HC Deb 05 July 1948 vol 453 cc170-80

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

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

I rise to complain of the action of the Ministry of Food in intercepting and converting to their own use 3,224 lbs. of prime beef from Fairfield, New Zealand, intended as a gift to Fairfield, Derbyshire, and of the high-handed inconsiderate and arbitrary manner in which this has been done. Early in 1948 it became known to my constituency that a community in New Zealand were planning to send a gift of beef to Fairfield, Derbyshire. There was no personal link between these two places and the idea apparently was a spontaneous and generous desire on the part of a small community in New Zealand to do something to help what they regarded as the parent community in the old country from which they had taken their name.

Therefore, they wrote to the county police of Derbyshire and, through them, they were put in touch with the Vicar of Fairfield, who organised a committee to organise the distribution. He got together a representative committee consisting of the Buxton town councillor who represented Fairfield, a police constable, two ministers of Free Church denominations, two butchers who undertook to cut up the meat free of charge, and above all the assistant food officer of Buxton, through whom they arranged to have available the machinery of the food office of the borough. It was, in fact, a representative committee and was planned efficiently. The Minister of Food has prevented it from operating.

The gift from Fairfield, New Zealand, consisted of this quantity of 3,224 lb. of New Zealand beef and it was decided by the Fairfield committee that it should be distributed to those people in Fairfield who were 60 and over. There were 900 of them, and therefore they would each have received about 3½ lb. of beef. Mr. Senton, the hon. secretary of the Fairfield Parents' and Teachers' Association, New Zealand, wrote to the Vicar, Mr. Saunders-Williams, on 29th March, as follows: I now have pleasure in telling you that 3,221 lb. of prime beef were shipped aboard the steamship 'Empire Star' which sailed for London on the 19th inst. This consignment will be taken charge of by the Ministry of Food, Overseas Gifts Allocation Centre, who will deliver the goods to you. Such was the belief of the simple-minded New Zealanders in the reliability and honesty of the Ministry of Food.

The letter goes on: Now, perhaps I should tell you a few details about Fairfield, Hamilton, New Zealand, and its school and the people who make up the community. … There follows an interesting account of a thriving New Zealand community of farmers who were anxious to establish contact with Fairfield in the mother country. The letter goes on to ask about Fairfield, Derbyshire. The secretary writes: I should be deeply grateful if you would send me a few details of Fairfield—population, nearest large town, local industry, etc. A few photos would be an added attraction; of course I have reasons for this, I would like to keep the school executive interested in your township and any mail I receive will be placed before them, and exhibited at the Quarterly general meetings or monthly meetings, to let the folk see that their efforts are appreciated. I have quoted freely from this letter in order to show that the organisers of this generous gift in New Zealand were anxious to know about Fairfield, and that it was in order that Fairfield, Derbyshire, should benefit from the generosity of Fairfield, New Zealand, that this gift was sent.

When the cargo of beef arrived in London it was seized by the Ministry of Food and converted to their use. No notification was sent to Fairfield and after waiting for some weeks the Vicar of Fairfield wrote to the Ministry of Food asking what had happened about this cargo of beef which they had been expecting to receive, and which the people aged 60 and over in Fairfield had been confidently expecting to enjoy. The vicar wrote on 7th May. On 13th May the Ministry replied as follows: I regret that it is not possible to send the meat to Fairfield. I think I can do no better than include a copy of the letter from the Ministry to the donors"— I cannot quote the letter in full, I am leaving out a few words— When at a later date we are in a position to purchase non-perishable foodstuffs we will keep in mind that they were made possible by the sale of the gift intended for Fairfield. I recognise the magnanimity of the Ministry of Food, that having seized the Fairfield food and sold it for what it would fetch on the open market, or at their own fixed price, they undertake to bear in mind, when the money is obtained, to spend it at some future unspecified time on non-perishable foodstuffs.

