QUALITY OF FLOUR

HL Deb 25 April 1950 vol 166 cc1130-52

4.6 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Thursday last by Lord Hawke, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present quality of flour for bread-making.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, as the one privileged to reopen this debate, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for arranging on Thursday of last week that this debate be adjourned until today? I join with those of your Lordships who have already spoken in congratulating my noble friend Lord Hawke, not only on initiating this important debate, but also on the clear, moderate and amusing way in which he outlined his point of view to your Lordships. As he made amply clear, the noble Lord is very dissatisfied with the "national loaf," and I entirely agree with him; it is insipid and it does not keep.

My noble friend Lord Horder, in a carefully thought out speech, emphasised many important points of which we must not lose sight. Among the points that he put to your Lordships, he said (referring to bread): There are millions of people in this country who depend on it as their main source of nutrition. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said: If man depends almost entirely on bread for his nourishment then his bread should be made of flour of a high extraction rate.… My Lords, with this statement I am in complete agreement, and I would join with the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Hankey, in recommending 100 per cent. extraction flour. It is no good leaving those who live largely by bread alone, or those of us who want real bread, to do as Lord Hawke suggests—namely, "buy brown bread or go without." The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is rightly anxious to help farmers to obtain their protein feeding stuffs. I think he will agree that the supply condition of such feeding stuffs is good at the moment; in fact, all the available supplies on the market are not being taken up. Farmers are growing more animal food. Some, in fact, look so well after the feeding of the livestock they carry as to grow 80 per cent. of their requirements.

The solution of this problem of feeding livestock, referred to by the noble Lord who initiated this Motion, does not, I feel convinced, lie in lowering the extraction rate of the "national loaf" from 85 to 80 per cent., as has been suggested. Surely there are other means of meeting this requirement and these should be advanced with far greater rapidity. We could and must rapidly reach a point at which we become self-supporting in cattle, pig and poultry food. The answer to this problem, I suggest, lies in the more effective use of marginal and waste land well suited for growing crops of which sunflower is but one, and from which suitable cake of high protein value can be made.

I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture still hold the view that the sunflower is not a crop suitable for growing in this country. Increasing evidence to the contrary is available, however, and shows that such a crop may be grown on land which at the moment is serving no useful purpose, so that the products from land already under cultivation would not be interfered with, As your Lordships will be aware, weight for weight sunflower contains higher vitamin properties than wheat. Particularly is this so in respect of fertility vitamins, a point of considerable importance to both the stock and dairy farmer. We should not lose sight of the great record of Sweden in the production of food when entirely cut off from the outside world during the war. Circumstances forced her to "get down to it," which she did. She increased her food potential by utilising dormant vegetable resources. Surely we must do the same.

It would be interesting to learn, and perhaps the noble Viscount who is going to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government will inform your Lordships, just what constitutes the "national loaf." We know that it is made of 85 per cent. extraction flour, but what is added, and why? To what process is the flour subjected, and why? We now know the truth about the spurious claim, at one time advanced, that lower extraction flour or bread, being whiter, keeps better than high extraction flour or bread. The real reason is simply that it has been chemically bleached. We are naturally suspicious. As your Lordships will remember, the effects of the agenising process were demonstrated by Sir Edward Mellanby who fed some dogs for a short period on "national bread" made from agenised flour. This process had a disastrous effect on the dogs. They suffered from acute hysteria, and were only rescued from this dreadful condition by being fed on wholemeal bread without additives to the flour. Surely, that great artist, Noel Coward, visualised something of this kind when, some thirty years ago, he wrote that famous song: Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun. I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, with regard to the very poor keeping qualities of the "national loaf." When at home I bake my own bread, and it will last for several weeks if need arises. I would say, in answer to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke—I think it was specifically addressed to my noble friend Lord Teviot—that the wheat which I grow is mechanically sown and reaped. What is very important, however, is that it is grown on compost-fed land in accordance with the technique worked out by the Soil Research Association at their experimental farm at Haughley near Stowmarket, which is administered by Lady Eve Balfour, a descendant of that famous statesman, the late Lord Balfour. Therefore I cannot support the noble Lord's plea for a reduced extraction rate of flour. I would ask him to bear in mind what was said by my noble friend Lord Teviot last week, referring to the statement made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in the previous debate in February, 1945. This statement indicated that an increase in the cases of anæmia in this country might be expected to result were the extraction rate reduced from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent. This dictum from Lord Balfour of Burleigh, one-time Chairman of the Medical Research Council, cannot lightly be thrown aside. As the noble Lord, Lord Horder, has emphasised—and I quote his words: It is time that we re-surveyed this important matter of the bread of the people. With that remark I entirely agree, and let us proceed to do this.

