HC Deb 12 June 1952 vol 502 cc632-44

3.47 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 977), dated 15th May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be annulled. The Order we are now discussing is, I am glad to say, a fairly small Order, and after the long disquisitions we have had tonight and after all the previous Bills it is refreshing to return to this comparatively easy matter. Article 1 says that coupon means coupon, fat means fat, cheese means cheese, and butter means butter, and it goes on to give a definition of vegetable butter, which apparently contains other material, but for some reason complies with the Order, although the Ministry do not like to admit it. It is a consolidating Order which keeps stable the very low ration of these commodities we have had to endure for the last few weeks.

I do not propose to say very much about fats, and I do not propose to say more than a word or two about tea. I propose to say something about cheese, a commodity for which I have a keen interest. About tea I would only recall an anecdote told by Viscount Castlerosse about a visit to a country house in the years before the war. On his first day he was approached by the butler, who asked what he would like to have served in bed in the morning—tea, coffee, cocoa or yoghourt. He replied that, on the whole, he would prefer tea. "Very good" said the butler, making a note on his shirt cuff, "and from what country would you like it—India, China or Ceylon?" Viscount Castlerosse said he thought he would prefer China. The butler then asked from what state in China he would like it—Lapsang, Souchong, Oolong or Teenmun—and his choice was Souchong.

Things have altered since then. In spite of all the efforts of the Co-ordinat- ing Minister, whose lips are sealed, we have reached the point where one's host says, "Would you like a glass of health salts or canned prunes before you get up?" and that is about all the selection he has. Despite all the talk from the noble Lord about tea and its increasing quantity and so on, my experience is that tea is in shorter supply today than it has ever been in our history.

I want to be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. I have heard it said, perhaps a little maliciously, that Parliamentary Secretaries are used to announce reductions in rations and Ministers are used to announce increases. But we have had no increases, and the result is that the Parliamentary Secretary is having to do the whole of the Parliamentary work of the Ministry of Food. He has always shown an interest in food, and we welcome that. I hope he will forgive me for saying this, but in years gone by one of the minor nuisances associated with the radio was that if the set was switched on a few moments before the news or if one left it a few moments too late——

Mr. Speaker

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that on these occasions one must adhere strictly to the Order. The hon. Member seems to be going very far beyond it.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have the precedent of the debate which took place on the same issue last year, when the situation was reversed and when a Prayer was being moved against the Cheese Order. I was relying on that precedent, when there was a very wide discussion on the matter. I submit to you, with respect, that the question of the utility of cheese as part of our ration and the question of its importance in our diet are matters which are relevant to this Order.

Mr. Speaker

I thought the hon. Member was talking about radio or broadcasts, or something of that sort.

Mr. Hale

No, I was doing that purely geographically. I was talking about the utterances of the Parliamentary Secretary, who used to point out to us the importance of calories, vitamins and so on in this connection, and the high protein quality of cheese and its great importance in our diet. I was merely mentioning the word "radio" as the purely geographical location of the important announcements that the Parliamentary Secretary used to make.

I have referred to the fact that there was a debate on this matter in somewhat different circumstances 12 months ago. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford South (Squadron Leader Cooper) in his place, because I did mention to him that I might make some reference to some of the things that were said on that occasion. As he has been good enough to be here, I will come straight to one of his own observations. He made three substantial points. The hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion said The point is that cheese of all sorts is available in all countries for everybody to buy, except the Socialist Minister of Food. That was either true or untrue. Does the hon. and gallant Member now say that it was true?

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford South)

Perfectly true.

Mr. Hale

If so, what has happened to the cheese? Is it still available to buy? We were told last year that the reduction of the cheese ration from three to two ounces would imperil the health of the nation. We were told that there was cheese everywhere to be bought. What are the relevant figures? I have taken the trouble to turn them up. In the four months ending February last—the first four effective months of the present Government—we imported 52,000 tons of cheese. In the four months before the present Government came into office, we imported 76,000 tons. In the four months ending February, 1951, we imported 77,000 tons.

