Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 424: debated on Wednesday 3 July 1946

House of Commons

Wednesday, July 3, 1946

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

New Writs

For the County of Monmouth (Pontypool Division), in the room of Arthur Jenkins, esquire, deceased;

For the Borough of Bexley, in the room of Mrs. Jeannie Laurel Adamson (Manor of Northstead).—[ Mr. Whiteley. ]

Bread Rationing (Petition)

I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of a large number of residents of Ware and the surrounding district. The Petition is signed by 4,152 persons, and states:

"Whereas they have cheerfully borne restrictions and rationing in time of war, bread rationing in peace is an unnecessary infliction which will lay a further burden on housewives"

The Petition concludes with the following Prayer.

"Wherefor your petitioners pray that bread rationing be not now imposed, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray."

Is it in Order to have a Petition of this kind presented prior to the Debate this afternoon?

Oral Answers to Questions

Palestine

Arms (Illegal Possession)

1 and 2.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) how many Arabs and Jews have been convicted of offences in connection with arms and explosives during the last six years; the number of each community sentenced to imprisonment on such charges; and the numbers of each community sentenced to imprisonment with special treatment;

(2) when it was made a capital offence to carry arms in Palestine; the number of Jews and of Arabs arrested since that date on charges concerning the carrying or illegal possession of arms; the numbers of Jews and Arabs convicted and sentenced to death; and the numbers of Jews and Arabs executed in accordance with such sentences.

It was made a capital offence to carry arms on 11th November, 1937. The death penalty for this offence was revoked on 15th June, 1940, and reinstated on 24th March, 1944, and is still in force. Since IIth November, 1937, 188 Arabs and six Jews have been sentenced to death for this offence. Of these, 142 Arabs and one Jew have been executed. In addition two Jews have been sentenced to death, but the sentences have not yet been confirmed. The High Commissioner has been asked to furnish the further information desired by the hon. and gallant Member, but its collection will involve some delay.

My right hon. Friend included among the people charged with carrying arms those under the ex-Multi in Germany who carried arms against us in another war?

Internal Security

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding instructions sent during the last six months to the High Commissioner for Palestine and the military authorities regarding internal security and the collection of arms; if any definite instructions have been sent to ensure that the most active steps possible should be taken to disarm the civilian inhabitants of Palestine and if he will now publish such instructions or correspondence.

It would not be in the interests of public security in Palestine to make any statement additional to the information already given to the House by the Prime Minister last Monday.

May I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend in particular to the last part of the Question? While no one would ask him to publish all the correspondence, is it not very much in the public interest that he should publish what instructions he did send to the High Commissioner in Palestine on this matter?

No, Sir. I still think that it is not in the public interest that these instructions should be published.

Does my right hon. Friend then say that he can send instructions on matters of this kind, which have worldwide repercussions, without this House ever knowing what are the instructions which he has sent?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is not prepared to add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister on Monday?

African Colonies

Ground Nuts

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether investigation into the practicability of large-scale production of ground nuts will extend to other colonies than those in East Africa.

I am hoping to arrange for the team of experts now in East Africa to visit parts of West Africa for the same purpose.

Cocoa

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when a further White Paper on the future marketing of West African cocoa may be expected, in accordance with his previous undertaking.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) on 6th March, to which at present I have nothing to add.

In view of the fact that the Minister promised last November that he would shortly issue a new White Paper on cocoa, and it is now July, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give grave disappointment to West African native producers?

No, I do not think that is so. There have been discussions taking place between the Colonial Office and the West African Governments concerned on this matter, and we have received no complaint from them as to the delay.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disappointment owing to his failure to make up his mind?

Will any statement which the right hon. Gentleman makes be in time for this year's crop?

I do not think that it will, but negotiations are going on at the present time with regard to the fixing of the price of the crop.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pattern of the market which will be laid down will have great repercussions on other things available for food and other purposes?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the results, financial included, of the West African cocoa control scheme by which His Majesty's Government, to save the industry, bought the whole crop of British and French territories though it was in excess of British needs, agreed to meet the losses, if any, and to refund to the colonies concerned the profits, if any.

As the answer is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if the people in the Colonies affected have an appreciation of the generous way in which we are carrying out our trusteeship to save their industries?

Following is the answer:

The purchase of British West African cocoa by His Majesty's Government began in 1939 when the closing of European markets and the shortage of shipping made it impossible for the merchant firms to continue to handle the trade and to pay a reasonable price to the cocoa farmers. The scheme, which involved the purchase of the total cocoa crop at a price fixed in advance of each season, was subsequently extended to cover French Cameroons cocoa.

Although losses were incurred by His Majesty's Government on the 1939–40 and 1941–42 crops, substantial profits were made in other years. Net profits up to the end of the 1942–43 season amounted to £3.676,253 and this sum has already been paid over to the territories concerned. From their shares of distributed profits the Governments of the Gold Coast and Nigeria have set aside a sum of £1¼ million to finance the West African Cocoa Research Institute.

Further profits of nearly £5 million were realised from the 1943–44 and 1944–45 crops and I shall shortly be asking the House to vote this further sum for transfer to the producing territories. These sums, less the sum of £1¼ million allocated to research, will be held in reserve pending the establishment of the permanent marketing organisation which I now have under consideration.

The benefits of His Majesty's Government's action to West African cocoa producers have been substantial. Although the profits cannot be immediately returned to the individual producer, they will provide a reserve against declining prices in future years and will in this way bring price stability to an industry which has suffered severely in the past from wide fluctuations in day to day marketing prices. The effect, too, of a fixed seasonal price for each crop has been to reduce speculation by middlemen and thus to ensure that the farmer receives full value for his cocoa.

Higher Education Commission

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date he hopes to be able to announce a decision on the Report of the Commission on Higher Education in West Africa.

I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly, but I cannot yet fix a date for it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whether such an announcement will be made before the end of this Session?

I should think that an announcement would be made in the course of the next week or two.

Government Sisal Purchases

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the results, financial included, of the purchase of sisal during the war from Colonies, with the object, inter alia, of saving the industry.