As ever, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and your Lordships will have noticed that in the Daily Mail yesterday there appeared an excellent picture of my noble friend Lord Teviot, preparing to make his weekly supply of bread. I felt sure that the noble Lord, of whose solicitude for us all we are well aware, would not have any of his handiwork left over for your Lordships' nourishment, and I have therefore taken the liberty of bringing some bread of my own baking. As a mere cross-Bencher I feel that I must be careful in distributing these loaves—they are samples of the real "staff of life"—fairly between all Parties, and I will take the opportunity of so doing in the tea room after this debate. We are looking forward to hearing the reply of the noble Viscount who is going to speak on behalf of the Government, and since many of us wish to inspire him to lead us nearer to the ideal, a loaf of compost-grown, stone-ground 100 per cent. extraction flour, with the permission of your Lordships, I will ask him to accept a sample of my own baking so that when telling your Lordships just what His Majesty's Government propose to do, he may keep his eye on the loaf that we hope will one day become universal.

4.16 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I think that the noble Lard, Lord Hawke, has done a service in raising this matter for debate in your Lordships' House. I am sorry that the noble Lord who has just sat down was not able to make his speech before we adjourned on Thursday, because I fancy that the loaf which he has just presented to the noble Viscount who is going to reply on behalf of the Government might have been three or four days fresher if only the noble Lord had been able to speak then. It was, clearly, a carefully prepared gesture. Before the war, the average rate of extraction for flour used for baking in this country was about 72 per cent., and one of the first things done during the war by the Ministry of Food was to get the millers to produce a national wheat-meal flour. From this was baked the 85 per cent. extraction rate loaf. This included as much as possible of the wheat germ and excluded as much as possible of the coarse bran. Loaves made of this national wheatmeal flour were sold alongside ordinary pre-war loaves, and consumers could, in those early days of the war, take their choice of one or other. They were the same price. While the voluntary scheme was in force, only 9 per cent. of the total sales were of this national wheatmeal bread. This was clear evidence that the consumers preferred the whiter bread. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, say on Thursday that he was all in favour of people having the bread they wanted, and therefore I could not quite understand the concluding words of his speech which were to the effect that he thought the extraction rate ought to remain at 85 per cent., and he pleaded with the Government to that effect. Of course, the extraction rate is now enforced by Order in Council. This means that, so long as that Order in Council is in existence, the consumer who might choose to have bread of a lesser extraction rate than 85 per cent., cannot get it.

LORD TEVIOT

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but what I meant to convey, and what I thought I did convey, was that I am all for people eating 72 per cent. starch if they want to do so. What I do want to see is that higher extraction rate flour and bread is available for everyone who wants it. Since speaking last week, I have had many letters asking me where flour and bread of higher extraction rate can be bought. If the noble Lord opposite would like me to do so, I will hand over the letters to him, expressing my hope that he will be able to do something in that direction.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, because it was one of my aims when I was Minister of Food to see that the 100 per cent. extraction rate bread was available in sufficient quantities in all neighbourhoods in this country. In fact, I may say that I myself much prefer 100 per cent. extraction rate bread to the present 85 per cent. extraction rate article.

LORD TEVIOT

I should like to offer the noble Lord a present of a loaf.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I shall be happy to receive one, and then I shall be all square with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The first thing we can be fairly clear about is that, if it is left to them, the consumers would choose a whiter and less soggy loaf. Certainly the whiter bread keeps better—I have no doubt that I shall have the support of the noble Viscount for that contention. However much successive Ministers of Food tried during the war to get everyone to eat 85 per cent. extraction rate bread, the Board of Admiralty, over which the noble Viscount successfully presided during the course of the war, always resisted the requests of the Minister of Food. They said that the higher extraction rate bread did not keep and therefore would not serve the needs of the Royal Navy. So the Royal Navy sailed along on 72 per cent. extraction rate bread throughout the war, and, so far as I know, they do so at the present day. When I went to the United States on the aircraft carrier "Victorious" I wondered why I was eating so much bread and butter at tea, and I came to feel obliged to the noble Viscount for the stand he and the Board of Admiralty had taken against the uniformity which the Minister of Food tried to impose. When it comes to the question of how nutritious this bread is, I fancy that the Royal Navy show much the same results as the children in Germany instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Horder. I have not noticed that the health of the Navy has deteriorated while they have been living on 72 per cent. extraction rate bread in contrast to the rest of the population who have had 85 per cent. and, for a time, 80 per cent. extraction rate bread.

