Lords Sitting of 30 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LORD GRIDLEY
  Sir Arnold Babb Gridley, K.B.E., having been created Baron Gridley, of Stockport in the County Palatine of Chester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD COOPER OF CULROSS
The Right Honourable Thomas Mackay Cooper, O.B.E., Lord Justice General and President of the Court of Session in Scotland, having been created Baron Cooper of Culross, of Dunnet in the County of Caithness—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a.

LONDON AIRPORT TELEPHONE FACILITIES
2.51 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Postmaster General the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is being done to make sure that adequate telephone facilities are made available to meet the growing needs of London Airport.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord has asked this Question, as it gives me the chance of saying how essential it is to have good telephone facilities at London Airport where so many visitors get their first impressions of this country. I am therefore taking steps to provide a first-class service there of which we can all be proud. We are now building within the Airport itself a new exchange to be known as Skyport. This exchange will
238
be of the same type as the latest automatic exchanges in Central London and will form part of the London telephone system. Skyport subscribers will be able to dial direct to London numbers and subscribers in London will be able to dial direct to Skyport. I hope the new exchange will be ready early next year. For the convenience of travellers and their friends extra telephone kiosks will be put in when the new South-East Face building is opened, and a special suite of kiosks in the main arrival concourse will be in charge of an attendant to help visitors who are unfamiliar with our telephone system or our language.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the information he has given us, and his Department for their initiative in doing this.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's Answer, could he say when this special suite of call boxes is likely to be opened and whether there will be someone in attendance who can speak foreign languages, so that he may deal with foreigners arriving from overseas?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the suite of call boxes will be in working order in about three or four weeks' time and, when the aerodrome is completed, there will be about a hundred call boxes. The attendant will be able to speak, at any rate, French. I hope we shall be able to do better than that and that he will be able to speak three or four languages.

HORTICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I must apologise to the House and also to my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture here because, as regards the first part of it, the Question was asked, unknown to me, exactly two months ago, while I was abroad, by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and was replied to; but I did not see the reply by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. I hope the House and both noble Earls will accept my apology. I now beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the exact terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into Horticultural Marketing about to be set up under the chairmanship of the Viscount Runciman of Doxford, and the names of its other members.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I am very glad to say that the following persons have agreed to act as members of the Committee of Inquiry into Horticultural Marketing. As your Lordships will know, the Chairman is the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford. In addition we have Mrs. N. L. Beer, J.P., a member of the Manchester City Council and of the White Fish Industry Advisory Council; Mr. F. W. Charles, C.B.E., a partner in the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &Co., chartered accountants; Mr. H. Douglass, General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation; Professor D. S. Hendrie, Principal of the West of Scotland College of Agriculture; Professor E. F. Nash, Professor of Agricultural Economics in the University College of Wales; and Mr. S. V. Swash, Chairman of Messrs. F. W. Woolworth & Company, Limited.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as the terms of reference of the Committee are obviously very vague, can the noble Earl tell me whether the inquiries of the Committee will cover the sort of case which occurred two years ago, of plums being dumped from the Continent of Europe upon our market at a considerably lower cost than we can grow them in this country?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as the terms of reference show, the Committee will be concerned with the methods of, and the facilities for, marketing horticultural produce, both home produced and imported. Such matters as the regulation of imports (including import duties charged) must be considered in the context of general trade policy and of our international obligations. They would therefore not be appropriate for consideration by the Committee, and the examination of such matters is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to this important matter, which cannot be emphasised too often. May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say how soon this Committee will start to sit, and also—which may be more difficult to answer—whether he has any idea how long its work will take?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, I understand that the Chairman is most anxious to start and is proposing, and in fact hopes, to call his Committee together on April 5. As regards the second part of the noble Earl's question, I am afraid I cannot answer him.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the scope of the inquiry will be wide enough to include the subject of retail marketing of horticultural produce, having regard to the great delays in, and complaints about, the passing on of price fluctuations of vegetables and fruit, particularly when prices come down?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Lord that the terms are fully wide enough for that.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY.
The Report of the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee and approved.
The Lord Great Chamberlain was added to the Sub-Committee.
The Committee authorised an extension of service to Mr. Charles Travis Clay, C.B., the Librarian, to October 31, 1956.
2.—REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Report of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was laid before the Committee and approved.
3.—VENTILATION IN THE CHAMBER.
The Committee considered the method of ventilation in the Chamber.
4.—PEERS' ORDERS FOR PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
The Committee approved the draft of the circular to be sent round to Peers at the beginning of every new Parliament.
They recommended that the number of copies of Hansard which can be issued to Peers who have spoken in a Debate should be increased from two to six.
They further recommended that a bound copy of Commons' Hansard should be issued to Peers who specifically ask for it.
5.—SUBSCRIPTIONS.
A Sub-Committee was appointed to consider the various appeals to Members of the House for staff outings, Christmas fund, et cetera the Sub-Committee to consist of the Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Fortescue, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
6.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 3/55 dated 6th January, 1955 (Pay of Messengerial and Paper keeping Grades, etc.), to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee gave authority to the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments to give immediate application to the appropriate House of Lords staff of general Civil Service pay revisions and to report to the Committee at their next meeting.
7.—SUPERANNUATION (TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE CIVIL SERVICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) RULES, 1950.
The Committee sanctioned the application of the above Rules and the appropriate Treasury Establishments Circulars to the House of Lords staff and authorised the payment of a transfer value to the London County Council in respect of the services of Mr. Frank Robert Lister in the Office of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
8.—EQUAL PAY SCHEME.
The Committee sanctioned the application to the House of Lords staff of Treasury Establishments Circular No. 10/55 dated 16th February, 1955, providing for the gradual introduction of the scheme for equal pay to men and women.
The Committee authorised the consequential increases in the Estimates for 1954–55 and 1955–56.
9.—FORMER CLERK IN THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN'S DEPARTMENT.
An application from Miss J. E. M. Everard, who resigned on 8th November, 1954, that previous unestablished service with the Foreign Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department should be reckoned for superannuation purposes was considered by the Committee and referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
10.—RETIREMENT OF A HOUSEMAID.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under section 40 of the Superannuation Act, 1949, to Mrs. Mary McNicholas on her retirement after 14 completed years' service.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Chairman, who, I am sorry to say, is still indisposed, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now agreed to, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 4 of the Report and to remind your Lordships that at the termination of every Parliament the orders which are given by noble Lords for printed papers automatically expire and fall to be renewed at the commencement of a new Parliament. Accordingly, after a new Parliament has begun a circular will be sent to every Member of your Lordships' House asking what Papers are required during the forthcoming Parliament. There is one change which the Committee recommend—namely, that in future every noble Lord will be entitled to six copies of Hansard if he has taken part in a debate, in addition to the one copy which every Member who requires it receives, provided that he makes application to the Printed Paper Office for that number of copies. My Lords, I do not think that there is anything else in the Report to which I need