There has been a deliberate diminution of 25,000 tons of cheese in the few months since this Government took office, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the world was full of cheese and could be bought anywhere. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on: The fact is that the whole policy of the Ministry of Food in providing sustenance for the people of this country has failed dismally. That was during a temporary period of a two-ounce ration. Now we have a one-ounce ration. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised his voice in protest about that? Has he given the Minister of Food the benefit of his advice? Has he told him where all the cheese is, or is he now prepared to defend the fact that the ration has been reduced by a half?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman ended by saying: This is just one more sorry example of the ineptitude which has been displayed by the Ministry of Food in the last five years and of which the people of this country will show their condemnation in no uncertain manner when the opportunity arises."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 767–8.]

Squadron Leader Cooper

They did. We are here; the hon. Gentleman is over there.

Mr. Hale

But the ration has been reduced from a figure which I did not consider as satisfactory. In 12 months it has been halved. During that debate, the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us the benefit of his observations. What he said was of very great interest. He said: Let the Parliamentary Secretary look back into the files of his Department to the time when Lord Woolton was in charge. Let him look back to the time when the Lord Privy Seal, who is charged with the co-ordination of food and agriculture, and who says his lips are sealed, was in charge. We have arrived back at that time again, and the noble Lord is there again, with almost despotic powers. He is referred to in political circles as one of the "Overlords". Then the Financial Secretary finished his remarks, during which he observed: The total of high-class protein available for consumers in this country has been lowered further below a level which most medical opinion has always regarded as dangerously low."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 764–5.] Now we get a reduction by half.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has always emphasised the protein value of milk and cheese. His first action was to stick 4d. on the price of milk, and now he cuts cheese by a half. We also have the benefits of the hon. Gentleman's writings. On Euston Station the other day I came across a book "The Guide to Health," by the "Radio Doctor." There was a portrait on the dust jacket which showed that science had been combined with art in the most tasteful possible manner.

There was a section on cheese beginning at page 52. I think it gave a most valuable food for thought, if that is the only kind of food we can have. I did not buy the book, because the Chancellor's credit policy prevailed. But I had a snoop at it. The section on cheese began—like Caesar's Gallic Wars —by saying that all cheese is divided into three parts; one part of which is water, another protein, but I cannot remember what the third was.

He then gave a somewhat indelicate account—I speak as a lawyer and not as a medical man—of what happened to a small morsel of cheese when it came into contact with those internal gales which he referred to in the generic term of mind. He finally defended cheese against the City alderman who used to complain it was the cause of his matutinal indigestion. Nowadays, it would be difficult for even a small alderman to make a complaint of that kind while the present ration remains.

I would remind the House of one or two other matters. The circumstances of the debate last year were, of course, something quite exceptional. It is pleasant to be able to recall them after the protests of the last few hours. At about 9 o'clock, the House was deserted, placid and calm, but at 10 o'clock the "Banstead Harriers" came in in full cry. From every telephone box and lavatory Tory Members came from their concealment with the mental equivalent of "Yoicks."

Mr. Speaker

All this reminiscence is out of order. It has nothing to do with the merits of the Prayer which is being moved.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. My introductory sentences were too long.

When that Motion was carried against the Government and when a humble Address was to be presented to annul the Order, we were greeted with cries of "Resign" from these benches. What were we to resign for? To enable a Tory Government to give us more cheese. That was the object. That is what it was said would be done.

Surely, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why he has failed. So far as one can judge, it is the deliberate policy decision of the Government not to buy the cheese. They have deliberately bought 25,000 tons less in the last six months than was bought by the previous Government, and they have deliberately decided that they are not prepared to spend money on buying cheese to supplement the ration. If that be so, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to consider resignation, because it is quite contrary to all he said on this matter when in opposition. I venture to suggest to him that he would add to his already high reputation if he protested against a policy which he knows to be inimical to the health of the people.

