HC Deb 25 May 1949 vol 465 cc1392-413

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th April, 1949, entitled the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 778), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled. At the same time it might be convenient to discuss the two orders, Nos. 783 and 782.

Mr. Speaker

If the House agrees, it would be convenient to take the first three Prayers together. They all deal with meat. The other two are separate.

Mr. Solley (Thurrock)

On a point of Order. Would it not be convenient, while discussing the question of the increases in the price of meat, to deal with the increases the price of butter and cheese? It might be desirable to make some comment about the general rates of increase in the price of these foods in canteens. It would be rather difficult merely to give in the first Debate examples of increases in meat prices in canteens, and then subsequently to repeat a similar speech referring to butter and to cheese.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think we can mix up meat, butter and cheese That would make the matter too complicated.

Mr. Piratin

The effect of these orders is that Order No. 778 increases the maximum retail prices of meat and edible offal by an average of 4d. a lb. Order No. 783 extends these increases to Northern Ireland. I regret that Members from the Northern Irish counties are not present to take an interest in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is one."] He is not sitting in his usual place then. Order 782 increases the maximum price of nearly all canned meats by 4d. a 1b. These orders follow from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget on 6th April. The reasons put forward for making these increases are:— … that the subsidies should not exceed £465 million in the current year. The Chancellor further said: … whatever happens to prices, we must not allow them to rise above that level.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2094.] Hence, Sir, this House and the public can anticipate that there may be further increases in the price of meat and, for that matter, in the price of other foods if the cost of food, especially that which is imported, should rise. For this reason this matter is of very great interest to the House and the country. According to the Chancellor the financial saving in the current year would be £17 million. I think it is right to say that such a saving is really placing a burden—

Mr. Speaker

The saving has nothing to do with the order. We must stick to the order, which is merely putting up the price of meat by 4d.

Mr. Piratin

I realise how difficult it is to keep within the Rules of Order, especially in view of the fact that this Prayer arises not from any announcement made by the Ministry of Food but from an announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, we must base our points of view on the statement made a few weeks ago in the Budget Debate. I am trying to give the reasons why these orders have been introduced.

Mr. Speaker

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unduly but, of course, that has been decided. The Finance Bill has been given a Second Reading, and that is a matter of policy which is not discussable under these orders.

Mr. Piratin

Some of the arguments which have been advanced in support of these increases were put forward in the course of other Debates in the House, and in the Press and elsewhere. First, it has been argued that they only amount to 1s. 4d. per week for the average family. I do not want any misunderstanding with the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I should like to say that that figure does not apply to meat alone. No one has worked out the figure for meat alone. What has been worked out is the figure for the average family for the several articles mentioned in these orders. I do not want to distort the figures, but to make plain what is the point with which I am dealing. It has been argued that the whole increase is nearly 1s. 4d. for the average family. It was further argued and I think the Economic Secretary himself argued, that after all it equals only one and a half points increase in the retail prices index. The Financial Secretary said it was two points, but be that as it may.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

Under two points.

Mr. Piratin

Well, under two points, and that was one of the expressions used to justify this increase. The further point was made by a lady Member of this House that, to balance this, we have to take into consideration the fact that other foodstuffs have declined in price.

So far as the first two points are concerned, namely, the low increase and the fact of only a small index figure increase, I suggest that such observations are not worthy of a Labour Front Bench, for they are apt to be a little bureaucratic and rather remote from the lower-paid workers. I do not think it would be possible for the Economic Secretary to go to an old age pensioner, who would be affected by this increase as much as anyone else, and say to him "It is only only one and a half points rise on the retail price index or only 1s. 4d. for the average family." I would also suggest to the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann), who is not present now, in regard to her remark that other foodstuffs had declined in price to balance this increase, that the retail price index figure which was last quoted in November, 1948, as 109, took into consideration any reductions in other food prices, and that, therefore, such an argument is not really valid. I know that I am getting rather wide of the orders, Mr. Speaker; I know it is very delicate, but I am doing my best. The Financial Secretary admits that it is a rise of nearly two points in the index figure. I would go further and say that not only is this increase not justifiable in any circum- stances, but that it is indeed contrary to Government policy, and here I would like to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a Question on 2nd May, when he was asked about his statement in 1948 on personal incomes. The Prime Minister said: The White Paper of February, 1948, was based on certain principles— and the second of these, according to the Prime Minister was: (2) that every effort should be made to reduce prices wherever possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 645.]