It is easier to make good bread out of an extraction rate flour of 80 per cent. than out of flour of 85 per cent. When I was Minister of Food I had the opportunity of going round a large number of bakeries. One of these was the efficient bakery of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and another that of Huntley and Palmer. I was looking round to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was here to-day, because I wish to congratulate him on his well-informed speech, which was the kind of speech on such a subject that one would expect from a man of the name of Palmer. There is no doubt that bakeries, whether small or large, prefer the lower extraction rate to the 85 per cent. rate. I am glad to see that the present Minister of Food has taken a line similar to that which I took when I assumed that office. I tried to give the people of this country variety. I see that the Minister of Food has started with the motto, A little of what you fancy does you good. I think that is a relief after the somewhat strict Stracheyisms under which we have been living for nearly four years. If we want to give the consumer what he wants, so far as we can, and if we are convinced that flour of an 80 per cent. extraction rate keeps and bakes better and gives less waste, then what is to prevent our going back to an 80 per cent. or even lower extraction rate now?

A Minister of Food, whoever he is, has to do a number of unpopular things, but I count the three most popular things I did during my 21 months of office as, first, to give the old people a permanent extra tea ration; secondly, to introduce bonus rations at Christmas, which I am glad to see has been done ever since; and thirdly, to reduce the extraction rate from 85 to 80 per cent., which ruled the loaf until, unfortunately, it had to be departed from. If we are convinced that the consumer likes the whiter bread better and that it keeps and bakes better, there can be only two grounds on which the Government or the Minister of Food stick to an 85 per cent. extraction rate. The first is the ground of nutrition. We do not all need the coarse husks of wheat to enable our stomachs easily and efficiently to perform their daily tasks. It may be right for some to have them, but others can well do without. I was interested to hear the three noble Lords who spoke last explain their "back-to-nature" ideas. I thought it would be interesting to see them all chattering round the nut bushes, pulling off nuts and cracking them up with their extremely efficient teeth—that efficiency preserved by the 100 per cent. nut.

LORD TEVIOT

What the noble Lord has said seems to suggest that this bread must be made of coarsely ground flour. I can assure your Lordships that my bread is made of flour as finely ground as any white flour there is, and it has no roughage at all. Some time ago I asked my noble friend Lord Horder what was the meaning of "roughage"—was it a question of how fine the flour was ground and not one of extraction, and he said, "Yes." If coursely ground, whole wheat has a roughage effect, but if it is finely ground one can eat it with as much impunity as one eats white flour.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think the noble Lord is confusing digestibility with utilisation by the human disgestive system. The point is that the only animals who are known to utilise fully all the husky parts of wheat are the pig population. However much we try, and however finely we grind the wheat before we eat it, the rest of us cannot digest the fibre. This fibre may give the noble Lord great satisfaction, but it does not do him very much good, and it passes through without doing him any great harm.

I will now get back to what I was saying. By all means, let anybody who wishes be able to buy the wholemeal bread. On the nutritional point, I would say this. During the war we altered the extraction rate from 85 to 80 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, was with me in the Ministry of Food in that step. It is true that as Minister of Food I was the prime mover, but I did it with the sanction of my colleagues in the then Government—I did not do it without its being a full Government decision. From the nutritional point of view, we were all convinced that, with the new methods which had been invented of grinding the wheat, amply sufficient nutritional qualities were left in the 80 per cent. extraction rate flour. We had as much vitamin B1, nicotinic acid and iron as we thought necessary. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was wrong on the question of the iron content. The difference in iron content between the 85 per cent. and the 80 per cent. extraction rate is the difference between 6.8 and 6.1 milligrammes—namely.7 milligramme. I quote those figures from the admirable report of the B.M.A. committee, on which the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Hankey, relied in part—and which, incidentally, recommends that on nutritional grounds we should continue with a loaf of 80 per cent. extraction.

The high authority quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was probably Sir William Jameson. He was a member of this post-war loaf committee, as also were Sir Edward Mellanby and Dr. Andrew Davidson, both of whom the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, quoted with approval. All these gentlemen were on the committee which I set up, under the able chairmanship of Sir Henry French, and they agreed that the 80 per cent, loaf had in it adequate nutritional qualities. My colleagues and I were convinced that we were not in any way damaging the nutritional value of the loaf.

Many people do not realise that during the course of the war a new milling technique was evolved in the Cereals Research Station at St. Albans, which at that time was taken over by the Ministry of Food. That enables us to get more of the germ into the final flour than was possible by the method previously used by the millers. I have no connection with the millers, nor do I own any of their shares, but I should like to take up one remark made by (I think) the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, as to the millers obtaining extra profits from the sale of the by-products. It is just as well to remember that since 1939 the flour milling industry has been under control by the Government, and is on a fixed remuneration basis. Therefore, the level of the flour extraction rate has no relation whatever to the millers' profit. The price of flour is fixed by the Government, as also is the price of the by-products—and, incidentally, the price of the by-products is lower than that of the flour. In present circumstances, it makes no difference to the millers whether they grind 80 or 85 per cent. extraction rate flour.