243
draw the particular attention of your Lordships, and I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
3.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Order and the other three Orders standing on the Paper in my name, are in the usual form and content; there is nothing in them, I think, to which I need especially draw your Lordships' attention. Accordingly, I beg to move that the first Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Aireborough be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on this matter. We have before us to-day four of these Orders, and the other day we passed a considerable number more. I have taken occasion to ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost to the ratepayers of these Sunday Entertainments Act Orders. The noble Lord gave me the information that the poll required by the Act before a draft Order could be made cost the ratepayers between £300 and £400 per 50,000 population. That means that in a City like Birmingham, one of these Orders would cost something between £7,000 and £10,000. Moreover, the cost of these Orders does not end there, because the cost to the film promoters is in the nature of four to five times as much. So that for a city the size of Birmingham one of these Orders would involve an expenditure amounting to £40,000 or £50,000. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he can ascertain what percentage of the voters vote when this matter is canvassed locally, because I think that information would be of interest. I should also like to ask him
244
whether it is not possible to find some simpler way of deciding this question because I believe that it seldom happens that these Orders fail to be accepted locally.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the amount spent by film promoters on contesting and arguing this matter does not, of course, fall strictly within the purview of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, but I do not doubt for one moment that the figures given by my noble friend are correct. The trouble is that the question of whether or not cinemas should be opened on a Sunday causes considerable local controversy, and feelings run high. When feelings run high lobbying is strong; and, as your Lordships know, lobbying is not one of the cheapest of activities. The noble Lord also asked me the percentage of people who take part in the poll. I cannot, of course, give him any generalisation, but I can refer him to two of the Orders that we are considering to-day. In regard to the first, to which we are now speaking, that relating to the Urban District of Aireborough, something like 11 per cent. only of the electorate took part; on the other hand, in regard to the Minehead Order, which is to follow, nearly 50 per cent. of the electorate took part. Fortunately, it does not fall to my right honourable friend to argue the pros and cons of the case; it is merely his duty to see that the poll is carried out in accordance with the terms of the Act; and that he has done.
The terms of the Act are admittedly fairly complicated. I will certainly inquire whether the procedure is as simple as we should like it, but it is definitely laid down in the Act of 1932 how this procedure should be carried out. When the noble Lord questions whether this procedure is worth while, I think I ought to tell him that there are many cases where application is made for an Order under this Act which fail in the first place and those interested have to have another attempt. For instance, the Swadlincote Order, which follows on the Order Paper, was first contested in 1948, and was not successful. The matter has since been reopened and has now been proved successful. I mention that fact only to let your Lordships know that the matter is still of considerable local controversy, and I think we must still certainly see

245
that the terms of the Act are carried out to the letter. Whether they are overcomplicated or not is a different matter, and I will look into it.
EARL JOWITT: Can the noble Lord say in how many cases an Order has been refused where it has been submitted to a vote? Is that very exceptional or not?
LORD MANCROFT: So far as I can remember, an Order has never been refused because it would have to be refused by both Houses of Parliament, and I cannot recollect that happening.
EARL JOWITT: I do not mean that; I mean, as a result of the vote have the citizens of the area declined to give their consent?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes; that has happened on more than one occasion. I am afraid that I have not the figures in my mind of the occasions, say, since the war, where the local citizens have refused it, but it is certainly within the region of a dozen. I will find out accurately, but it is certainly a considerable number.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Carlton be approved.—[Lord Mancroft.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Minehead be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Swadlincote be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS (MINIS TRY OF FOOD) DRAFT ORDER, 1955
3.8 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft Order in Council merges the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Food into one Department. Your Lordships will remember that the Government's decision to do this was announced on 18th October last, and it was then explained that the process of welding these two Departments together was expected to take about six months, and that during this period my right honourable friend, Mr. Heathcoat Amory, would hold two portfolios as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister of Food.
Paragraph 2 of the draft Order dissolves the Ministry of Food and, except in so far as the Minister's powers in Scotland are transferred to the Secretary of State, transfers its functions to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I should perhaps explain that this is merely a matter of form. The Order has to be drafted in this way so that it can be made under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act of 1946. The Government's intention remains as stated last October, to amalgamate these two Departments to form a new Department concerned with the provision and distribution of food, whether from at home or abroad.
Nevertheless, what is left of the Ministry of Food is now very small indeed by comparison with the huge Department that it was at one time, and we must regard this as the formal occasion for taking leave of the Ministry of Food as a separate Department. It grew out of the pre-war Food (Defence Plans) Department and became a separate Ministry at the beginning of the war. At the peak of its activity it employed a staff of nearly 44,000 people. Although it was no longer as big as that when the present Government took office, we found it still a very large Department, with rationing and a wide range of other food controls still

247
operating. As food supplies were improved and the various food trades could be set free, we were able to cut down the Department's activities and the numbers it employed. As noble Lords will remember, the last of the rationing schemes ended in July of last year.
In October, 1951, we found the Ministry of Food with a total non-industrial staff of more than 27,000. By last October the figure had been reduced to 7,191. The total at the beginning of this month was just over 5,600, and your Lordships will be interested to know that of this total more than 2,500 are employed in the operation of schemes under the Agriculture Act, such as the Livestock Deficiency Payments Scheme, for fulfilling our responsibilities to the farmers under free marketing conditions.
The difference between 44,000 and 5,600 is very great, and your Lordships will, I am sure, be glad that it has been possible to make these economies. At the same time, we must remember that the Ministry of Food, during its life of more than fifteen years, has played a very important part and done excellent work. Its staff, put together hastily at the beginning of the war, were immediately called upon to play a vital part in the war economy under new and trying conditions. Noble Lords will remember with what success this difficult work was accomplished; the part played in it by my noble friend Lord Woolton will undoubtedly go down in history. I am particularly glad to see that he is here this afternoon to witness the laying to rest of the Department which he led with such distinction, and he will know that we are putting these proposals before the House with a full realisation of the excellent work which has been done in the past.
After the end of the war, people naturally became impatient, as time went on, with the rationing and other irksome restrictions of war-time control which still remained. It took time to get rid of these controls, and while we were doing so the staff of the Ministry had to carry on their work in difficult conditions under critical public scrutiny. They did their work very well and have carried out the task of decontrol with equal loyalty.
I turn now to the actual functions which are being transferred. Part I of the First Schedule of the Order gives a list of the
248
functions which we are proposing should be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so, responsibilities which were hitherto discharged by the Minister of Food in relation to Scotland are being transferred to the Secretary of State. There are inevitably some functions—as, for example, those arising out of our relations with other Commonwealth suppliers, or out of international trade in food—which cannot be divided and must be carried on by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in consultation with the Secretary of State.
The House will wish to know what functions the Ministry of Food will bring into the new Department, and I will mention first those which arise out of the administration of the Agriculture Act of 1947. The Ministry brings to bear on the marketing problems that arise in devising means of fulfilling the agricultural guarantees under free conditions its knowledge and experience of food processing and distribution, of food import questions and of consumer needs, and provides the main point of contact with the food trades concerned.
Secondly, the Ministry provides the executive arrangements for operating some of the principal schemes for providing the guarantees under the Act: the deficiency payments scheme for wheat, barley, oats and rye; the deficiency payments scheme for livestock, including the very important arrangements for facilitating the sale of meat on the hook through the services of Government graders; and the support schemes for eggs and potatoes, although responsibility for the latter is likely shortly to pass to the Potato Marketing Board. Quite a large proportion of the present staff of the Ministry is concerned with these schemes—some 2,580 out of a total staff of about 5,600. Thirdly, the Ministry administers subsidies totalling about £285 million a year, which mostly arise out of the agricultural guarantees, although there are some of a different type, like the subsidy on bread and the welfare subsidies.
Turning to a somewhat different field, the Ministry has still a number of responsibilities arising out of long-term contracts: with Australia, for instance, in connection with meat; with some of the Colonial producers, under contracts for