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a little bit out of Order. These were no doubt excellent arguments on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but that stage has been passed, and they are not in Order on a Prayer which, after all, is merely devoted to the increase in the price of meat and meat products, and nothing else.

Mr. Piratin

I see the point of Order, but may I respectfully point out to you, Sir, that, as you will recall, a handful of us voted against the Budget as a whole. So far as the Finance Bill is concerned, this particular question did not come up and, therefore, in a way—

Mr. Speaker

It could have come up on the Finance Bill; there was nothing to stop it. It was exempted Business, and anybody could have talked until one, two, three or even four o'clock in the morning. The fault there lies with the hon. Gentleman for not raising it. We must not have a Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill on this particular Prayer.

Mr. Piratin

I will confine myself to the point I was developing. Concerning the increase of 1s. 4d., there was a further development, and I hope the hon. Lady who is to reply will have this in mind. Not only have those prices been raised so that the housewife has to pay extra when she buys her meat, cheese, and so on, but there have been extensions of this, particularly in factory canteens. Some of the recent prices which have been raised in canteens are as follows. In the docks, meat pies have been raised from 4d. to 5d., and sandwiches from 6d. to 8d.; in factory canteens, the main dish has been raised by 1d., a dessert by 1d., and sandwiches and rolls by a halfpenny. A campaign is developing in the docks and factories to boycott certain goods in the canteens while these increases persist. If such is the feeling among industrial workers who need all the food they can get, I would say that is an answer to those who say, "What is 1s. 4d.?"

There is this point which I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration, because it was her senior, the Minister of Food, who, on 9th May, answered a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) as to what would be the effect of these increases on restaurant meals. He said: The average cost of a restaurant meal will be increased on only one-eighth of a penny by these changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th May, 1949; Vol. 464. c. 1484.] Of course, one-eighth of a penny is just a fantastic figure, and has no meaning in practice. I have just given examples of prices in canteens. Restaurants may not increase their charges except by permission of the Minister of Food, but canteens can and have done so, and these increases have been immediately reflected, not in terms of one-eighth of a penny, but in terms of 2d. or 3d. a meal, which means, roughly, about 2s. in the course of a week. That is at least 16 times what the Minister said would be the increase on restaurant meals. That means that the industrial worker is paying these increases twice over. He is paying once when his wife has to pay the extra for these food items, and again when he has his meals in the canteen, where he has to pay these relatively exorbitant additions for his meals.

I think that in raising this matter, difficult as it has been, and generous as you have been to me, Mr. Speaker, because I realise how difficult it is, we are expressing the desire of almost every section of the Labour movement. It is reported in today's Press that the General Council of the T.U.C. were discussing this very matter yesterday, and we know how much they feel about this, and how much other trade unions feel on the matter. The Co-operative movement has expressed, both before and since these increases, their objection to them. So far as the trade unions are concerned, I think that one quotation would be most apt, for it is a food trade union—the bakers' union—which has been meeting in conference at Blackpool over the weekend. In his presidential address, the president of that trade union said: What sort of psychology is it that reduces the taxation on light wines and beer whilst increasing the price of food? May I say, in passing, that I do not believe that the Minister of Food should take complete responsibility for this, and that all the Ministers concerned should bear that fact in mind. I will quote from a pamphlet which Professor G. D. H. Cole—with whom I disagree in many respects—recently wrote for the Fabian Society as a commentary on Labour's own policy. In it he says that he cannot stomach a Budget which simultaneously makes concessions to capitalism and reduces, even by a little, the working-class standard of life. On those words, Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude. I have had half an eye on the Chair all the time.

