SACKS (CHARGES) (Hansard, 8 March 1951)

§ Mr. Crouch (Dorset, North)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 14th February 1951, entitled the Feeding Stuffs (Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 236), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be annulled. 908 We have been discussing a number of non-consumable goods——

Hon. Members
Divide.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Hon. Members must permit the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) to proceed.

§ Mr. Crouch
This Order deals with a consumable commodity, for it applies to food. It will affect the cost of living of the people of this country. There have been continual rises in the prices of foodstuffs. This is a commodity which is not directly consumed by hon. Members opposite, although——

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey)
On a point of order. This is an amending Order which in no way affects any costs other than the cost of sacks. In view of that fact, I suggest that the hon. Member is out of order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me. This Order is apparently restricted to sacks.

§ Mr. Crouch
The Order puts up the price of feedingstuffs; it says so.

§ Mr. Willey
As the hon. Member is well aware, this amending Order relates only to charges in respect of sacks It in no way affects the cost of feedingstuffs. If a farmer pays more as a deposit on a sack, he receives more when he returns the sack.

§ Mr. Crouch
The hon Member says——

Hon. Members
Divide.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order! I cannot hear whether the hon. Member is referring to sacks or to anything else. Hon. Members must permit me to hear what the hon. Member in possession of the Floor has to say.

§ Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)
Would it be in order for the House to adjourn while the hon. Member reads his brief?

§ Mr. Deedes (Ashford)
On a point of order. In view of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary, why is the Order in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food and not in the name of the President of the Board of Trade?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That question does not arise. Mr. Crouch.

§ Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
In regard to the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Explanatory Memorandum on the back of the Order Paper, the last sentence of which, in brackets, reads: This has necessitated consequential amendments to the basic prices of feeding-stuffs.

§ Mr. Willey
If the hon. Member will look at the Schedules of prices, he will see that some items are inclusive of the sacks, so the farmer buys the feedingstuffs and the sacks. This Order only affects sacks.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire)
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if a greater charge was made for a sack, the farmer got back a larger sum when he returned the sack; but unfortunately the Note at the back deals with sacks which are non-returnable.

The Deputy-Speaker
I have received Mr. Speaker's Ruling, which is that this Order only refers to sacks.

§ Mr. Crouch
This Order refers to the basic prices per ton of feedingstuffs, and it increases the cost of them.

The Deputy-Speaker
No, I must rule that this Order refers to sacks and the hon. Member is only entitled to refer to sacks; not feedingstuffs.

§ Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)
Would it not be possible to include with the sackcloth the ashes as well?

§ Mr. Crouch
We have quite a number of instances in this Order of sacks being used to bag similar articles being charged at different rates; and if hon. Members will look at the back of the Order they will see a difference of three-halfpence for precisely the same article—wet brewers' grains. That is on page 15 of the Order. It is known that one cannot bag things to keep in fit and proper condition—things such as feedingstuffs—in paper containers. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary may say, this is going to affect the price of production on each and every farm, and it is going to have its reflection in the price of our food. I hope that when the Minister 910 replies he will not attribute the rise in the cost of these sacks to the war in Korea.

§ Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)
On a point of order, may I ask whether the war in Korea is in the bag yet?

§ Mr. Crouch
In moving this Motion, I submit that the Government are not entitled, with the present price structure for agricultural commodities, and the necessity of trying to keep a more even keel, to put on charges of this kind. They may appear to be small, but if these little increases are added up, they quickly amount to a considerable sum.

