§ Q5. Mr. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister, in view of public anxiety concerning wastage of British-produced food, what arrangements he is making between the Foreign Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, the 636 Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Pensions, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation and others, to establish a joint policy to apply to famine relief oversea, or otherwise, British-produced food surpluses, including processed milk; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q6. Mr. Dugdaleasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in conjunction with the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, to work out a joint policy for the distribution of surplus milk in processed form to those in need of it, both at home and overseas, including areas of famine.
§ Q8. Mr. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all milk surplus to home requirements in the hands of the Milk Marketing Board is processed and made available for famine relief overseas, and is not tipped into disused coal mines.
§ Q10. Sir R. Glynasked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that all British agricultural produce which proves surplus to United Kingdom requirements will be offered as a free gift to any international welfare organisation that can make use of it for famine relief.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is natural that opinion in the House and in the country should be disturbed at food being thrown away when many millions of people are under-nourished. A temporary surplus of skim milk is expected this spring if the weather improves. I have considered with my right hon. Friends whether this surplus could be processed and made available to areas of need. To do this it would be necessary to install additional plant which I am told would cost upwards of £J million and it would produce dried milk to the value of only a few thousand pounds. The plant would lie idle for the rest of the year.
I am forced to the conclusion that this is not the best way of spending money on aid. We are a large food importing country and we are not generally a producer of surpluses. Therefore our aid to under-developed countries is normally made available in the form of grants, loans, technical assistance and educational and training facilities, although in times of famine my right 637 hon. Friends collaborate closely to give whatever help in kind we can from British supplies. Our programme of aid now amounts to £180 million a year. To divert a £½ million to deal with a small temporary surplus of skim milk does not seem the best way to use our resources.
The Government will naturally be willing to consider sympathetically and refer to the Milk Marketing Board any suggestion which may be put forward. For example, if any welfare organisation is able to make use of this amount of liquid skim milk, or if any commercial organisation has the capacity to deal with it, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would be more than glad to put them in touch with the Milk Marketing Board.
§ Mr. NabarroWhile my right hon. Friend's statement, for which I thank him, will do a good deal to allay the lamentable, even melancholy, impression created in the public mind that we were reverting to the practices of the 1930s, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that this is not a temporary phenomenon and that this surplus has been increasing ever since 1957? In view of the steady and progressive increase in the output of liquid milk, all of which we cannot consume in this country, will not my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements of a more permanent character, looking further into the future, having regard to the fact that this situation is likely to recur on a growing scale in future years?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but we must keep the matter in perspective. There is a surplus at certain seasons. There must be a surplus if we are to have sufficient liquid milk during the winter months. We have plant to deal with more than 90 per cent. of it. The question is whether we should have plant, which would work perhaps through the holidays and at other times, to deal with the remaining very small amount which may occur from time to time. That is the problem. As I say, we deal with practically all of the skim milk. It is a question of whether it is worth spending an extra £500,000 to bring the amount of skim milk dealt with up to 100 per cent. That is the only question.
§ Mr. DugdaleIs the Prime Minister aware that his Answer is very disturbing indeed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. It is all very well to talk about percentages, but 2 million gallons—
§ Mr. NabarroPints.
§ Mr. Dugdale—of skim milk mean a great deal to many people who are starving. If this situation is likely to occur year after year, does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that this subsidised milk—it is paid for by a subsidy from the Government—should be poured down coal mines? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do what the United States of America are doing and arrange for this milk to be processed and given to U.N.I.C.E.F. for distribution to children who need it?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is not the point. There are only about 250,000 gallons, not more. There are not 2 million gallons. As I say, there would be difficulty in working these plants through the holidays. Since we already deal with 95 per cent. or more of the skim milk, the question is whether it is worth putting up a plant which would work only a week or two in the year. It is a matter of degree. If we were to do it, I think that there would be an equally strong attack about waste. It is a matter of balance.
§ Mr. FletcherIs the Prime Minister aware that his reference to Government expenditure of £500,000 is quite unrealistic? Has his attention been drawn to a report in today's Daily Telegraph in which it is stated that a reputable firm of food manufacturers announced that, if it were not for some pedantic and unnecessary Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, it would have been prepared to erect a factory in Northern Ireland at its own expense to process all of this milk and to export it?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know what pedantic Regulations were referred to. They may have been those which protect the holidays of the people.
§ Sir Richard GlynWill my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to predict how much skim or other milk will be surplus to requirements in any year? Will he also make it clear that we are prepared to give this surplus 639 milk to any institution which will take charge of it, process it and distribute it to the famine areas?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. As I have said, we process more than 90 per cent. of it. I have not the exact figure. We are talking about a tiny proportion. We are considering whether that can be dealt with in some other way, but it is difficult to transport skim milk. That we are looking into. It is a question whether, on a balance between cost and results, it would be worth while or right to do this.
§ Mr. GrimondAs the Prime Minister said that he would welcome approaches from either welfare societies or private firms, can he say whether, if they approached him, he would be willing to give any such societies or firms either financial assistance or assistance in transporting this milk?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the problem. It is very difficult to transport skim milk. It has to be processed in some form. We should have to put up a plant to process it. As I have said, we have a plant which deals with practically all of it. The only question is whether it is worth our while or anybody else's while putting up extra plant which would probably have to work at times when it would be difficult to keep the plant in full operation.
§ Sir C. TaylorIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite wrong to call this product milk? It is skim milk which is the residual surplus of butter-making. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is already a surplus of dried skim milk in this country and that it would be quite uneconomic to process this additional quantity of skim milk at present?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand the difficulties and I hope that from what I have said the House will realise how tiny and marginal this matter is. It is a question whether it would be worth while incurring additional expenditure to deal with it.
§ Mr. PeartIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem can be repeated every year? Therefore, will 640 he ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to allow the Agricultural Research Council to carry out research into how best this milk can be used? On the wider issue, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that milk producers are rather concerned that the present Price Review will restrict production?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is another matter. On the particular point, I should be glad to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on whether there is a way of solving this very fractional problem.