249
oils and oilseeds; and wish Commonwealth suppliers of orange juice for the welfare scheme. It is implementing the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement; and it is still the sole importer of bacon. It has an important general responsibility for the over-sight of food import programmes for balance of payments reasons; and it has, of course, an important continuing relationship with Commonwealth countries interested in the United Kingdom as a market for their food exports. It contributes to the work of a number of important international bodies, of which this country is a member, including the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (the O.E.E.C.), the food defence planning work in N.A.T.O. and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. There are a number of other bodies with the names of which I will not weary your Lordships this afternoon.
The Ministry of Food at present bears the main responsibility for the administration of food and drugs legislation as it applies to food, although these matters are of great interest, also, to the Ministry of Health—indeed, the arrangements provide for regulations made under the Fond and Drags Acts to be signed jointly by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health. The question of the division of responsibilities between the two Ministers on these subjects has been given a great deal of careful thought and some rearrangements have now been decided on. They will be given effect in an Order shortly to be laid before Parliament. The Order will transfer to the Minister of Health primary responsibility for questions affecting hygiene, which I may perhaps describe as those applying to the cleanliness of food premises and clean handling of food. Responsibility for other subjects, bearing mainly on the composition of food and on labelling and advertising, will remain with the Minister in his new capacity as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Regulation of food composition is, of course, intended, in part, for the protection of health; but it is usually also designed, together with the regulation of labelling, to prevent fraud. These are likewise subjects in which close contact with the food manufacturing trades is important, because they usually involve a large number of technical questions connected with the
250
raw materials and manufacturing processes used.
A responsibility of the Ministry which links up with work in this general field is that for the policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with slaughterhouses. And I should perhaps mention that because my right honourable friend will remain responsible for this aspect of policy he will also retain primary responsibility for questions of hygiene in slaughterhouses and for the inspection of meat. He will also retain primary responsibility for milk in all its aspects. The work of disposing of stocks and clearing up the accounts of the former large-scale trading of the Ministry has made good progress, but there still remains some work to be done in this field.
Finally, there is the important question of defence plans. The maintenance of food supplies, and of food distribution, the reimposition of the essential controls and the development of schemes for emergency feeding all represent difficult and essential aspects of defence planning which must be kept up to date; and emergency reserves of food must be maintained and renewed at appropriate intervals. I hope your Lordships will agree that the arrangements proposed are sensible, and that it is logical to invest one Minister with responsibility for food in all its aspects, from production and importation through the various stages of manufacture and distribution to the final consumer. I am sure that these arrangements will work efficiently and economically, and accordingly I commend the draft Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
3.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I feel that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I owe an apology to you, and also, I am afraid, to the members of the Special Orders Committee, for not raising my voice—apart from asking one or two questions—when this matter was dealt with by the Special Orders Committee

251
last week. This Order is certainly, I think we shall all agree, founded on precedent, because, of course, the Ministry of Food is only one of many war-time Ministries which have subsequently been wound up by Parliament. But in our view it is not the case that this Order raises no important issue of policy or principle. On the contrary, we take the view that it raises large issues of policy, and not only of policy but of sound administration, and that these are issues which the House should consider with the utmost care before it decides finally to approve the Order. And let me say clearly at the outset that we do not agree with the policy—which is the policy in the Order—of dismembering what is left of the Ministry of Food and distributing its remains between a number of other Government Departments. Perhaps, before I go further, I should say that while we shall state in the discussions that will take place on the Floor of the House our objections to the Order, we shall not, of course, carry them to a Division. As your Lordships are, I think, aware, we share the view that was taken, I am glad to say, by noble Lords opposite when they were in Opposition, that it is, at any rate, unwise for this House to use its power to reject Executive Orders.
Before I come to the controversial aspects of this Order I should like to say something about another aspect with which I think we shall all be in full agreement. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, referred to this subject, and I am in entire agreement with what he said. The legislation which we are about to pass marks the end of a great Government Department which for fifteen years of war and peace has rendered outstanding service to the country. It will be chiefly remembered for what it did during the war. It helped us to win the war by maintaining and, indeed, improving the health of the civilian population. It was really an extraordinary achievement, when we look back on it, that, at a time when our food imports were about half what they were before the war, and home supplies could not catch up in time to fill the gap, our people were, nevertheless, better nourished and received fairer shares than ever before in our history. We are still reaping the benefits of war-time rationing and
252
price control in the better health of thousands of families at the lower end of our wage scale, and our grateful thanks are indeed due to all who have served the Ministry of Food, whether as Ministers or as officials, whether in whole-time or in part-time capacity, whether in Whitehall or in any of the food offices up and down the country. When we call to mind the Food Ministers in a succession of Governments, I think we remember with special regard and affection here, because they have taken so large a part in the work of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and the noble Lord who succeeded him as Minister of Food, Lord Llewellin, who is now Governor General of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I suppose that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will for ever be remembered as the doyen, as it were, of this distinguished corps of Ministers.
I should like to make perfectly clear the reasons for our objections to this Order, and also to make clear what they are not, in case anyone should mistake our point of view. We do not object to this Order because we want to go back to rationing. We have always regarded food rationing as no more than a means, a regrettable but necessary means, of getting an even distribution of essential foodstuffs while they are in short supply. Of course, as soon as the war was over, agriculture began to pick up both at home and abroad and to increase the world supply of foodstuffs. This has made the situation at home much easier and thus rendered it practicable for us to start derationing during the term of office of the last Labour Government. The present Government have continued and completed this process of derationing. I am sure that no one in any Party—certainly no one whom I have ever come across—wishes to reverse the process. What we are aiming at in our food policy—and here, again, we shall find, I think, that we are in agreement with the Government—is to ensure a cheap supply of basic foods in sufficient quantities to maintain the highest practicable standard of nutrition. Where we disagree with the Government is about the means of putting this policy into effect.
We believe—and this is the heart of our case—that there must be one Department in the Administration and one

