HC Deb 16 July 1956 vol 556 cc997-1008

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

Tonight I wish to raise a matter which is of interest to every man, woman and child, though I agree that it is not one which the well-to-do will bother very much about. It is the millions of lower income groups who will be deeply disturbed about the policy which has been suggested in connection with Britain's bread. Because of it, people with large families and the old-age pensioners will have a very big burden to bear. There is evidence to suggest that the Government have not acted in the public interest, and I believe and fear they will regret it. This is a case which clearly shows the need for a Ministry of Consumers' Welfare to ensure fair play for the public against vested interests.

I propose to divide my speech into two parts. The first is about the price which will rule when control and subsidies are ended on 29th September. The price, when it becomes known, will shock the community, and may have unpleasant results. Secondly, I hope to show that the Government, in their desire to get rid of the subsidy, have taken unjustifiable risks with the nutritive value of the loaf and, consequently, with the health of the people. In other words, I think there is substantial evidence to suggest that, to save the subsidy, the Government must bear the responsibility for foisting upon the public a sham loaf at a much higher price.

On Friday last, I was talking to a constituent, and that constituent has four children, and she said to me, "If the loaf goes up to 10d. my weekly bread bill will go up to £1 a week, and I really do not know what I shall do." I have seen the costings, and I think it is inevitable that the l¾ lb. loaf now selling at 8½d. will go up to 11d., or even to 1s., at one swoop.

This will make nonsense of the Prime Minister's appeals and of the Government's efforts to stabilise prices. I think it makes nonsense of the Prime Minister's submission that it would be wrong at this time to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, a submission made on the ground that it would be harmful to the efforts being made to stabilise prices. If my assumption about the new price of the loaf is right, that will be infinitely more harmful to the efforts to stabilise prices than anything which might have been done to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament.

I took the opportunity this weekend to discuss the position with several bakers' roundsmen, and they told me from their knowledge that if the loaf went up to 10d.—and I think it will go up to 11d. or 1s.—that would involve a good deal of distress among many of their customers. There is no doubt that many people will have to reduce the amount of food of one sort or another which they can buy.

I conclude this part of my speech by asking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to me, three questions. First, does his disagree with my prediction that the 1¾ lb. loaf after control will rise in price from 8½d. to 11d. or 1s.—or is his Department not concerned about what will happen? Secondly, did the Government take into consideration, in approving the change of policy, that the price would leap up in consequence? Third, if the Government did not anticipate such a substantial increase in price, and in view of the appeals to industry and the trade unions to keep prices down, will the matter be looked at again to obviate the creation of a situation which could have serious implications?

Sir David Gammans (Hornsey)

The hon. Member suggests that bread will go up in price to 11d. or 1s. a loaf, without, so far as I can see, any proof of what he is saying, but would he not agree that in any case this matter is self-regulatory, because if some of the biggest bakers in this country, the co-operative societies, which are not out to make a profit, can produce bread cheaper, they will do so and corner all the trade?

Mr. Dodds

I do not think the hon. Member has listened to what I said. In the first place, I said that I had seen the costings which suggested that the price would be 11d, or 1s. Secondly, one of the largest master bakers' organisations in the country has already recommended to its members that they should charge 1s. a loaf. Therefore, I think that I have answered both questions. It is inevitable from the costings that the price will be 11d. or 1s. If the food subsidies had been continued they would have had to be increased, and it is simple economics that the price of the loaf will be at least 11d., whether it is baked by one of the master bakers or by the co-operative society. I mentioned the woman with four children who will have a bread bill of £1 a week, but at least she will have a dividend from the co-operative society which she would not get from the other bakers, and that will be a saving.

I would draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what the newspapers were saying last week. A headline in one of them reads: Government drive for a year of stability nears climax. 'Hold prices' call coming. How can the Government ask the private or public sector to hold prices if the Government at one stroke increase the price of bread from 8½d. to 11d. or 1s.?

