HC Deb 19 June 1951 vol 489 cc478-86

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

3.43 a.m.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

I feel extremely sorry that I feel compelled to keep the over-worked staff of the House going for a further half-hour. But I have been balloting for the Adjournment for something like three months and do not feel that I can give up the opportunity of bringing forward something which is of extreme importance to at least a certain section of the community. I refer to farm workers. My purpose is to ask the Ministry of Food to recognise the claims of the farm workers to at least as good a meat ration as that accorded to the miners.

There is an old saying, "Third time lucky." As this happens to be the third time in the last four years on which I have raised the question of rations for farm workers, I hope that now we have a fresh Minister and Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Food I shall have more than lip service by way of sympathy.

These men have an extremely hard job to do in all sorts of weather. They have never staged a strike, or threatened one, during the 12 years they have been providing food for the nation under these conditions, and I ask hon. Gentlemen to imagine what these men have to go through when all the meat ration they get can be consumed at one meal on Sunday, and for the rest of the week they have to put up with the extra seasonal rations in the way of cheese, tea, sugar and so on.

The first adjournment Motion I had was in April, 1947, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, if he looks up these previous debates, will not trot out the old excuses why the farm workers' claims should not be recognised. I do not want to hear, for instance, of the extra cheese they get. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen would like to work day after day at all hours and in all weathers and have just bread and cheese for their meals—and cheese which one of my men describes as horrible stuff. I quite agreed with one of my men who said to me last week that he used to be very fond of a meal of bread and cheese, but the stuff he got now was so horrible that he disliked it intensely. He puts the wretched stuff in his mouth and just manages to get it down his throat, and anyone who has eaten this synthetic stuff will appreciate that man's feelings.

Another suggestion was that farmers should set up canteens for which meat would be made available. I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary will have a better idea than his predecessors of the impracticability of a farmer running a canteen. How is it possible for a farmer employing one or two men to run a canteen? It is quite impossible, and if anyone thinks that it is possible then let them try it out in the sparsely populated areas.

Another argument that was put up was that the extra meat would not be available. It seems rather extraordinary to me that in the same breath the Minister of those days was saying that if canteens were run meat would be available. Therefore, the argument that meat was not available for direct supply will not hold water. Another point was that the men in the country had an opportunity of keeping pigs and poultry. Some of them have, but a great proportion of them live in villages and council houses and are not allowed to do so.

Another excuse was that farmers had the right to kill a calf every three months. That is not a very practical suggestion if a farmer employs a couple of men unless, like the black man, they kill the animal and lie down beside it for a day or two and consume it. I suppose the men would have a jolly time for a couple of days, but they would then have to starve for the rest of the time. In any case we do not have cold storage on every farm.

The next debate was in January, 1948, when we again had the same old arguments, and the right hon. Lady who is now the Minister of National Insurance claimed that the nourishment from cheese was equal to that of meat. I wish she would come and try that one on the farmworkers. I know we can get sufficient calories from boiled potatoes, but they are not a very good way of building up strength to do heavy work.

The Parliamentary Secretary then said that on these matters they took the advice of the T.U.C. I hope that the Minister is not going to do so on this occasion, because what I want to say to the farm workers is that they should belong to their union but not allow it to be affiliated to the T.U.C.; nor should they allow the union to be affiliated to any political party. The strength of the unions is to be completely independent of whatever political party is in power, and then they can negotiate from strength.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), is present. In the first debate when this question was raised he did give me mild support. In the next he was not even present, but astonishingly enough the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), defended the Minister. He said that he had not had half a dozen complaints from his constituency, that the only complaints he had were that 20 per cent. of farmers were not drawing the extra seasonal rations that farm workers were entitled to. When a farm worker's job is not seasonal I have never been able to understand. He also said the British Restaurants rural meals scheme was sufficient. I wonder if he still thinks so. I warned him that I was going to mention this, but I see he is not present. Perhaps he did not want to defend the Minister, and so got away.

Another excuse given by the T.U.C. is that they cannot have differential rationing. That is all humbug. It goes on at present in mining villages, where miners' wives and farm workers' wives are in the same queues at the butchers' shop, one drawing three times as much meat as the other. There is no complaint from the farm workers' wives. They say to the miners' wives, "Good luck to you, you are entitled to it, but we think we are also entitled to it." Miners also have facilities at canteens, they live where there are fish and chip shops, and probably fresh fish shops too. There are none of these facilities in the isolated districts where farm workers live.

Mr. Percy Wells (Faversham)

There are travelling fish shops in the villages.

Mr. Baldwin

It is nonsense for the hon. Member to talk like that. There is not a single travelling fish shop in the area round my farm, or the chance for the farm workers to get to a fish and chip shop or a fresh fish shop. Go into the hills of Wales or Scotland and see how many travelling fish shops there are.

