HC Deb 22 December 1919 vol 123 cc1036-7W
Captain AlNSWORTH

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the serious shortage of sugar (as shown in weekly bulletin 97, and the necessity for economy as emphasised in leaflet R.R. 11), he will consider the advisability of reducing the amount of sugar allowed to manufacturers for the manufacture of confectionery; whether he is aware that the present position, whereby the manufacturers' vouchers have been increased to 400 per cent. of their face value, is causing great dissatisfaction and resentment in the country; and will he consider the desirability of reducing the amount granted for manufacturing purposes and utilise the sugar thus saved for the benefit of young children and aged infirm people who cannot eat meat?

Mr. ROBERTS

As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Hammersmith on 18th December. The suggestion in the second part is apparently made under a misapprehension. The allowances of sugar to manufacturers have not been increased except in so far as, after a temparary reduction of 25 per cent. due to difficulties caused by the railway strike, they were restored to their previous value. I may say, however, that it has been decided to reduce the issues to manufacturers by 25 per cent.; and the advisability of a further reduction is now being considered.

Mr. HAILWOOD

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that during the railway strike a parcel of sugar consigned to Mr. J. W. Wainman, of Albert Street, Holt, was commandeered by the district food commissioner, and a voucher given in its stead at a later date; that the price of sugar had advanced in the meantime and that Mr. Wainman suffered a loss of £10 per ton; that the director of Sugar Distribution has referred him to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, a course which will mean delay, trouble, and expense; and if he will consider making recompense to this trader for his loss?

Mr. ROBERTS

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The price of sugar was subesquently advanced, but the Ministry of Food would not be justified in meeting, out of public funds, a claim for compensation in excess of the value of the goods which were diverted.

Back to
Forward to