§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
§ 11.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Hardy (Salford, South)We have heard something about humbug tonight already, and we may as well now hear something about ice cream, although I apologise to the House for keeping it at this late hour. My constituency is much concerned about the manner in which licences are granted for the manufacture of ice cream. I was chairman for six years of the food control committee in Salford, and during my time, at any rate, we had many difficulties with regard to the recommendations for catering licences. If we did not agree to make the recommendations, invariably the food office would overrule the local food control committee and grant the licences; and, in the main, these were to foreigners, and that was what we could not understand. Some hidden hand was at work somewhere, and we got no satisfaction at all.
Quite recently one of my constituents wrote me regarding a refusal to grant a licence to manufacture ice cream. He is a disabled ex-Service man of the first world war. Twice his application was refused. I made an application to the Ministry, and the first reply I received said that if my constituent had been a victim of the second world war instead of the first, he would have had his licence. I was not satisfied with the reply, and took the matter up further. Next I received an answer to the effect that there was no consumer need. Judging from the correspondence from the Ministry, they think that this man, a victim of the first world war, had plenty of time between the first world war and the conclusion of the second to make necessary provision for himself without having to rely on the manufacture of ice cream. That appears 176 to me to be a very ridiculous answer, and that is why I feel compelled to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The most distressing fact about the case is that the premises next door but one to my constituent's place had been used as a dental surgery for 40 or 45 years until about 18 months ago, when they became a milk bar selling ice cream. The fact has embittered this particular shopkeeper—and other shopkeepers, too; the more so because they find that a person known as Aronberg made the application and had this reformed dental surgery. A catering licence was refused. He then produced a man named Walsh, who had previously had an ice cream shop that had been blitzed; and he was allowed to transfer his licence from the blitzed property to next door but one to the confectioner who was the victim of the first world war and who unsuccessfully had made application to manufacture ice cream. By the way, this shop for many years had been manufacturing ice cream prior to the commencement of the second world war. Aronberg went on trading with a licence issued to Walsh, who has never been in the premises at all. Since Aronberg took over the property some other people, with a very peculiar name—
§ Mr. HardyRaffio something—if I look at the police court proceedings I can see what it is—two Italians, anyway, are selling ice cream there seven days a week, next door but one to a British ex-Service man, a victim of the first world war. My difficulty is that I have not been able to get the information I required because, upon making application to the local food executive officer, after the refusal of the Ministry with regard to this case, I find there is a ban on M.Ps. seeking information from the local food officer. So I had to do the best I could by going round the neighbourhood and finding people who knew something about Aronberg or the man Walsh. Walsh, I feel sure, has no interest apart from tile peculiar interest he has in the licence. I am informed he does not live in Salford at all, but works and lives in Dagenham and has no connection with this particular shop. In fairness to the legitimate trader in Salford, and in all other places, 177 if this kind of thing is allowed to go on, it is very unfair and it is something the Ministry should look into.
This ex-Service man has had a raw deal. When you can open a shop without paying any goodwill at all, apart from the purchase price, and compare that with what had to be paid for a confectioner's business after the last war, I think this man has not been given an opportunity of developing his business. I suggest to the Ministry that they should cause an inquiry to be made into the way in which these licences are being granted to people who, I suggest, may be of an undesirable character. In the local paper which was forwarded to me, I see that a man with a name similar to that I have mentioned was fined only two or three weeks ago a sum of £155 for trying to bribe an enforcement officer in the district. I feel, and many other people feel, that these types of persons are receiving licences by subterfuge, using someone else's name, and opening shops all over the country. Three or four have been opened in Salford. I cannot understand how it is so easy for them to get these licences. I hope the Ministry will reconsider this question with regard to the man Johnson, in Cross Lane, who is a very respectable fellow: it was no fault of his own that he did not go into business earlier. I ask the Minister to give this man a fair crack of the whip, as was given to the two Italians next door but one.