As to the quality of the bread, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give a better explanation than has been ever given by his right hon. Friend in reply to Questions in the House. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Cohen Panel. It is remarkable that that Panel's Report concludes with the words: The conclusions reached by the Panel differ from those presented in their evidence by the Government's medical and scientific advisers and by the Medical Research Council. These advisers have been admirably zealous and eminently successful in guarding the nutritional well-being of all sections of the population and their scientific arguments have not been disproved. Despite that, the Government turned down the recommendations of these advisers, who are world-famous, and the Minister has accepted something quite different.

Even the permanent medical advisers of the Ministry have been over-ruled, as has been the advice of the Medical Research Council, the British Medical Association and other weighty testimony. I appreciate that the Cohen Panel was composed of famous scientists, and I appreciate the point made by the Minister that eighteen months ago there was such a conflict of evidence and advice by scientists about the nutritive value of flour that he felt disposed to set up the Cohen Committee.

The Panel's Report names the organisations that made representation to it. The British Medical Research Council submitted evidence and was strongly against the white loaf, even if it were fortified by the addition of synthetic vitamins. It was in favour of retaining the National loaf, which contained the natural virtues of the wheat. The Council urged greater caution in making changes which might lower the value of the nation's staple food.

The Minister, answering Questions on 18th June, showed that he is not certain yet about the quality of the bread which will be produced after 29th September, because he stated in col. 1040 that the Food Standards Committee had been invited to consider whether any more intensive regulations are required to protect the consumer. We should like to know whether there have been any developments, because 29th September is not far off and there is, I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, deep concern in many quarters about the new loaf which will be foisted on the public.

The Lancet declared in a leading article: The nation is now returning to the familiar situation in which the people receive what it suits the millers to give them. It goes on to say that the character of a staple food should not be changed until it is proved that the change does no harm. I submit that that has not yet been proved.

The millers have argued, and the Cohen Committee seems to accept it, that the people are well enough fed now for it not to matter much about the nutritional value of the daily bread. In fact, it is suggested that we should stop bothering about the constituents that have been milled out of flour since nobody quite knows yet what their importance to health really is.

We know that for white bread some of the most nutritive parts of the wheat are milled out and the offal which is taken away to feed animals fetches a better price. The proposal is to substitute three synthetic products of a chemical factory for that part of the wheat which is taken out. We also know—the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny it—that these three synthetic products are not to replace all the ingredients that are taken out of the wheat. In other words, there is no evidence whether or not these ingredients are necessary to health, but they may be, and that suggests that a risk is being taken. Anyway, we know that the best of the wheat is to be taken out to be fed to animals, and human beings have to be content with synthetic substitutes. We also know that this method means better business for the millers.

I am sorry that I have not the time to give further details about the amount of bread eaten every year and the difference that 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. extraction makes. However, I should like to quote a few lines from a critic of substance. It sums up what many of us feel. He says: The result is not a health loaf, it is a white-washed political loaf. More than that, it is a caricature of a loaf, de-natured, shorn of its bran, with its precious store of nature's best replaced by three synthetic products of a chemical factory.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)

May we know the name of the critic of repute quoted by the hon. Member?

Mr. Dodds

It is Lord Hankey. The Minister has said that after 29th September people will have the choice of white bread or any other bread. They have already had that. As a consequence of agitation, it was decided in 1953 to introduce white bread, and it was a complete flop. It is shown that at the end of last year 99.2 per cent. of British households were buying National bread and only 0.8 per cent. were buying white bread. Therefore, we have had the opportunity and it has been a complete flop.

The National loaf has served us well for fourteen years. It is felt by many people—I could quote organisations—that the Government are taking a very big risk in introducing bread which will have taken out of it some of the qualities that are required. The price of bread will have a tremendous effect on any efforts to stabilise the cost of living.

As I want to give the Joint Parliamentary Secretary ample time to reply, I will forgo the rest of what I intended to say. I hope that as a result of what has been said tonight and what has transpired since the Cohen Panel Report was made public that the Minister will think again before introducing something which all will regard as a retrograde step.

10.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)

The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) is one of the most tenacious of hon. Members and he has lived up to his reputation tonight. He has put more into a speech of about sixteen minutes than most hon Members would have done, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who takes a bit of beating.