I turn now to the Minister's letter to Fairfield, New Zealand, dated 21st April, which was enclosed in a letter to the Vicar of Fairfield as the best explanation they could give of what had been done. It is too long to read in full, but it says: The Overseas Gifts Allocation Centre is unable to undertake the distribution of perishable foodstuffs"— and therefore they have no alternative but to take the meat into stock for issue in the ordinary way as part of the rations. The Ministry then proceeds to offer, first, to issue in lieu non-perishable foodstuffs; secondly, not now because of the general scarcity of foodstuffs, but at some unspecified time in the future to do so; and thirdly, not necessarily to Fairfield alone but including other areas also if the Ministry in its discretion thinks—and here I quote again— that the distribution of the whole gift in the area selected would prove greatly disproportionate. I object to each one of the claims that the Ministry makes. No one in Fairfield would have objected to this fresh beef arriving in London being used for the ration in the Southern part of the country, if a corresponding amount of fresh beef, landed perhaps at Liverpool, from perhaps New Zealand or the Argentine, had been made available to the people for whom the gift was intended. But we do object in the strongest way to this particular gift being converted to the use of the Ministry, when what is offered in lieu is non-perishable commodities, which may be bully beef or tinned soups or perhaps tinned peas. The Parliamentary Secretary gave me an answer on 21st June. Instead of the fresh beef, it is canned meat, cheese and fruit, which obviously is a very poor substitute indeed for fresh meat. Secondly, we object to the delay. To quote the words of the Minister: It will … be some little time before the purchase can be made. I deny that there need have been any delay, but if it were necessary for there to be delay that is one more reason why it was unjustifiable for this gift, intended for a certain destination, to be converted to the use of the Ministry of Food, because it meant that the Ministry of Food were not able to provide an adequate substitute for it at the time. Thirdly, I say that it is the climax of presumptuous Socialism for the Ministry to claim to be able to include other areas with the area for which the gift was intended. On the first occasion the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to me, said that permission had been obtained to include other areas with Fairfield. No answer at all was given to the third part of my Question to the Minister on 21st June, which asked: … in what way his Department obtained permission from Fairfield, New Zealand, that other areas might share in the gift.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 102.] I should be glad to know whether the first answer was accurate or, alternatively, why no explanation of it was given on the second occasion when I asked a Ques- tion about it. I have shown from the letter from New Zealand that this was intended to be a gift from Fairfield, New Zealand, to Fairfield, Derbyshire. I protest at the claim of the Ministry of Food to be allowed at their discretion to include other areas with the Fairfield Ward of Buxton. I take it that this is merely a new application of the general principle of the Government that no one should enjoy anything if everybody cannot enjoy exactly the same thing. It is, in fact, the case that one of the few targets which the Government have set themselves, and which they seem likely to achieve, is equality in misery, and therefore, because an extra 3½ lb. of beef could not be distributed to everybody in the country, they do not intend that the aged people of Fairfield, in Buxton, should enjoy the benefit of the gift from New Zealand. If everybody cannot have it, then nobody shall have it. I protest most strongly against the action of the Ministry of Food in this matter, and I say that it is a monstrous interference with the general liberties of the subject.

10.23 p.m.

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

I generally regard the remarks of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) as reasonable, and I am very surprised that he should have thought fit to use such strong language tonight in describing the activities of my Department. When he hears the very simple explanation, I think that he will consider that some of the epithets he used were perhaps a little out of place. It is true that early in April we were informed by the New Zealand Marketing Department that a cargo of beef was being sent from the Fairfield Parents and Teachers Association, of Hamilton, for distribution in the parish of Fairfield, which is a ward of Buxton. We were asked to deliver the meat to the Vicar of Fairfield, who, as the hon. Gentleman has described, was prepared to form a committee and to arrange the distribution of the meat.

In their covering letter, the Marketing Department said that the donors had been advised that, in accordance with the Ministry's normal practice—and I ask the hon. Gentleman who, in his last few sentences, asked me if this was a new application of our principles, to note this—in accordance with the Ministry's normal practice, non-perishable foods would probably be substituted for the meat. In order to make quite certain that the donors of this very generous gift understood what was the normal practice of the Ministry, we communicated by air mail with the Parents' and Teachers' Association of Fairfield, and we made it quite clear to them that we would exchange the perishable food for non-perishable food. We also asked them if we could use our discretion in the distribution of the meat.

A reply was received from the donors on 11th May agreeing to the substitution of non-perishable foods, and, although the letter was somewhat ambiguous on the further point, presumably agreeing to the wider distribution of the meat. Accordingly, this meat was used for the ration, and, when the hon. Gentleman describes our actions as intercepting and converting to our own use a gift of this kind, I want him to realise that, when the Ministry of Food uses fresh meat that comes into this country, it uses it simply for the purpose of ensuring that the ration is honoured. We exchanged the meat for one ton of canned foods, and I gave the hon. Gentleman a description of these foods—fruit, meats, cheese, fruit pudding and soup—and I am sure he would like to learn that they are now at Fairfield and in the hands of the vicar of Fairfield.

When the hon. Gentleman tells me that this Committee which was set up would now have no useful function, I would reply that, surely, it can work in exactly the same way as it intended to do when it proposed to distribute the meat. It can distribute this fruit, meat, cheese and so on, and for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this food would not be welcome or would not be equivalent to fresh meat, I can assure him the women of Fairfield who receive this canned food from New Zealand will be exceedingly grateful and will receive this generous gift in exactly the same way as they would have done if it had been perishable food.

Mr. Molson

May I interrupt the hon. Lady? In the first place, I do not think that, when she reads HANSARD tomorrow, she will find that I said anything about the Committee being useless, but, in view of what she has said, may I ask why I was not told on 21st June in answer to my Question? In what way has her Department obtained permission from Fairfield so that other areas may share in the gift? Why was I not given that information. My Question simply was not answered.

Dr. Summerskill

When a Question is put on the Order Paper, a Minister will inform himself or herself of the general position. I may say that a letter was actually sent on such and such a date, but, when the hon. Gentleman raises the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, I inquired into the details to find out in exactly what way we obtained this information. It was by air letter sent to New Zealand on a certain date which I gave him.

Mr. Molson

I put a Question on the Order Paper, and the hon. Lady's Department should have given me an answer on all these points. Full notice was given.