As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Bulk purchase of East African sisal by His Majesty's Government began in November, 1940, when, owing to the closing of certain markets, the industry was having difficulty in disposing of all the supplies available. His Majesty's Government then agreed to purchase the whole output on a basis of restricted production fixed initially at 100,000 tons per annum with the dual purpose of assisting the industry to remain in operation and building up a stock of sisal against future contingencies.

In 1942 with the cutting off of supplies of Manila hemp and Netherlands Indies sisal by the Japanese, East Africa became the United Nations' principal source of hard fibres and the bulk purchase scheme was extended to cover the maximum potential output. The success of producers in greatly expanding their output in spite of severe shortage of labour and equipment and in meeting all the essential war needs at a reasonable price was a splendid contribution to the Allied war effort on which they deserve to be warmly congratulated.

Bulk purchase of the whole output has continued and, under an agreement recently concluded, it is to remain in operation at least until the end of 1947. The total tonnage of sisal purchased from East Africa between November, 1940, and April, 1946, inclusive, was 684,000 tons valued at £16,800,000.

The price has been fixed throughout on the basis of cost, and, under the recent agreement, is now £48 9s. 0d. per ton free on rail, which, I understand, the producers are satisfied will enable them to overtake arrears of maintenance and re-equipment which have accrued during the war years and to improve and modernise methods of production so that the industry will be able to maintain and expand an efficient output in the face of the competition which may be expected to develop when the present shortage of hard fibres may be alleviated. The sisal so purchased by His Majesty's Government has been resold to other countries and to users in this country substantially at cost and the transaction has, therefore, not involved His Majesty's Government in any net cost.

Expulsion Orders, Tanganyika

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans in Tanganyika are still subject to residential restrictions as a consequence of expulsion orders made by the Governor; and when their cases are likely to be reviewed.

No Europeans in Tanganyika are now subject to residential restrictions as a consequence of expulsion orders. Of 14 Europeans against whom expulsion orders were made, five orders have been rescinded on appeal and one person has left the territory.

Freetown (Local Government)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take to establish a satisfactory system of local government for the municipality of Freetown, Sierra Leone.

Any substantial progress towards local self-government in Freetown is dependent upon a fair trial being given to the provisions of the Municipality Ordinance enacted last year. The operation of that ordinance was suspended to give time for its purpose, which has been widely misrepresented, to be fully understood by local public opinion. Steps have been taken with this object, and I hope that before long it will be practicable to bring the ordinance into operation.

Closed Schools and Churches, Kenya

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many schools or churches have been closed by the Government of Kenya within the last two years, and for what reasons.

I have asked the Governor for this information, and will write to my hon. Friend when it is received.

European Settlement, Kenya

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European settlers have taken up land in Kenya under the new scheme for land settlement; how many Africans have been dispossessed of land to make room for them, and in what circumstnces.

Ten European settlers have been allotted land as tenant farmers; two have been granted loans under the assisted owners' scheme for the development of properties purchased with their own funds; and a further 97 have been accepted under the new schemes and are either undergoing training or awaiting passages to Kenya. No Africans have been dispossessed of land to make room for them.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to obtain the widest publicity for his answer in the Press here, and in Kenya? Is he aware that his answer will give the utmost satisfaction in the Colony owing to certain wild statements which were published in the "East African Standard" recently?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's Question and my answer will receive the publicity which he desires.

Immigrants (Capital Qualification)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the proposed legislation restricting immigration into the East African territories lays down that immigrants intending to enter agriculture must possess £800 capital, immigrants intending to enter mining £1,000, but immigrants intending to take up trading a capital of at least £2,500.

The minimum capital qualification prescribed in the Immigration Bills for persons intending to enter the territories to engage in agriculture, mining, trade or manufacturing industry are designed to secure that the persons concerned are likely to become an economic asset to the territory concerned, and on this basis it is considered that a higher minimum is required for trading than for agriculture or mining.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the people who wish to enter territories for the purpose of going into industry are Indians, and that there is a considerable feeling that this is an attempt at an indirect racial bar against the entry of Indians within this community? In view of that, will he consider whether this limit is too high?

We have to give some thought to the applicants. I have no doubt that the proposed legislation will take this point into consideration.

Indians, Kenya

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the official figure of 61,000 Indians in Kenya was arrived at; if he will have an immediate census taken of all Indians in Kenya differentiating between the different religions; and if he will consider an Indian quota for East Africa.

As the answer is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figure 61,000 Indians in Kenya has been ridiculed in the Kenya Press, and that the real figure is 81,000? What has he done with the other 20,000 Indians?

There is a great deal of difference in the figures which we have been able to obtain. I am giving the hon. Member a full explanation. I have not been able to find the other 20,000 Indians.

Following is the answer:

The figures contained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 15th May were based on statistics of migration through Kenya ports and included provision for the estimated increase of the Indian population. They did, not, however, take account of inter-territorial movement by land in East Africa. The only other figures available are based on the Commodity Distribution Board registration which did not exist in 1939, and it was, therefore, not possible to compare the total registration under the Board of some 75,000 persons in May, 1945, in Kenya, with similarly compiled figures of the Indian population for 1939. The Commodity Distribution Board statistics are not available for 1946. The only figures providing a comparison between 1939 and 1945 were the migration statistics, which take into account migration figures since 1931 together with an allowance of one per cent. per annum for estimated natural increases. These figures are 43,200 for 1939 and 61,000 for 1946. The practicability of taking a general census throughout East Africa, which would presumably include a census of Indians, is under consideration at the present time.

With regard to the last part of the Question, the answer is in the negative, but draft legislation dealing with immigration by all races into the East African territories was published by each of the East African Governments for consideration last April. The drafts are still the subject of public examination and discussion.

British Guiana

Cocoanut Industry

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the plight of the cocoanut industry in British Guiana due to the low price of copra, the unhealthy state of the plantations and the bad condition of the cultivators; and what steps he will take to make this once more a flourishing industry and to improve the living conditions of the workers in it.

Yes, Sir. I have been in consultation with the Governor and have recently received a despatch from him explaining the difficulties with which the cocoanut industry is now faced. Obsolete milling machinery is one of the main obstacles and I am assisting the Governor to obtain new equipment. But the industry is also hampered by lack of labour due to the competing claims of other food products such as sugar and rice. I am asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food to advise me of the relative importance which should be attached to the production in British Guiana of these food products and will consider the matter further in the light of his comments.