§ Mr. Deedes (Ashford)
I beg to second the Motion.
You have ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my remarks shall be-confined to the subject of sacks. I propose to comply with that Ruling. It is a little strange that we should find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food replying to a debate on the subject of sacks. I should have expected to find the task falling to the President of the Board of Trade. I think that I am entitled to make the point, that this Order does in fact affect sacks, and the price of sacks, and is in effect associated with the cost of feedingstuffs and so with the agricultural community. It is just one more of those things which certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House attribute to "feather-bedding."This is one of those things out of which hon. Members opposite occasionally art very happy to make capital.
So that I may confine myself to the subject of sacks, I must touch upon a basic problem associated with the problem, which is the supply and the price of jute. I would assure hon. Members that jute is in fact the raw material from which sacks are made, and that it is fundamental to the whole of the Schedules in the Order. We have here one of those economic difficulties created largely, I believe, as a result of political difficulties.
In this case the problem confronting us is a problem of relationships between India and Pakistan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong on this, because it does concern other nations besides ours. I understand that 911 our imports of jute, on which we depend for sacks, are divided into two categories. About half are imported as raw material from Pakistan, and about half in finished goods from India. When the pound was devalued, Pakistan did not devalue the rupee. Thus Pakistan, which was producing the raw jute and selling it to India, who manufactured it into sacks, had in effect raised the price of raw jute by about 40 per cent. From the moment of the devaluation of the pound, the Indian mills, which were manufacturing sacks from the raw jute, were, in fact, in short supply.
We are now getting about one-quarter of the normal allocation from India, which is about 100,000 tons a year, although our supplies of the raw material from Pakistan are about normal. The raw material, 100,000 tons, or thereabouts, goes to the vicinity of Dundee— and the Secretary of State for War is not here to contradict me—where it is converted into the finished product. The basic cause of this Order is the fact that our supplies of the finished sacks from India has fallen heavily in the last 12 or 18 months. The point that should be brought home to the hon. Gentleman is that we are wholly dependent upon India for our supplies of finished products.

§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)
Does the hon. Gentleman realise the sheer hollow-ness of the argument he is now perpetrating upon this House, owing to the fact that his own leader, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) wanted at one period to withhold from India, sterling balances which would have produced economic activity there? Had we followed his policy, sacks would have been dearer still; and the other source, Italy, was insulted by him.

§ Mr, Deedes
If the hon. Gentleman allows me to finish the argument, he will see how that comes into the picture. India is the sole source from which we can obtain these supplies. Two things have happened. The first is the draw on India of the dollar market, and I think the hon. Gentleman would not deny that a number of contracts we have made for the finished products have been cancelled and we have lost them, and the materials on which we were counting have 912 gone to the dollar market. Secondly, as a result of the black market which began in India, the Indians imposed a ferocious export duty of 60 to 70 per cent. It raised the price from 140s. to 230s. per 100 yards. That is part of the price that we are paying and part of the price that is reflected in this instrument.
The first fundamental point that arises out of this is that we are now wholly dependent upon India for the supply of this vital commodity. An agreement has been reached between India and Pakistan, and it is hoped that as a result something like 2,500,000 bales will be available in the first 12-month period of the agreement coming into effect, which will ease the situation. But the sack pipeline is now empty and it will be about nine months before any agreement between India and Pakistan will replenish it.

Mr. Scholefield Alien
If we are discussing the relationship between Pakistan and India, is it not deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is not present?

§ Mr. Deedes
We are, in fact, discussing sacks.

§ Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)
Does the hon. Member not realise that this Order is seeking to do the very thing he wishes the Government to do? As the House knows, I am an amateur gardener. This year sacks—eight new sacks from Scotland—have been charged to me at 2s. 6d. per sack returnable, whereas previously the charge was Is.? This year I have sent back my sacks to get the pound. Previously I did not worry about recovering the shilling. People will now return the sacks to those who want them, instead of wasting them.

§ Mr. Deedes
If I may conclude this part of my argument, the important thing to bear in mind is that we are wholly dependent on India, which is not a good thing in regard to any commodity, and every effort should be made to seek alternative sources of supply. The trade are now seeking every way to find fresh supplies of sacks. We are buying a great deal on the Continent, and on this the Board of Trade are paying a Customs Duty of 20 per cent. to the Treasury, on sacks which eventually go to the agricultural community at an increased price. That seems an absurd situation which I 913 hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain.

§ Mr. Janner
Will the hon. Gentleman indicate one thing before he sits down? If an answer is given by the Minister, and if the hon. Gentleman does not divide on the matter, is that going to indicate that he accepts the answer? If he does not, and his party does not divide, will he explain why they have brought the matter up?

§ Mr. Deedes
I was just going to finish my speech on the subject of sacks.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
On a point of order——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If hon. Members would not intervene we should dispose of matters much more quickly.

§ Mr. Ross
The hon. Gentleman has raised the important question of the shortage of hessian, from which sacks are made. Are we now entitled to go into the whole question of the import and shortage of hessian?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Only so far as it affects the matters referred to in the Prayer.

§ Mr. Deedes
There are these two points —the source of the raw material and cost of the stuff we are buying from Europe, in connection with which there is this curious Customs arrangement whereby, as far as I can see, Peter pays Paul. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind in his reply that this is an increase in a commodity price which is saddling agriculture with yet another increase in costs. I hope also he will convey these observations to the President of the Board of Trade, who is more closely concerned.

