HC Deb 25 January 1951 vol 483 cc434-44

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

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Cooper-Key (Hastings)

Tonight I want to bring to the attention of the House the question of meat rationing. It is somewhat fortuitous that this Adjournment should coincide with a period of intense interest in the subject and I shall therefore compress my remarks as much a; possible in order that the Minister, who I understand is to reply, will have plenty of time to deal with the points raised.

I put down this subject some weeks ago when, like many other Members of Parliament, I was receiving letters of complaint in regard to the reduction of the meat ration from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 6d. That was in November. Since then the situation has deteriorated profoundly. The weekly ration of carcase meat has been reduced to 10d., a reduction of nearly 50 per cent., and this is the lowest ration on record. Moreover, included in it is meat which hitherto has been considered to be fit only for manufacturing purposes. Today the situation is even more serious. Existing stocks of imported meat in the Ministry's cold stores—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Cooper-Key

Existing stocks of imported meat in the Ministry's cold stores are now down to under 18,000 tons, or so it is reported to me, and our present consumption runs at about 8,000 tons a week. There are further reports that there is very shortly to be an announcement of a further reduction of the meat ration to 8d. If that is so, it is a scandal of the first magnitude. I am glad that the Minister is to reply because we shall then be better informed on the situation. Without the information which the Minister may give, in these days of abundant world supplies it is a scandal for our ration to be reduced to 8d.

The first question I wish to ask the Minister is what steps is he taking to restore to the country an adequate meat ration? We know that adequate supplies of meat are available if we pay for them. The Argentine negotiations broke down because we would not pay the price. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something in explanation of why we refused to pay the price. The Minister has given an explanation in a speech which he made earlier this month in Yorkshire. He said that the breakdown occurred because he refused to pay the prices for meat which would have taken it outside the reach of the poorer sections of the people. But it is those very people who are in the greatest need of an increased meat ration.

The people in the country today who are poorly off for food, are those people who cannot afford to go out and get a meal off the ration when their rations are finished in a day or two. It is the farm worker, who unlike the factory worker or the mineworker has no canteen to which to go to eke out his rations, it is the retired and elderly couple living alone, who have no facilities for going out to a restaurant or club to eke out their ration, who are the people in real need of an increased meat ration today. I can tell the Minister that the poorer section of the community has suffered in recent weeks by being grossly overcharged for inferior and inedible ewe mutton. I do not think the Minister is in touch with public opinion if he thinks that this poorer section of the community would not jump at the opportunity of paying a few pence extra per week for prime chilled beef.

I wonder whether the explanation of why the Minister did not pay these prices is entirely correct? I wonder whether, in deciding whether to pay higher prices, he was not faced by two alternatives—either to pass on the extra cost to the housewife, which would be reflected in a higher figure in the cost of living index, which he thinks would be unpopular; or alternatively to give a subsidy on imported meat which the Treasury in any case would not agree to. It is this cost of living index—some people now say the price of starving index—which is really responsible for the failure to feed the nation adequately in the last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Rather than increase this index, the Minister refuses to buy foreign food, which is then bought by European countries, tinned and imported into this country for the public to purchase at 10s. per 1b. Some 24 million 1bs. of this meat were imported last year, although, of course, it did not show on the cost of living index, but merely found its way into the stomachs of the well-to-do.

Coming back to the question of the Argentine negotiations, I resent the attitude of the Argentine. I would like the Minister to say something this evening that would encourage me to support him fully in the toughest attitude against the Argentine. When I think of what we have done for that country in the last 50 years, I thoroughly resent the attitude they are now taking up. Nevertheless, this we must face as a business deal. We either have the meat and pay a price which would reflect an increase of about 1½d. or 2d. per week extra in the shops, or we go without. I think that public opinion today, is in favour of having the meat.

One further fact emerges from this story. State trading in meat has failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. In a world of abundant supply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—which is today within 4 per cent. of the total production of 1939, our rations have been cut to an absurd extent. The quality is of the lowest, and our national prestige is, and will be, sacrificed. The Treasury is now the dictator of our rations and the Treasury is making the same mistake over meat, which is the raw material of the Argentine, as it has made over other raw materials, of waiting and thinking that the price would come down. It has not come down, it has gone up. The housewife can be assured that until there is a reform in the present system of procuring and distributing meat, she will not get the meat which her family has the right to expect.

The Minister may reply, with truth, that he has set up a committee to examine and report upon the system of procuring and distributing meat; but there have been many similar surveys since 1945, and not one of them has produced an ounce of meat. The solution to the problem is to be found in the words of Sir Henry Turner, who was formerly the head of the livestock division of the Ministry of Food, and who said: The system of State bulk buying has outlived its usefulness. By refusing to accept the advice of experts, the Government have recently lost some £36 million of the taxpayers' money in their groundnut scheme, and now they have thrown it over. The Minister of Food has shown that neither he nor his system can provide for our requirements in meat. Therefore, I say, let him, without delay, hand over the job to the traders and experts who can.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring)

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) because I feel that the working people of England are behind the Minister in defending this country against the prices which are being demanded by the Argentine. I represent a large working-class constituency, and there is no doubt that the people of this country are behind the Government in fighting these prices.