May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that owing to the very bad conditions in the plantations, young men will no longer work there, and, therefore, he will not get labour supply in these plantations unless he improves the conditions?

I have had no complaint from any source whatever in regard to the conditions in these plantations, but I will, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, take this matter up.

Is there not also the problem, apart from that of price, of the exchange of commodities? If we do not send textile goods to British Guiana, we shall not get cocoa, rubber or any other commodities that affect our industries.

Unfortunately, it is not only British Guiana that is suffering in that respect.

Public Hospitals

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many hospitals are maintained by public authorities in British Guiana and whether he is satisfied that they adequately meet the needs of the community.

British Guiana maintains seven public hospitals containing, in all, over 2,000 beds, and I am satisfied that these arrangements meet the needs of the community. But substantial reconstruction is desirable, and the Government of British Guiana is considering what improvements are possible within the limits set by its financial resources, including its allocation under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1945.

West Indies

Government Banana Purchases

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the results, financial included, of the purchase by His Majesty's Government of Jamaican banana crops since the beginning of the war in order to save the industry.

The loss to His Majesty's Government to date is over £3½ million. Some part of this loss may be recovered from the proceeds of sales during the last year of the guarantee which ends on the 31st December The effect of this guarantee scheme has been that despite the drastic fall in shipments during the war years and the ravages of disease and hurricanes a nucleus of banana plantations has been kept in being, and shipments to this country have now been resumed on a small scale.

Flogging (Trinidad)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report on the ordinance reintroducing flogging in Trinidad has yet been received from the Governor; and whether he has any statement to make.

The ordinance came into force in January and I asked for a report on its working after six months. I prefer to await receipt of the report before making a statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very carefully whether the introduction of flogging into the Colony is something of which a progressive and Labour Government or a Labour Secretary of State can be proud?

In this matter I was acting as a result of the decision which was taken by the Legislative Council of Trinidad, and, indeed, after very careful consideration. I am prepared to consider the matter in the light of the report which I have received from the Governor.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether similar legislation is being recommended or proposed for other West Indian Islands?

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that ex-Governors of Trinidad publicly condemned this reactionary measure, and will he take that into consideration when the report comes before him?

Certainly, and these matters have been taken into consideration when a decision was arrived at, but my hon. Friends must remember that, if the Colonies are to have any power whatever, notice must be taken of the power which has been given to them by this House.

Pending the reconsideration of this question will my right hon. Friend suspend any actual sentences?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an alteration in the constitution in view of the fact that there is something wanting in a Legislative Council which passes such a measure?

I can only consider an alteration of the constitution and impose it by deposing the legislative organisation which is in being at the present time.

Is it not a fact, as a result of the new constitution which I introduced there, that within the last two days there has been a general election, and will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the views of the new Legislature on the subject?

Mental Hospital, Jamaica

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is intended to use money from the Colonial Development Fund to build a new mental asylum in Jamaica.

Provision for a new mental reception hospital has been included in the draft 10-year development plan for Jamaica. These proposals, which will be financed partly by the Colonial Development and Welfare allocation, are now being considered by the Jamaica Government.

Now that Mr. Bustamente has been declared innocent, can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about the burning of the former mental asylum? Can he say whether it was a rival trade union which called out the attendants at the same time as the fire brigade, gave kerosene to the inmates, and incited them to set fire to the building, with the result that 15 patients were burned to death?

Nutrition

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take as a result of the recent Report on Nutrition in the West Indies.

As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I have been in correspondence with the West Indian Governments about the introduction of flour of improved nutritive value, and the U.K. High Commissioner in Canada has been asked to take up with the Canadian authorities the question of supplying flour of the type required. All the Governments concerned, except the Bahamas, have accepted these proposals in principle subject to reassurance as to the keeping properties of the flour. This point is under investigation.

Certain trials are being made of the feeding of skimmed milk and food yeast to children, and technical work is being done on the parboiling of rice. Further investigation into a certain type of severe malnutrition in infants has been made and has led to a very much clearer understanding of the disease.

As to the nutrition working party, some preliminary work is in progress, and I am at present examining estimates of cost for the full scheme. Progress has been hindered by unavoidable delays connected with the processing plant required. In the meantime, a nutrition officer, appointed by the Trinidad Government, is making preliminary surveys, and the prospective medical officer of the team has been sent to study under Dr. Piatt for several months.

Sarawak

Malayan Representations

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what protests have been received from the Malay National Union against the cession of Sarawak being passed as a result of the voting of European members of the Council Negri; and whether he has considered protests received from other organisations and from influential private individuals.

The Malay National Union have not addressed any protest to me. As the result of an inquiry which Mr. Anthony Brooke addressed to the Union and the Dyak Association on 6th June, however, those bodies sent telegrams to him expressing opposition to cession. I have considered the representations which I have had from a certain society in this country and from Captain Bertram Brooke.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is doing as a result of these considerations?

So far as I am concerned, the representations have been replied to, and nothing more has been done.

Would it be right to consider that the Government have no intention of paying any further attention to what the natives of this country feel?

Has the right hon. Gentleman received representations from the commander-in-chief of our Forces in the district, with regard to the effect of this cession on the feelings of the native population?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the outcome of the negotiations that have been taking place in regard to the cession of Sarawak is likely to be satisfactory to all parties concerned, the means which have been used to bring that outcome into being are open to somewhat grave criticism?

I really cannot accept these observations. The House has been kept very fully informed with regard to the procedure taken in dealing with this matter; so much so that the two hon. Members of this House who visited Sarawak were satisfied that the cession is in the interest of the natives.

In view of the fact that in his reply to a question by me the other day the right hon. Gentleman made certain statements which were flatly contradicted in "The Times" of yesterday, is he right in saying that we have been fully and properly informed?

Governorship

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when a governor of Sarawak is to be appointed; and whether he will come under the Governor General of Malaya.

I hope that the appointment will be made and announced by the middle of this month. The Governor-General will not have any direct administrative functions in relation to Sarawak, but will have the same powers of coordination and direction that he has in relation to other territories within his area.

Am I to understand from that that Sarawak is going to form a sort of Malayan Empire? Will the Governor to be appointed be somebody who has previously been in the Sarawak colonial service, or somebody with no knowledge of the country?