LORD TEVIOT

I must apologise for interrupting again but, as the noble Lord has mentioned me so frequently, perhaps your Lordships will excuse me for replying. I was then referring to the time before we reached the higher extraction rate, when it was 70 or 72 per cent. The 28 or 30 per cent. produced Bemax, wheat flakes, and all the cereals we are offered for breakfast, which are very expensive to buy. I should have liked to be in the milling trade when that was going on, because I should have made a lot of money.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I was dealing with the case at the present time. I do not intend to go back to those pre-war times, nor have I sufficient facts available to do so. However, I do know that when I was Minister of Food and was responsible (and it is the same to-day), there was no question that the millers made any more or less by an alteration of the extraction rate. There is little doubt in my mind that with an 80 or 82 per cent. extraction rate we could get all the nutrients we could wish to have.

What, then, prevents an alteration of the extraction rate from 85 to 80 per cent., which was agreed upon by the members of the Government at the time when I was Minister of Food? I do not know, but I suspect that the noble Viscount who is to reply will say something about the shortage of dollars. Before he does so, I should like to put a few figures before your Lordships. We are at present buying from Canada some 60,000,000 lb., or 26,000 tons, of bacon every year. That contract comes to an end at the end of this year. I believe that costs us about 17,400,000 Canadian dollars. At the present rate, 17,000,000 Canadian dollars would buy us 208,000 tons more Canadian wheat. If we bought that extra 208,000 tons of Canadian wheat we could lower the extraction rate of our flour from 85 per cent. to about 82 per cent. I remember that to take it down to 80 per cent. would need about 340,000 tons, but 208,000 tons would enable us to bring it down to 82 per cent. Correspondingly, of course, we should have 208,000 tons more feeding stuffs. With that amount we should be able to produce 34,600 tons—this is an average figure—more pig meat here. That is to say, the money we at present spend on Canadian bacon, for which we get 26,000 tons, would, with the right use of it by our own farmers, produce 34,600 tons. At the same time, of course, we should have our whiter and rather better bread.

If we devoted the whole of the extra feeding stuffs to pig production we should get more bacon and better bread. I do not wish to receive a direct answer to the figures I am putting this afternoon, but I should like the new Minister of Food to have his attention called to them. He cannot alter the situation while the present contract is in operation, but the present wheat and flour contract comes to an end at the end of July and the bacon contract at the end of the year. We are having this debate at a most appropriate time, and I am only putting forward the way I should go about it were I still holding the office of Minister of Food. When the Government enter into discussions, in Canada or here, upon what other new foodstuffs we are going to obtain from Canada, they must have in mind, in the light of the dollar shortage, that we must buy as much as possible of the less finished articles and as little as possible of the more finished articles. In the war, of course, it had to be the other way round, because the limiting factor was shipping space. Now it is dollars which limit us.

Another matter that I suggest should be looked into when these new contracts are considered is whether we need take as much flour from Canada as we do now. That uses up more dollars than would be required if we were to buy the wheat and bring it over here ourselves. I know that the Canadians were very keen on that when these contracts were negotiated, and I know that we have agreed to take a specified amount in flour. But we are taking much more in flour from Canada than we took in pre-war days. In 1938 we took 180,000 tons; in 1946–47, 640,000 tons; in 1947–48, 750,000 tons, and in 1948–49, 450,000 tons. Under the contract the minimum we are bound to take this year is 300,000, but that flour is costing us more. I believe that with our big milling organisations—Ranks, Spillers and the Co-operative Society—together with the smaller millers, we could mill all the flour we need, except perhaps for this odd 100,000 tons. The more we can bring over in the form of wheat, the more feeding stuffs we shall have to feed our own pigs and poultry. I hope that when we go into this question again we shall take more wheat and get more of the good protein-content feeding stuffs for our own pigs and poultry, thereby giving our own farmers and smallholders the extra 'feeding stuffs they need to produce more of our bacon and pork.

I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, more—and I am going to quote him once again—than when he said that he rates the feeding of human beings higher than the feeding of animals. But "man does not live by bread alone"—I know the rest of that quotation, though it is not what I am referring to to-day. If we could get more bacon and eggs, we should provide a far better supply of extra vitamins for the human being than we are getting out of the wheat grain. That is what I want to see our farmers in a position to do. I welcome this debate because when we have these negotiations with Canada in the future I should like to see that we bring over the maximum possible supplies of the cheaper actual wheat—as much as we can afford with our dollars—and not so much of their finished products, the bacon and the flour, which prevent our getting feeding stuffs for our own poultry and pigs. That is why I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has instigated this Motion, and I hope the Government will approach it in the spirit in which it was moved, which was a helpful one. I have tried myself, in the speech that I have made to your Lordships, to be as helpful and constructive as I can.