These farm workers are doing a grand job of work. They work in all weathers, seven days a week, and sometimes through the night too. It is time the country recognised their claims. They would have got their claim accepted at once if they had been made of the kind of stuff that threatens or stages a strike. It is sad to think that the workers still have to stage a strike to get anything. If farm workers had been in a position to threaten to down tools their claim would have been recognised at once.

I do not know whether the Minister has worked out how much additional meat would be necessary to give the men a double ration at the present time, but I think it would take something like 3,000 or 4,000 tons a year. It may be said that that extra meat is not available. If that is said, then I would ask the Minister, where did the meat come from for the 7,000 new establishments that were licensed last year? If there is meat available for those 7,000 new establishments, it would appear that there must be meat available to give the farm workers this ration which we are asking for them.

In a booklet entitled "Our Food Today," the Ministry of Food paints a rosy picture of a chain of restaurants set up to ensure that the workers should have access to canteens and be able to get at least one nourishing meal a day at a reasonable price. I do not know where that chain of restaurants is. There must be a link missing in the chain in my district. I have never seen that chain.

There is another interesting point on the possibility of the argument that the meat is not available. I had sent to me from Canada the other day a cutting of an advertisement by a firm that has food parcels available to be sent by Canadians to their friends in Great Britain. The astonishing thing is that the food parcels, which mainly consist of tinned meat, are processed in Liverpool.

If meat is available to process and tin for Canadians to buy, and then to send to their friends in Britain. it would appear to me that that meat should be made available to give an extra ration of meat to our farm-workers. Appropriately enough, the firm putting up these parcels is named "Unger" without the "H." The food parcels are: two tins of braised steak; one tin of beef steak and kidney; one beef steak and kidney pie; one tin of meat balls; one tin of shepherds' pie. It all sounds very nice to me. If that meat is available it should be made available for our farm workers in extra rations.

I want to take up the claim that rationing means fair shares for all. It is absolute moonshine to say it gives fair shares for all. Look at the workers in the towns. Sedentary workers sitting at desks all the week can go to get two meat meals a day if they like to pay for them. How can that be called fair shares for all? The farm workers get less meat a week now than they ever have had during the whole time I have been connected with farming—and that is a long time. My man said to me, "In the old days, bad as they were, we did have a chance of getting two or three meat meals a week. Now my missus and I get through our little bit of meat on a Sunday."

I hope the Minister has come down to the House tonight in a conciliatory mood, and that he will recognise this claim of the agricultural workers, which has been made for a long time. The agricultural Press is now beginning to take up this claim, and I warn the Minister that now the claim will not die away as it has in the past. I hope that the Press and the Farmers' Union will make their weight felt. I believe they will, and that they will compel attention to what is nothing less than a standing disgrace to the people of this country.

The numbers of the workers in agriculture have declined in the last 12 months. There are two reasons; one is the shortage of cottages, and the other is the conditions in which the farm workers have to live. If we are not careful the numbers will be still further reduced, and we shall get smaller production in the agricultural world. Up to this year we have been able to call on hostels for workers. Now in the country we are feeling the shortage of labour. We shall not increase the labour nor keep the labour we have unless the farm workers are fed properly. I hope the Minister will recognise that fact and not raise any difficulties but meet the claim we are making.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Gooch (Norfolk, North)

I want to compliment hon. Members on the other side on their new-found zeal for the farm workers. It is in striking contrast to the years between the two wars, when there was little meat for farm workers and little of anything else, and in place of that low wages and a good deal of un- employment. Thanks to their union and the Labour Government all this has been changed and the standard of living of the average farm worker today is much higher than ever it was in the days when the hon. Gentleman's party were in power. What was then a luxury in the farm worker's home is today a commonplace.

When a number of hon. Members on the other side put a Motion on the Order Paper asking for higher meat allowances for farm workers, I had the audacity to describe it as vote-catching. I have not changed my opinion. It did not occur to Conservative Members to ask for more meat when the meat was available, but they ask for it today when they know very well that there is a general dearth of meat.

Mr. Baldwin

I asked for this four years ago.

Mr. Gooch

I deprecate the movement in which the hon. Member has joined, to try and drive a wedge between the farm workers and the miners. We are told the miners get an extra ration of meat and at the same time that, but for the heartless action of the T.U.C., the farm workers would be getting more. It is a well-known fact that the Committee which advises the Ministry of Food on questions of rationing were not consulted about the extra meat ration that was given to the miners. It was a direct arrangement between the Government and the National Mineworkers' Union. May I add that it was the first and last arrangement of that kind.

The attitude of the T.U.C. on this question has been consistent throughout. They are not in favour of differential rationing for particular types of workers. Hon. Members should realise that both the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the National Farmers' Union have had this matter of rationing under constant review. Further concessions were made to farm workers in April of this year. The National Union of Agricultural Workers have a representative on the committee dealing with this matter, and thus we know all the moves.