I hope that the Government will take this opportunity, which we are presenting to them on a platter tonight, of reducing this injustice to the working class. It is clear that a mistake has been made for the mass of the working class, and certainly all the organisations of the working class are opposed to these increases which the Government have introduced, and arising from which further increases may be anticipated. As Professor Cole himself described them, these are the salt of the earth; and these are the people the Government should consider.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I beg to second the Motion.

I had prepared what I believed was going to be a very great speech on this question, but I do not see much possibility of delivering it. I want to support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)—all that was in Order and all that was out of Order—in connection with this increase in meat prices. It is a very serious matter for very many of the poorer workers; make no mistake about that. I know that the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary were not responsible for the fact that an order had to be issued, although they themselves issued it. I would remind them that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who, like myself, is an engineer, has on occasion been put in the situation where the boss has sad "do this" and "do that." We know what he said. There is always a point where resistance should be made to orders that are not in the interest of the people of the country.

Here we have a situation where, in order to justify this increase in meat, the Minister of Food issued a statement giving statistics to show that the workers are now getting a bigger share of the national cake. I am quite certain that the Economic Secretary supplied those statistics. Then Johnnie Gollan, in the "Daily Worker," corrected these statistics in a very fine article. Perhaps it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who issued the statement, not the Minister. Then the Chancellor came to the House during the proceedings on the Finance Bill and accepted Johnnie Gollan's version of the statistics, supplying them in the House. Johnnie Gollan is a member of the Communist Party and a good lad he is, too. The statistics given to justify this increase in meat were fake and fraudulent statistics.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It was not an increase in meat. The hon. Member means an increase in the price.

Mr. Gallacher

The statistics to justify the increase in the price of meat were fake and fraudulent statistics. Yet a pamphlet is published about the bigger share which the workers are receiving of the national cake. Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Lady, by way of illustration, that in 1937 a Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to this House supplied with good information and proposed a National Defence Contribution which was one of the most revolutionary proposals ever to come before the House. Out of 600 Members I was the only Member to support him. There was such a furore in the city and the country that he had to withdraw the proposals. Some fellow travellers in the Treasury had supplied him with the proposals and he came down to the House with them.

This increase cannot be justified and the Parliamentary Secretary must have a consultation with the Minister to see if it is not possible to make a stand against the dictator who forces upon them the responsibility of issuing this order. Let us take the question of railwaymen. There has been a lot of talk about them and the low wages they are receiving. This increase in meat prices will bear exceptionally heavily on the railwaymen. There is the question of the plight of the old age pensioners, as my hon. Friend said, and there is the question of the trouble in the canteens.

I remember that the Leader of the House made a speech some time ago in which he said that if the Tories came to power there would be industrial trouble in this country, but that that was not a threat. If these extra meat prices are kept on there is going to be industrial trouble in this country—and that is not a threat. Of course, the same applies to the cheese and butter prices, and what we say about the meat price applies to the other prices, for we do not want to make speeches on the other orders affecting the other foods. We want to bring the principle home that the Minister of Food and his Parliamentary Secretary should make a stand against the issuing of such orders.

I am not quite certain myself that the responsibility for the orders rests entirely with the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary, who have been doing a very good job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Despite all the snarls that have come from the other side of the House and all the fictions about the Housewives' League, they have been doing a really good job. Everybody recognises that they have been doing a good job. I do not understand why, when they are doing a good job, they should be forced into this situation. It is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for most of the trouble. The right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is an innocent party. It is the Economic Secretary sitting on her left, to whom we cannot address ourselves, who is the villain of the piece; yet we have to address ourselves to the right hon. Lady. That is an entirely unfair situation for the right hon. Lady, and an entirely unfair situation for this House. I say that the right hon. Lady should now tell the House that she and the Minister regret very much that they accepted dictation which they knew was wrong, and that they will withdraw these orders and defy those responsible for causing the orders to be made.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It was very clear in the speeches of both the mover and seconder of this Prayer that the one thing which they did not wish to discuss was the orders themselves. They obviously desired to use them as a peg on which to hang their arguments, which might, perhaps, have been more appropriately addressed to the House on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Gallacher