Sarawak is going to be separate territory, and I cannot yet make an announcement or, indeed, refer to the appointment of the person likely to receive the position of Governor.

Questions

Ceylon (Indians, Knavesmire Estate)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the approximate number of Ceylon Indians who have been discharged from the Knavesmire estate, Ceylon; how far these Ceylon Indians will have to travel from Knavesmire to obtain certificates of permanent settlement; and if Ceylon Indians, born on Knavesmire estate and who have worked all their lives there, will be allowed to remain there.

Three hundred and sixty-one Indian labourers have been discharged from this estate. Indian and Ceylonese estate labourers are alike ineligible to participate in the scheme of village expansion for which the Knavesmire Estate was acquired. They would have to travel 15 miles to obtain certificates of permanent settlement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any steps at all have been taken to save these Ceylon Indians from starvation and unemployment?

These persons were offered employment in the neighbouring villages, which they could have accepted within the period of their month's notice.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Ceylon Government are proposing similar schemes of permanent settlement for Indian labourers, as they are for Cingalese labourers?

Malay Union

Rubber Production (Costs)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the average cost of producing rubber in Malaya at the present time; to which countries it is being sold; at what prices; and what profit or loss results from these prices.

There is no means of ascertaining the average cost of producing rubber in Malaya at the present time. Even individual plantation companies have been unable to give me precise information regarding their own costs of production. Rubber is now sold direct from Malaya to all countries which have allocations from the Combined Rubber Committee. The price at which His Majesty's Government are buying is 50 Straits cents f.o.b. for No. 1 ribbed smoked sheet. The United States Government are paying the same price. In the absence of information from the producers I am unable to answer the last part of the question.

Arising out of that evasive answer will the Minister say whether this rubber has been sold at a profit or at a loss?

It is impossible to know unless one can get the cost of production from the producers, and up to the present time it has been impossible to get the cost of production from them.

Lawless Activities

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the secret societies which are behind the increasing lawlessness in northern Malaya.

The Governor informs me that there is evidence of an organisation of criminal elements responsible for lawless activities in Northern Malaya and in Penang in particular. He adds, however, that with the strengthening of the personnel and standard of training of the police force the administration is now able to deal more adequately with these elements.

Cost of Living

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the cost-of-living index in Malaya, compared with the level in 1941; and also with the level six months ago.

It is not possible to make the precise comparisons for which my hon. Friend has asked. In October, 1945, however, it was estimated that, while there were wide variations in different parts of the country, the average of the prices of some 30 foodstuffs and other articles in general use was eight times that in 1939. Last month, a committee appointed by the Governors of the Malay Union and Singapore reported that the cost of living index in those territories was about four times the prewar figure.

Cooperative Activities

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to encourage consumers' cooperation in Malaya in order to relieve the present difficulties in the distribution of food and other essential supplies.

The Governors of the Malay Union and Singapore are alive to the importance of encouraging the development of cooperative activities. I am making inquires on the specific points raised in the Question, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have further information.

Fiji

Housing

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans the Government of Fiji has for the improvement of workers' housing conditions.

Sites near Suva are being selected to meet overcrowding in the town. Plans for improved workers' housing are included in the report of the Postwar Planning and Development Committee which recommends the creation of a housing board charged with the improvement, construction and management of housing settlements in the urban areas of the Colony with substantial financial assistance from Government. These proposals are now under examination by my advisers.

Is the Minister aware that while wages around about 8s. to 10s. a day operate in Fiji, the rents are as much as £7 a month for these workers houses, and my information is that they are in a deplorable state of disrepair?

Would it not be possible to loan the present Minister of Health to the Government of Fiji to ensure rapid action?

Cost of Living

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present cost of living in Fiji as compared with the figure before the war; whether there have been corresponding increases in the wages of subordinate employees in the public works department; and what increases have been made in the salaries of officials in senior positions to meet the rise in the cost of living.

The latest index, which is based primarily on the cost of living conditions of Indians who constitute the majority of paid labourers in Fiji, shows that for the quarter ended 31st March, 1946, in country districts and in Suva, the cost of living was 87 per cent. and 69 per cent. respectively, above that of August, 1939. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part of the Question a bonus of £90 per annum is being paid to officers in receipt of salaries of £600 per annum or more.

Public Works Department (Hours)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the employees of the public works department, Fiji, work 48 hours a week; that their demand for a reduction to 40 hours has recently been rejected by the Labour and National Service Board without any reason given; that men who work for this department work longer hours than those in private employment doing similar work; and whether he will take steps to secure a reduction of working hours without loss of pay and the granting of pay for public holidays.

With few exceptions the 48-hour week is the general rule for industrial undertakings in Fiji, including the building trade. The request for a 40-hour week was put forward in January, 1945. Since then, as a result of discussions between the Labour and National Service Board and representatives of the Public Works Department, and of the award of certain overtime rate concessions, the request for a 40-hour week in place of the present 48-hour week has not been pressed. Pay is granted for Good Friday and Christmas Day. Annual leave with pay is also granted. Further concessions will be considered in connection with the general labour situation in the island.

Questions

Cyprus (Trade Unionists, Imprisonment)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the members of the Pan-Cyprian Trades Union Committee are still in jail.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any steps will be taken by him to release these men, having regard to the undertaking he gave me in this House as long ago as 29th March? He said then that he regretted he had had no time to reconsider the case, and would communicate with me as soon as possible. That was 14 weeks ago.

There is considerable difficulty in interfering with sentences which are passed in the Colonies in view of the fact that the prerogative is that of the Governor. In the meantime, I have been considering the question, but owing to the difficulties I am not yet in a position to give any reply to my hon. Friend.

Is it not a fact that in spite of those difficulties the entire trade union leadership of Cyprus is in gaol, and would it not be desirable to have the leaders released from gaol?

No, Sir. I cannot really accept the statement made by my hon. Friend in view of the fact that there are in Cyprus 143 separate unions and 78 branches with a membership of 13,394. They still have their leaders with them at the present time.

