Mr. AmoryI would refer the right hon. Member to the full particulars of the subsidies administered by my Department contained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 15th February.
§ Mr. JayIs it not the case that bread, milk and meat are all still subsidised? If the Minister can subsidise them without rationing them, why is it impossible to subsidise tea without rationing it?
Mr. AmoryBread and milk are both commodities for which the demand is comparatively inelastic, and both are in ready supply. I think that that is the answer. The answer to the rationing point is that if we impose price control on commodities that are in short supply then we are almost bound to impose rationing, or we force the commodities under the counter.
§ Mr. WilleyWould not the right hon. Gentleman agree, with regard to the answer to which he has referred, that this list is, in the main, one of trading losses, and not subsidies at all in the usual sense—merely losses sustained by the Ministry in realising its stocks? Does he not think that the Ministry ought to have done better? How was there a loss of several million on sugar?
§ Mr. NabarroAfter six years of groundnuts.
Mr. AmoryI cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that if he looks at the list he will see that, in the main, they are what are generally called producer subsidies. It is extremely difficult to draw a line between producer subsidies and consumer subsidies, and they overlap, but the loss on Government trading formed a small proportion of the total, a i against it there were profits.
§ Mr. JayAs the previous Minister derationed tea when the price was at 3s. 8d. per lb., why is it not possible to bring the price down to, say, 5s. per lb. by a subsidy without having to ration it?
§ Mr. GaitskellIs it not perfectly clear that the demand for tea is inelastic? Is that not one of the reasons why the price has gone up so sharply? Can the right hon. Gentleman make out any case for paying a subsidy on bread and refusing to pay one on tea?
§ 13. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food how much of the supplementary estimate of £16,600,000 for fat-stock was required for direct subsidy payments to pig producers.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonWill the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not penalise the pig producers by cutting the subsidy before he investigates the very wide margin between what the pig producer receives and what the unfortunate housewife has to pay?
§ 20. Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food what improvements have been made in the administration of the subsidy on eggs and egg products.
Mr. AmoryIt would be impracticable to give the necessary details within the compass of an answer to a Question. I am writing to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. WilleyI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but does he realise that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General shows that the Ministry made efforts to keep up the price of eggs, and is his Department still trying to do so?
Mr. AmoryAs regards the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I think that last week my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asked the hon. Gentleman to await the reply which the Department will be making to the Public Accounts Committee on the Report.
§ 31. Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food why the current subsidies on fat-stock amount to£82 million, and a profit on imported meat and bacon of £6,500,000, whereas the subsidy on meat and bacon last year was £57 million, and in view of the fact that there have been increases in retail prices.
Mr. AmoryThe difference is due to increased supplies of home-produced meat, mainly pigs, and lower profits on imported meat and bacon.
§ Mr. WilleyCan the right hon. Gentleman say what is the relationship between the further £16½ million for which he is 864 asking in the Supplementary Estimate and the increased retain prices which have sent up the cost-of-living index, and what does his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mean by referring to distribution costs?
Mr. AmoryI cannot quite understand that supplementary question, but there does not seem to me to be any direct relationship between the two.
§ Mr. WilleyIn view of the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to understand the point, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.