I would hang the hon. Member if I got the chance.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I have no doubt at all that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would, if he had the opportunity, carry out that threat. It is his whole mentality, and his whole approach to public affairs, that he would like to use violence upon his political opponents and to "liquidate" the Opposition—as it is put in other countries. I must confess that I am delighted that he has put that on record. I hope none the less that if he wants to introduce the full trimmings of hanging, instead of following that line—

Mr. Speaker

I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Prayer and the order, and not to this tomfoolery.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The sentence which I had commenced, and which I regret, from the grammatical point of view, was somewhat prolonged, was intended to end by saying that despite what had been said I proposed to address myself to the order. And that I will, therefore, now do. I think it is right that these orders should be debated. They are of major importance to the people of this country, and, to my mind, are things which should be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, and not left merely to the discretion of Ministers using their powers of delegated legislation.

In the first and principal order, No. 778, the schedule is extremely interesting. That is the part, as hon. Members who have the order before them will appreciate, which sets out with a wealth of detail the prices for a large number of different sorts of meat, most of which I have not seen for 10 years. The reading of the schedule to this order should not be recommended to hon. Members who are apt to feel acutely the pangs of hunger. The reading of it certainly causes my own gastric juices to ferment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the order he will see specified such items as: rump steak and fillet steak … rump with fillet, whole … sirloin and wing rib … loin, chump and leg chop. I take it, from the fact that those words appear in the order, that the articles to which they refer sometimes appear in this country. I should very much like to know where. The price increases are set out in great detail here, but it is a little difficult to see whether they have been applied proportionately to the different items or not. I am sure that the right hon. Lady apprehends the point, and I would like her to deal with it. Have the price increases been made in exact proportion to the previously existing prices and simply a certain proportion, with due allowance for fractions of a penny, added? Or has some discrimination been used—I think it has—and a greater increase made on the more expensive items? That is a matter on which the House should be informed and I shall be grateful if the right hon. Lady would inform us.

There is a further point which should be before the House in considering this matter. The Prayer was moved solely on the basis that the increases of price affected by the order was the result of certain financial decisions. It is right that it should be made clear that there is another factor in these prices, and that is the method used for the purchase of the meat itself. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not seek to avail herself of the excuse held out to her by the hon. Member for West Fife, that the price increases are simply the result of financial decisions. I hope that she will face the question whether or not her own purchasing mechanism is really obtaining for the people of this country at a fair and reasonable price the meat which it does obtain. However much it may be hidden and disguised by subsidies, the fundamental matter is the price actually being paid in the first place by the Ministry of Food, for the meat which is brought into this country. I hope that she will address herself to that aspect of the matter.

On the other two orders, which I understand in accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, are being discussed, there is only one point which I wish to raise. It is on Order 782, the meat products order. That order is signed, it appears, not by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, nor by the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but by a permanent official. I appreciate there may be circumstances in which the power of the Minister to make a statutory instrument must inevitably be delegated to permanent officials, but when we are dealing with matters of considerable public importance—in this respect at least I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife—it seems regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Parliamentary Secretary should put their signature to the order.

I cannot believe that one or other was not available to do it, and it seems to me to be rather more than a point of procedure when, using delegated powers of legislation, Ministers of the Crown or the Departments of which they are the head take decisions of substantial public importance. It seems to me more appropriate, and more in accordance with reasonable constitutional procedure, that they should not only take responsibility but appear to take responsibility for what they do by putting their own names to these orders. I hope the right hon. Lady will be able to satisfy the House when she replies to the Debate that there was some reason why a permanent official should be the person endorsing this most important order.

I have not tried to discuss the general background issues raised by the mover and seconder of this Prayer but, as these orders are as a result of their initiative now before the House, as they are orders of substantial public importance, it is right that they should be discussed and an answer obtained from Ministers of the Crown.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Solley (Thurrock)

I rise to support the Prayers for the annulment of these three orders which increase the price of meat and meat products. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, owing to your Ruling, I am unable to deal with the background of this matter, without which it will be difficult to explain the fact that these increases are quite unnecessary and are, indeed, quite avoidable if certain lines of policy are pursued by the Government other than those now being pursued. However, I shall attempt to address myself to the allegation made by the Government that these increases are trifling, of no great seriousness, and place no difficulties in the way of the ordinary working-class family.

