SHIPS' STORES (CHARGES SCHEME) (Hansard, 10 May 1954)

§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)
I am sure that we are not going to lose the opportunity of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food explain this Order.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill)
In response to that urgent demand for further light on the Order, which I am sure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South -East (Mr. Callaghan) fully understands, I would remind the House that some two years ago it was decided to recover full subsidies in respect of the foods scheduled in the original Order, bacon, butter, canned corned meat, carcass meat, cheese, eggs and flour. Through the process of that recovery about £1 million of public money has been 971 returned in the past two years but, as the process of de-control and de-rationing proceeded, so the various scheduled foodstuffs were removed one by one from the Order.
The position in which we now find ourselves is that carcass meat and bacon are the two remaining items. At the outset it was agreed with the ship-owners and ships' stores dealers, to whose co-operation in making this administratively cheap and simple we are greatly indebted, to make changes in the Order as infrequently as possible and when such changes were made to put the accounts right. The position now is that, between the beginning of April and 3rd July, the sum owing to the Treasury is about £ 100,000. Under the existing Order, about £44,000 would be recovered and, by the Order now before the House, amending the Order of 1952, the sum will be increased from £44,000 to the sum of £100,000.
The other point is that some of this money is back money. It can no longer be levied in relation to items of food no longer rationed and controlled, and therefore the whole burden falls on carcass meat and bacon, the two remaining rationed items. The net effect of this will be to square the account by 3rd July, and in the process recover all the subsidy that is due is respect of carcass meat and bacon and outstanding back money amounting to some £20,000 in respect of foodstuffs now de-controlled but formerly controlled and rationed.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I am sure that we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his lucid and technically perfect explanation. As far as I can make out, it was politically inoffensive also, and for that we are grateful. I want to protect the interest of Government back benchers. I do not want hon. Members opposite to be kept here late at night. That is why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say why it is necessary to have these Orders made at such frequent intervals. After all, they are affirmative, which means that whether the Opposition prays against them or not the Government of the day have to keep their supporters here after 10 o'clock at night in order that they may be put and agreed to.
972 This is an item of business which is completely within the control of the Government and therefore, in the interest of hon. Members opposite, I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say why he brings these Orders forward at such regular intervals. We had the last one as recently as 17th February. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to tell us that this Order amending the Order which was made on 17th February is necessary because he was inaccurate last time? He did not make an explanation last time, so far as I can trace, but got it "on the nod," as the phrase goes. I think it a very unfortunate state of affairs if Government Departments are allowed, through the mouths of their Ministers, to get Orders on the nod when they really need some examination.
Why is it that the estimate the hon. Gentleman made tonight to amend the Order of 17th February could not have been made at that time? I am sure there is an answer to this, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough, with the leave of the House, to supply it in due course. He says that these changes in the amount of money that is to be recovered take place because of the process of decontrol and derationing. That is very laudable, but what he did not mention is that they are also variable because of the amount of subsidy taken off particular items as they are struck off these Orders. As I trace through from the 1952 Order, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the items on which subsidy has been removed, I am not surprised that a greater amount has to be recovered through these two items which are left, bacon and carcass meat.
The interesting thing to note in this field is that, whereas the amount of charge in respect of bacon on 17th February was 1½d. a lb., it is now 2½d. Whereas for carcass meat on 17th February the charge to be recovered was 2½d. a lb., it is now 5d. a lb. The boast of the Government has been that they have kept their election pledges by constantly reducing the food prices. At the time when they are reducing the subsidies and so putting up the price of food they should be recovering a larger charge. I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that it was because there were fewer items on which to charge these amounts. He did not mention in his technically perfect explanation that it is because butter and cheese 973 are no longer subsidised that he has to increase the amount on bacon and carcass meat in order to avoid his Ministry incurring a loss.

§ Dr. Hill
indicated dissent

§ Mr. Callaghan
Is not that so? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I warrant that it is so. It is not part of my business to keep Government back benchers out of bed; that is the job of the hon. Gentleman. If he did not introduce these Orders so frequently but did his job properly on the first occasion, we should not be here now. I hope my hon. Friends will notice that, because the subsidy has been taken off butter, because the subsidy has been taken off canned corned meat, because the subsidy on cheese has gone, because it has come off eggs, because it has been removed from flour, the Parliamentary Secretary is now left with only bacon and carcass meat on which to concentrate it. Here is a classic example of the way in which the Government have broken their election pledges which they had sworn to keep, and I hope that will be remembered in the municipal elections.

§ Dr. Hill
If, with the leave of the House, I may reply to the hon. Member, although I cannot pretend to imitate the self-righteous complacency with which he spoke, there have been four amending Orders. In each case it was because an item of food was derationed and decontrolled.
Had the hon. Member been listening to my preliminary remarks, which he described as technically accurate but which clearly were beyond his grasp, the hon. Gentleman would have heard that, with each progressive stage in the process of decontrol, it becomes necessary to introduce an amending Order. Four amending Orders have been necessary because of the decontrol process in eggs, flour, canned corned meat and butter and cheese. Secondly, clearly it is impossible to levy the amount necessary unless, in fact, the item of foodstuffs is under control. Unless a comprehensive control system is in operation, it is impossible to work a system through the ships' stores dealers by which, following a record of foodstuffs sold, they make the return to the Ministry of Food and so permit the repayment of subsidy.
974 Thirdly—I thought I had it made perfectly plain, but I can do no more than give the hon. Gentleman the facts—the reason why the amount of money is not merely in respect of carcass meat and bacon but is, in part, in respect of back payments is the elementary one which the hon. Gentleman will have noticed if he has studied the original Order. A period of 100 days is allowed to the ships' stores dealers during which they make the necessary returns upon which the subsidy is repaid. Therefore, it follows inevitably that there is always an element of repayment, and, as I said, there is £20,000 back money here.
That, of itself, explains why the rate of recapture is higher than it formerly was. These amounts, which can only be applied to carcass meat and bacon, are in respect of the money owing over past months to the Treasury but which can be recaptured now only in relation to the one group of foodstuffs which is still controlled. That money is to be recaptured by 3rd July, when, to the utter if unexpressed delight of the hon. Gentleman, all rationing will end and it will no longer be possible to recapture the subsidy.