The hon. Member's speech tonight was under two distinct headings. The first I should describe as the good old party political one. He was trying to score points for his side and, in doing so, added his own touches of colour—and nobody does it better—to the myth that Government supporters enjoy increasing the cost of living of ordinary folk. That is not true, and everybody knows it. However, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends think it worthwhile to say that, and that is why they do so.

The hon. Member feels very sincerely on the subject of the nutritional value of the loaf, and he has pursued that subject with commendable consistency on the Floor of the House for many years. I shall treat that part of his speech seriously and try to give him a recapitulation of the history in order to give him some satisfaction on that score.

I think that I should deal with the good old party political part of his speech first. This is not the first time we have had these dismal prophecies about price levels which would follow decontrol. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that soon after the announcement of the proposed decontrol of eggs we were told that the price of eggs would be 1s., and some said even more than that. Today they are 4½d. We had the same sort of prophecy about butter. Every time we have had decontrol we have had these prognostications which have not been borne out by the facts.

I am surprised that time after time hon. Members opposite continue to pursue that line of thought. It may be because they do not read the right sort of newspaper or the right sort of literature. On balance, I do not think they can say that they have earned a good reputation for prognostications in these topics, although I know that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has earned a reputation in other subjects for being able to forecast what might happen.

Mr. Dodds

One large branch of the National Association of Master Bakers has already recommended its members to charge 1s.

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Member gave that as evidence. I did not want to leave my point until I had drawn attention to the mistakes of hon. Members opposite in the past, because we cannot have this alarm and despondency on such slender evidence. Their dismal prognostications about what will follow the decontrol of the loaf may well be like the others.

The hon. Member has just said that one of the branches of the National Association of Master Bakers has suggested that the price of the 1¾ 1b. loaf may well be 1s. Having read that, he should have read what the National Association of Master Bakers, covering the whole country, said. It repudiated what its branch said and declared: Talk of a 1s. National loaf when the bread subsidy comes off at the end of September is premature. It would be foolhardy to speculate on the price of the loaf until about mid-September, when there will be some idea of the price of flour … The association, of course, knows that this is a highly competitive industry with small bakers, plant bakers and, as was pointed out, Co-operative bakers. We can count on those with all the efficiency and new techniques in the industry to play their part in seeing that the customer gets good value for his money.

I should say, in passing, that as far as the hon. Member's comments are a condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when the hon. Member made his general references to general price standards—I can say only that at the moment there are very clear signs that the Chancellor's methods are winning through. Over the last four months the gold reserves have gone up by about £63 million, and there has been an improvement in the general balance of trade. It is well to remember that dispensing with 1½d. subsidy on a 1¾ 1bs. loaf will not be an extra cost on the community. It merely means that the public will be making the 1½d. contribution by way of purchases over the counter instead of by payments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that on his criticisms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Member is on really strong ground tonight.

I come to the second part of the speech of the hon. Member, and I know that he really meant what he said in that. I know the view he has taken on agene and other contributions he has made in the past. His view tonight appears to be that the Government ought not to have acted on the Report of the Cohen Panel. If one considers the history of this matter, I do not thing such a view is tenable. Those who study the history of what led up to the appointment of the Panel and its Report will agree that the Government have acted reasonably and properly on its recommendations.

It is well to remember that before the war the rate of extraction—which was not usually an issue—was then 70 per cent. to 72 per cent., with no nutrients added. It is interesting to note that one of the first who suggested that the loaf could be improved by the adding of nutrients was Professor Dodds, who is no relation of the hon. Member. He was interested on the millers' side and suggested this way of enriching bread.

During the war, because of shortage of wheat—it had nothing to do with nutrition—the extraction rate was raised to 80 per cent. That produced the near-white loaf, or as some called it, the "dirty-white" loaf. That contained "naturally" the level of nutrients considered acceptable by the experts. The loaf was not easy to bake, and in general appearance I do not think it was ever claimed to be the housewife's pin-up. Many people looked forward to the day when a loaf could be produced which would contain the essential nutrients and be more acceptable to the public.