253
Minister in the Government primarily responsible for looking after the consumer, for protecting his standards of nutrition and for keeping down the cost of living. That is why we think that the Ministry of Food, in spite of the fact that it has run down steadily since the war, can still do a useful job. It is true, of course, that with the end of rationing and Government trading in foods it has lost many important functions. It is also true that there are administrative difficulties in keeping alive a very small Department. But the Government has chosen only one alternative of several that might have been considered. If the Ministry of Food should continue to be, as we maintain it should, the guardian and protector of the consumer, it might have certain functions transferred to it from the Board of Trade and from other Government Departments not mainly concerned at the present time with the consumer's interests.
Another alternative which has been widely discussed and which I am sure deserves serious consideration is the setting up of a Ministry of Consumers' Welfare. Of course, as we are aware, there are many disadvantages in setting up a new Ministry at the present time. It is clear that the advantages would have to be great to outweigh the difficulties and the extra cost. Apart from the merits of the two alternatives I have suggested, I regret that the Government do not appear to have thought about either of them—about strengthening the Ministry of Agriculture or creating a separate Ministry in order to maintain in the machinery of government one Department and one Minister whose primary and overriding responsibility would be to safeguard the interests of the consumer.
When the Ministry of Food is scrapped, as it will be after this Order has been approved, there will be left no Department and no Minister concerned mainly and primarily with the welfare of the consumer. We deplore the removal of what we regard as an effective safeguard for the consumer. Nor can we accept the Government's contention that the Minister of Agriculture will be a satisfactory substitute for the Minister of Food. In speaking of "the Minister of Agriculture," I am not, of course, referring to any particular person: I am sure that Ministers of every Party will do their best to carry out the new duties and responsibilities
254
which the Minister of Agriculture and his Department will assume after the demise of the Ministry of Food. We are all aware, and I am sure we all agree, that the Ministry of Agriculture is primarily a producers' Department. Its principal job under the 1947 Act is to see that farmers have an assured market and receive a fair price for their crops, livestock and livestock products. But a fair price for farmers might—I do not say it would—mean a sharp rise in shop prices. The Minister is therefore bound to find himself in a dilemma, resulting from the obviously conflicting interests of producers and consumers. Fair treatment for the farmer would be represented as unfair treatment for the housewife, and vice versa. I think it unwise and unreasonable of the Government to shoulder a Minister with duties that might so easily conflict and to submit him to the ordeal, as it will certainly be, of this ambiguous relationship to the public.
There is another reason why the Minister of Agriculture cannot possibly be an adequate substitute for the Minister of Food. The Ministry of Agriculture has become one of the largest and busiest of Government Departments. I was looking up the list of Ministers and Government Departments at the beginning of Hansard the other day (we are able occasionally to see who rules, by glancing at the opening pages of Hansard) and I find that when the Ministry of Agriculture has these four Ministers, as it will have, there will be only three other Government Departments with as many, or more, Ministers—the Foreign Office, the Scottish Office and the Treasury. That is surely an indication that the Ministry of Agriculture has become a mammoth Department. Yet it is to this mammoth Department, which deals also with the forestry industry and the fishing industry, as well as the agricultural industry, one of the most important in the country, that most of the functions of the Ministry of Food are to be transferred. It will now be expected to show equal interest, with forestry, fishing and the production of food, in clean food (temporarily, at any rate), in hygienic and humane slaughterhouses, and in the purchase of wheat and sugar from overseas—to give only one or two examples of matters that have been taken over.

255
I think there are two dangers in thrusting new duties upon an already overburdened Department. One is the lack of ministerial supervision. I thought that the Crichel Down Report showed pretty clearly, among other things, that Ministers were not completely aware of what was going on. The difficulty of keeping in touch, which is always a problem for the head of a busy Department, will be increased if his duties are enlarged in this way. I hope very much that responsibility for these new matters will not be delegated to a junior Minister and that they will receive the attention of the Minister himself. Perhaps the noble Earl could deal with that point when he comes to reply at the end of this discussion. The other danger I see is that these new matters will be regarded as no more than sideshows and will not receive the care and interest given to the traditional activities of the Ministry of Agriculture. I trust that the Government are aware of both these dangers and will do their utmost to avoid them.
My other criticism of the proposals in this Order, which is not a criticism of policy, is that they are plain bad administration. I do not like the way in which the functions of the Ministry of Food have been distributed among the Government Departments. The Ministry of Agriculture seems to have been given too many, while other Departments, better qualified to deal with them, have been completely left out. I am perfectly happy about the transfer to the Ministry of Agriculture of duties connected with price guarantees and deficiency payments. Such duties are obviously tied up with the normal work of the Department, and the noble Earl rightly pointed out that in fact the Ministry of Food had simply been operating schemes made under the 1947 Act. Of course, as the noble Earl again pointed out, this would mean, in any event, the transfer of about half of the existing staff to the Ministry of Agriculture.
256
I am much less happy, however, about the commercial duties which will arise under long-term food contracts with Commonwealth countries and British Colonies and for the purchase of sugar and wheat under international agreements. The Ministry of Agriculture has never been a trading Department. It has no experience of trading and commerce. It has never bought food from the farmers; this was done for it in time past by the Ministry of Food; and now, of course, it is being done by private traders or marketing boards. I cannot understand, therefore, why the trading duties of the Ministry of Food have not been transferred to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has plenty of experience of foreign trade; indeed, one section of this Department is entirely devoted to overseas trade.
As your Lordships will remember, when the Ministry of Food was set up fifteen years ago, it took over certain trading functions discharged by the Board of Trade. It seems logical that when the Ministry of Food is wound up those trading functions should revert to the Department from which they came, and that new functions of the same sort should go to the Department which ordinarily deals with commercial matters. As he did not mention this point in his opening remarks, I should like the noble Earl, if he will be good enough, to explain, when he replies, why these commercial duties and functions are being given to the Ministry of Agriculture. From what has transpired in both Houses, it is clear that the Government have made up their minds and that there is little prospect of a last-minute repentance. I am sure, however, that we all wish success to the 5,000-odd survivors of the Ministry of Food, under whichever ministerial chief they may serve in future. Their old Department will not be forgotten if they maintain its exemplary record of public service.

BRITAIN AND TURCO-IRAQI PACT
3.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to intervene briefly to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have decided to accede to the Pact of mutual co-operation between Iraq and Turkey, which was signed in Bagdad on February 24. At the same time, we propose to conclude with the Government of Iraq a special agreement for mutual defence co-operation under Article 1 of the Pact, together with supplementary exchanges of notes. The texts of these documents have been agreed with the Government of Iraq and were initialled in Bagdad this morning. They are being published in a White Paper which will be available in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deposit their instrument of accession on the 5th of April, thus bringing the Agreement and its subsidiary Exchange of Notes into force on that date.
It has been our aim to forge a new association with Iraq which would bring our relations into line with those which already exist with Turkey and our other partners in N.A.T.O. The agreement which we have now reached with the Iraqi Government carries out that aim. It is based on the concept of co-operation between equal partners which it has been our purpose to establish generally in our relations with Middle East countries.
The central theme of the new agreement is that there shall be close and continuous collaboration between the armed forces of the two countries. There will be joint planning and exercises in peace time, so that if ever there were to be an aggression against Iraq we should be in an effective position to support her. We shall advise and give technical assistance in establishing an air defence organisation, including a radar warning and an aircraft reporting system. We shall be able to stock military stores and equipment in Iraq for use in war. Repair workshops and storage depôts will, where necessary, be maintained for the benefit of Iraqi and British forces. There will be British advisers and instructors to assist in the training of the Iraqi army. We shall also provide personnel to assist
258
in the training of the Royal Iraqi air force and to offer continuous consultations regarding methods and technique at all stages. There is provision for mine-watching and mine clearance and we maintain our present facilities for over-flying, landing and servicing our aircraft in Iraq.
As part of these arrangements, the airfields in Iraq which are now occupied by the Royal Air Force will pass under Iraqi control, and the British squadrons now stationed there will be progressively withdrawn. But it is agreed that Royal Air Force squadrons shall visit Iraq as part of the joint training process, and British Service personnel will remain in Iraq to service British aircraft, to install, operate and maintain facilities and equipment, as well as to assist in the training of the Iraqi forces. These men will be commanded by British officers acting in close liaison with the Iraqi officer in command of each establishment. They will enjoy the appropriate immunities, and provision is made for the requisite services and accommodation for them. The installations at the airfields which are required for our use will remain British property. The remainder will either be sold to the Iraq Government or to other purchasers. Where we maintain an interest, they will be handed over to the Iraq Government under mutually satisfactory terms and conditions. Thus we shall be furnished with all the necessary facilities and arrangements to enable us to carry out our part of the defence of Iraq and the Middle East. At the same time, we have established a basis of free and equal partnership which truly reflects the relations we desire with the Iraqi people, and I believe that it will stand the test of time.
This agreement marks a new departure in our relations with Iraq. We have moved away from the bilateral arrangements laid down by the 1930 Treaty, which, as the House knows, would in any event have terminated in eighteen months' time and which now comes to an end by agreement. Instead, we have been able to evolve a system which will serve as the foundation of a general defence arrangement in the Middle East. We warmly welcome the active contribution which our Turkish allies have made to this new arrangement. We hope that it will eventually include other countries in the area. I wish to make it clear that in

