HC Deb 01 June 1951 vol 488 cc647-56

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

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)

During recent tours of my constituency in the last few weeks I have constantly been asked: "Why are we so short of sugar? In view of the recent statements that have been made, why do not we get sufficient sugar for the housewife to get on with her daily cooking?" I expressed the opinion that I thought there was enough sugar in the country, or that could be brought to the country if only the Minister would allow it to be brought here. My constituents therefore said. "Why don't you bring it up in the House?" and that is why I have introduced this subject this afternoon.

There is no doubt that the nation is still undernourished, though that is denied from time to time from the Government Front Bench who say that we are healthier than we used to be and that we have sufficient food. I cannot help thinking that everyone will agree with me when I say that if we were better fed, we would produce more. If we had, in particular, more sugar our morale would be greatly improved. Many of us know how much better we feel after a course of glucose, and sugar has exactly the same energy-making properties.

I believe that with more sugar we would get more work out of people; it would make things much easier for the housewife, and if things are easier in the house it leads eventually to a happier home—and there are only too many unhappy homes at present. Everything would taste nicer, which, after all, has a great psychological effect, and tempers in the house would be improved. I think that sugar does more than anything else to keep up our morale.

The calorific content of an ounce of sugar is 108; for bread it is 98; for good juicy steak, which we never see nowadays, it is 90 per ounce; for kippers, only 37; cheese, 117; fresh eggs, 39; and for those who like their figures in terms of drink, stout is as low as 13, eight times less than sugar. Moreover, sugar is very easily digestible. It is also cheap at 5d. a pound, and I think that if people could have a few more pounds of sugar they would be willing to pay a much higher price. Sugar is also what is called a good mixer, because it can be put into almost any other food, making it not only more nutritious but also more attractive.

Some of my constituents have complained that there are too many sweets in the shop, while the housewife cannot get enough sugar at home. I do not agree. I think that there is plenty of sugar for all, and I hope I shall make it clear that there is enough if we make full use of the production the Empire is giving us after taking the sugar it wants.

I do not complain to the Minister about the jam factories, who I know get as much sugar as they want, but I do complain that housewives cannot make sufficient jam at home. It is much cheaper to make the jam at home, and if housewives could get the sugar they would be only too pleased to do so. Sometimes the fruit from their own gardens is rendered useless because they cannot use it to make jam. I believe there is no reason for this shortage either for jam making or for putting it into cakes or for ordinary household purposes.

The Minister knows that at present we are consuming only 79 per cent. of what we used to consume per head before the war. The world production has gone up just over 50 per cent. since the war. I know the Minister will agree that there is no shortage of sugar in the Western hemisphere at all, but he may reply to me that it costs dollars to get extra sugar. That may well be, but I would reply to him that the Empire surplus alone in the last four years has gone up 580,000 tons. The whole picture has been changed in the last year, and yet we have not benefited from it. In 1946–47 the consumption of sugar was actually 344,000 tons greater than was the production. It was thought so necessary to bring sugar to this country to feed the people properly that we spent a great many dollars on buying up the extra.

But now the situation has completely changed. In the year 1949–50, consumption was actually less than Empire production by 249,000 tons, and if my figures are wrong I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will interrupt me wherever I err. In spite of this surplus of 249,000 tons, we still have rationing. What has happened to that 249,000 tons of surplus Empire sugar that we had last year? I know that stocks went up a little, and I know that a considerable amount was diverted, but surely it is wrong policy to divert sugar from this country. After all, in none of the countries in the Empire is sugar rationed, neither is it rationed in any major country in the world. Why should it be re-exported after it has come to this country?

Sugar and meat are two things for which the public will willingly pay if the Government will only let them do it. Is the reason why the Government will not let them do it because it will cost them more in the form of subsidy? If so, when are we ever going to get any more food at all? I believe I am correct in saying that in the case of sugar the housewife actually pays her own subsidy, because she buys her ordinary sugar for household use at 5d. per lb. but she pays 7d. a lb. for sugar which she buys in the form of cakes and other articles she wants in the house. I believe that if we had more sugar in this country it would not cost the Government any more in subsidies. It might be a small amount, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will let me know if that is correct.

I have dealt with last year. Now I want to deal with the present year. When I speak of the year, the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I speak of the sugar year, 1st September to 31st August, which is the most convenient time for estimating crops of sugar. According to a far greater authority than I am on this subject, the well-known firm of Messrs. Tate and Lyle, it is estimated that the surplus this year from South Africa, Fiji, Australia, Mauritius and the British West Indies is going to amount to 1,751,000 tons. All those figures are actual, because the crops are already in with the one exception of the British West Indies crop which is half harvested, so that estimate cannot be very far from the truth. Those are figures which I think we can take as pretty well correct.