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)I think the House knows that I always welcome a Debate on a subject about which an hon. Member feels rather keenly, but I am rather surprised tonight to find the hon. Member asks a number of questions which have been dealt with in detail in the letters which I have sent him dating from last August. I have listened very carefully to what he has said tonight, and, so far as I can see, no new fact has emerged. The hon. Gentleman has thrown no new light on the subject, and I want to reiterate that the question he has asked has been answered in detail by me in letters.
§ Mr. HardyI would like to ask the Minister, seeing that I have received two different reasons why he was not granted the licence, which is the right reason of 178 the two? Is it because he was not a victim of the second world war instead of the first, or because there is no consumer need?
§ Dr. SummerskillIf the hon. Gentleman will exercise a little patience, I think I shall be able to satisfy him. We do try to treat every applicant in the fairest manner possible and he must know, as chairman of a Food Committee, that it is essential that my Department should lay down certain rules and regulations which must be observed. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the ingredients necessary for making ice cream are in very limited supply. Those who qualify for allocations of these materials are well known to the hon. Gentleman. They do, in fact, comprise those who were manufacturing ice cream in the period twelve months before June, 1939, and who applied for an allocation before 1942, the date when the manufacture of ice cream was prohibited. Then, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have priority applicants—those who failed to make a claim because they were in the Forces. They come in that category.
Then I come to those who served in the first and second world wars. We call those who served in the second world war "preference applicants." They certainly are given preference. They are given priority over those who served in the first world war because we are anxious to re-establish them in business. The hon. Member said that he could not understand why a man who served in the first world war was not treated in the same way as those who served in the second world war. He said that he thought that it was a very curious explanation we had given in my Department that those men could have established themselves. But surely those men who served in the 1914–18 war, thirty years ago, have had an opportunity of establishing themselves in the ice cream business which probably those who served in the last war have not had? I think that my Department is quite right in giving a preference to those soldiers who are now being demobilised and who should be given some compassionate consideration.
Again, I want to remind my hon. Friend of the materials for which he is asking. First, sugar. We gave, as he knows, 50 per cent. of the datum period. That was the allocation, and re- 179 cently, because our supply is so limited, we have had to cut down the allocation by 25 per cent. Then, of course, the other thing which is necessary is fat. Manufacturers of ice cream are now getting 70 per cent. of the datum period. The other thing is some form of either cereal or milk powder. We have had to prohibit the use of milk powder, and now ice cream manufacturers are using some kind of flour.
The hon. Member asks why we are not more generous with these particular ingredients. I have only to ask him to recall the number of Debates which have taken place in this House on food, and the number of Questions answered at this Despatch Box on Mondays and Wednesdays with regard to the allocation of these very scarce commodities and, I am sure that he, as a sensible man, will agree with me that we have to consider every application very, very carefully before we grant further licences. Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that the same treatment be meted out to all traders throughout the country. I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been no discrimination against this man. I suppose that there are in the country today two or three hundred people, perhaps more, in precisely the same position. If we accepted Johnson we would, in justice to all the other people who have applied to us, have to accept their applications and give them further allocations of sugar and fat.
Mr. Johnson, of 231, Cross Lane, Salford, is asking for exceptional treatment, and exemption from these regulations. Briefly, the facts are that he bought a business from a man named Fieldson. Before the war, Fieldson manufactured ice cream, but he did not make an application during the period allowed for this. In fact, I think he served in the transport business during the war years. For six years he did not manufacture ice cream. Therefore, because he made no application during the prescribed period, Fieldson did not qualify for an allocation of sugar and fat. Fieldson sells the business to Johnson. Johnson, in his turn, does not qualify for an allocation. The hon. Member will, I think, agree that Mr. Johnson did not buy the business believing that there was an allocation of fat and sugar for ice cream. Johnson bought this business with his eyes well open. 180 Having done so, he asks why we cannot give him an allocation, saying that many years ago ice cream was manufactured in the shop. Those are the facts. Mr. Johnson does not comply with our regulations, but comes to us and says "Make an exception in my case." We cannot create this kind of precedent in these days, because we would have to give allocations to many other people also.
