HC Deb 19 November 1947 vol 444 cc1144-6
58. Mrs. Leah Manning

asked the Minister of Food at what date he expects to restore the ration of bacon, sugar and dried eggs.

Mr. Strachey

As these rations have been cut, not because the foodstuffs are unavailable, but because dollars could not be provided for their purchase, I can form no estimate of when it may be possible to restore the ration level.

Mrs. Manning

Though this may be true of bacon and perhaps of dried egg, in view of the fact that there are large stocks of sugar in the country which have already been bought, why is it not possible for the sugar ration to be increased and the sweet ration to remain as it is at present?

Mr. Strachey

Because, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, it has been decided to put the sugar which is being imported and will be imported into stock.

Mrs. Manning

May we ask why?

Mr. Drayson

The Minister will agree that he has just admitted that there are ample supplies of these commodities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. Would he not also agree that the fact that these commodities—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is asking for an opinion. He is not asking for information.

Mr. Drayson

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that these commodities attract a high rate of food subsidy, influences him in determining whether or not to make them available to the public?

Mr. Strachey

No, Sir. The food subsidy has nothing to do with it. It does not cost any dollars to pay a food subsidy on it, as the hon. Member will see if he reflects for a moment. What is in question—hon. Members opposite are shaking their heads; do they think the food subsidies are paid in dollars? What is in question is the amount of dollars which can be allocated for their purchase, and it has been decided that no more than these quantities of food can be purchased because of lack of dollars. It has nothing to do with the food subsidies.

Mr. Assheton

Is it not a fact that if the sugar ration were to be increased, the Minister would have to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an increased subsidy?

Mr. Strachey

Yes, Sir, but nobody minds that. That is not the limiting factor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the Chancellor."] Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not mind providing that extra amount of sterling internally. It is not the same as the dollars required to buy the sugar. Surely hon. Members are capable of understanding that?

Mrs. Manning

Will my right hon. Friend tell us why it is better to keep sugar in stock than to give it to housewives to put on the plates of their children?

Mr. Strachey

As I said, it has been decided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "]—that although this sugar has been bought and will be bought under contracts which cannot be got out of, the sugar will be stock-piled in this country and the stock will be regarded as equivalent to dollars. That is why.

Mr. Eden

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us a little more what this means?

Mr. Strachey

Yes, Sir. Certainly.

Mr. Eden

As I understand it, the sugar has been purchased or will be purchased under existing contracts. What is the advantage in not now distributing the sugar? So far as I can understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said—[Interruption.]—I am only trying to ascertain what he means; there is nothing in it to laugh about. What is the advantage in not now distributing the sugar, and how can that save any dollars?

Mr. Strachey

The stocks can be regarded, since they were purchased in dollars and would only be replaceable in dollars, as being equivalent to dollars in this country.