Egypt (Treaty Negotiations)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what points of agreement have so far been reached in the negotiations with Egypt.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to make any detailed statement about the negotiations with Egypt at the present time. I am grateful, however, to my hon. Friend for this opportunity of informing the House that, as a result of further discussions between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Egyptian Government, His Majesty's Government have invited my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air to return to Cairo as soon as possible to resume the negotiations which he has so auspiciously begun.

As a wholehearted supporter of the Government's policy for the evacuation of Egypt, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House on three points: first, that the lives and property of European and other nationals will be fully protected; second, that if we do evacuate the Suez Canal zone in no event will Egyptian troops be used against this country; and, third, will he undertake to afford the House an early opportunity of debating the Treaty as soon as the clauses are made available? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no attempt will be made to "pull a fast one" on the House, as was done with the Treaty with Transjordan?

The question of a Debate ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As regards the Canal zone, I think my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical—at any rate, I should not like to answer it this afternoon. I can assure my hon. Friend that his question about the lives and property of Europeans will be fully borne in mind.

Malaya and East Indies (Defence)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made with the Dutch Government for the joint defence of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies; and what arrangements are being made for Malayans from Sumatra and from Malaya to move from one country to the other

No special arrangements have been made with the Netherlands Government about the defence of Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. I have no information about the facilities for travel between Sumatra and Malaya, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been good enough to say that he will cause inquiries to be made.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that before the war a good deal of worry was caused to Colonial officials, both in our own Colonies and in the Dutch, with regard to this question of protection? Would it not be possible now to discuss this matter with the Dutch Government? Further, is he not aware that Malaya is now being completely changed, and is not this the moment to remember the Malayans who have served this country well in the past?

We hope that adequate arrangements for the defence of territories against aggression will be made for all parts of the world within the framework of the collective security of the United Nations. We intend to pursue that policy. The Japanese at the present time are not capable of making war, we see no other aggressor on the horizon, and we therefore think that there is ample time to deal with these matters later on.

Burma (Japanese Reparation)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to obtain from Japan material, machinery and supplies in order to repair the devastation caused to, and replace the losses incurred by, Burma as a result of the Japanese invasion and occupation.

The sending of material, machinery and supplies from Japan to Burma is part of the wider question of the reparation to be made by Japan That question is under constant and active consideration by the Far Eastern Commission in Washington. In the meanwhile, all the Governments represented in the Commission, including the Government of Burma, have been asked to submit their claims for an interim share-out. The list of Burma's demands has already been sent to the United Kingdom representative on the Far Eastern Commission; he will submit them to the Commission at the appropriate time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we have had as much material out of Japan or her possessions after four years of war, as Russia got after 11 days of war with Japan?

Rights of Minorities (United Nations Action)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the problem of minorities in Central and South-Eastern Europe.

In the Charter of the United Nations every member Government undertakes to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. The Economic and Social Council is empowered by the Charter to make recommendations on this subject, and to prepare draft conventions for submission to the General Assembly. In pursuance of this mandate, the Economic and Social Council, at its recent meeting, decided to appoint a Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and to request this Commission to draft an International Bill of Rights as soon as possible. The Council further requested the Commission to make suggestions about the methods to be employed to ensure that the undertakings of the International Bill of Rights would be effectively observed. The Council of Foreign Ministers has agreed that articles imposing similar obligations on ex-enemy states shall be included in the Peace Treaties which they are now engaged in drawing up.

His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that this new system will ensure the rights of minorities throughout the world. They will, for their part, do everything in their power to ensure its speedy and effective application.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will use his persuasion with the United Nations organisation to ensure a speedy application of these provisions in the area concerned?

The Bill of Rights will take some time to build up and the number of States in that area who are members of the United Nations is not as yet very great; I hope nevertheless that the system will be in operation within a measurable time.

Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he received information that Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia had been incorporated in the U.S.S.R.; and whether this annexation has met with his approval, in view of the fact that the population has never been consulted, in spite of Clause 2 of the Atlantic Charter.

The agreement between the Governments of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, by which Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia was made part of the Ukraine, was signed in Moscow on 29th June, 1945. The agreement was published on the following day. His Majesty's Government has not expressed either approval or disapproval of its terms.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence in seeing that these unfortunate people receive special consideration at the Peace Conference in view of the fact that they are now cut off by barbed wire entanglements from the rest of Slovakia and that the iron curtain is as rigid as it can be made?

Royal Navy

Rescue Tugs Service

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of the deep sea rescue tugs base maintained at the Great Eastern Hotel, Harwich.

The annual cost of this base is approximately £9,000.

As there are very few tugs in home waters and there is so little for them to do, is the First Lord satisfied that this expenditure is fully justified?

Yes, Sir, because the expenditure covers not only the maintenance of the rescue tugs which are still doing heavy towing and rescue work, but also the general arrangements for demobilisation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that personnel serving with His Majesty's deep sea rescue tugs are not fully employed; and why demobilisation in this branch of the R.N. has not been speeded up.

I presume the hon. Member is referring to the small pool at Harwich of officers and men awaiting reappointment or demobilisation. Such a pool is inevitable in a service of this kind and is no indication that the service as a whole is not fully employed. On the contrary, the deep sea rescue tugs have a very heavy programme of towing and rescue work. Demobilisation is, however, being carried out as rapidly as requirements permit, and an accelerated programme of release for officers and men on T.124 T engagements was, in fact, announced on 22nd June.

Engineer and Shipwright Warrant Officers

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of executive, all branches, engineer and shipwright warrant officers it is desired to promote this year; the number of rating candidates in each branch who have qualified both educationally and professionally; and what steps his Department intend to take to make the conditions of service in warrant rank more attractive, with the object of obtaining a larger number of candidates.

As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the First Lord say whether the number of candidates this year has increased or decreased as the result of the new rates of pay for officers and ratings?

I should like notice of that question.

Following is the reply:

The reply to the first part of the Question is as follows:

Qualified Educationally and Professionally

Estimated Promotions.

Gunners

26

26

Gunners (T)

16

36

Boatswains

8

7

Boatswains A/S

6

3

Shipwrights

31

1

Engineers

81

20

As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on 26th June.

Questions

Production Campaign

asked the Prime Minister the number of industries which have reported an increase in the output per man-hour as a result of his appeal; and what are the percentages of increase.