4.48 p.m.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH)

My Lords, may I say at once that I concur entirely with the concluding sentence of the noble Lord who has just sat down? Every noble Lord has tried to be most helpful in this debate. Personally, however, I suffer from two embarrassments. The first embarrassment I had better try to get rid of at once. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, made a public presentation to me just now, and I am wondering whether, as a Minister, I ought to obtain the full approval of your Lordships before accepting a gift of that sort and before I pronounce judgment on the debate which has been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Otherwise, there might be a transgression of the laws and practices to which we are supposed to adhere.

The second embarrassment I found was that to most of the noble Lords who spoke so adequately, if I may use the word, about the possibility of reducing the rate of extraction of the wheat, I found myself almost reiterating all the arguments that I used over a quarter of a century with regard to the milling business with which, of course, I had some slight connection in advocacy. Whether in reference to bread or to biscuits, I could recognise, in the humorous and very plain speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and in the quite technical references to biscuits made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—who made such an excellent maiden speech, and whom I am sure we shall all be very happy to hear again; he has sent me a short personal letter saying that he could not be here to-day—all the technical arguments that I used to use; I remember using some of them before the Royal Commission on Food Prices in 1925, when the subject of flour was under examination. But I am now speaking, as a member of the Cabinet for the time being, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Food and must address myself to the facts to which the Government have to pay attention at present.

As I have, perhaps, indicated, the debate has shown that what I have been told is true: that there are always some noble Lords in this House who know at least a little about nearly everything. This question of flour and of bread and biscuits has shown that there is here a great repository of knowledge. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke almost with the knowledge of a first-class housewife about the manufacture of bread in his own household from 100 per cent. extraction flour. I feel that we should all agree that tie longevity and the fine physique of the noble Lord—whom some of us knew so well during his long service in another place—must be regarded as a tribute to the quality of the nourishment he takes whether it be a solid type, in the form of the bread he eats, or in some other forms of which he might partake. But there are other noble Lords who, though they have not made similar claims for bread of a lower extraction, have proved by their remarks about the quality of our present-day flour that there must be seine people who are nourished by food which is, so to speak, someone else's "poison." Part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, seemed to indicate this. It is clear that the only way to satisfy everybody in the matter would be to let each person, if we could, have the kind of food that he prefers. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food said in another place on March 27, that that is what he would like to do. But there are many things which from time to time Ministers would like to do to meet the importunities of different sections of the community but which, unfortunately, they are not always able to do.

There have been a good many references to the quality of the loaf that we are using to-day, and especially to its keeping qualities. One noble Lord thought that I was fair game, having been at the Admiralty. While I was there during the War, I did in fact make it my business to go to some of the depôts and find out what was going on in this matter of bread. There were two different kinds of shipping units which were concerned. Nearly all the larger ships argued, and argued very successfully, because they baked their own bread, very much in favour of the 72 per cent. extraction. On the other hand, a very large number of small ships that were engaged on such jobs as anti-submarine and similar work did not do much baking of bread on the ships but took their bread from depots. One or two used to grumble occasionally, and I had a look at some of the bread in the depôts from which they loaded their bread—this was on the ships' return after being away for some time. And on the whole, I found that the war-time loaf stood up very well indeed. I do not think that in present conditions the naval argument put forward this afternoon could be used with any force as applying to the civil population.

Last year was a very exceptional year in the way in which the home crop of wheat was harvested, and in the introduction of the combine. Therefore, wheat was rushed more quickly to the market because there was not enough storage room on some of the farms. So much home-grown wheat was going straight to the home market that there was a much higher percentage of home-grown wheat than of hard Manitoba and the like. For some months, there was a larger percentage of home-grown wheat than there is now. I think at one time last year, millers' grist was 40 per cent. Canadian, 40 per cent. home-grown, and 20 per cent. of other wheat. It is now 65 per cent. Canadian, 15 per cent. home-grown and 20 per cent. other wheat. And the whiteness and hardness of the wheat which is used at the present time gives, I think, a somewhat better quality loaf than would otherwise be the case.

