HC Deb 17 November 1947 vol 444 cc941-50

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)

So far as I am aware, no one of His Majesty's judges has yet posed the question, "What is a calorie?" and in order to forestall any exhibition of judicial ignorance I should like to tell the House what a calorie is. A calorie is a unit of heat, defined as the quantity of heat required to raise a unit mass of water one degree in temperature on the Centigrade scale. Researches in the Library of this House have so far failed to disclose at what point a calorie came to be regarded as a cardinal unit in the appraisement of food. However, we know it as such today: we recognise it as such. A calorie can be described as a horse power of food, though we may not be, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said the other day, "calorie minded." I am, however, like His Majesty's Government, too much of a romanticist not to be calorie minded.

What daily intake of calories is necessary for our physical well being? The British Medical Association's Report on Nutrition in 1933 demanded 3,400 calories as the minimum daily diet to maintain working efficiency, but for persons doing heavy labour 3,500 to 4,000 calories was thought by the report to be desirable; and, said the report: A reduced food intake in the neighbourhood of 2,000 calories gives rise to disorders of digestion and an accumulation of adipose tissue. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) are not here as my evidence. My subpoenas cannot have reached them. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his brave but dispiriting speech on the Address, which I thought might have been summarised in seven famous words: The darkness deepens; Lord, abide with me. referred to our average daily intake of calories as being 2,870, which he said, would have to be reduced. I think that reduction has probably taken place since the introduction of potato rationing.

By dint of questioning the Ministry of Food I discovered that, in regard to rationed and pointed foodstuffs, our daily average intake is 1,530 calories. That seems to be a reliable figure. I was, however, interested to know how we got the other 1,340 calories from unrationed foodstuffs, and I discovered that we did not—or, at any rate, that very few of us did. Because the system of calculation by the Ministry of Food has the essential demerit of over-simplicity; it consists of dividing the amount of unrationed food consumed in the country—which is itself a notional figure—by the number of the population; and it includes, incidentally, all meals consumed in hotels, canteens, cafés, and cafeterias. So that a poor old couple in a lonely village, who have no access to fish or to fried fish shops, and who cannot shoot a brace of pheasants in the close season—or at any season for that matter—who have no access to hotels, canteens, cafeterias, and so on, are estimated to be receiving 2,870 calories daily when, in fact, their daily intake is probably less than 2,000 calories. That statement is borne out by the answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) on 3rd November, when the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food informed him: The most recent survey results are for July, 19–17, which show an average intake of 2,287 calories for working class households for food eaten at home. She added triumphantly, The figure for July, 1946, was 2,282 calories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 140.] So that I can congratulate the Socialist Government, as a result, no doubt, of the American Loan, on raising the calorie intake in 12 months by five calories. In the circumstances, I think her reply to me of the same date, 3rd November, that the average intake was 2,870 calories was decidedly disingenuous. These figures which Ministers give are of importance and should be scrutinised calmly and temperately, because they base their case, and, indeed, their policies upon them; and if these figures are found, as in this instance, to be irrelevant and, indeed, impertinent, then the Government's whole case falls to the ground.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has exhorted us to be brave, and to submit cheerfully—by means, I gather, of playing parlour games such as kiss-in-the-ring and postman's knock; and, if I might suggest it to the hon. Members opposite, by conceivably taking their own Election promises, reading them, and then sitting down to "consequences"—to a calorie reduction from 2,870 to 2,700. But the Chancellor's premises are wrong; they are hopelessly wrong, because these averages have no real relation to the truth. It is for this reason that I have raised this matter in Debate, in order to bring home to hon. Members the utter unreliability of the glib statistics with which we are regaled.

There is another aspect of the matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. There are certain classes of privileged persons, such as the involuntary guests of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They reside in gaols, if the word "gaols" be not a misnomer nowadays as applied to individuals, since under Socialism we all reside in one vast overriding gaol. A man in gaol in 1938 received from 2,994 to 4,200 calories daily, and a woman from 2,542 to 2,901 calories daily. For that authority I refer the House to an answer given to me by the Home Secretary on 30th October. In 1938, the Borstal institutions provided boys with 3,775 calories, and girls with 2,669 calories daily. That, of course, was in the bad old days under a wicked Tory Government. In 1947 a man in gaol receives from 2,923 to 2,955 calories daily; a woman receives 2,541 to 2,605 calories daily; a boy 2,987 to 3,051, and a girl 2,521 to 2,585 calories daily. We see, therefore, that in a dietetic sense it pays to be an inhabitant of a gaol, since then one's lowest calorie intake would be over 2,500, and might even be over 3,000; whereas if one belongs to a law-abiding working class household one's average intake would be under 2,300 calories a day. This may account for the incentives to both crime and punishment which has resulted in our gaols being overcrowded. But to what a sorry pass have we come when a rascal convicted of robbery, or rape, or riot gets more food in gaol than the free, law-respecting citizen—who, incidentally, has to support the delinquent during the term of his incarceration.