The home-grown sugar beet crop is already known. It is 724,000 tons. That gives us a total of 2,475,000 tons. The Minister will agree with me that the current consumption is 2,200,000 tons. That leaves a surplus of 275,000 tons. That alone is more than last year. On top of that it is known that the Ministry of Food have bought 50,000 tons of refined Polish sugar, which brings our surplus to 325,000 tons. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has not interrupted me so far, because that figure is a greater figure than that of last year. I ask him what is going to happen, for it seems quite clear that there is going to be a surplus. What is he going to do with it? Why, with this surplus, has he any excuse for rationing people at the present time? What would happen if we had unrestricted consumption?

The former Parliamentary Secretary estimated that we would require 2,500,000 tons and the present Minister of Food reckoned that we would want 2,550,000 tons. Both these figures are a generous amount. They work out at the 3 lb. per head of the population more than before the war and actually they are 7 lb. per head more than the consumption of the U.S.A. Supposing we take the average of these two authorities. It means that we want exactly 325,000 tons of sugar more to be able to abolish rationing. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that 325,000 tons happened to be exactly the amount of the estimated surplus available this year, so it looks as if we could get on entirely without rationing straight away.

In any case, the position should go on improving, because the output has been going up over the past four or five years fairly considerably. If the Minister says, "We dare not do it; sugar crops are up and down—they are tricky things," I agree that they are. If the worst happens, he can always use some dollars as a temporary measure to get the sugar to bring the supplies in a particular year up to the level of consumption. I know that we do not want to spend dollars, but, after all, the Government have spent dollars on importing coal, owing to the blunders that they have made in dealing with the coal situation, so if the worst came to the worst they could use a few dollars temporarily for any particular year to bring up the sugar to the required amount.

Personally, I think that will be quite unnecessary, and that the risk is worth taking. If, again, the Minister says, "The risk is too great," will he make a start and increase the ration, and so give us a little encouragement? I believe that it would be far wiser to abolish it altogether, because that would give us a little more feeling of freedom instead of the terrible suppression from which we still suffer through controls and rationing, in particular.

I am quite sure that it would help output in industry if we got more sugar it would help our health and help our morale as well. If we had no rationing, it would be psychologically good for us. It would have a great psychological effect advantageous to the whole of the country. I am quite certain that it could be done. If my figures are correct—and I have no reason to think that they are not—I am certain that people are prepared to pay more for sugar if they can get it. I seriously ask the Minister to consider all that I have said and to cast away what I might call his short-sighted policy and give people the sugar which they demand.

4.14 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot complain about the calculated and dispassionate manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has presented his case this afternoon.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the figures of the British Commonwealth Sugar Agreement under which we have, as a nation, undertaken to purchase 1,640,000 tons at a price to be agreed, and to find a market for a further 735,000 tons per annum at world market prices, plus preference. These two figures together give us a tonnage of 2,375,000. It takes no account whatever of the British sugar beet production, which is something of the order of 700,000 tons in a year. Therefore, on the figures given us there is a substantial surplus of unrestricted supplies provided in this country.

That is all I want to say. The facts as presented are indisputable, and either the ration could be withdrawn and the general public allowed to buy sugar as and when they please, or the very low ration could be substantially increased without detriment to our stock position or a return to the chaos which existed owing to the unwise handling of the sweets situation by the Ministry some months ago.

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Willey)

I want at once to assure the House that nothing would delight my right hon. Friend more than to be able to increase the supplies of sugar in this country. I agree that the people would like more sugar and we would like to have more sugar for the people. As has been said, sugar is a cheap form of energy. It has often been prescribed as the plaything of the politicians, but we will disregard that this afternoon, because we have had a straightforward attempt to get at the facts to see what we can do.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) will realise that there are two difficulties about this. As we have explained on many occasions, we have to base our estimates on the calendar year. We are concerned with the distribution of supplies over the year, and we cannot but pay regard to the fact that the crops are affected so much by climatic conditions. That is a matter which has been argued out elsewhere, and I think the position is now well known.

The second point is, of course, our responsibilities to the importing Colonies, Canada, and so on. We therefore have to concern ourselves with the net Commonwealth supplies which are available in this country. Our estimate for 1951 is that we will receive 2,226,000 tons of raw sugar. That will be made up of 1,636,000 tons of Commonwealth sugar as a net Commonwealth production available for us in this country. Above that we estimate we should get 590,000 tons of sugar from our home beet crop.

Mr. G. Williams rose—

Mr. Willey

I shall try to give the figures and after that, if I have time, I will give way. That gives us a total of 2,226,000 tons. There may be other sugar available, but I have dealt with the net Commonwealth sugar available for us in this market, which takes into account and has regard to the question of diversions and replacements. The only further sugar that might be available would be dollar sugar. It is not a fact that there are large supplies of sugar going begging. The easiest way to reply to such an allegation is to state the fact that on a free market the price of sugar over the past three months has risen from 40s. a hundredweight f.o.b. to 56s. a hundredweight. Indeed, most of us would expect there to have been strong pressure on sugar during the conditions we have experienced over the past few months. We have to recognise circumstances as they are in the world.