I have been asked to reply. There has been an increase in production in many industries during the last few months, but I cannot say how much of this increase may be due to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's appeal and how much to other causes.

Does the Lord President mean that there has been an increase per man hour, and is he satisfied that the level which is being maintained today is satisfactory?

We think that material progress has been made, but I cannot give a figure which will satisfactorily relate the man-hour output to the Prime Minister's efforts, any more than I can give a figure for the reduction in output per man-hour owing to the efforts of the Opposition and their supporters in the Press.

Has the Lord President any figures which will show how much the increase has been? He has not given the House any figures at all.

For the benefit of hon. Members and the rest of the public His Majesty's Government publish the "Monthly Digest of Statistics." I would recommend the hon. Member to study that publication as part of his Parliamentary duty.

Can the right hon. Gentleman estimate what the output would be if it were not for the constant threats of junior Members of the present Administration that they are going to nationalise one industry after another?

Adjournment Motions

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider amending the Sessional Order so as to ensure that hon. Members will always be allowed half an hour for raising matters on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

This matter falls appropriately within the subjects being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure which is reviewing the whole field of Parliamentary procedure, but at this late stage in the Session my hon. Friend will not expect me to undertake to promise action this Session on any recommendation which the Select Committee may make on the matter in a future report. I am submitting the matter to the Select Committee.

Since the right hon. Gentleman referred this matter to the Select Committee about nine months ago—or at least he told me he had—I was wondering whether he would not introduce a Standing Order for next Session allowing hon. Members half an hour every night for this purpose.

It is not for me to presume on the recommendations of Select Committees, but, as far as the Government are concerned, we are entirely sympathetic with the point of view of the hon. Member. I think it would be right, as there is this Select Committee on Procedure, to put the matter to them and one would hope that they may be able to report in time for the House to consider the question when we resume.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again since it may take some time before the Select Committee on Procedure presents its report on what is a relatively minor matter which the Government could very well deal with?

I will consider the points raised by the hon. Member and the noble Lord and will see whether we can short circuit procedure in some measure. I am, however, most anxious not to be discourteous to the Select Committee which has served the House so diligently.

I cannot see that it would be discourteous. The Committee have been aware of this question for nine months and surely the Lord President can introduce a Standing Order at the beginning of next Session?

I hope that will be done in either case. I do not think any blame rests with the Select Committee but I will certainly bear in mind the feeling of the House. I think it is a reasonable request and will do my best to have it met.

As one of the new Members of this House, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the feeling shared by many hon. Members that it would be a great convenience if the Business of the House could be so arranged that the Adjournment would fall at the same time each day? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why half an hour at a particular time during the Business of the House cannot be arranged for the discussion of matters on the Adjournment?

I think that to interrupt the Business of the House for half an hour's Adjournment Motion would be inconvenient, as it is when a Motion under Standing Order No. 8 comes forward. I do not think we could do that, but otherwise I will do anything I can to meet the cheerful hopefulness of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Germany (Able-Bodied Men)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the expelled male persons now entering the British zone of Germany are able-bodied and fit for work.

Food Supplies

Fresh Fruit

asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to increase the supply of fresh fruit to consumers in this country.

Although I am naturally unable to make any announcement about quantities and sources while negotiations are in progress, I can assure the hon. Member that there are good prospects of considerable increases in the supply of fresh fruit during the next 12 months

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when those increases are likely to appear in the shops?

The fruit harvest has not been gathered yet, and it will not occur till after then.

Bread Rationing

asked the Minister of Food whether, in order to assist him in coming to a decision on the subject of bread rationing, his Department has obtained information as to which foreign countries ration bread at present.

Yes, Sir, but the decision to ration bread in this country was dictated by our own prospective supply position. As a matter of fact every country on the Continent of Europe does in fact already ration bread.

Will this precise information also be made available to the House this afternoon?

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a considerable amount of bread is wasted in hotels and restaurants where customers ask for bread and leave most of it on their plates at lunch and dinner; and if he will forbid bread being served in any form at main meals in public eating-places when the total cost of the meal is more than 2s. head

I shall be making a statement on this subject in my speech this evening.

asked the Minister of Food what increase in staff will be required to carry out a system of bread rationing.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th June to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) of which I am sending him a copy.

In the figure of 1,500 to 2,000 staff was any provision made for the staff required for the sale and distribution of bread where bakers owing to the complexities of bread rationing will be unable to continue to do this themselves?

I believe that the bakers fears, though very natural in that respect, are entirely exaggerated. We shall encourage their customers, who I believe will do it in their own interests, to leave their bread unit coupons with their bakers, so that distribution of bread will proceed exactly as now.

Is it a fact that the staff of the Ministry has had to be increased by 2,000 officials as the result of the rationing of bread?

Ration Books

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that hardship is being caused to persons employed during the day, often many miles from their homes, in being asked to register for new ration books between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on Saturdays; and what steps he will take to assist these people.

We have done all we can to minimise the inconvenience of obtaining the new ration book. Nobody is obliged to apply personally for his book, and application may be made at any ration book distribution centre and in special circumstances even by registered post. The distribution of ration books is proceeding smoothly, 38 million books having been issued in the first four weeks of distribution.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House the special circumstances under which people may apply for their ration books by registered post, as this might meet the cases I have in mind?

They are somewhat complex, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Food what was the number of ration cards in issue in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, on 1st June, 1946, or the last convenient date.

As the reply to the hon. Member's Question includes statistical information, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it the case that when the new ration cards are in use they will be checked with the identity cards?

I would ask for notice of that question.

Following is the information:

1. The latest figures from which an estimate can be made are those related to 31st January, 1946. The total number of ration books in issue at that date was:

England

37,624,403

Wales

2,527,884

Scotland

4,897,013

These estimates are made up as follow:

( a ) main issues of 1945–46 (8th edition) ration books up to 31st July, 1945:

England

35,547,569

Wales

2,414,588

Scotland

4,627,590

( b ) subsequent issues due to de-mobilisation, new entrants and births from 31st July, 1945, to 31st January, 1946, were:

England

2,076,834

Wales

113,296

Scotland

269,423

There were, of course, deaths and enlistments in the Services to set against these figures, but I cannot give them separately for each country.

Potatoes

asked the Minister of Food what action has been taken by his Department to ensure proper distribution of potatoes as between human and animal consumption.

