatoes from us, and then go around the corner and sell them in the black market for five times the price." Why should not anybody who has an allocation to buy wear a button in his lapel, or have something of that kind, which would show that he has the right to buy for the distributive trade? It is not always possible, when standing in a queue, to find time to show an allocation paper, especially in such a fight as was going on on Wednesday and Thursday morning.

Mr. Scollan

Is it not obvious that the system which operates between retailer and wholesaler could operate in the markets?

Mrs. Manning

Obviously, that is what ought to happen. When a woman tells me that she has paid for two weeks' supply of potatoes and has not received a bag of potatoes for a fortnight, and when she knows the man from whom she has been buying and to whom she has paid the money for the two weeks supply, and he tells her over and over again that he has not any potatoes, but she knows that they are being sold to other people, what is she to do? Many people have suggested to me that as the potatoes belong to the Ministry of Food, and as they buy in bulk and distribute the potatoes, why should not they send their officials, when there is a shortage of this kind, to the markets to sell them? That would soon teach the wholesalers a good lesson.

It is important that the prices of green vegetables should be controlled, and then it would not be to anyone's advantage to push off green vegetables as a condition on which a man or woman must buy potatoes. Not only are consumers suffering because of the chaos in distribution today, but many small honest traders— ex-Service men to whom licences have been given, women who have kept shops and stalls for many years—are finding themselves almost on the verge of bankruptcy because of this. This is also a matter for a long-term policy. Some friends of mine went to the Milk Marketing Board, and when they came from that well-organised producer-consumers distribution board and saw the chaotic situation that exists in a market like Spitalfields, they thought that a proper producer-consumer board to control the whole of the commodities from production to consumption, with proper prices to those who produce and to those who consume, was the right way to deal with the commodities on which the people of this country depend for their food.

3.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) for raising this matter. It gives me an opportunity of explaining to the House the principles which we adopt in distributing the food of the country. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that I have never defended anything which I did not believe to be perfect, and I am much too old now to learn how to do so, even though I am in the Government. I will tell hon. Members at the outset that I do not believe that our method of distribution is in every way perfect. We have used the machinery which was used in wartime. The hon.

and learned Member for Northampton said that that was all very well during the war. He was quite prepared for that machinery to be used during that period; but would he not agree that the machine was used not necessarily because there was a war, but because at that time there were shortages?

Mr. Paget

I would agree. I say that the difference is that it is now recognised that the Ministry of Food is a permanent institution. It was then treated as a purely temporary institution. What would work as a temporary measure is now inappropriate as a permanent measure

Dr. Summerskill

I quite accept that as far as long-term policy is concerned—that is quite another thing—but at the moment, we are using this machine for the same reason that we used it during wartime— because there are shortages. I think everyone who is associated with the trade —and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) will agree—knows that in the matter of distributing food it is necessary to carry the trade with us. Let us at least recognise that during the war distribution did not break down. We are all generous enough to pay a tribute to those men and women who were concerned in the distribution of food.

Let me now turn to what other hon. Members have said, and indeed some of them may well say that I might as well sit down after I have said this. A reorganisation of the system of distribution is about to take place in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. It has been a question of putting first things first. My Department is geared to procure food, and we have felt that a lot of the problems mentioned this afternoon will solve themselves when there is more food to distribute. Surely, all these problems can be in great part attributed to the fact that there is a world-wide shortage of food? My Department, which consists of men who have borne a heavy burden throughout the war years, has concerned itself solely with procurement, and we have hesitated to put this extra burden on their shoulders. Every hon. Member here who is concerned with the trade, and I know that some who have spoken know their subject very well, will appreciate that the reorganisation which must eventually take place will call for detailed work. Furthermore, as the Leader of the House knows, it will call for legislation, and, therefore, we must have Parliamentary time, and we do not want to be limited. We do not want to feel that we have to produce a Bill of a limited number of Clauses; when this job is done, it has got to be done thoroughly. I can assure every hon. Member who has spoken that I personally have this matter very much at heart.

The hon. Member for Bexley described in some detail how our Ministry operated, but he was inaccurate in one or two respects in some of the things he mentioned. He mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and their criticism of the operation of the flour-milling industry. I would remind him that the Public Accounts Committee looked at the matter again in 1945 and were thoroughly satisfied. I would not like it to go out that the Public Accounts Committee are still dissatisfied with this operation of the Ministry; if he will inquire, I think he will find that I am quite right and that they have expressed satisfaction.

Mr. Bramall

Does my hon. Friend mean the 1944–45 Report or the 1945–46 Report?

Dr. Summerskill

The 1945–46 Report. Reference was made to a Question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins). The hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, quite rightly, that certain importers were evading our regulations, and I think it should be made clear that our answer was that we were fully alive to the facts and intended to amend the orders. Therefore, those people who are determined to infringe the Ministry of Food orders will soon find that their wings have been clipped. I must also say this: although certain hon. Members have criticised the margins of profit which middlemen enjoy, certain of the hon. Members who have spoken have already come to me and told me that we were being too niggardly with respect to certain margins enjoyed by other middlemen. For instance, one hon. Member has told me that as far as meat is concerned we are far from generously disposed towards the trade. Dare I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who came to me last week and thought we were treating the small grocer rather meanly? I must remind hon. Members who have spoken and who are criticising certain of our margins that the same policy is pursued at arriving at all of these margins.

Mr. Royle (Salford, West)

I would like to be perfectly clear as to what the hon. Lady means with regard to margins in the meat trade, and to which sections she has referred. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Bexley drew attention not to margins but to amounts that were being poured out to the wholesale section, not for services tendered, but in respect of services not rendered. I am concerned when the hon. Lady makes a statement of that sort because the retail section undoubtedly renders a service.