But there is one thing the Minister must do. If we are to fight the Argentine on prices, we have also to fight those in England who are exploiting this dispute in the prices being charged for rabbits, poultry and fish. Ever since this dispute occurred, the price of fish has gone up and the price of rabbits has gone up to about 2s. 4d. to 2s. 8d. a 1b. The net result is that there are people in England who are getting a big "rake-off" because of the dispute we are now having with the Argentine over meat prices.

It is no good saying, as some people say, that we could pull the prices down if the housewives refused to pay them. That is a silly, stupid argument. The housewives must find some substitute for meat for their husbands who are working. We must go among the working people advocating increased productivity to try to get prices down. The Minister of Food ought to say tonight that he intends to introduce a maximum price control order for these goods. I have found that the most important question I have had to face in my constituency has been, "Why does not the Minister of Food do something about the price of rabbits and fish?"

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

Is it not a fact that the price of rabbits has recently collapsed and that it is now about 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. per 1b.?

Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

It is 2s. 1d.

Mr. Blyton

Only last Saturday I saw a very small rabbit which cost 6s. 8d. I see no reason why the price of rabbits should have gone up because of our dispute with the Argentine.

The Minister of Food ought to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that we should stop gassing rabbits as pests. If they must be killed, let us catch them and put them on the market at a controlled price so that the people can buy them for food. I seriously suggest to the Minister that, regardless of the differences he has to face, if he controls the price of rabbits and fish—

Mrs. Braddock

And poultry.

Mr. Blyton

—he can rest assured that the working-class people will stand behind him in his fight against the Argentine.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley (Angus, North and Mearns)

I am reminded by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) of something my wife told me a week or two ago. She rang up our butcher in Scotland to speak about the weekend ration. She asked if he had any meat and he replied, "No, Madam. I have not got any meat, but I have some mutton." When the people talk about meat, they really mean meat—not rabbits.

Since we last debated the question of meat in this House, two new factors have arisen. The first is the immensely serious likelihood of the imminent announcement of a further reduction in the ration of carcase meat. The other is the statement made recently by Senor Derisi, who is one of the Argentine negotiators with the British Government, that the Argentine Government are now prepared to abandon the bulk selling system immediately and to allow their meat to go into private trade provided Britain will re-open Smithfield. That is an announcement of first-class importance. The Minister has always said that we shall not be able in this country to return to a system of private buying of meat because the Argentine insists upon State selling. The Argentine is now prepared to abandon that system and the way is open to the Minister to take a further step forward.

The Minister said last November, when speaking of our rations, that he was anxious to hold the line. Since then he has reduced the ration of carcase meat by nearly 50 per cent., and shortly, he is going to reduce it still further. In addition, he is throwing into the ration corned beef which is really suitable only for summer consumption, and meat which hitherto has been allowed to be used only for manufacturing purposes. The Minister will only be able to hold that line of which he was speaking if supplies from the Argentine come once again to this country. Even at the price of £97 per ton, which is the figure at which the negotiations with the Argentine are reputed to have broken down, their meat, judged by present-day standards, would not have been dear. If rumour is to be believed, the Argentine are doing a good deal by buying our tinplate and putting the meat which might have supplemented our rations into tins and selling it to the United States at round about £260 per ton.

If the Minister wants to hold that line about which he was speaking, and I think he does, because it is of great importance to the people of this country that he should do so, it will not disadvantage the farmers of this country nor the Empire producers in any way, because they are all going flat out to produce all they can. Therefore, I say that the Minister ought to have two immediate objectives in front of him. The first should be to get South American meat on to our plates once again as soon as possible, and the second to transfer the buying of meat to the experts, who have done it all their lives, and to encourage them, within the limit of a globally allotted currency, to procure for us, as they have never yet failed to do, the kind of meat which the consumer in this country requires.

10.17 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb)

I wish we had more time to deal with this very important, and, as it now stands, unpleasant issue. There are many issues that have been raised tonight to which I would have preferred, if I had the time, to give a rather more complete answer than I can give, but I shall try, in the time which remains to me, to give such answer as I can.

General questions have been raised about the present system of trading, and the allegation has been made that the present system of State trading has failed. Well, it has not failed at all. The present system of State trading has saved this country many millions of pounds. It has also made sure that, in so far as our action can, meat was used and enjoyed by the great bulk of our people. It was not, in fact, distributed and used according to the power of the purse. That is the great difference.

Anyhow, whatever our views about the respective merits of the ordinary system of private trading in meat and State control, we in this country have to face certain inescapable facts, and the truth is that until we have an abundance of meat we cannot abandon rationing in this country. No expert to whom I have talked—and they include experts claiming to speak on behalf of private trade—has been able to give me any assurance at all that, within the next two, three four or even in some cases 10 years, shall we be in a position to feel that we have got enough meat to go back to ordinary trading.

I can only take the advice I get, but, whatever the advice we get, we have taken the view that we must look ahead, and the Government, for the last six months, have been engaged in trying to find out what is the best way to return to some system of trading in meat that would at least allow the maximum amount of consumer choice and yet retain those State guarantees that are essential in modern circumstances.