Lord Hawke said that the time has now arrived when we should revert to the 80 per cent. extraction. From my own knowledge of the baking industry for many years, I believe that a case could be made out for it. But I imagine that, once we got to the 80 per cent. extraction, there would be a move towards a 77.5 per cent. extraction, followed, when that was achieved, by a further move for a 72 per cent. extraction. Whatever decision we may make at the present time we must keep that point in mind. But there are two other very important considerations which stand in our way. One is whether we can buy the extra wheat which is needed to alter the quality of the flour by lowering the extraction, bearing in mind that it is likely that a high proportion of the charge would be in dollars. The second consideration is whether the milling offals which would be available as animal feeding stuffs would be dearer than imported feeding stuffs. It is the price as well as the use of feeding stuffs which has to be taken into account.

The current rate of extraction of wheat has been in force since September, 1946. It was also in operation for a large part of the war, and, as Lord Hawke pointed out, we must remember that for a few months during 1946 the extraction rate was as high as 90 per cent., without its having any adverse effect on the nation's. health. That is a concession to the view of Lord Teviot. We now have a rate of 85 per cent. That, from the point of view of those who like a whiter bread, is a better rate than 90 per cent. It has not yet been possible to decide what should be the permanent post-war extraction rate, so the requests of the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Hankey, who made such nice speeches on Thursday, and others, have not gone by default. The whole matter is under consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Horder, who not only spoke so well on Thursday but has always been ready to give help and advice on these matters and has given much of his valuable time on committees and discussions on these and allied questions, has suggested that now is the time to reconvene the conference on the post-war loaf. That is a suggestion to which my right honourable friend the Minister of Food will give consideration.

I can assure the noble Lord that the closely related question of the extraction rate does receive the continual attention of my right honourable friend. But as to whether it will be necessary to re-convene the conference as a whole, I can make no statement this afternoon. That will be subject to whatever consideration my right honourable friend gives to it. I can say, however, that a sub-committee has been set up to examine what progress has been made in the investigations which were recommended by the post-war loaf conference, especially as detailed in paragraph 65 of the report of the conference. No doubt when that sub-committee has looked into the progress that has been made in the investigations, the matter will be further considered by my right honourable friend. The real difficulty is not so much the recommendation that a conference or committee might make—the Government are always glad to receive such recommendations—but the simple fact that any proposal to reduce the extraction rate to, say, 80 per cent., or down to a level of 70 per cent. or 73 per cent. which was used for the white bread of pre-war days, needs to be very carefully weighed in view of the substantial portion of the United Kingdom wheat supply which is paid for in dollars. In 1949 the dollar wheat content of the flour distributed was, in fact, about 58 per cent.

I should like now to come to some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, especially regarding the contribution which the farmers could make to our food supplies if only additional animal feeding stuffs were available. The noble Earl mentioned in the course of his speech the waste of bread which goes on. That there is waste is certainly true. There has always been a good deal of bread wasted, and I do not think that there is any evidence that waste of bread is now greater than in pre-war days. Certainly, from the point of view of consumption, the use of bread is not always finished at the table; there is much greater use than was formerly the case of bread which has been partly used and then regarded as waste, either in the home or in restaurants or for feeding stuffs. Therefore, I do not think the amount of national waste in that respect is so large as it used to be.

The Government entirely agree with the noble Earl's view that it is important to try to avoid this waste. But when he speaks of the extra food that can be obtained by an increase in animal feeding stuffs, we think he errs a little upon the side of optimism. Estimates of 215,000 tons of bacon, and many other desirable things, assume the lowering of the extraction rate to the pre-war position of 72 per cent. Let us take something that is nearer to the later figure which he took—that is, the lowering of the rate to 80 per cent. Your Lordships may be interested to know that for every 2½ per cent. by which the extraction rate is reduced, an additional 170,000 tons of wheat would be required each year. I can tell from the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just made that he has checked that figure exactly. When he spoke of reducing the rate from 85 per cent. to 82 per cent. upon the figure he worked out, that proportion is right. If the present extraction rate of 85 per cert. were reduced to 80 per cent., nearly 350,000 tons of wheat offal would become usable as animal feeding stuffs. But the effect of that, when translated into terms of our food, would be quite small. It would amount to an extra half a pint of milk per week, or one more egg per month, or half an ounce of pigment per week.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, says that we could certainly do with that, but I do not rise to make that point. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, for the purpose of clarification—because it is important in this discussion that we should get our record in agreement on figures—this question. I take it from what he said that we are in absolute agreement as to the amount of extra offal feeding stuffs that would be produced by a reduction of the rate from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent. That is 350,000 tons. So far we are working on exactly the same figures. Does the noble Viscount agree that this would give us 60.000 tens per year extra pigment—that is, taking a ratio roughly of 6 lb. of rations to produce 1 1b. of pigmeat—or 80,000,000 dozen eggs? Does he agree with those figures?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

The noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice that he might raise this question and I made some inquiries. I put it now upon a different basis so that he can check up his information with ours. We consider that the figure of 350,000 tons which I have mentioned would give us 38,000 tons of bacon per year, or 61,000,000 dozen eggs (not 80,000,000 dozen eggs but 61,000,000 dozen eggs), or 54,000 tons of pigmeat (not 60,000 tons). If there is to be any sort of technical argument between representatives of the Ministry and the noble Earl as to how those figures are arrived at, or whether they are looked upon as the actual meat-feeding capacity of those foods, the noble Earl had better argue it out with the technicians of the Department and not with me.