I would submit we are concerned not only with the increased price of meat to the housewife when she goes to the butcher's shop, but with the increase in prices which workers have to pay in canteens for meat meals and meat products. Indeed, these increases have resulted in higher prices in many industrial canteens which seem to bear no relationship to the increases to be found in these orders. In order to support this, I shall give certain figures for what is known as "A" category canteens, that is to say, canteens which serve the needs of heavy workers. The meat in these canteens now costs three-farthings per meal more than it did before these orders came into operation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose canteens?"] The canteens for heavy workers in general, not in particular firms. Of course the supply of meat remains the same.

In "B" category canteen, that is to say, the ordinary industrial canteen, the increase in price per meal is one-third of a penny. To get the picture in correct perspective, I ought to add that the increases in the prices of cheese, butter and margarine mean a combined increase in cost of less than one-thirteenth of a penny per meal; in other words, the actual increased cost to the caterer as a result of these charges is slightly over three-farthings per meal in "A" category canteens and less than a halfpenny in "B" category canteens.

These are increases which ought to flow if there were no profiteering. What is the position in reality? In my constituency there is considerable unrest in the dock area of Tilbury because of increased prices charged in the canteens. I have just received a letter from the chairman of one of the Transport and General Workers' Union Dockers' branches at Tilbury, in which he writes as follows, and I think the House would be interested to hear the point of view of the man on the spot, the man who has to pay, the man who has to suffer: I am sending to you and asking you to place before the Minister of Food the new tariff as compared with the old which the Port of London Authority have given notice they intend to bring into operation on May 22nd at Tilbury Docks (Mobile Canteens). I am also willing to send samples of food, but as these all would be waste by the time you received them, I will leave you to decide the necessity of this. Bearing in mind the fact that these are industrial canteens and of the quantity supplied in every unit of food, the men consider the prices are far too high and feelings are running rather high. I venture to suggest it is likely to lead to serious consequences. I break off here to say that that is the considered view of the chairman of the leading dockers' branch in this country. The letter continues: At the present time the local Trades Council (that is, the Thurrock Trades Council) are investigating and taking up the case against prices under the old tariff, therefore, the new tariff has come as a bombshell. The writer gives me the prices of the new tariff and compares them with the prices of the old. A meat sandwich under the new tariff costs 8d., and under the old tariff, 6d. Not a fraction of a penny, but a difference of 2d. on a sandwich to a docker. Half a meat sandwich costs 5d., but previously was not supplied at all. To complete the picture I should like to add a few items not directly relevant to this order. An egg now costs 8d., and previously cost 6d. Meat patties cost 5d. each, previously 3d. Meat rolls cost 3½d., previously 3d. Fish rolls cost 2½d., previously 2d. Bread and dripping costs 1½d. a slice, previously 1d. If any hon. Members think this is a small matter, all I can say is that I back the judgment of the dockers rather than the judgment of hon. Members who take an opposite view.

In the light of those facts, I asked myself when I considered this matter how I should vote tonight. I applied myself, as I hope other hon. Members applied themselves, to what I promised to do when I came before the electorate in 1945. I had no need to refresh my memory, because I have always kept that in mind. I remember that "Let Us Face the Future" says that the nation wants good food in plenty, wants a high and rising standard of living, and goes on to answer the question, "How can we do this?" by saying, "By suitable economies and price controls." Then it enunciated this very important statement, with which I and I am quite sure all Members on this side agree: "Food prices must be held." It is because I still believe in that policy that I shall vote with my hon. Friends in support of the policy which means that food prices must be held. Therefore, I shall vote against any suggestion to increase the price of meat.

10.35 p.m.

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

Although the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Gentleman for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) prayed against this order tonight and I was called to the House to answer them, I must confess I felt a little sorry for them when I heard you, Mr. Speaker, on so many occasions having to call them to Order. As it is very difficult on a Prayer to keep within the sharp confines of the order and as I am rather an authority in answering them, I feel a little guilty that I have not coached the hon. Gentlemen in what they might expect.