§ Mr. A. Lewis
Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, can he say whether he thinks the Opposition are genuine in putting down these Prayers when there are fewer than 42 of them present?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey)
If I may answer first the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), he realises well enough that most of what he has said would be more appropriately addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and perhaps he will take a more suitable occasion to raise the matter with him. 914 The hon. Member is as aware as I am that the control in the jute industry is exercised by the trade itself. The only conclusion I could draw from the remarks he made is that this control should be exercised by the Government. That would mean a Statutory Instrument, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would oblige the jute industry by coming to the House and praying against it.
Let me come to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer. I do not believe for a moment he is an absolute fool. I have heard him broadcast and I think he possesses considerable guile. He read the Explanatory Note and he read the Order and understood perfectly what they meant. I think he came to the House to pursue a personal vendetta against the corn merchants of this country.

§ Mr. Crouch
No.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House, whatever the hour of the day or night it may be, that when a personal imputation is made by one hon. Member, the hon. Member about whom he makes it is allowed to reply.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think that was a personal imputation and it ought to be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Willey
In view of what you say, of course I will withdraw.
I will explain what this Order does. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, the price of jute has increased and in consequence of that increase the price of sacks has increased. Corn merchants have to buy sacks, and if they buy sacks at increased prices and we do not allow them an adjustment, then that increase of price must come out of their margins. What the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer has done wilfully is to say that the increase in the price of sacks, for which the merchants are not at all responsible, should be taken out of their margins. The hon. Gentleman has not produced a shred of evidence to show that their margins are unfair, that they are over-generous to merchants. I think the hon. Gentleman knows well enough—and I take it that he is going to take this challenge into the Lobbies—that the effect of his Prayer must inevitably be that the margins of the corn merchants are reduced. I think this is most unfair, and most unjust to the corn merchants.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to intervene unless the hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House gives way. He has not given way and the hon. Gentleman therefore cannot intervene.

§ Mr. Willey
It is conceded by everyone in the House that the only effect that the success of the Prayer would have would be to reduce the corn merchants' margins. It could have no other effect. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not say, "I am moving this Prayer, never having read the Order, never having read the Explanatory Note." He is in full knowledge of what he is doing. He comes to the House, without any tittle of evidence against these merchants, to say what he has said, for an undisclosed reason—and that is why I suggested something which I have withdrawn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to put this right.

§ Mr. Nigel Fisher (Hitchin)
Let him have a chance.

§ Mr. Willey
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that the remarks I have made are widely circulated in his constituency, because I think the farmers there should know that there are two sides to the case he has given to the House. He suggested no reason at all for penalising the merchants' margins. Now let me say a word or two about the farmers. This does not affect them. If they pay an increased deposit for a sack which costs more, they get it back when they return the sack. If as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) suggested, they buy a sack and feedingstuffs and do not return the sack, they can sell it for more than they paid for it.

§ Major Legge-Bourke
All I did was to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the last sentence of the Explanatory Note merely to back up what my hon. Friend said.

§ Mr. Willey
I have already replied to that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who came here with such vigour 916 and persistence in the early hours of the morning will carry his convictions to the Lobby.

§ Mr. Peter Smithers (Winchester)
I have stayed up to this early hour— [Interruption]—and I am glad to have such a warm welcome from hon. Members opposite—to hear what the Minister had to say about this problem affecting the agricultural industry. I am sorry he did not deal with the important matter of Import Duty. The Dutch Government have helped their farmers by a cut of 10 per cent., and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he consulted the Board of Trade before he made the Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think the question of Import Duty has anything to do with this Order.

§ Mr. Smithers
I will pass from that point to another. I understand you rule, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I must confine my remarks to the subject of sacks. There is one way the Government could help the people of the country—sack themselves.

§ Mr. Crouch
I understand I have a right of reply. The Minister has said that I have no objection to the merchants having reduced margins on profits. I am concerned about the farmer having an extra charge on the price of his sacks.

§ Mr. Willey
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Crouch
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but as a practical farmer I can tell him that 50 per cent. of the sacks bought are non-returnable because they get so damaged by vermin or in other ways that they are not fit to return. As for the statement he made about the farmer being able to sell a sack at a higher price than he paid for it, I would refer him to the January number of the Review of Prices. There he will see that the secondhand price of a sugar-beet sack, for which he is paying 30 pence, is 26¾ pence. It could not be said that the farmer was making more from empty sacks than he paid for them when he bought them.