259
acceding to the Pact we are not associating ourselves with the Letters which were exchanged at the time of its signature between the Turkish and Iraqi Governments on the subject of Palestine.
We have not forgotten the levies and civilians who for many years have given faithful service to the Royal Air Force in Iraq. We hope that many of the levies will join the Iraqi armed forces and that many of the civilians will be able to continue in employment at the airfields. I can assure the House that we shall care for those who do not, including the Assyrian Christians: and in this we count on the co-operation of the Iraqi Government. Proper arrangements will be made for pensions, gratuities, vocational training and re-settlement in Iraq in all suitable cases.
It is our hope that these arrangements will lead to increased stability and security in the Middle East. The Pact to which we are acceding is fully in accord with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It is a purely defensive arrangement which respects the independence of the countries concerned and their neighbours and is not directed against anybody.
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Marquess for making that important statement to us. I confess that I think it is a matter for congratulation that we have been able to bring about this Agreement. In the past we have had happy and fruitful co-operation with Iraq. The existing Agreement had become rather outmoded by reason of the circumstances, and this new Agreement gives us an augury of further fruitful co-operation in the future on the basis of complete equality as between two great peoples—I am very happy about that. There are one or two matters that I should like to mention. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Marquess say what he did about the levies and the civilians who have for so long worked with us, and the Assyrians, whose case is one which certainly deserves our most sympathetic and prompt consideration. I notice that we have made it plain in this statement that:
"we are not associating ourselves with the Letters which were exchanged at the time
260
of its signature between the Turkish and Iraqi Governments on the subject of Palestine.
I speak from recollection, but the main purport of those Letters did, I believe, indicate that Israel could not become a partner and would be kept out. Am I right in believing that?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It was going back to the United Nations Resolution of 1947.
EARL JOWITT: I thought so. The importance of this statement, to my mind, is to be found in the extent to which it will lead to increased stability and security in the Middle East. That is a vital British interest; I believe it is a vital Turkish interest; it is a vital Iraqi interest; and it is of vital interest to the Arab countries and to Israel that this miserable state of affairs, with its outcrop of frontier incidents, which are inevitable in the circumstances, should be brought to an end. Before we finally leave this subject, I should like the noble Marquess to say a word or two on that matter, saying whether he thinks that, as the outcome of the greater security which this Treaty will give, there is some hope that we may see a happier and more durable situation in the Middle East amongst the Arabs and the Israeli peoples. If so, the announcement that has been made to-day is one of the utmost importance.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords in all quarters of the House will approve the Agreement in regard to which the noble Marquess has just made his statement. It shows that, although we have withdrawn from the Suez Canal base, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to disinterest themselves from the affairs of the Middle East, and that is a fact of great importance: indeed, their interest in those affairs will be strengthened and exercised by the Pact which they have now joined. This country has not only a great direct interest in the prosperity, stability and security of the Middle East, but also an indirect one, the Queen being the Head of the Commonwealth and other Commonwealth members, in particular, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and, further afield, Australia and New Zealand, being greatly concerned. This Pact will supersede our present long-standing arrangements for future defence with Iraq; it will extend the period and will fortify those arrange

261
ments. I note that Her Majesty's Government say that it is hoped that other countries will also accede to this Pact, and that it will fortify the general system which attaches to the N.A.T.O. organisation. All this is to the good; and the stronger the influence of the British Government is in those regions, the better it will be for all those peoples.
I also noticed two negative points in this Agreement, the first of which—as has been mentioned by the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken—is that the Government dissociate themselves specifically, in definite terms, from the declarations of Turkey and Iraq with regard to Palestine which they made at the time the bilateral Pact was concluded between them. I feel sure that that is a wise course to take. The other negation is to be round in the concluding words, where Her Majesty's Government say—and I am sure it is sincerely meant—that this Pact is purely defensive and is not directed against anybody.
3.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords who have spoken for the generous response which they have given to the announcement of these arrangements. In regard to the specific question which the noble and learned Earl asked, I said in my original statement that one of the main hopes we attach to this new relationship between ourselves and Iraq is that it will give a greater stability to the whole of the Middle East. Anything that gives greater stability and, I think, anything which deters the possibility, or which makes more unlikely the possibility, of aggression from outside that area must be equally to the advantage of Israel and the Arab States. If, as a result of this greater stability, there is a settling down of passions, then any opportunity that comes of making a more permanent settlement in that part of the world will, of course, be welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, and, I have no doubt, by all those associated with us in other countries who have equally an interest in that part of the world. One can say no more. One can only hope that such a situation will arise, and that this Pact, by contributing to the general stability of that part of the world, may assist to a greater degree of peace between the different countries concerned.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS (MINIS TRY OF FOOD) DRAFT ORDER, 1955
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should not for one moment venture to cross swords with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, over his detailed criticism of this Order. After all, he has a most intimate knowledge of the Ministries concerned. This is a short and simple Order, and largely an administrative one. It is unlikely, I think, to have any great and immediate effect upon the life of the country. But I do regard it as a great achievement on the part of Her Majesty's Government that they are able to bring in this Order at all at this moment. When one remembers that three years ago there were 27,000 people employed in the Ministry of Food, and that a great many commodities, such as bacon, cheese, butter, eggs, chocolate, tea, sugar and meat, were all still rationed, it is a great achievement that by 1955 the number employed has come down to 5,000; that there are no commodities which are still rationed and, at the same time, all the commodities which were previously rationed, as well as all other commodities, are available in increased quantities and in far better quality.
There are, of course, many important functions which will remain to the Ministry of Food, but looking at them I do not think one can claim that many of them are bad or unsuitable bedfellows for agriculture. Certain of the functions, it is true—those under the Food and Drugs Acts—are there in a purely transitory capacity, and will eventually end up, I understand, with the Ministry of Health. We have been told that the chief function of 2,500 of the employees, in fact about half those employed in the Ministry, is the implementation of the guarantees to agriculture. I welcome the fact that this function of the Ministry of Food has now been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. It has always seemed to me a rather arbitrary division to say where the borderline comes between the producer and the consumer. I think this merger of the two Ministries makes it quite clear that there is no real line of demarcation between the producer and the consumer.