Any Minister of Food, whether a Conservative or a Labour Minister of Food, cannot get away from certain obligations. First of all, there is the obligation to the farmers of guaranteed prices. Secondly, there are the obligations to our Dominions concerning the long-term contracts. If only the Opposition had started those contracts a long time ago, if only they had done what we are now trying to do—enter into arrangements with Australia and New Zealand to give them long-term guarantees on which they have begun to produce meat—if only that had been started 20 years ago, how much better off we should be now. Anyhow, we have started that.

All those guarantees are there and all those obligations are there. With all those obligations to our own home farmers and to the Dominion farmers—the producers of meat—we just cannot believe that we can go back to the ordinary system of trading in meat. In fact, what we are now doing is trying to find out the best way of working the system for getting meat, taking account of all those obligations and guarantees given to the producers—guarantees that only a Government can underwrite; no private trade can do that—and taking account of all the long-term contracts, and trying to see how we can, in fact, work out a long-term system which will give us a consumer choice and which will give the producers the guarantees they want.

That is not a simple job; it cannot be done in five minutes. The fact is that we are starting something which has never been started by hon. Gentlemen opposite in any previous period. We are looking ahead because we realise that at some time the present system must come to an end. When it does come to an end, we want to put in its place a rational and efficient system, a system which will give to the producer the guarantees he wants and to the consumer the kind of choice we think the consumer wants.

The question then arises, could we have had more meat under the present system? We could have had more if the Opposition had done for home farming what we have done for it in the last three or four years, and if the Opposition had done for the Dominion producers all that we are doing for them at the present time. But they did not do it, and we are now engaged in trying to work out a system of planning for the long-term supply of meat in this country. The question which we now have to face is, could we resume private trading at this moment? We certainly could, but, if we were to do so it would mean that meat would be brought into this country at a price which the great bulk of the people would not be able to afford.

Mr. Cooper-Key

Would the Minister state just exactly what the price would be?

Mr. Webb

I will give an example. For instance, the price of steak in the United States of America today is 10s. a 1b. whereas the highest price for steak in Great Britain is 2s. a 1b. But if it were 10s. a 1b. in this country a lot of people could not get it anyhow, because they would not have 10s. to spend on it.

As I say, what we are trying to do at the moment is to prepare a system that will take the place of the present system at the right time. At the present moment we are faced with the problem of prices. Why have we stood out against the Argentine? It is because we believe that their demands are quite excessive, quite unreasonable and quite unfair to this country. We really cannot keep the cost of living down if we are to yield to every demand of this sort. [Interruption.] We shall keep the cost of living down less if we take the advice of the Opposition. It really is not possible for the Opposition to come to this House and say, "Yield to all these demands, concede all that they ask," and then complain about the rising cost of living.

Last week, at the end of long and difficult negotiations, the Argentine representatives asked us for an average price of £120 a ton and they asked us to take a certain proportion as chilled beef. We should like to have some chilled beef, and we made it clear that we would agree to a substantial increase in the average price we paid last year for all types of their meat. But in those negotiations it was quite clear that their representatives were not prepared even to discuss any compromise which would result in an average price of less than £120 a ton.

Let us consider carefully what that means. This figure represents an increase of 25 per cent. on the price paid last year, which we think is too high. The hon. Member opposite mentioned the name of Sir Henry Turner, who was until recently my principal trade adviser in these matters. I am sorry to have to say this, but since his name has been brought up I must mention it—

Mr. Cooper-Key

I did not mention it.

Mr. Webb

Somebody did. Sir Henry Turner said to me, "If you pay £90 a ton for this meat, you are wasting public money."

Mr. Cooper-Key

When did he say that?

Mr. Webb

I cannot mention the exact date, but he said so. In the last five months the advice of this man was that £90 a ton for Argentine beef was too high, that it was an unfair price and that if we went as high we were wasting public money. We acted on the good advice of that gentleman. There is no doubt that we want to have Argentine meat, and we are willing to consider any reasonable offer that they may still care to make. We fight hard to reach agreement, but the price they want is completely out of line with the price we pay for supplies of meat from other sources. We already pay Argentina more than we pay any other large over- seas supplier. We are prepared, and we must be prepared, to be realistic in these matters. We are prepared to pay higher prices within reason because of increased costs, but we must also pay attention to the relative values of these things, and we must also protect our people against unfair exploitation of our difficulties.

Before the war, in a free market, New Zealand lamb sold at about 75 per cent. above the price of Argentine chilled beef. Argentina is now expecting us to pay a substantially higher price for chilled beef than we pay for New Zealand lamb, and we are not prepared to do so. Our friends in New Zealand are now our largest overseas suppliers of meat. The quantity we get from them is much greater than it was before the war, and I do not think that on the whole they are dissatisfied with our prices. Therefore, we say quite resolutely that we are not prepared to pay that price. The price they are asking for chilled beef is between four and five times the price we paid for their chilled beef before the war. We say that we cannot accept that obligation, and I am convinced that, on balance, our people are prepared to accept this situation.

In the circumstances, I regret to have to inform the House that, because our supplies have now been reduced by this situation—

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

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.