So far as the National Farmers' Union are concerned. I can quote from a circular which has been sent to their county branches, not a long while ago, dealing with this very point. I think I ought to give it to the House, to let hon. Mem- bers know that members of the Union have a point of view slightly at variance with the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

It says, firstly, that the T.U.C. will not be party to a differential meat ration for farm workers; secondly, that in reaching a decision the labour sub-committee were bound to take into account the national meat shortage and that the Ministry of Food found it barely possible to meet the standard ration out of what they were receiving; and thirdly, and this is the most important, that it appears that the extra meat ration could only be granted to agricultural workers at the expense of other sections of the community, and the Committee felt that, as a responsible organisation, the Union ought not to put forward a proposition in the interest of their own workers which would have this sort of effect on others.

I might say to the Parliamentary Secretary that farm workers are amongst many workers who would like an extra ration of meat. If the Ministry of Food get a windfall in this direction, I know that he will not forget the farm workers of this country.

4.5 a.m.

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

The bon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said that the agricultural workers had done a grand job. We recognise that. They were trying to do a grand job in 1939, but in 1939 they were getting a wage of 34s. 9d. a week for up to a 54-hour week. Today they are getting 100s. a week for a 47-hour week. The first thing the Government have done has been to recognise that the agricultural workers are doing a grand job for the country. This is what we have done, recognising the difficulties of agricultural workers about food.

We have provided the special allowance of 12 ounces a week of cheese. Secondly they have a seasonal allowance, which this year will cover a substantial part of the year. We brought these allowances in in April, covering all farm workers. These are not insubstantial allowances—2 ounces a week of tea, 6 ounces of sugar, 6 ounces of margarine, 3 ounces of cheese and 3 ounces of bacon a week for each agricultural worker. Apart from that, we are doing what we can through the rural meals scheme, by which 1,660,000 packed meals are being distributed in,rural areas each week.

The hon. Gentleman said one could not expect the farmers to run canteens. But we would recognise any suitable premises for the distribution of previously prepared meals, and if canteens are established they will be eligible for food on the full scale for heavy workers. We are endeavouring to do what we can for the farm worker, recognising that he has not the same canteen facilities as the other heavy workers. The hon. Gentleman says that that is not enough. I do not know for whom he is speaking. He is not speaking for the agricultural workers or the farmers. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, if we are in a democracy we should pay due regard to the responsible spokesmen of the industry.

The Trades Union Congress, speaking for the workers generally, has said that they would not recommend the introduction of differential rationing. In any case, if we are going to argue for differential rationing, who else is to be included? I represent a constituency that has a large number of shipyard workers, and if we are to have differential rationing they would have a legitimate claim. I have already dealt with the compensatory provisions for the farm workers, and T cannot go beyond that.

If we do introduce differential rationing we are. I think, bound to recognise—and this is recognised by the Trades Union Congress, which speaks for all workers that—there will be many workers who feel that they have a real grievance. But, supposing we did ignore the people best able to speak for those affected, where are we going to get the meat? It has to come out of the supplies available for rationing.

Mr. Baldwin rose—

Mr. Willey

Is the hon. Member going to suggest that we take it away from children under five years of age?

Mr. Baldwin

How is the Ministry going to get it for canteens?

Mr. Willey

It is a substantial amount of meat. Is the hon. Member going to take it from children under five years of age, who at present get only a half ration? Is he going to take it from adoles- cents, who are growing? Is he going to take it from old age pensioners? The hon. Member has been here time after time when all this has been explained. Is he going to suggest that we should take it away from the housewives, from women doing two jobs—15 million people all told? If he is not going to suggest this, from whom does he suggest it should come?

Mr. Baldwin

From the restaurants in London.

Mr. Willey

Then one comes up against the difficulty which I mentioned in the second place. The hon. Member suggests that we should take meat from other people to provide for differential meat rationing. That would cause other workers to feel a grievance. These are difficulties which we have to face. They are difficulties which have been discussed. After all, the hon. Member does not contain within himself all the wisdom of the farming community. This has been discussed with the National Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Workers' Union, with other unions catering for agricultural workers, and with the Trades Union Congress.

We would wish, if we could, to do more for the agricultural worker, but I think we are driven to the conclusion that there are disadvantages which would outweigh the advantages, that in fact we would not be wise in introducing differential rationing, and that the best course for us to pursue is to consider whether there is any other way in which we can assist the agricultural worker, having regard to his lack of canteen facilities. We have examined this matter and have done all we can; but if there is any further step which might be taken we will be willing to discuss it. We have the machinery for proper discussion. We have the T.U.C., which is willing to advise us. The responsibility remains ours. I think that the right course is for us to continue to take advantage of the proper channels for discussion.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening 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 Thirteen Minutes past Four o'Clock a.m., 20th June.