Dr. Summerskill

I am not criticising the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Royle). He has a great deal of knowledge of the meat trade and is serving the trade well in putting their point of view, which he does on many occasions to the Ministry of Food. I think he has told me on many occasions that the retailer, the butcher, should enjoy a much bigger margin. We feel indebted to every kind of distributor, but I am entitled, when hon. Members accuse the Ministry of dealing not too carefully with public money in administering margins, to say that in some cases hon. Members feel that we are niggardly rather than generous.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Epping raised the matter of vegetables. It is a difficult question, because here we have a commodity which is highly perishable, which has to be handled quickly, of which the supply is uncertain. Therefore, it is difficult to control. The recognised links in the chain of distribution are, the grower or importer, the primary wholesaler, the secondary wholesaler and the retailer. All vegetables do not necessarily pass through each stage. The number of people handling the goods depends upon circumstances, the size of the purchase and the location of the seller and buyer respectively. It is possible for a producer to bypass every middleman and sell to the retailer if, of course, the vegetables do not come within our control. At the moment we are controlling potatoes, tomatoes, onions and carrots, but any producer of any other vegetable in this country can, if he likes, bypass every link in the chain of distribution. However, the home grower prefers not to do this. Generally he prefers to go to an agent at a large market where there are greater numbers of buyers, because he gets a more stable price there. He might go to a local market, but he will find generally that a small provincial market will break easily and he cannot get what he considers is a fair price for his commodities.

An hon. Member mentioned the rôle of the secondary wholesaler. I confess that, when I first went to this Department, I used to query the role of secondary wholesaler and wondered whether he was redundant, but the secondary wholesaler serves a useful function in provincial markets. He caters for the small retailers who cannot get in touch with the primary wholesalers and, more than that, he delivers the goods to the reailer and is prepared to break up the bulk for the small man. Therefore, for the small man in the provinces, the secondary wholesaler performs a useful function.

Now let me say something about the prices of fruit and vegetables, because I feel that every housewife in the country this weekend will be thinking in terms of salads and vegetables which she can use in order to prepare a meal for the family in this hot weather. I must emphasise the fact that the price of fruit and vegetables is mainly conditioned by the supply situation although, of course, the cost of distribution is an important factor. I stress the question of supply because the failure of a crop can upset all our calculations. It seems to me that the future in the world of agriculture is almost unpredictable. Last autumn, I suppose, the farmers of this country felt that they could sit down at a table and estimate what their position would be in terms of pounds, shillings and pence during the ensuing year. The poor farmers were faced with floods, frosts and then sudden heat, and many of them, instead of being able to look forward to a profit, were faced with ruin.

The Ministry of Food very often does plan with a view to importing certain essential commodities. During the last few months we had arranged for vegetables to be imported from Europe, but on 1st May the Ministry of Agriculture quite rightly said that no leaf vegetables should come in because the Colorado beetle was infesting crops in Europe. We can therefore attribute to this series of disasters the fact that cabbage is priced highly at this time when there should be plenty available in the market. As the hon. Member for Epping knows very well, it is difficult for the workers to get a cabbage at a low price today. The reason is as I have explained. Peas were a month late, and cabbage is the only vegetable which the housewife finds she can buy.

The hon. Lady asks us to impose controls immediately, but I must remind her that if a vegetable or any other commodity is scarce and we impose controls we are not always helping the working class housewife because the limited supply goes under the counter and is reserved for the wealthy customer. We were faced with this problem last autumn when, in September, we removed the control from vegetables because we thought there was going to be a glut. I have often reminded the House that we are a consumers' Ministry and know that when there is plenty of food it is a mistake to establish a control price because often that control price, which should be the maximum, becomes in fact the minimum. Therefore, when we expected that there would be a glut we took off the control in the interest of the consumers, but unfortunately we could not anticipate the series of disasters. Vegetables were not lifted, there was an outcry for imposing control again, and we were faced with the problem whether we should let the working class housewife have at least a chance of obtaining something at any price, or whether we should impose a control again knowing that the available food would then go under the counter. That is why the control has not been imposed during the last few months.

As I have already said, it is very difficult to control this perishable commodity, and I would invite hon. Members who have spoken from this side to offer their suggestions. For instance, how would they control a lettuce—by length, breadth or by weight? Obviously, you cannot control it by length. There would be a storm in every queue in the country, and the poor harassed tradesman would not be able to get on with his job. Would you, then, control it by weight? That again is impracticable. Although most greengrocers are very honest—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Dr. Summerskill

—a greengrocer who perhaps is not too honest has only to dip a lettuce in a bucket of water, and it weighs twice its original weight. Then we should have more trouble if the lettuce was wet. While my hon. Friend the Member for Epping was in Spitalfields Market, I went shopping near here in order that I should know the prevailing prices within a short distance of Westminster. I was glad to find a lettuce which I thought was not too highly priced. It was enough for four people, and cost 8d., which indicates that they are gradually coming down in price. My lettuce was very wet, and I realised that if we controlled the price by weight I should, probably have had to pay a lot of money for that lettuce.

I think I have convinced the House that we are trying to do what is possible within our limited supplies. The Ministry of Food is concerned the whole time with the needs of the consumer. We recognise that the costs of distribution and administration are very closely related to prices. I am quite prepared to undertake that within a very short time the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food will convene a Committee which will go into the details of this very complex subject with a view to formulating a long-term policy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Four o'Clock.