263
I believe that the policy of noble Lords opposite, that the responsibility of the producer ceases at the farm gate, is a wrong one. I feel that the responsibility of the producer goes much further than that. I do not see why there should be any real clash of interest between the producer and the consumer. Obviously, there will be points that will have to be settled between the two, but I do not think that it is beyond the power of one Minister to arbitrate between the two. In fact, I think it is far better that one Ministry should represent both the consumers and the producers of food. As I say, I do not like the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to set up one great new Ministry to protect the consumer.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that a new Ministry should be set up. I said merely that it was one of two alternatives which should have been carefully considered and which deserved careful consideration.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I thank the noble Earl, but I think what he said was that certain functions should be transferred from other Ministries to the Ministry of Food, and to form that into a Ministry which was primarily responsible for the consumer. I do not agree that there must inevitably be this clash of interest between the producer and the consumer. After all, they are both completely interdependent, the one on the other. One well recalls that during the period just after the war, in so many of our debates, particularly those on agriculture, the feeling was always cropping up that the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture were not always running along a parallel course. It seems to me that, now that it is possible to do so, it is obviously right to unite those two Ministries so that we can be certain they do follow one straight course.
Before I sit down, I should like to pay a tribute to the tremendous work that has been done in the past by the Ministry of Food, particularly during the dark days of the war, when the Department had the enormous number of 44,000 people working for them. But I feel that no verbal tribute to that Ministry is really necessary: the tribute to them is a living one, and it lies in the health of our people.
264
The Ministry maintained the health of our population, in spite of everything that the enemy could do. However, I feel that we should now welcome this union of the two Ministries and hope that the day will not come when it will be necessary to separate them again.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Earl who is responsible for this draft Order and with my noble friend Lord Listowel in the tribute to the work of the Ministry of Food, the Ministry which is now being merged, and, in particular, the tribute paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, whose voice brought comfort to thousands, if not millions, over the wireless. I wonder whether those who heard him still carry out his injunction to put the jam direct on to the bread and not on to the side of the plate. I still have, as a treasured possession, a photograph of the noble Viscount when he was good enough to come to East Ham, where I happened to be in charge of Civil Defence, to open one of our civic restaurants. I think I supplied the noble Viscount with a copy, even if we were not able then to supply him with a key for opening the restaurant.
I agree with the broad, general case which has been submitted by my noble friend Lord Listowel, in connection with this draft Order. There is only one aspect of the Order in regard to which I should like to say something in support of what has already been submitted by my noble friend, though I think everyone will agree that, during the war and since the war, the work of the Ministry of Food in promoting food hygiene and winning the co-operation of all local authorities to ensure that the public obtain clean and safe food has been outstanding. The meat advisory service provided by the officers of the division has been most helpful and appreciated by those officers of local authorities who are responsible for meat inspection.
Incidentally, may I divert for a moment to say that I wish that producers always recognised that their responsibility is right home to the consumer and there is no separation of interests. If that were fully recognised, I doubt whether we should have to maintain the army of meat inspectors to see that diseased carcases are not foisted on to the public. I see my

265
noble friend Lord Bledisloe getting up. I am sure that, if the producers of milk fully realised their responsibility, milk would always be up to the 3·5 fat content and there would be no need for the Ministry of Agriculture to maintain the service they have to maintain at the present time. If the noble Earl can educate the producers up to that standard, he will be doing a real public service; but, until he does that, I am afraid the inspections in the interests of the public will have to go on.
The work which has been done in prescribing legal standards of quality for various foodstuffs and in controlling food advertising and labelling has also been of the greatest value during and since the war. All this work has been for the protection of the consumer and to ensure that he gets pure, safe food of proper quality. It is essential in the public interest that this work should continue. Of course, local authorities are responsible for local administration and enforcement, but surely it is not right and proper that at the centre responsibility should be vested in a Government Department where the consumer interest is not the paramount consideration, but it should be vested in a Department which will stimulate and inspire further developments on the part of the local authorities in the public and consumer interests. Whatever else it may be, I would assert emphatically with my noble friend Lord Listowel that the Ministry of Agriculture is not the Department to so inspire and stimulate. I was glad to note, in the somewhat guarded reference made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that he indicated that there may be some subsequent adjustment by another Order in regard to certain of these functions; but I would submit that it is really bad administration to have functions transferred to one Ministry and then transferred from that Ministry shortly afterwards to another Ministry. Surely, the right thing to do would be to submit those two Orders concurrently, and then we could see just where we were.
Food hygiene and meat inspection are clearly matters of public health, and they both have a close relationship with food poisoning and other food-borne diseases. May I remind your Lordships that this was fully recognised recently in the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1954? As the noble Earl said, this Act empowers
266
the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Health, acting jointly, to make regulations for securing sanitary and cleanly practices in the manufacture and handling of food, and for the protection of public health. The Act also provides for the setting up by the two Ministers of a Food Hygiene Advisory Council. While I agree that during the war, and perhaps subsequently, the Ministry of Food had to be associated with these matters, because there were controls and rationing, there are now no real grounds for a divided responsibility of any kind in regard to the matters to which my noble friend and I have referred; responsibility should be placed fairly and squarely on the Ministry of Health to deal with those problems.
The sole central responsibility for food hygiene, including meat inspection, should be vested in the Ministry of Health, as these are essential public health services. Local authorities have not forgotten that it was the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which deprived them of their responsibility for supervising hygiene in milk production, and they will certainly view more than suspiciously the transfer of food hygiene matters to the Ministry of Agriculture rather than to the Ministry of Health. In short, hygiene and meat inspection, and to a much lesser extent food standards, are matters of public health which should be the central responsibility of the Minister of Health.
I do not wish to rake over the dying embers of past controversies. If a strong hand is not played in regard to this matter, I am sure that, simply in the nature of things, the Ministry and the Minister of Agriculture will fight tenaciously for the retention of these powers. But, as my noble friend has asked, why place these new, extraneous duties, of which the Department has no experience at all, on an already overloaded, overworked Department? As recently as the Session 1953–54 the Ministry of Agriculture was heavily under fire from the Select Committee on Estimates in regard to one section of the Ministry's work—namely, agricultural research. I notice in the Report that as far back as 1951 the Treasury was seeking some improvement or alteration; yet nothing has really been done.
Again, as my noble friend has said, surely the real lesson in regard to Crichel