Mr. Gallacher

We are sorry for you, too.

Dr. Summerskill

On these Prayers one must confine oneself to the one particular point—why was this price increase imposed? Before I explain once more to the House what I feel my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained at this Box more than once, I should like to answer one or two points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked me a question, which I confess has never been asked me before, why was the name of the Permanent Secretary attached to a certain order? As I expect hon. Members know, my Department has to make a large number of orders each year and there is no significance in this. Either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, myself or the Permanent Secretary signs these orders, but I cannot say just why on that occasion the Permanent Secretary signed them. I can assure the hon. Member that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself was available—there might have been a committee meeting at the time—and it would not occur to a responsible official that his signature would be questioned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I appreciate what the right hon. Lady says, but will she not agree that on an order of substantial importance—not one altering the points value of snoek—there should be the signature of the responsible Minister of the Crown?

Dr. Summerskill

The point has never been raised before in the House. It is only occasionally that this happens. It did happen in this case and I could not at this short notice explain where my right hon. Friend was or where I was at the particular moment that the Permanent, Secretary signed it. If the hon. Member cares I will find out and let him know.

The other point raised both by the mover and seconder of the Prayer was about the price of sandwiches and so on. I have been very concerned at this, but I want the House to understand that it is difficult for us to fix the maximum prices for sandwiches. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has just mentioned egg sandwiches. Certainly egg sandwiches are sold, there may be beef sandwiches sold also. Think of the number of different sandwiches sold at these stalls. It is impossible for my Department to be able to fix the maximum price and to ensure that there is no evasion of the order.

Mr. Piratin

While I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is important to fix the price for meat sandwiches; a meat sandwich might be as thin as a wafer. Is not the fact, as the hon. Member has said, that a sandwich may be 6d. one day and 8d. for exactly the same kind the next, something which the Minister could look into?

Dr. Summerskill

That shows how difficult it is to enforce the order. As I have said in this House on more than one occasion, when we make an order, we have to ensure not only that the order is just but that it is enforced. Perhaps the fact that customers have a sandwich one day, which is a little fuller than the one they have the subsequent day and for which they have to pay more, is a legitimate complaint. So far as my Department is concerned it is difficult to place the blame on particular persons and that is why there is room for complaint.

Mr. Solley

Would the right hon. Lady agree that if in fact this order did not come into operation and there was no in- creased price for meat, there would be no consequent increase in the price of any sandwich?

Dr. Summerskill

I am coming to that point. Next I have to explain to hon. Members once more why the increase in the price of meat was necessary. There is little I can usefully add to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget Debate. He mentioned that my Department, in its first forecast of the subsidies, calculated they would total £568 million, or £83 million more than the latest estimates of last year. This was partly due to higher prices both at home and abroad and partly to an anticipated increase in consumption. Further, it was agreed that the subsidy should be limited and we agreed that some £33 million should be found by H.M. Customs and Excise foregoing duties on tea and sugar and that a further £70 millions would be found by increasing the prices of meat, butter, cheese and margarine—sums which would otherwise have had to be added to the subsidies. These Orders are giving effect to the decision made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I wish to emphasise this point. The hon. Members who have prayed against this order have talked of the reduction in the level of subsidies, but there has been no reduction in the level of subsidies. It is important for the country to appreciate that. In fact, adding back the £33 millions saved on the duty reductions, to the £465 million provided this year would give a total of £498 millions, or £13 millions more than last year.

Mr. Piratin

rose—

Dr. Summerskill

I have been very kind and have allowed the hon. Member to interrupt, but he must let me continue.

Mr. Piratin

On a point of Order. The right hon. Lady is taking up a point which I never even raised, although I should have liked to raise it. As I did not raise the point the right hon. Lady need not bother to answer it.

Dr. Summerskill

I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has waved a paper in the air tonight, and, perhaps, in that paper it has been suggested that there have been reductions in the subsidies. It is only fair to the people of this country when a Prayer of this kind is moved in this House, that those who read the versions of the Debate in the newspapers should understand what the facts are. The hon. Member will agree with me that he was anxious to make this statement, but the Speaker prevented it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think I am in Order in telling the House why it was necessary to increase the price of meat. That was quite in Order.