With regard to the shop two doors away from Johnson's premises, I must say that I was very surprised that my hon. Friend, who was chairman, I believe, of a food control committee, should make what are perhaps rather wild allegations without support for them. He said that someone in Salford goes about bribing our enforcement officers.
§ Dr. SummerskillHe alleged that someone was bribing our enforcement officers. I really must ask him for details.
§ Dr. SummerskillThe hon. Member does not even know the exact name of this person who, he said, may be going about bribing our enforcement officers.
§ Dr. SummerskillOur Department knows nothing about this. It cannot say that a man named Raffio, or something like it, is bribing our officers, because it has no evidence. What the hon. Member has said tonight is something new and strange to us.
Then we come to this mysterious, sinister shop two doors away. There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation in regard to this shop. Walsh is a perfectly decent man, and a pre-war manufacturer of ice cream, who complied with our regulations, whereas Fieldson did not. Walsh complied with the regulations, and so qualified for an allocation of sugar and fat. Walsh's premises in Higson Street were blitzed. He informed us that he could not manufacture there, and asked if he could manufacture at 227, Cross Lane, which is two doors away from Johnson's shop.
§ Dr. SummerskillI can assure the hon. Gentleman, who has been chairman of the local food control committee, that this is a most amazing confession.
§ Dr. SummerskillIf my hon. Friend will inquire, he will find that Mr. Raffio bought the ice cream from another place where it was manufactured. We made the most careful inquiries, and, knowing the hon. Member was going to raise these specific cases, I would have been extremely stupid if I had not made the most careful inquiries to confirm the facts. I agree with my hon. Friend that, on the face of it, it looks a little curious; but when I tell him the reason he will agree with me that it is a fair explanation. Indeed, it is a little difficult for my hon. Friend, who probably knows this man Johnson very well and feels every sympathy for him; but he must agree that a responsible Department must draw the line somewhere. There is always someone on one side of the line who has a grievance and says "Waive the regulations in my favour; just do this for me."
I often find it a distasteful duty to stand at this Box and appear unsympathetic to these claims, but I must bear in mind the needs of the ordinary consumer. If we were irresponsible in this matter, it would mean that, as a result of granting these applications, we would have to reduce the rations of the ordinary domestic consumer, and we cannot do this. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this matter nationally rather than locally. He did, I think, in the very nice letters he has written to me, pleading with me to grant this man a licence, say it put him in a difficult position. I agree it does. He is 182 a Member, and he is asked to go to the Ministry and put the case for his constituent. Well, I have also told him that I have my difficulties. It is hard for me to refuse. May I put the matter to him from the point of view of the interests of the whole of the country, and hope that when he goes back to Salford this weekend he will go back without bearing any hard feelings, but will quote Edmund Burke's speech to his constituent. On being elected Member for Bristol Edmund Burke said:
If the local constituents should have an interest or should form a hasty opinion evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the Member for that place ought to be as tar as any other from any endeavour to give it effect.
§ Mr. HardyBefore the hon. Lady sits down, may I ask one question? Is it correct to say that this man Johnson, or hundreds of people, can sell ice cream without applying for a manufacturer's licence provided they get it from a manufacturer, which means that manufacturers are extending their trade wholesale and using the ingredients of which the hon. Lady has been speaking this evening?
§ Dr. SummerskillNobody needs a licence to manufacture ice cream, but everybody needs an allocation from the Ministry of Food for the purpose of manufacture. It is possible for Mr. Raffia and Mr. Savori to obtain some ice cream from the manufacturer, but the hon. Member is wrong when he says "can a manufacturer manufacture ice cream wholesale." The manufacturer can only manufacture that amount of ice cream which he can make out of the allocation of sugar and fat we give him, and this has been much reduced since prewar days.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.