267
Down is that the muddle was caused through the cumbrous machinery of the Ministry itself. Surely this is not to be a matter of just suggesting in the public interest that such matters as food inspection and food hygiene should be placed with a Department where the first consideration must be, in the nature of things, the producer. The Ministry of Health is accustomed to dealing with local authorities. On logical grounds, on grounds of good administration, and, above all, in the public interest, I suggest that the matters to which I and my noble friend Lord Listowel have referred should be transferred as quickly as possible to the Ministry of Health, so that vested interests do not grow up in the Ministry of Agriculture. In that way, I submit to your Lordships, the public interest will best be served.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not like to remain altogether silent on an occasion like this, when a relatively new Department, which has more than justified itself during a period of serious emergency, is apparently—I do not use a stronger word than that—being wound up. I say that for more than one reason. In the first place, I took part in the creation of the Ministry of Food, and, as representing the food producers—the farmers, the farm workers and the allotment holders of this country—I was asked to serve at the Ministry of Food in order to act, as it were, as a liaison between the producing and the consuming interests in a time of emergency, and, so far as it was possible to do so, to see that the producers of this country should not be overwhelmed at a time when inevitably there was a greater dependence upon food from overseas to avoid national starvation.
The other reason why I feel bound to intervene is because, not very long before the passing of our dear and respected friend the late Lord Addison, he and I together had this particular matter under discussion on more than one occasion. We discussed whether, taking the long view, and if, by the mercy of God, periods of emergency were coming to an end, it would, on balance, be in the national interest to wind up the Ministry of Food and to retain some sort of safeguards that the consuming public would receive,
268
at any rate from our Commonwealth and if necessary from other sources overseas, essential foods which we were not able to provide in sufficient quantity within our own shores. I may remind my noble friend behind me (he has made an admirable speech) that it would be a profound mistake to regard the Ministry of Agriculture as representing for all time the food producers, as distinct from the food consumers of this country.
Before the Ministry of Food was originally established (I think in 1916), four-fifths of all our breadstuff came from overseas, as did roughly one-half of our meat. That proportion has since altered very considerably. When we are perpetually being reminded, as we are to-day, of this important problem of the balance of payments it is obvious that we ought to do all in our power in peace time, as well as in times of emergency, to produce from our own soil every single ounce of essential food that we can. I make an earnest appeal to my colleagues in this House not to take the risk of regarding this discussion as the last word upon this subject. I hold strongly to the view that we are passing through a period of transition, and that it would be very wrong for us to make up our minds that the consumers of this country want any definite protection against our producers of essential food in days to come.
I listened with great admiration and respect to the balanced views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is easy, particularly at times when a General Election may be pending, to start talking of dear food. I went through all that myself thirty or forty years ago. It would be disastrous if there were to be strongly expressed discord, based upon Party political differences, on the subject of food producers, as against food consumers, in Great Britain. Though whatever I say on the subject at the moment will probably satisfy no one, I earnestly hope that we shall not come to any definite decision to regard this as the last word on whether consumers are adequately protected in the absence of a Ministry of Food.
My view, which I expressed quite candidly to the late Lord Addison seven or eight years ago, is that it may be desirable to have within the one Department, this Ministry of Agriculture and Food, or whatever it may be called, a

269
definite section to which should be allocated the duty of giving full consideration to the essential food requirements of the people of this country. In days gone by, that was largely a responsibility of the Ministry of Food. In a humble way I represented the food producers in the first Ministry of Food. It may be found feasible, and may be considered desirable, after due consideration, to establish in the Ministry of Agriculture a similar department to act as a liaison between producers and consumers of food in this country without allowing the matter to develop into a political, partisan or other battle as between the interests of the more-than-ever essential food producers of this country and the reasonable requirements of the food consumers. Whilst I dare say no more, I cannot help thinking that we are at the moment in a transitional stage, in which we should not come to too hurried a decision if we really want to provide for the Welfare State and the essential welfare needs of our people in days to come.
4.25 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we have just listened to a very wise speech from one of our older statesmen whom we in this House are always delighted to hear. With him, I very much hope that we shall not put this matter out of our minds and think that we have settled it altogether, for I believe that there are involved here great issues which, perhaps, in a calmer time—after the Election—we may have to think over again. Two significant things have happened to me to-day which have made my already existing suspicions become almost certainties. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, while deputising for the Chairman of Committees, in giving a reminder on some innocent subject like the question of papers, go out of his way to indicate what was going to happen when there was a new Parliament and what the position would then be.
The second thing which I thought significant was this Order itself, for it is not a final solution of the problem at all. For the moment the Ministry of Food is dissolved, and everything, except in Scotland, goes lock, stock, and barrel to the Ministry of Agriculture. That is no final solution, because we are told that shortly hereafter something which has now gone to the Minister of Agriculture is to be taken away from him
270
again and given to the Minister of Health. The obvious question is: why not do that at once? Why not give the Ministers of Health and of Agriculture that which belongs to each? It is obvious, therefore, that this Order has been drafted in a hurry and is not in itself the final solution.
The reason may be that at the last Election the Party opposite gave a pledge that the Ministry of Food should be abolished. If my guess is right, they have very few days in which to carry out that promise. So there is this hastily improvised, rather ill-thought-out scheme to abolish the Ministry of Food and to transfer it, not to its permanent resting place but, so far as some functions are concerned, to a temporary resting place. No doubt the proposal is that changes will be made after the Election, when there will be more leisure in which to deal with the matter. If that is not the solution, I entirely fail to see the reason for this temporary arrangement and for transferring to the Ministry, of Agriculture, for example, responsibility for food and drugs, and for clean food and hygiene, while at the same time the Government tell us that they will thereafter take that responsibility away from them and give it to the Ministry of Health? I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will tell me why it is proposed to transfer these responsibilities first to the Minister of Agriculture and thereafter to the Minister of Health? Why not, in this Order, at once sort out the functions? It might take a little time, but it could be done and some responsibility sent direct to the Minister of Health.
The next question I should like to raise is forestry. I believe that this Government, at heart, are not in the least interested in forestry. I regret to say that they have allowed forestry altogether to give way to food production. Of the two I agree that food production is of greater importance: it is more important than anything. But I firmly believe that, if things were worked properly, the two could go hand in hand, and that we could have both forestry and enough land for food production. If that were to happen it would naturally improve the prospect of food production. We all know that the Forestry Commission are in extreme difficulty in getting enough land to afforest; yet, so far as I know, absolutely nothing