It was necessary for my Department to increase the price of meat because it was our duty to put into effect the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and unless I explain to the House what the present position is in regard to the subsidies, it will be very difficult for them to understand why it was necessary for us to introduce the order. The hon. Member has mentioned butter and cheese. The increase in price of butter, cheese, meat and margarine could not have been—

Mr. Speaker

We are dealing with meat. I have not heard butter or cheese mentioned, except parenthetically.

Dr. Summerskill

I was listening very carefully and I think butter and cheese were mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Piratin

If I may point it out, I did have an understanding with you, Mr. Speaker, not to mention—[Laughter.] I think this is quite in Order. I sought your guidance on how to direct myself in this matter and had an understanding in order to save the time of the House and hon. Members, not to deal in detail with later orders, but merely to mention them in passing. We have not discussed later orders in detail.

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the hon. Gentleman had not mentioned butter or cheese, and that is why I interrupted the right hon. Lady.

Dr. Summerskill

I was in process of saying that these increases could not have been unexpected, although hon. Members have appeared to be shocked at the suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that the prices of certain rationed foodstuffs should be increased; because I recall that in 1947 the Chancellor of the Duchy gave a warning to the House that the ceiling of subsidies would have to be fixed at £392 million. Later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed them at about £400 million, but last year, the subsidies were allowed to rise to £485 million in support of the policy laid down in the White Paper on personal incomes, costs, and prices, and this increase was—

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. My hon. Friends put down a Motion on that very subject of wages, prices, and personal incomes, but we were not allowed to take it.

Mr. Speaker

I was a little alarmed at the way in which the right hon. Lady was making her defence. The policy really cannot be discussed now and if she wishes to defend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his policy, I must remind her that that is out of Order on discussion of these orders.

Dr. Summerskill

I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend can defend himself, but it is a little difficult to prove why it is necessary to increase the price of these foodstuffs unless one explains that the subsidies have increased during the years and a time has been reached when it is necessary to call a halt. The Chancellor said, "The sky is not the limit," and he has had to say to my Department, "You must make orders so that there shall be a limit to the subsidies, by increasing the price of food."

Mr. Gallacher

If that is the answer why is not the Chancellor himself here instead of the right hon. Lady? It seems it concerns the Chancellor more than it concerns her.

Dr. Summerskill

No, it is proper that I should be here. It is proper for the Minister who makes the order, or whose Department is responsible for it, to answer a Prayer. I have answered many Prayers in this House, and some of the orders of my Department have been in greater or lesser degree related to the work of other Departments. After all, it is so customary for me to stand at this Box and answer Prayers that it is a pity to break the sequence.

The increase in these prices was such that poor persons and those in the lower incomes are not suffering as a result. I should like to quote certain figures; first of all, the retail price of meat on the average is 1s. 5d. a 1b, and the subsidy is 2½d. a 1b. Without the subsidy it would be 1s. 7½d. per lb. I must remind hon. Gentlemen that the price of meat in many other countries is much higher than our price without a subsidy. The retail price of cheese is 1s. 2d. per 1b, the subsidy is 1s. 1d. Before the war I think the price was about 10¾d. per 1b. The price of butter is 1s. 6d. and the subsidy is 1s. 5½d. Surely these prices prove to the House that my right hon. Friend has in mind the needs of the lowest income groups?

The time has come when the subsidies have risen and it has been necessary for him to say that the limit has been reached. Surely hon. Members behind me would not put us in the absurd position of having to tell housewives later on, when more food is available abroad, that we could not import this food which they needed because we were unable to afford the subsidy? It is for that reason that we have found it necessary to increase the price of certain foodstuffs in order to meet the increased cost.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern)

Does that mean that subsidies will go up as more food is imported?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Will the right hon. Lady answer my question as to whether the percentage increases of different qualities of meat are the same?