I do not want to labour this matter now. I make one final point. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made a point in the debate last year which is very material today, and which is very surprising. I used to think, in the days before the war, that cheese was a thing which everybody could have. Cheese and onions was a staple supper, and a very good supper it was, too. We who lived in the Stilton country, where good cheese is produced, thought that everybody got ample cheese. It was the normal practice for men to take half a loaf of bread and a piece of cheese. In point of fact, it does appear that, in those golden days of Tory misrule before the war, there was never a 2 oz. ration. Lots of us were eating pounds of it.

When hon. Members opposite were praying last year about the temporary reduction from 3 oz. to 2 oz., they were perhaps a little factious in their comments. The time has come when the Parliamentary Secretary should say whether it is the deliberate policy of the Government or not. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, and has often talked in the past, a great deal about calories, vitamins and things that should be in every pantry. I can imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary could sympathise much more with the poet who said that life would be much easier if we did not have to eat. I hope he will face this matter quite frankly, and if he does, I think he must tell the House that the British public are being subjected to a deliberate policy of failing to buy necessary and important food for purely Treasury reasons.

4.5 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to second the Motion.

I want to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend with a few further facts. As he has explained, this Order deals with tea, fats and cheese. So far as tea is concerned, it is quite obvious now that the housewives will get an increased ration solely through pressure from these benches and from the tea trade.

On 7th April I asked the Minister, in view of the increased stocks then, to increase the tea ration. He said he could not do that for two reasons—that the increase in world production was slow and that he had to build up stocks. Two days later, following pressure from these benches and after pressure from the trade —which pointed out that this was not only unfair to the housewives, but also to the trade, as they were carrying an impossible financial burden—he said he would increase the ration on 10th August.

This Order does not provide for an increase in the tea ration on 10th August. It has brought the date forward to July. As we have been sitting late, I have been able to do some research work in the Library and I find from the printed copy of the presentation copy of this Order that, as the Minister had stated, there was an announcement that the ration would be increased on 10th August; but that an alteration has been made in manuscript by the Minister altering the date to 13th July. What had happened between the printing of this Order and the manuscript alteration by the Minister? The Labour Opposition had given notice that they would raise the question of food in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food should tell the House how much has been expended by the Stationery Office in printing this Order and then having to print it again. At what date did the Minister change his mind and again give way?

I explained last night, when dealing with tea prices, why these increases had been carried out in this way. What is quite obvious is that the Ministry of Food have been most reluctant to offer the housewives the benefit of the increased ration at the cheaper price. This is really a vindictive, harsh attack upon the housewives.

This Order also deals with fats. The Parliamentary Secretary will say that his difficulty about cheese is that he has been unable to buy dollar cheese. Why on earth, then, has he bought this year an enormous quantity of dollar lard? I explained last year that we had then made exceptionally large purchases of lard which goes on the fat ration—but they nowhere compared with the amount of lard that we have obtained this year presumably from dollar sources. Last year we obtained in the first four months rather less than 10,000 tons of lard, but this year we have already obtained between 55,000 and 60,000 tons.

Lard obtained in these last four months has cost more than £8 million. When we discussed the food position, the Minister of Food said, "The position of oils and fats is quite as favourable as it was last year." In those circumstances, when we can get oils and fats from the sterling area, why go to the dollar area for lard? If we are going to get dollar aid, why could not we say to the Americans, who the Parliamentary Secretary has told us have surplus supplies of cheese, "We are desperately short of cheese; we have oils and fats. We would like the lard. It was very helpful to us last year; but why cannot we have some cheese?"

In the last Parliament we used to hear a good deal from these benches about exports. Why has the Parliamentary Secretary increased exports of cheese? We find in the Trade and Navigation Accounts that when we are on a 1-oz. ration we have, during four months of this year, exported more cheese than we did last year. I concede that the amount of cheese we are exporting would not help us in any appreciable way towards saving the ration; but after hon. Gentlemen made such an issue of this last year they are surely open to criticism from their own back benchers.