271
is being done about these common lands—two million acres of them—which are falling into a state of utter and absolute neglect. Why is this Ministry not to be called now the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Forestry? I would add "and Forestry" to the new title. Why should forestry be left out, as a sort of Cinderella? What is the reason for that? That is the second question I should like to ask the noble Earl. Why is the title of the Ministry not to include forestry, because that surely is an important function for it?
The next thing I want to say is this. I have sat in the Cabinet for many years at a very critical time. The problem in our day was very different from the problem with which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, dealt so splendidly in his day. His problem, broadly speaking, was to get the food. The problem was not that of paying for it but that of getting it at all. When the war was over, and the German U-boats were no longer operating, the problem which faced us was that of paying for the food. It was an entirely different problem, and I am not sure that it was not a more difficult one to deal with. I can remember frightful difficulties which we had during those critical years. I can remember many occasions on which two Ministers, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, used to come before the Cabinet to resolve their differences—because there were differences. And may I point out how enormously important it is to have two Ministers who can each go to the Cabinet, and put his point of view, so that after hearing both points of view, the Cabinet may decide what is the right decision to take?
If the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture are merged, it means that at the Cabinet stage there is only one Minister there. He decides for himself at an early stage what line he will take. He may, perhaps, indicate to the Cabinet the difficulty he has had in coming to that decision. But that is very different from having in the Cabinet two Ministers who can each put his case. I can also remember from those days, even more than hearing those two Ministers airing the differences between them, how they both had differences with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And in my
272
experience, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in every Government, is nearly always a very formidable person. Whether I think of Sir Stafford Cripps or of Mr. Gaitskell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to have two hounds let loose upon him, and not merely one. From that point of view, I think it was useful to have two Ministers.
I humbly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the foolishness of talking as though there were a complete diversity of interest between consumer and producer. If the consumer treats the producer so badly that the producer goes out of business, the consumer will have nothing to eat. That is simple. Therefore, the old classical, economic view about this has to a very large extent to be re-written. It is idle to pretend, however, that there are not occasions when the two points of view clash. We had a little discussion in this House to-day on plums. Someone suggested that at one stage—I do not know when—plums had been coming in from abroad, what time we were having difficulty in selling our own plums. That sort of thing happens from time to time. There are two points of view to consider, and in my view it is desirable that the two points of view should be put by different spokesmen, in order that the right solution may be arrived at. Therefore I do not think that this transfer of functions is a good solution.
There is another reason why I do not believe that this is a good solution. I believe that any Ministry which gets too large tends to become inefficient. The Lord Chancellor and I have had experience of having a very small Department. Before he came here the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, had the Home Office, which is a very large Department. I had the Ministry of National Insurance, which I suppose was even larger. I am certainly not going to say that either the Home Office or the Ministry of National Insurance was inefficient, but I must say, speaking with some experience, that the smaller a Department is, the better it is likely to be, because the Minister can exercise more control over what is going on.
There is no Department to-day more important than the Ministry of Agriculture. The whole future of this country depends entirely, I think, on what we can

273
do in the way of production of food; and the Minister of Agriculture is already an overburdened man. He has a tremendous lot to do—make no mistake about that. Now there is in prospect the transfer to the Minister of Agriculture of an extra 5,600 civil servants. That is the number to be transferred, and that cannot possibly be done without adding still further to his labours and his responsibilities if he is going to do his job properly. And what will be the result? When he tries to extend his activities to all these spheres, one or other sphere is bound to suffer. For that reason, I think that this move is a mistake. We on this side of the House shall not, of course, oppose—we never do in this House—the Order. But I would plead with the Government to remember the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Do not regard this as necessarily the last word. These things are much too important to be made the passport of Party controversy, General Election pledges and all the rest of it. I beg the Government to keep this matter as one which must be considered in the best interests alike of producer and consumer, in the interests of efficiency in agriculture and efficiency in marketing, and in order to see that our people obtain a sufficient supply of food at prices they can afford to pay.
4.37 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have asked me various questions and I will try to deal with them as briefly as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, more or less accused us of dismembering the Ministry of Food and distributing its functions here, there and everywhere. I should like to assure the noble Earl that that is rather unfair. Apart from the Scottish aspect, which I am sure he will agree was inevitable no matter what happened to the Ministry of Food, there is only the question of hygiene which is being transferred to the Ministry of Health. That is the only thing.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Earl will remember that I drew attention to various trading functions, which I said in my view would have been more suitably transferred to the Board of Trade. The Ministry of Health is not the only Department concerned.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will come to that point in a moment. I thought first that the noble Earl was accusing us of dismembering too much. Now he is more or less accusing us of not dismembering enough. On the question of transferring functions to the Board of Trade, I am sure he will agree that the Board of Trade is much overburdened at the moment—if anything much more so than the Ministry which will result from this amalgamation. He also accused us—if I may put it so—of bad administration. Frankly, we think that very much the contrary is the case. We think that the union of the two Departments will make for economy of administration; the work of the two is nowadays so largely complementary. Moreover, on many aspects of policy it is extremely necessary for the considerations affecting the consumer, the distributing trades and the producer to be brought together and to be harmonised. We think that the former two Departments can assist in the process as well, or better, when they are housed under one roof.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, was worried about the protection of the consumer. We decided that the question of hygiene should be dealt with by the Minister of Health, who would also take responsibility for the new Hygiene Advisory Council. But the new Ministry will not be the Ministry of Agriculture. May I stress that: it is not the Ministry of Agriculture, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Noble Lords may think that is a long term, but the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would like to add Forestry to it, which would make it even more of a mouthful. If it be asked: "Why not call it the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries?", the answer is that when Departments are amalgamated, the oldest Departments take precedence. But that does not mean that the interests of food and the consumer come down to the bottom of the list; they are on a par with the others. We shall have a new Department with a new range of duties and a new staff to match, which will be drawn from the old Ministry of Food. There is no question of the present Ministry suddenly being given the task of solving problems which were dealt with before by the Ministry of Food, and being expected to deal with them with the staff they have at present. That would be

275
absurd. They are being given a staff which has had some years' experience in dealing with these problems.
I am sure we all agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made one of his excellent speeches this afternoon, and I can assure the noble Viscount that I will take care that all that he has said will be passed on to my right honourable friend. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was worried about why forestry was not in the title of the new Ministry. As he is only too well aware, the Forestry Commission are responsible to the Minister in person and not to the Department. It would need a complete reorganisation before that could be done, and this is obviously a matter which would have to be considered at a different time. The noble and learned Earl also seemed to think that the job was going to be too much for the Minister. I have had the privilege of working with the Minister since amalgamation started. As I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, it was far from an easy job in the first place, and even up to the present day the Minister has to spend a considerable amount of time in his motor car, going between 3, Whitehall Place and Dean Bradley House. That does not make for the ease and comfort of the Minister, but I can assure your Lordships that he is managing extremely well, and once the two Departments are under one roof he will have no trouble in dealing with all the problems that arise on various sides. The noble and learned Earl was also worried about there having to be a second Order. He asked why it could not have been brought forward at the same time as this Order. It is only right that I should be perfectly frank. The problem of sharing the responsibilities in the most satisfactory way has been difficult, and has involved a considerable amount of discussion, but
276
it is now solved. As I have said, hygiene will be going to the Minister of Health.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, if the matter is solved, may I ask why the Government do not transfer the hygiene functions directly to the Ministry of Health, instead of transferring everything to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then transferring it again?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: It is not really a question of transferring hygiene to the Ministry of Agriculture; it is only a question of amalgamation and slight readjustment; that is all. I hope I have been able to satisfy your Lordships in answering the questions put to me.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I have no desire to take part in any controversy on this Order, but perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to permit me to say a last word of salute to the Ministry which I had the very great honour of serving during the war. I am grateful to noble Lords for the kindly things they have said. Perhaps your Lordships will let me record my gratitude to the Ministers and the members of the staff who were good enough to serve with me during those difficult periods of the war. Above all, I think it is appropriate that I should record my gratitude to the public who, with so much understanding, tolerated my administration during those periods.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount would agree that members and officials of local authorities should be included.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do indeed agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before five o'clock.