My Department has always sought to ensure by Order, especially the Potatoes (General Provisions) Order, S.R. & O. 1944 No. 468, and by regulation of supplies, that no sound potatoes were fed to stock until human consumption needs had been satisfied.

Food Offer (British Guiana)

asked the Minister of Food why he prevented a British Guiana merchant from selling oils, fats and meat to this country.

asked the Minister of Food why he rejected the offer of 375,000 tons of edible oils, the yield of 15,000,000 cocoanuts, from Mr. B. Boodhoo, of British Guiana.

asked the Minister of Food why it was decided not to buy the meat and edible oil recently offered to this country by Mr. Boodhoo, of British Guiana.

I have not received any offers of the kind mentioned. I shall of course buy any such supplies, if they turn out to be available. Perhaps the hon. Members will get in touch with me.

Is not the Minister aware that this statement has appeared in the Press? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At any rate, should not its appearance in the Press have made the right hon. Gentleman vigilant to see whether there was any truth in it?

Flour Imports

asked the Minister of Food the amount of flour which has been imported from U.S.A. since 1st September, 1945.

Would not the Minister consider purchasing wheat, so that the offal can be available for the farming industry?

We try to purchase wheat and not flour, but sometimes it is necessary to take a comparatively small quantity of flour.

Fruit Preserving Bottles

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of bottles and bottle caps for fruit and vegetable bottling; and what steps he will take to see that supplies are forthcoming immediately.

Production of bottles for fruit and vegetable bottling last year was 150,000 gross compared with 15,000 gross in 1938. But it is still not enough to meet the demand because other types of bottles, notably for milk, are given priority and the demand for these is nearly double prewar. But my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is steadily increasing the output of all types. There is now no general shortage of caps and closures for bottles, but if my hon. Friend has information about a particular shortage, I will do what I can to put it right

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been trying for the last three weeks but have not found any retailer in London who has any of these things in stock, and that they all say that they have had them on order for six months but see no chance of getting any at all? How can people bottle fruit if they have not the apparatus?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable source of bottles of which he has made no mention; and would he consider the diversion of bottles from the liquor trade?

Cheese Ration (Gravediggers)

asked the Minister of Food if he will extend the supplementary cheese ration to gravediggers.

The special ration of cheese is only granted to well-defined categories of workers permanently employed under conditions which make it necessary for them to take a packed meal with them to their work each day. In general this is not true of the category of workers referred to by my right hon. Friend, and I cannot therefore accept his suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that under modern planning cemeteries are situated at great distances from towns—these men will in any case get the last word—and that this job is not exactly a nice one, although the men do it willingly because they are performing a public service?

I am well aware that we are here dealing with a most formidable body of men. I will carefully consider their claims, but at first sight I cannot think that the claims are well founded.

Is this demand due to an increase in the work of these men since the Government came into power?

Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing half a cheese ration to those with one foot in the grave?

Enforcement Officers (Hotels)

asked the Minister of Food how many food officers are employed in visiting and dining at hotels to ensure that bread is not served unless asked for; what is the total amount of expenses incurred by these officers in their duties; and what is the estimated value of the grain saved to the country by their activities.

None of my enforcement officers are wholly or mainly employed on this duty, though any of them may, of course, be asked to perform it. It is, of course, quite impossible to estimate exactly the amount of grain saved by the enforcement of this Order.

Is the Minister aware that these food officers spend very nice long weekends at country hotels, at the country's expense?

Surrendered Coupons, Dominions

asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an assurance that he is buying all the food relinquished for the benefit of this country by voluntary surrender of coupons in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, Sir. In fact, extra quantities of the foodstuffs which are thus made available will in the main be coming to us automatically under our contracts.

What about the surplus? Are they exempt at all and not covered by "in the main"?

The words "in the main" refer to those countries and articles of foodstuffs where we have contracts for buying the entire exportable surplus. In other cases we have to make special arrangements, but we do make them.

Questions

Soap Substitutes

asked the Minister of Food whether he has any statement to make in regard to the provision to the public of substitutes for soap.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that there are a number of cleansing agents containing no oils or fats; and what steps he is taking to encourage their manufacture and distribution with a view to assisting the soap ration.

Yes, Sir. I am extremely anxious that everything possible shall be done to encourage the development of products which can be used to replace soap, and I have already begun to take steps to encourage production and distribution of these products. Over 1,000 firms have already been licensed to produce or market soap substitutes.

In the distribution of those products will my right hon. Friend see that a reasonable price is charged to the consumer and that no exorbitant prices are allowed?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that those substitutes are first distributed in the hard water districts?

At present there is a fairly good supply of them, but I certainly think that hard water districts ought to have preference.

Does the original answer of my right hon. Friend suggest that this research has only just begun? Is that due to any obstruction by officials of his Ministry who are associated with the soap monopoly?

I did not suggest that nothing has been done before my period of office. I was only claiming that I had taken some further steps in the matter during the weeks I have been in office.

The hon. Member has a Question on the Paper on that point, and I am going to answer it.

Orders of the Day

Supply

[15th Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair ]

Civil Estimates, 1946

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to Bread Rationing and Food Production for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, namely:

Bread Rationing

3.32 p.m.

The purpose of this Debate is to afford the Government the opportunity of telling the Committee, as fully as we can, the reasons which have necessitated the decision to ration bread. The very short answer to the question implied in that, is that we are rationing bread because we are short of wheat. This afternoon I shall attempt to describe the extent and character of that shortage, and, in that connection, deal with the question of United Kingdom stocks of wheat. Then I shall attempt to tell the Committee why that shortage as thus defined exists, and that will take me to the question of world stocks, or rather, as I think it is better put, of the world balance of wheat between the exporting and importing countries. I shall try to deal with that subject under the two heads of the crop year 1945–46 just coming to a close and about which we really know, and what we can foresee of the crop year 1946–47 which opens at the end of next month.