EARL DE LA WARR

Certainly I will. As an explanation, I suggest that at present the rations are rather badly balanced. It may mean that it takes more to feed a pig to produce a pound of pigmeat than in fact it did. Could the noble Viscount answer one other question? He gives this figure of half an ounce of pigmeat per week or one egg per month. Are those figures for the whole population—that is, including infants even before they have reached that state of eating?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I understand from the questions I put that the figures were calculated upon the whole of the population. It was in order that I might produce a correct answer, from which the noble Earl could make comparisons, that I turned it into the mass tonnage figures of pigmeat, bacon and dozens of eggs which I gave him.

EARL DE LA WARR

I should like to thank the noble Viscount very much.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

That is as far as I can satisfy the noble Earl in that connection this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to whose speech I have already referred, spoke of the quality of flour which is available for biscuit-making. I felt a great deal of personal sympathy with him, knowing what the biscuit trade is. They have not only the difficulty of providing biscuits for home consumption but the laudable objective also of providing biscuits for the export trade, where they have to compete in manufacture, in keeping qualities and in general make-up with the perhaps unrestricted position of biscuit-makers abroad. It is quite true that for some years we have not been able to let them make biscuits of pre-war quality. On the other hand, the reduction of the extraction rate from 90 to 85 per cent. improved the position a little. Having regard to the general requirement that we must conserve our dollar resources—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in spite of what he said about the Canadian position, would be in general agreement that we must pay great attention to the dollar question—we must pay serious consideration to exactly what it would cost us on balance. I looked at the figures very quickly as he uttered them. I shall bring the Canadian figures closely to the attention of the Minister of Food, and no doubt he will consider them. But although he put, very fairly and cleverly, what the set-off would be as between the two, it seemed to me that there would still be a net loss as between Canadian bacon and home produced bacon, and that we should be rather down on the course that we want to pursue. We believe that if we can make the dollar purchase position right and at the same time, with the bringing into production of more of our marginal land, pursue the policy of growing more and more of our foodstuffs on our own farms, we shall then be able to achieve his desire particularly with regard to home produced bacon, pig-meat and the like.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I went rather carefully into the position, and all I tried to prove—and I hope I did prove it—was that if you take the labour content in producing the pig paid for in sterling and not in dollars, then this country will be able to get more pig-meat and, at the same time, a lower extraction rate too. Perhaps the noble Viscount will have that matter looked into.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH

Certainly. I can only say that, listening to the actual estimates the noble Lord was making, it seemed to me that there was a little gap in between and I will certainly have that examined.

My Lords, I should now like to say something about the nutritional aspects of this problem, on which most speakers in this debate have had something to say. The choice is between a loaf based on a high extraction rate and good nutritional content, or one based on a low extraction rate to which synthetic vitamins can be added.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? That was not at all the request I made of His Majesty's Government. I asked them for a minimum extraction rate without synthetics added.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I willingly concede that that is the noble Lord's case but, listening to the general debate and also following some of the arguments that appeared elsewhere, I do not think that I have unfairly stated what is the general issue to be taken into consideration by the Minister. It is the opinion of the Government's nutritional advisers that the high extraction rate, whether 85 per cent., as now, or as high as 90 per cent., as it has been, may well be one of the contributory factors in the great improvement that has been shown in recent years in statistics of the nation's health. At the same time I do not wish to imply that there would be any deterioration in the nutritional value of our diet as a whole if the extraction rate were lowered to 80 per cent., because we are bound to consider the whole range of foodstuffs which is available, and not just a single commodity. Within the framework of the increased supplies of food that are now becoming available it may well be possible to reduce the extraction rate without lowering the average nutritional intake. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food will continue to watch closely all these changing factors, at the same time taking into consideration the economic factor.