Regarding the cheese position, I can reinforce my hon. Friend's argument with a few more facts. What the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister of Food and his "Overlord," have done is to halve the cheese ration. We have reached a record low level. The position is deteriorating, because while in April the Minister said he could not hold out hope of a bigger ration for some months, in the debate on food recently he said he did not think he could hold the 1-oz. ration fully throughout the year. I would add to what has been said that it is only the present food administrators who have ever managed to run a 1-oz. ration of cheese. The only time this country had such a ration before was when the Germans broke through on the Eastern front and we were in a desperate position.

It is not a question of maintaining a 3-oz. ration for which the Conservative Opposition fought so strenuously in the last Parliament, but of trying to maintain a cheese ration which is at a low level which indeed only obtained for a short period during the war. Moreover, in the open general licence cuts, cheese has suffered heavily. This will have a harmful effect on us. The Parliamentary' Secretary may say that it is negligible, but it is going to have a drastic effect, because all livestock products have to be maintained over a period. If production falls it takes years to build it up again. If the markets are lost, they may be lost for ever. Since 1945 we have built up very substantial markets in Denmark, Holland and Switzerland. They have now, without notice, been drastically cut, and now we have this low level of rationed cheese.

This, as my hon. Friend demonstrated, is not due to the stock position. In fact, we received in 1951 over 40,000 tons more cheese than in 1950. It has nothing to do with stocks or the supply position. In fact, I am pleased to note that in the last month we had very good supplies of cheese which emphasises the very serious difficulties that we are now facing, because I gather from the figures that we must be making it quite clear to those countries on which we depend that we are not in a position to buy all the cheese they might send us.

The New Zealand figures for April are excellent, but, in spite of these signs, the Minister feels himself obliged to say that he doubts whether he will be able to keep the 1-oz. ration throughout the year. The explanation given so far by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary is that it is due to two causes—the dollar difficulties facing the country and the short-fall from New Zealand. On what estimate is this short-fall based, because it would be a catastrophic thing for us if we were unable to pay even sterling supplies of essential foodstuffs.

It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to make out his case, because in fact we have had substantial dollar supplies of other things. Why have we not had cheese? One of the things I emphasised in the debate last year was that we had taken great advantage of dollar cheese. We got it at a good price and it was due to those supplies that we were able to lift the ration from 2 to 3 oz. In fact, that contribution enabled us to have a 3-oz. ration for several months. In any case, this is cold comfort now, because I doubt whether we could in fact get any cheese from the Americans at this time of year.

So we have to turn to home production and production in the Southern Dominions. At home the prospects are a bit better, but we can account for only a quarter of the supplies we need. So we turn back to the Southern Dominions, and the question I put again to the Parliamentary Secretary is, what is the basis of his insistence that there is going to be a short-fall from New Zealand? There are one or two troubling things there. Supplies have undoubtedly been affected by freight difficulties. I do not want to say anything which would be taken as any reflection on the New Zealanders. The Ministry of Food and Her Majesty's Government have made repeated requests to New Zealand to speed up the turn-round of boats and loading. We know the dockers worked on Anniversary Day in order to get the supplies out.

But that is only half the story. The other half is that the New Zealanders have criticised us for the arrangements we have made for getting food supplies out of New Zealand. They have been embarrassed by the supplies of food, including cheese, piling up. I should like to know what the Ministry of Food are doing about freight with New Zealand. Last year we had in New Zealand a dock strike. This year we have not had a dock strike there, but we have had complaints by the New Zealand authorities that we are not doing everything to get the freight moving from New Zealand.

It is in this situation that we have come to this extraordinary agreement with Canada—again it may be unavoidable—whereby the New Zealand Meat Board is sending meat to Canada and we are getting Canadian meat from Vancouver. This, it seems to me, will create extraordinary difficulties when at this time the New Zealanders are saying that we are not helping all that we could to get food supplies from New Zealand.

There is another factor which I shall mention, and leave it at that. There was recently the very peculiar incident of the sale of cheese from New Zealand to Canada. It was very extraordinary that New Zealand should be selling cheese to Canada, a great cheese-producing country. In fact, the New Zealand Dairy Products Marketing Commission cancelled the delivery of that 800 tons of cheese.

