§ 38. Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food the weekly increase per person of food items since October, 1951; and if he can classify which increases are due to Budget changes, increased grocers' margins and decontrol.
Dr. HillThe Retail Index of Food Prices is the accepted method of measuring price changes. Between October, 1951, and January, 1952, food prices increased by 4.8 per cent. The new basis of the index was adopted in January, 1952, and between then and mid-June food prices have risen by 8.7 per cent. It is not possible to apportion the incidence of individual factors in price increases, but those mentioned by the hon. Lady are by no means exhaustive.
§ Mrs. MannThat is an amazing reply. Does it mean that the hon. Gentleman, when he frees 27 items of groceries from control, has no further knowledge of how prices are rising in the shops—that he can merely free 30 or 40 items and let the prices go through the roof? Are we to understand there is no control whatever over any of these items?
Dr. HillThe hon. Lady is to understand that the index figure I have just given is the expression, and the only expression, of the general effect of price increases.
§ Mr. MarloweDo not these figures show a considerable improvement on those of last year, when the rate of rise was very much the same but there were no compensating benefits given by the Budget?
§ 42. Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the lower-paid worker is being exposed to the full force of rising prices without being substantially affected by price reductions in other commodity groups; and if he will endeavour to seek some easement of food prices.
Dr. HillI cannot add to what my right hon. and gallant Friend said on this subject in the course of the debate on 30th June. As the hon. Member knows, substantial compensatory additions are being made to social benefits to help those most directly affected by increases in the prices of subsidised foods.
§ Mr. HallDoes the Minister not think it would be better if he imposed very drastic forms of control over food prices rather than have the trade unions put under the necessity of having to put forward applications for increases of wages?
§ Mr. J. GriffithsThe hon. Gentleman, in his original reply, made reference, as he often does, to the compensating factors of money benefits, but does he not realise that seven-eighths of those come from the contributions of the workers themselves?