I think I have proved to the House that these averages which the Ministry parades are useless as scientific guides, because the bases upon which they are calculated as regards unrationed food are completely unsound. They make it appear that each individual receives 2,870 calories daily when, in point of fact, there are wild differences as between individual and individual; and, owing to the black market, with its many and vile ramifications, the differences are probably far greater and more grotesque than anybody imagines. I think also that I have shattered the shallow, spurious, and Ministerially sponsored illusion that the people as a whole are better fed today than they were before the war. Because the figures I have given show that a member of a working-class household receives today barely 60 per cent. of the calories allowed to a gaol prisoner on hard labour in 1938. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I conclude by quoting a verse, which I came across the other day, written on the walls of a public telephone booth. It refers to herself and her right hon. Friend, and also contains a moral, which might make a very strong appeal to the Minister of Agriculture: Hunger and Hell with a capital 'H,' he Inflicted on Britain—Food Minister Strachey. Let him ponder this truth—that to cure Winter's ill, Needs a different employment of sweet 'Summer's skill.'

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I would not have intervened but for the fact that I had the misfortune that a Question of mine was not reached this afternoon. It was addressed to the Minister of Food, but I think that the hon. Lady was replying for the Department. It dealt with the position of vegetarians, which is a subject closely related to this question raised on the Adjournment by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith). Vegetarians do not draw meat or bacon rations, and therefore, I asked the hon. Lady whether an extra potato ration could not be made available to these people. The answer which I received in a written form was "No, Sir." I ask the hon. Lady to reconsider the position, because it is grossly unfair, if people choose to be vegetarians, that they should be treated in this way. By the introduction of potato rationing, they will lose one of their staple foods. As the hon. Lady was answering Questions today, and was presumably prepared to deal with this point, I do not think I am taking her off her guard by asking her to refer to it when she comes to reply to the Debate. Perhaps she would be good enough to explain why there cannot be any extra arrangements made for vegetarians since the introduction of potato rationing.

10.13 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has rendered a service in raising this matter of calories. There is far too much made of calories. The whole thing is a misnomer—after all, you cannot eat calories. The whole thing should be based on variety, because a great deal depends on the variety of one's diet. If a man enjoys a good hearty beefsteak, it is of infinitely more value to him than all the calories in the world. Enjoyment of food has a lot to do with it. It stimulates the gastric functions, saliva in the mouth, and gastric juices in the stomach.

What is there today to stimulate our gastric juices? Take a meal in a train as an example. I know it by heart: We know the soup well. The colour varies, but the taste is the same. The fish is always the same. Will the hon. Lady tell me what has happened to the fish in the British Isles? Every fish I taste is exactly the same. I was brought up to understand that around Britain there are soles, halibut and plaice, but all the fish served in restaurants and trains are exactly alike. Most people now depend a great deal on fish, and it is very important that they should be able to obtain various types of fish, with their different tastes. I have not seen a sole for about a year. What has happened to them? Will the hon. Lady tell us? I do not want to detain the House further, as it is much more important that the hon. Lady should be allowed to reply to the Debate, but I do wish to emphasise that the term "calories" is quite a misnomer. It all depends on the taste, quality, and variety of the food, the way it is cooked, and so forth. We must admit that the present 2,700 calories a day is insufficient to maintain a really healthy population. Whatever Government is in office—and this matter goes beyond all Governments and parties—we must all hope that this country will soon be able to obtain a better type, quality, and quantity of food than it is receiving today.

10.17 p.m.

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

After the gallant peroration of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), I find it very difficult to be critical of his speech; but I must say that it was the most confused contribution that he has ever made in this House. Having heard him, I welcome this opportunity of explaining the methods adopted in arriving at the calorie value of food. I have noticed, during the last few months, when Members opposite have put Questions to me and to my right hon. Friend on this subject, followed by supplementary questions, an implication that my Department have given the original answer to confuse them or to hide the facts. This, of course, is not the case. The hon. Member for Ashford rightly defined the calorie, but I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), who has a medical qualification, query the value of a calorie. He must surely realise that in assessing the value of food we cannot add together, say, milk and beef, and that it is absolutely essential that there should be a common denominator. We must reduce foods to a common denominator in order to make an addition, and, therefore, we have to introduce the calorie, which certainly was not invented by my Ministry.

I want further to exonerate my Department. I want to remind the hon. Member for Ashford how this method, which he has criticised, came to be adopted. In 1943, the Combined Food Board set up a committee to inquire into food consumption levels in the United States, Canada, and this country. It was, I think, for this reason: there were some people in the United States who felt during the war that while food was leaving that country for this country, to make a valuable addition to our diet, people in the United States might be suffering nutritionally. So the Combined Food Board invited scientists, statisticians, and nutritionists to form a committee to inquire into this matter. It was they who adopted this method, and not the Ministry of Food.