The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the presence of agene in bread, and he went so far as to refer to it as a "definite poison." I should like to assure your Lordships that the present methods of treatment of bread, which have been widely used for twenty-five years, have not been proved injurious in any way to human beings. But recent evidence has become available such as that quoted this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, of the possible toxic effects of this commonly used improver. Because of that evidence coming to light, certain experiments have been carried out, particularly on dogs. For this reason a committee on which the Medical Research Council is represented has looked into the matter and has recommended in future that, instead of the improvers which have been used, and upon which these experiments have been based, chlorine dioxide should be used. This recommendation has been adopted in the United Kingdom, but I ought to warn your Lordships that it will take a little time to change over the necessary plant to give full effect to the decision.

The addition of calcium to flour has also been mentioned. I felt that that was in the mind of Lord Teviot when he was talking so much about chalk last Thursday. This was first added in 1942, and was made compulsory in 1943, to offset a serious deficiency of calcium in our diet. This deficiency was well-known to nutritional experts before the war. Even with the better diet that we now have, if We consider the people as a whole there would not be enough calcium if it were not added to bread. The amount added is 14 oz. per 280 1b. sack, and from that point of view no great harm seems to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred to this matter this afternoon, and asked the pertinent question as to whether I could tell him what was in a loaf, and how this flour was made up. He said that he would like to see ordinary flour made up to the standard which has enabled him to present this loaf to me, which I am certainly not going to try alone by myself in the tea-room, or even to share with noble Lords; I am going to take it home and discuss it with my wife, who knows more about these things than I do. I think I had better give the noble Lord the particulars this afternoon for which he asked. He will find that there was a reply the other day to a Question in another place, which I think answered the question which he is putting With 85 per cent. extraction, the following are the weights of the contents per ounce: protein, 3.3 grammes; fats, 0.5 grammes; iron, Of milligrammes; calcium. 46 milligrammes; phosphorous, 54 milligrammes; vitamin B.1 (aneurin), 0.082 milligrammes; riboflavin, 0.037 milligrammes; nicotinic acid, 0.57 milligrammes. If that information is now included in your Lordships' OFFICIAL REPORT the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will be able to let loose all his hounds upon it and see whether he can prove anything against it. Personally I think it will be found all right.

May I say that I was intensely interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin? He always displays great knowledge in these matters, and great courtesy in advancing that knowledge, which is based upon his own long service. If he will not mind, I should prefer not to go more into detail than I have already done in replying to his speech. I will, of course, request my right honourable friend the Minister of Food to pay attention to the whole debate, not only to the points which, if I may say so, were so skilfully detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in the course of the speech which he made in presenting his Motion, but also TO other speeches, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which, of course, gains in importance by reason of the fact that he is an ex-Minister of Food.

I have to say that I can hold out no promise in this matter. We have to be bound by the facts of the economic situation. Within those limitations I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Food will wish, so far as lies within his power, to give weight to his remark which the noble Lord quoted in this connection: "A little of what you fancy does you good." But, as I have said, the overriding factor is bound to be the general economic position, which we must tackle, and tackle with success.

EARL DE LA WARR

I hope that the noble Viscount will not lose that piece of paper, which shows that my figures are more nearly right than his.

5.26 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, truly we learn more every day of the perils of modern life. It is not many months since the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was telling us what dangerous stuff milk was. Now, we have heard all about the dangers of bread. Bread and milk, the food of innocents; who could guess what hidden dangers lurk therein! We may find that "a crumb over the eight" may be a term of opprobrium in time to come.

This debate, clearly, rests on two completely different legs—nutrition and dollars. In connection with the nutritional side, I am glad to hear that a subcommittee have been appointed to consider the investigations which have taken place as to how far fortification can or cannot be justified. On the dollar angle—which I confess was the one on which I expected to be blocked—I find that the noble Viscount has adopted an attitude of non possumus, tempered with promises of consideration. I understand that he will call the attention of his right honourable friend to certain points in the debate, and perhaps he will point out that he did not, on the floor of this House, reply to my noble friend's point about the proportion of our wheat contract with Canada which we take in flour. I hope, too, that he will see that my point about the importance of keeping our claim on the pool large is not ignored.

On the question of waste, I trust that the noble Viscount will realise that, although this was admitted, the subject was not fully ventilated. There must be something wrong, because flour consumption has gone up almost 25 per cent. since before the war. I think that if the noble Viscount makes careful investigation of the rules, regulations and prices affecting the small domestic poultry keeper he may come upon facts which will provide him with a clue to the answer in this connection. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is on record as having produced wrong figures, but I believe that he has satisfied himself, and the noble Viscount's advisers, that his figures are more correct than theirs. I feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has already said, that this debate has taken place at an opportune time, seeing that the new contract with Canada is coming forward for negotiation. Ministers never like to take action as the direct result of pressure from the Opposition. They like to browse over the matter in quiet and, at some suitable time, produce a suitable rabbit out of the hat. I hope that this is what the Minister of Food will do in due course, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.