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Gentleman is now receiving a full answer. He has raised this matter in order that he should have a detailed answer, and I fail to see why he should have a grievance at this stage. He is now at liberty to have a full answer.

I want to emphasise that the food is now in Fairfield and is being distributed. The hon. Gentleman asks why it is necessary to substitute non-perishable for perishable foods, and he asked me whether this was a new application of our principles. That is not so. This scheme was devised in the autumn of 1945 in consultation with representatives of the Dominions and Colonies, and it provides that all such gifts are to be sent to the Overseas Gift Centres. There is no question of this scheme having been devised since we had knowledge of this particular gift. This is the usual practice which is adopted by the Ministry. It was made quite clear in October, 1945, that we wanted to distribute these gifts from the Gift Centre, and from the administrative point of view it would be very difficult to allocate gifts of perishable foods. I am very pleased to say that the Dominions and the Colonies, for the most part, observe this arrangement.

In case the hon. Gentleman thinks that New Zealand may not be aware of this, I understand that correspondence on this subject passed between the Ministry and the New Zealand Marketing Department as recently as January of this year, as a result of which the Department undertook to explain the position to all would-be donors of perishable foods. That was in January. I should point this out to the House. The hon. Gentleman has spoken very harshly of my Department. He has suggested that we have been "niggardly" and "mean" in treating these people as we have treated them. But we must remember that this food was brought into this country at the expense of the exportable surplus. New Zealand has undertaken to export all surplus meat to this country and, therefore, these gifts, if perishable, are sent at the expense of the stocks of the Ministry.

The other point is this. Although foodstuffs are received by us as gifts, the cost of bringing them to this country, together with the costs of landing, warehousing, and transporting them in the United Kingdom, are borne by the Ministry out of public funds. The hon. Gentleman, surely, would agree with me that my Department has some responsibility in this matter. We must ensure that the public are treated equitably. Therefore, we have asked the Dominions, through the High Commissioners, whether they are prepared to allow us to allocate this food to wider areas than perhaps the donors intended in the first place. This discretion has been given to us very generously. So far as the amount of food is concerned, the population of Fairfield is slightly less than seven thousand—about one-third of the total population of Buxton, and Fairfield has already had pound for pound with other parts of the country.

If we had given this gift solely to Fairfield, it would have meant that the individuals chosen would probably have had something like two to three times the amount of food we gave in one allocation to Buxton. As the Member for that whole area, surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be inequitable. Therefore, we have converted it into non-perishable foods. On a rough calculation, the amount is 30 cwt. and we are allocating to Fairfield one ton of this food. The rest will be allocated to needy and elderly people in the county through, probably, the mayors of the boroughs.

Mr. Molson

The Mayor of Buxton?

Dr. Summerskill

Certainly the Mayor of Buxton may have some when we come to allocate this other food. It will be allocated together with the other gifts. We have given to Fairfield one ton of the nonperishable foods. We consider that that is a generous allocation. I think, therefore, that in view of my explanation the hon. Member will agree that his criticism was extremely harsh. He has come here tonight without informing himself about the policy of my Department. He has come here and charged us in the strongest language with treating these people in Fairfield unfairly.

The hon. Member asked why the Vicar of Fairfield was not informed in May, or a little earlier. The reason was that we had had no communication from the vicar. Our first communication was from the New Zealand Marketing Department informing us that the people of Fairfield, New Zealand, were about to send the gift. We communicated with Fairfield, and subsequently the vicar wrote to us. We informed him exactly what our policy was. The hon. Member read these letters as if, by reading them, he could condemn my Department. Nothing of the sort. The hon. Member is reading letters which are identical with letters sent to other hon. Members of this House who have realised that the policy we are pursuing is based on justice and equity.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

If any speech which I have heard in this House, through sheer coldness and callousness, could alienate the goodwill of the people in the Dominions, it is that which the hon. Lady has just made. She showed no realisation, that these gifts were made from a personal desire for contact between one place with another within the Empire. She gave us the usual lame, second-rate, Front Bench speaker's stuff put up by the Department. What is "normal practice?" I wonder how often it is departed from. It is only fair that for once it should be made perfectly plain—

Mr. Skeffington (Lewisham, West)

Is the hon. Member aware that this is in agreement with the Dominions?

Mr. Williams

I will not give way to the hon. Member. He is seldom here except to talk nonsense. I am here to say something about the Minister, who obviously has failed to appreciate the desires which led to this gift, which has been held up and diverted to the ordinary meat ration. How does the hon. Lady know that this gift had anything to do with a surplus of meat in New Zealand? It might have been the result of the saving of the people in Fairfield, New Zealand. It may never have occurred to the hon. Lady, as a Socialist, that people can do anything unless they are forced. I wonder what would have happened if this gift had been made to a mining village? I wonder if "normal practice" would have been applied in the same way if it had been made to, say, Ebbw Vale, or somewhere like that? I wonder whether the official eye would not have been closed, and the gift would have gone through lest something unpleasant should have happened there.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-Two Minutes to Eleven o' Clock.