When the hon. Gentleman comes here tonight and challenges the statement made by my Ministry, I can assure him that he is not trying to discredit my Department, he is only trying to discredit this committee of scientists, set up in 1943, who have made different reports on this subject. In all they have made four reports. The first three were made on the levels of consumption in the United States, Canada and this country, and the latest report, in August, 1947, was made on the level of consumption in this country. The methods they have adopted are the methods which the hon. Gentleman has been criticising tonight. He said that they were too simple. I think that he said there was an "over-simplification"; that, in fact, these gentlemen took the amount of food consumed and divided it by the population. In fact, that was what they did.

Mr. E. P. Smith

That is why I am criticising them.

Dr. Summerskill

I am pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that this method was devised by the scientific committee set up during the Coalition Government by the Combined Food Board. It was not a method devised by the Minister of Food. All we are doing now is quoting the calorie values assessed in exactly the same way as this committee assessed them, and we are relating the figures which it has mentioned. The figures quoted in these four reports published by the committee have nothing to do with my Department, and, therefore, I am simply trying to explain to the House why it is that my Department feel that they are oh strong ground, when asked Questions, in quoting figures and relating the calorie values of food consumed today to some of the values quoted in the committee's reports.

Mr. E. P. Smith

If this Committee started in 1943 how is it that we know the calorific value of the food that a man received in gaol in 1938?

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Gentleman has already defined a' calorie and he knows that the method of assessing the energy value of food was not invented by this Committee in 1943. Calories were talked about in the last century—the energy value of food, because that is, after all, what a calorie reflects. The energy value of food has been quoted for many years before this committee was set up.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

rose—

Dr. Summerskill

I have only six minutes in which to finish my speech. The hon. Gentleman will agree that whatever the shortcomings of this method it is a valuable method of comparing one period with another and the conditions prevailing in one period with those prevailing in another. The hon. Gentleman has revealed to me again that he is suffering from the common misconception of not being able to appreciate that the consumption levels quoted by the Department are generally the average because we are asked for the average. The report makes it quite clear that the average is not the consumption by one individual or by a group of individuals; it is the average of consumption for the whole country, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are wide variations in individual intake. When it is suggested, for instance, that the average calorie intake of a whole population is 2,800, such a figure includes the intake of 900 calories by an infant and 4,500 by a heavy worker. He quoted to the House tonight the number of calories consumed by a prisoner. He is taking a specific number of calories consumed by one man doing a particular job. He cannot compare that with the average which is given by my Department over the whole country, which includes during one day, as already stated, 900 calories by an infant in one home and 4,500 calories consumed by a heavy worker.

Another point on which some confusion exists is the different requirements. Here, again, I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that the average intake of an adult man may vary from 2,500 calories to 4,500 calories daily and an adult woman from 2,000 calories to 3,000 calories daily. I am five foot nine and a half inches and weigh ten stone six pounds. I probably need more calories than a sedentary woman worker who is five foot high and weighs seven stone six pounds, and therefore it would be absurd for the hon. Gentleman to quote to this House how much the woman weighing seven stone got and say "This is an appalling thing." He must appreciate that these figures are average, and those who are doing heavy work are generally having a higher number of calories in their diet than those doing lighter work.

Let me quote a few other figures. The nursing mother, for instance, gets about 3,000 calories a day. I have been asked in this House on many occasions for the average calorie intake. Next week comes along and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), put down a Question asking for the number of calories provided by rations. The week passes, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a simple subtraction sum. He takes the number provided by rations from the average for the country as a whole. Of course, mathematically, that is absolute nonsense. There cannot be a subtraction of a specific allocation from a number which is related to an average figure. Therefore, the numbers which the hon. Gentlemen have been arriving at here, and charging us with, simply make nonsense.

I might remind the House of a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) last week, when he asked me the average for three categories of workers—agriculture and two other categories. I gave him the average because we had to answer the question. We cannot at Question time enter into an explanatory memorandum of these things. Having got the average for the agricultural worker, which is 2,600, the whole Opposition roared as though we were treating him badly. But the hon. and gallant Member had not asked me the calorie value of all those little extras the agricultural worker gets during seasonal activities, which raises it to well over 3,000. The hon. and gallant Member forgot to mention un-rationed food, which brings it well up to over 4,000.

I want to remind hon. Members opposite that one hot meal a day equals 900 calories, and one snack equals 500 calories. They must make these additions. The hon. Member said all the family was getting was only 2,282 calories, but does he realise that that only concerns rations consumed in the home. That also includes, when we are taking the average of a family, the wage earner, who is feeding outside, so that the food he would consume is consumed by the family itself. These are things to which I want to draw attention. This method, I can assure the House, was not adopted by my Department, but by a committee of scientists who were convened for the purpose of inquiring into all these matters and arriving at the best methods

Mr. Marlowe

Will the hon. Lady answer my question?

Mr. D. Marshall

May I ask the hon Lady is the normal wastage of food included and taken into account in these calculations?

Dr. Sumtnerskill

Certainly, and the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) is that he has forgotten that a vegetarian gets 12 ounces of cheese in lieu of the meat ration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half past Ten o'clock.