I would not suggest for a moment that 800 tons of cheese was important to us in terms of rationed cheese, but the incident is important to us because it seems unfortunately to lend more weight to the fears I have about our trade with New Zealand. Why on earth, when this country was crying out for all the cheese she could get, should New Zealanders be trying to sell cheese to Canada? It may be said that this is only an incident in the difficulties of the Commonwealth and the sterling area about dollars, but at any rate it seems to indicate that there is some difficulty in the trade between the Southern Dominions and ourselves.

So the questions I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer are these: Why have we not used for cheese such dollars as we have been obliged to use for food purchases? As far as the Southern Dominions go, what are we doing to encourage the production of butter or cheese, particularly the latter? And as far as the European supplying countries are concerned, what are we doing about them? We cannot believe that we can just cut off those supplies and then turn to those countries again when it suits us.

I would emphasise that the question of the supply of livestock products is a difficult one. It cannot be dealt with in panic by drastic import reductions. We have to look ahead. I believe this cut in the cheese ration, therefore, is a very serious matter. This is a cut to 1 oz., but the Minister is saying that he doubts whether he can even maintain that ration. I think we are entitled to expect from the Parliamentary Secretary a reply to these serious doubts that many of us must hold.

4.24 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has waited so long and suffered so many delays before making his speech tonight, laid great stress on the nutritive value of cheese. I was glad to note that while on a former occasion he said that he had not touched liquid milk for 48 years, he has now discovered a new interest and belief in the nutritive value of cheese. Anything I have written on that subject still stands; cheese is one of the most important and even today under-rated forms of building food.

I want to dispose first of an issue on tea raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) before returning to the main argument. He has contrived to suggest that it was his own oratory or the activity of the Opposition which was responsible for the change of date, by which the increase of the tea ration took place a month earlier. One thing we were determined upon was not to repeat the appalling mess that occurred when sweets were de-rationed, for this first exercise of raising the ration is but a step towards the complete de-rationing of tea which we hope will take place before the end of the year.

On first calculations we thought we should have to wait until August before we could safely raise the ration; but on further examination, in consultation not with the hon. Gentleman but with the trade, it was decided that the increase could safely be brought forward a month because the arrivals and the prospective arrivals of tea in this country had improved.

To pass to the cheese issue; consumption in this country last year was rather more than 200,000 tons, of which 91,000 tons, if I may give it in round figures, came from New Zealand, and 47,000 tons from North America; and 42,000 tons, not the 60,000 tons which the hon. Gentleman anticipated a year ago, was produced in this country.

There are two reasons why the reduction of the cheese ration has been necessary. First let us face the New Zealand position. New Zealand, anxious to reopen certain alternative markets in the United States, Canada and Europe has, in fact, sent us rather less than 90 per cent. of her exportable surplus in 1950–51, not 97 per cent, as she did in 1949–50. We should not cavil at that, and I hope that some remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made will not give rise to any misunderstanding.

New Zealand, above all others, has helped this country in this matter of cheese and we must leave to her the decision whether in her own interest she should re-establish in a modest way some trading connections she had before the war. If New Zealand decides to send cheese to Canada, that, I submit, is a matter for New Zealand and not for us. The arrangement about meat between New Zealand, Canada and ourselves was entered into by this country in order to help Canada.

Finally, the main reason the cheese ration has gone down is because we cannot afford to import the 47,000 tons from North America which we imported last year. To a smaller extent the cut in special cheeses from the Continent, previously running at 33,000 tons a year and now cut by about a quarter, has contributed to the cheese shortage. But first and last is the position that we cannot afford to buy dollar cheese, and that cut alone is sufficient to account for the reduction of half an ounce in the cheese ration.

The amazing thing about this discussion has been that there has been practically no reference to the fundamental difficulties confronting this country at the present time, though they are responsible for our inability to pay for the cheese from North America which makes the difference between the two levels of ration.

Mr. Hale

Cheese and butter and nothing else?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Five o' Clock, a.m., 13th June. 1952, till this day.