Dr. Summerskill

We try to average it over all the different cuts the hon. Member mentioned.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Kendall (Grantham)

The point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was, I thought, a good one but it does not seem to have been taken up by other hon. Members with the degree of gravity which the suggestion put forward indicated. Here we have some Prayers moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) concerning the cost of living of all the families of the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that this is a most important Debate and yet there have been only three speakers from the other side of the House and one from the official Opposition benches. Listening to the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food I had a little sympathy with her, similar to that which she had for the hon. Member for West Fife, in trying to keep in Order with you, Sir, except that the right hon. Lady went a stage further and said she was an expert on these Prayers which I am not. A most important point was made by the hon. Member for West Fife that all this business has come about through the Chancellor of the Exchequer not knowing the pyschological approach to the people of this country. If these Prayers are taken to a Division I certainly shall

vote for their annulment as a vote of censure against the Chancellor, who does not know his business.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th April 1949, entitled the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 778), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 229.

Division No. 151.] AYES [10.57 p.m.
Kendall, W. D. Pritt, D. N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Solley, L. J. Mr. Gallacher and Mr. Piratin.
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham) Evans, John (Ogmore) Levy, B. W.
Albu, A. H. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Ewart, R. Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fairhurst, F. Lindgren, G. S.
Alpass, J. H. Fennyhough, E. Logan, D. G.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Field, Capt. W. J. Longden, F.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Lyne, A. W.
Awbery, S. S. Foot, M. M. McAdam, W.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Forman, J. C. McGhee, H. G.
Bacon, Miss A. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mack, J. D.
Baird, J. Freeman, J. (Watford) McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Balfour, A. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. McKinlay, A. S.
Barstow, P. G. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Maclean, N. (Govan)
Barton, C. Gibbins, J. McLeavy, F.
Bechervaise, A. E. Gibson, C. W. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Gilzean, A. Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Benson, G. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mainwaring, W. H.
Berry, H. Gooch, E. G. Mann, Mrs. J.
Beswick, F. Grey, C. F. Mellish, R. J.
Bing, G. H. C. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Messer, F.
Binns, J. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Middleton, Mrs. L.
Blenkinsop, A. Guy, W. H. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Blyton, W. R. Hale, Leslie Mitchison, G. R.
Boardman, H. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Monslow, W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L' pl. Exch' ge) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Moody, A. S.
Brock, D. (Halifax) Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morley, R.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hardy, E. A. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Harrison, J. Mort, D. L.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Murray, J. D.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nally, W.
Carmichael, James Herbison, Miss M. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Champion, A. J. Hobson, C. R. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Cobb, F. A. Holman, P. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Cocks, F. S. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Oldfield, W. H.
Collindridge, F. Horabin, T. L. Oliver, G. H.
Collins, V. J. Hoy, J. Paget, R. T.
Comyns, Dr. L. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb' well, N. W.) Hughes, H. D. (W' lverh' pton, W.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Corlett, Dr. J. Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle) Palmer, A. M. F.
Crawley, A. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pargiter, G. A.
Daggar, G. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Parker, J.
Daines, P. Janner, B. Parkin, B. T.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jay, D. P. T. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Peart, T. F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jenkins, R. H. Popplewell, E.
Deer, G. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Porter, G. (Leeds)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Price, M. Philips
Delargy, H. J. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Pryde, D. J.
Diamond, J. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pursey, Comdr. H.
Dobbie, W. Keenan, W. Ranger, J.
Dodds, N. N. Kenyon, C. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Donovan, T. King, E. M. Rhodes, H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Kinley, J. Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D. Robens, A.
Edelman, M. Lang, G. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly) Lee, F. (Hulme) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Leonard, W. Rogers, G. H. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith West, D. G.
Royle, C. Sylvester, G. O. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin' gh, E.)
Sargood, R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Scott-Elliot, W. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Wigg, George
Sharp, Granville Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wilkins, W. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Shurmer, P. Thurtle, Ennest Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Ungoed-Thomas, L. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Skaffington, A. M. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Skinnard, F. W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Woods, G. S.
Snow, J. W. Watkins, T. E. Wyatt, W.
Sorensen, R. W. Watson, W. M. Yates, V. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Weitzman, D.
Stross, Dr. B. Walls, W. T. (Walsall) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.