Recognising that view, the Government—not this Government, but the Government immediately after the war—called the Conference on the Post-War Loaf. It was a conference of medical and scientific opinion, the milling authorities and the authorities which the hon. Member has quoted. It was hoped that that conference would produce an agreed solution on which the Government could base their policy, but this hope was not realised. There were differences of view. One view has been quoted by the hon. Member, that of the medical and scientific advisers to the millers—not the millers themselves—who quoted medical and scientific opinion in the United States, which maintained that the same nutritional standard could be obtained while at the same time giving the public the sort of loaf which was wanted and which could be more easily produced by the baking industry.

At that stage neither side would budge, and the Government, which all along intended to be neutral, were not encouraged to lay down any permanent stabilised policy in anticipation of the day when wheat would become plentiful. In the next eight years there was still a shortage of wheat, and the high extraction rate remained. In 1953 there was no longer a great shortage, and the question was raised in a more acute form. The millers' scientific advisers said that the public demand for whiter bread could be met without injury to the health of the nation. The Government felt at that time that they should confine the bread subsidy to the high extraction loaf, but, as the hon. Member reminded us, they made it possible for a whiter loaf to be produced in which there was vitamin B1, nicotinic acid and iron partly in natural form and partly added.

It was believed at that time that the 80 per cent. extraction rate of what we call the National loaf could be maintained by a provision in the Flour and Bread Orders, 1953, to the effect that the 80 per cent. extraction should be maintained. But this is the important point that has been overlooked by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. It was found in practice that the extraction rate of National flour was progressively lowered because it was quite impossible to establish the precise extraction rate by any experimental means. Therefore, the Government could not stop the decline by using the force of law.

We had laid down by Order that the extraction rate should be 80 per cent., and then it was found that there was no way of confirming that the 80 per cent. extraction rate was being maintained. The hon. Gentleman criticised to some extent the fact that National flour contained a lower proportion of the essential ingredients than was good for health and even lower than the white loaf. The Government have said that they are primarily interested in the nutritious element, and when it was shown that the nutritional level of the National loaf, which was being consumed by the overwhelming majority of the people, was not as high as was wanted, and not as high as the white loaf, they felt that they should do something about it.

Legislatively the remedy could not be an enforcement of the 80 per cent. extraction, but it was possible to have the nutritional standard of bread examined and proved. The Government were faced with a conflict of expert opinion, and they had to make a decision. They decided that the right thing to do was to put the matter before an inquiry where we could be quite certain that the matter would be fully and impartially investigated.

I do not think anybody could say that the Government were anything but sincere in attempting to settle this conflict. The people who were eventually chosen to conduct the inquiry would have passed the most meticulous test as to their integrity and professional qualifications. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that, because the panel was not chosen by the Government. The Government invited the President of the Royal Society, Lord Adrian, who is himself an eminent biologist, to nominate the members. He did so, and nothing could be fairer than that.

The panel was appointed, and it really was an eminent panel, whose qualifications and integrity could not be questioned. They took a terrific amount of oral and written evidence. If we read their Report, we find that they had evidence from all over the world and they read reports that had been issued in many countries where this subject had been examined.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a conflict of view put in front of this Panel, between the Medical Research Council and the advisers of the Government on the one hand, and, on the other, the advice of the scientific and medical advisers who were supporting the case for the millers and others interested. I do not think it can be established that all of the medical evidence was against the eventual Report of this Panel, which was that we ought to see that National bread is up to the nutritional standard by having these nutrients added.

It cannot be established that the medical evidence was against that, when one looks at the qualifications of the Panel. This Panel of scientists heard the evidence of the Medical Research Council and other evidence. In the end, the Panel recommended that the Government should accept the situation in which it would be satisfactory to have a loaf where the nutrients were added and where it could be shown by test that those nutrients were there.

This decision, which has been accepted by the Government—and it would have been difficult for the Government not to have paid great heed to what this expert Panel reported after such a careful examination of the facts—will not prevent the high extraction loaf being baked if there is a public demand for it.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.