HC Deb 30 July 1951 vol 491 cc927-31
7. Mr. Gerald Williams

asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the increase in the meat ration, he will now increase the allowance to those suffering from steatorrhoea.

Mr. F. Willey

As I stated on 21st June, my right hon. Friend is assured by his medical advisers that the meat allowances for steatorrhoea patients are adequate for their needs. When the meat ration was increased on 22nd July however, steatorrhoea patients had a proportionate increase in their extra meat allowance.

Mr. Williams

If, when the meat ration was at Is. 6d., it was considered necessary to give these people five extra rations, which enabled them to get 9s. worth of meat, why is it that they now are able to get only 7s. worth of meat? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the life of a woman in my constituency depends upon this extra 2s. worth of meat? As the number of sufferers from this disease is so minute a few extra tons would put the whole matter right. Could not the Minister be more charitable?

Mr. Willey

The decision to increase the number of extra rations from four to five was taken in the spring of 1945, when the meat ration was ls. 1d. When it subsequently rose, it was felt that it was better to allow the concession that had been made to stand.

Mr. Assheton

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the whole country is suffering from a shortage of meat?

Mr. Willey

I agree that we should like more meat, and if the right hon. Gentleman can assist me in getting more meat I should be obliged.

Mr. Wood

In view of the fact that sufferers from diabetes have to supplement their ration by non-rationed foods, would the hon. Gentleman give them this increased ration also?

Mr. Willey

I think the best course to follow, in all cases such as these, is to accept the medical advice tendered to us.

Mr. James Johnson

Is my hon. Friend aware that technical terms like dulcin and steatorrhoea baffle an ordinary layman like myself? Would he explain them when he answers?

Sir Herbert Williams

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what medical advisers his Ministry possesses?

Mr. Willey

We are advised by the Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council.

Sir H. Williams

When did they last meet?

8. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now revise his policy in regard to the meat ration for agricultural workers in view of the larger quantities of carcase meat becoming available; whether he will grant all agricultural workers a meat ration equal to that given to the miners; and whether he will give an estimate of the extra tonnage of meat which would thereby be consumed in a full year.

Mr. F. Willey

No, Sir. We have the advice of the Trades Union Congress in this matter, and they have supported the allowances already received by farm workers. They do not recommend acceptance of the principle of discrimination between the needs of different kinds of workers for the purpose of differential rationing. About 22,000 tons of meat a year would be required to give all agricultural workers an additional meat ration of 1s. 9d. a week.

Mr. Nabarro

If the Trades Union Congress does not recognise the need for discrimination, why is it that the miner is given a substantially larger meat ration? Surely the agricultural worker works longer today than any other member of the community. Why should not the Minister recognise that fact?

Mr. Willey

The House will remember the reason which led to the increase in the meat ration for miners, and the hon. Gentleman will remember, because he was present himself, a debate on the Adjournment which we had recently on the question of the meat ration for agricultural workers?

Major Legge-Bourke

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that miners have hostels where they can get meat, whereas agricultural workers have no such hostels? Why cannot they have the meat ration in their own homes?

Mr. Willey

The absence of hostels is fully recognised, but most agricultural workers receive a special cheese ration and extra seasonal allowances which, in many cases, run for 48 weeks out of the year.

19. Mr. Hugh Fraser

asked the Minister of Food what his estimates now are of Argentine meat deliveries during the annual term of the recent agreement.

Mr. F. Willey

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) on Wednesday, 25th July.

Mr. Fraser

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the current estimate in the Argentine is that there will be a shortfall of some 50,000 tons this year? Following the disgracefully disadvantageous agreement signed by the United Kingdom Government what action do they propose to take?

Mr. Willey

Neither the Argentine Government nor ourselves agree with the hon. Member's estimate.

Mr. Fraser

Is not the Minister aware that people who are on the spot, and who know about cattle-rearing, make that estimate and that they have estimated fairly accurately up to now?

Mr. Willey

No, the Argentine Government are on the spot and they should know.

23. Mr. W. T. Williams

asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Official Committee on Meat Inspection, especially in regard to its recommendation concerning registration of retail butchers.

Mr. F. Willey

No, Sir, I think it would be premature to make a statement on this Report, which is still being considered by the various interests concerned.

Mr. Williams

Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will make a statement as soon as possible, because there is considerable alarm about the possibilities intrinsic in this Report?

Mr. Willey

This Report was published as recently as 30th May and we have to afford reasonable time to the various interests to consider the matter so that we may properly consult them.

25. Mr. Crouch

asked the Minister of Food how many ounces of beef steak and beef flank will be supplied against the new ration of 1s. 2d.; and how many ounces were supplied against 1s. 2d. in the corresponding week last year.

Mr. F. Willey

As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Crouch

Is the Minister aware that the figures represent a loss of something like three ounces per ration book of flank meat and that this is 15 ounces a week on a household of five, which is by no means a large number? Does he not think that will mean a great deal of hardship?

Mr. Willey

As the reply involves a number of figures perhaps the hon. Member will read those figures before he makes any comments.

Following are the figures:

APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF STEAK AND FLANK OF BEEF OBTAINABLE IN ENGLAND AND WALES AGAINST A 1/2D. RATION (a) AT OLD PRICES AND (b) AT THE PRICES RULING AS AND FROM JULY, 22ND, 1951
— 1st Quality Home Killed or Imported Chilled 2nd Quality Home Killed or Imported
Boneless ounces Bone-in ounces Boneless ounces Bone-in ounces
(a)Rump and fillet steak … 7 — 8 —
Shoulder or Chuck steak … 10⅓ — 12½ —
Thick flank … 8⅔ — 10⅓ —
Forequarter flank … 14 18⅔ 17¼ 25
Hindquarter flank … 16 20⅓
(b)Rump and fillet steak … 6¼ — 7 —
Chuck steak … 8⅔ — 9⅓ —
Thick flank … 7½ — 8⅔ —
Forequarter flank … 12½ 16 15 20⅓
Hindquarter flank …