Against that, what are we doing? We have an agreement with the Commonwealth producers which provides for the United Kingdom taking all the exportable surplus up to and including 1952. Thereafter we take minimum tonnages which are substantially above the pre-war tonnages. I emphasise that we are taking all the available sugar we can obtain from Commonwealth sources.

As to the immediate prospects—a matter about which there has been some difference of opinion in the columns of one of our papers—we have to recognise that in Queensland there has been a disastrous flood which has affected the crop. We shall probably get no less than 100,000 tons shortfall in the supplies from Queensland. We shall also be affected by the drought which has affected the crops in Fiji. I mention that because we have to recognise that the present position is not as favourable as it might have been but for the effect upon the crop of these floods and droughts.

With regard to home production, we are indebted to those concerned in producing a record sugar beet crop. I have acknowledged that previously in the House. It is a fact of which we are proud. This brings out the point about crop years. It was partially consumed in the calendar year 1950 and partly in 1951. As regards the crop in 1951, no one would expect us to be so optimistic as to anticipate a similar crop this year.

It is against that background that we have made out estimate of supplies. Now let us turn to the other side, the distribution of those supplies. If we maintain during the year a 10-ounce ration with the seven one-pound bonuses, one of which was given in advance last Christmas—in other words, if we endeavour to maintain for practical purposes a 12-oz. ration—and allow for the domestic consumer, catering, and the needs of the Services, we need 1,102,000 tons of refined sugar. Over and above that, the total manufacturing requirements are at present 920,000 tons, giving us a total of 2,022,000 tons of refined sugar needed to meet the present ration and the present allocations made to manufacturers.

To provide this we need 2,174,000 tons of raw sugar. That is against the estimated supplies I gave of 2,226,000 tons. Therefore, we should be able comfortably to maintain our present position throughout 1951, but the prospect of de-rationing can hardly arise on those figures. The best estimate we have of the pre-war consumption was 2,180,000 tons of refined sugar. One might say that we are approaching those supplies this year, and ask why cannot we de-ration.

The first reason is that, as my predecessor explained to the House, there has been an increase of population of more than 4 per cent. We have to make allowance for that because people are today fully taking up the present ration. The second thing we have to allow for is that, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, people do not regard the present ration as sufficient, probably for two reasons. One is that the consuming habits of our people have changed. Sugar is more attractive. The second is that there is a greater purchasing power in the country than there was pre-war. Making allowance for this, we have not enough sugar to permit de-rationing.

Moreover, to de-ration sugar, we have to provide for two further requirements: first, for the manufacturers, who are at present on varying allocations, but over all are receiving about 88 per cent. of their pre-war supplies; and, second, we would have to have a sufficient buffer to allow people to build up stocks—we could assume that in the event of de-rationing there would be a wide demand from some 14 million households to build up their domestic stocks. It is against that background that we have come to the estimate of 2,500,000 tons, or the revised estimate, of which the hon. Member has reminded me, of slightly more, 2,550,000 tons.

Let us compare our position with that in Europe. I concede at once that there has been general de-rationing. I take Europe for comparative purposes because its people are living under similar conditions, climatically if not otherwise. In Western Europe there is only one country which has a greater consumption of sugar per head than ourselves. That country is Sweden, which incidentally—I do not stress it for the purposes of the present argument—has a Socialist Government.

Mr. G. Williams

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary say that the sugar beet crop at home is only 590,000 ions when 724,000 tons was got in before December? He has not allowed for the 50,000 tons which we got from Poland. He has talked about floods and droughts in various places but all this happened before the compilation of the figures which I have given.

Mr. Willey

The figure I gave was an estimate for the crops. We have to conduct rationing against such reliable estimates as we can make, and, as I explained earlier, we have to apportion the crops between the two calendar years which the crops cover.

The only country in Europe with a higher consumption per head is Sweden. Other countries which have de-rationed in no way compare with us in the rela- tionship between the present and the pre-war consumption. Our domestic ration is at about 92 per cent. of pre-war consumption, and allocations to manufacturers at about 88 per cent. Take, for example, Denmark, which before the war had the largest consumption of sugar in Europe, higher even than ourselves, although we always have been, and remain, one of the highest sugar-consuming countries in the world. Before the war, the consumption in Denmark was 112 lb. per head, whereas today, although they have de-rationed—and incidentally are exporting sugar; we have taken some of it—their consumption per head is only about 75 lb. Again, France, for instance, has a consumption of well below half our own.

If we talk of rationing and compare ourselves with other countries, we must pay regard to the essential factor, which is what the consumer is getting. In the same way, if we discuss de-rationing we must have regard to price. The price in France is well over twice the price here. If we compare ourselves with countries which have de-rationed, the essential thing is to compare the amount of sugar that we are getting, and in fact we find that we are receiving more per head than any other country in Europe apart from Sweden.

The Question having been proposed at Four 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 Half-past Four o'Clock.