I come at once to the vexed question of the publication of the United Kingdom's stocks of particular foodstuffs. It will be well within the recollection of the Committee that successive Ministers of Food have refused publication of the stocks. [HON. MEMBERS: "During war time."] Since the war, too, they have done it under the advice of the most experienced procurement officers in these divisions, most of them men of long, practical commercial experience—the very men whose advice we are often enjoined by hon. Members opposite to heed most strongly. Rightly or wrongly, they are firmly of the opinion that it would cost this country millions of pounds if we revealed, from week to week or month to month, the exact size of our stocks of particular foodstuffs. I think I may say of my predecessors that they surely would have undertaken a very heavy responsibiliy if, to suit their political convenience—as undoubtedly it would have—they had gone against that advice.

But I think that wheat stocks today are a very special case. They are, obviously, of the utmost moment to all of us. Wheat is a particularly simple homogeneous commodity, in which questions of the quality and types of the commodity matter very little, and therefore, without committing myself to any precedent either in stocks of other foodstuffs, or in giving wheat stocks from week to week or month to month, I propose to give the Committee a picture of our wheat and flour position as it will be in the immediate future, because that, of course, is the immediate proximate cause of our decision to ration bread. First, I must explain that there is no stock whatever in the sense of there being some great reserve store of wheat lying idle somewhere in the country. There is only the stock which is going through what our American friends call the pipeline from the ship as it arrives in one of our ports to the counter of the baker's shop in its final form as the loaf. The figures I am about to give refer to the supply in motion through that pipeline, and to nothing else, because there is nothing else to refer to.

The Government decided to ration bread because this pipeline of supplies—its upper reaches in the form of wheat, and its lower reaches, after the point of the mill, in the form of flour—so far as we are able to foresee—I will come to all the qualifications in a moment—at the end of August will be in the following position. There will be in ships in our ports, in barges, coasters and warehouses in the ports, 140,000 tons of wheat. There will be 80,000 tons in transit to the mills from the warehouses, barges, etc. Actually in the mills themselves, being milled, there will be 280,000 tons. That adds up to half a million tons. Issuing from the mills in the later part of the pipeline, passing down from the mills to the bakers' shops, the wholesale depots and the like, there will be some 300,000 tons of flour. We must always remember that, roughly speaking again, 100,000 tons of wheat or flour is the week's supply in this country. Therefore, one might suppose, since that is true, that these figures will be eight weeks' supply of wheat or flour in the country, but I must warn the Committee most seriously, that they would be entirely deluding themselves if they thought that the country's grain supply would continue for eight weeks after the end of August at that level, without new supplies coming in. A breakdown would occur very much before eight weeks.

Just exactly at what point that breakdown would occur is a matter of opinion. Stocks never have reached that breaking point, and none of the experts in my Department is prepared to say that it would occur when the stock was at 700,000, 600,000 tons or any particular figure, but there is not the slighest doubt that somewhere below the figure of 800,000 tons—not very far—there would come a point where the distribution system of the country, first of the wheat and then of the flour after it had been milled, would begin to creak and groan, and finally, break down.

In this or that district, there would be dislocation; there would be a temporary bread shortage, which would have to be put right by rushing supplies to that area from some other area, and then, if the supplies sank lower, there would be increasingly grave breakdowns in the supply of bread to the community. So the pipeline of 800,000 tons of wheat and flour which we anticipate—on certain assumptions which I will give in a moment—we shall have in hand at the end of August will be, we believe, enough to satisfy, with certainty, the bread supply of the country if we institute a system of bread rationing. But not without it, because one of the most important considerations about rationing—as I have ventured to point out to the Committee and to the House on several former occasions—is not merely the saving which it gives you, but also the fact that it enables you to operate if you have to do so—you will not do it unless you have to—with a considerably smaller amount in your pipeline. That is, perhaps, the most important of the considerations which have animated us.

We believe that the discussion on what is the exact level of safety to which that pipeline should be allowed to drop without bread rationing is a somewhat academic one. Our greatest experts strongly believe, that it would be reckless to let it drop below that level without bread rationing. In fact, they believe that, steadily maintained, the minimum safe figure is 750,000 tons of wheat and 300,000 tons of flour. It may be that they have been over-cautious. I think it possible that they have been overcautious, but it seems to me to be going far to suggest that it is safe to assume that they have been over 200,000 tons over-cautious, and, therefore, I believe that it would be a great responsibility to overrule their opinion in this matter.

Could the Minister compare the figures he has now given, with the average stocks in prewar years at the same season of the year?

I am perfectly willing to do that; the difficulty is that what were our prewar stocks in the pipeline is itself a matter of acute controversy. There were over a million tons of wheat and flour but whether that has any element of reserve in it is again a matter of acute controversy. As to what they were if you go back 10 or 15 years before the war, again the authorities in the grain trade differ very strongly amongst themselves, but the actual figures we have got are over a million tons. I warn the Committee in that connection, that the grain trade and the milling industry operating at that time, naturally and rightly kept its stock of wheat and flour to the minimum, because every extra ton cost it money. Obviously it was kept down to the minimum figure possible.

Now I come to the assumptions on which the estimate I have given, the forecast—and it can be no more than a fore- cast —that our stock of wheat will be 500,000 tons and of flour 300,000 tons, as at the end of August next, is based. The first assumption is that the United States will, in fact, deliver to us the whole of the 456,000 tons of wheat which repays the loan of 200,000 tons, and makes good the inability of our Canadian friends to supply us with their usual quantities of wheat during the next two months. That arrangement was, as the Committee knows, made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I think that when the balance sheet is finally cast of these transactions this summer, the whole House of Commons and the whole nation will have the greatest cause to be thankful to him for that arrangement which he made in Washington. In my recent visit to Washington, I formed the impression that the United States Government were entirely determined to send us, if it is in their physical capacity to do so, that sum of wheat during the next three months. I have no doubt whatever of the United States Administration's intentions to do that; but as to their ability to do that—well, just before my recent visit to the United States, a maritime strike of the dockers and the seamen of the United States actually broke out and was only settled a few hours after it had broken out. Can we have any guarantee that such a thing will not happen again? We may say that that strike is over, but, as we know, the United States have resorted to a policy which is very warmly advocated in some quarters in this country; they have just removed all price controls. We may be told that even if this does result in new labour disputes, that would not really mean that we have forfeited any wheat, that it would only delay the arrival of wheat in this country. But a delay in the arrival of wheat in the next three months in this country might be a disastrous thing for this country if we did not take the great precautionary measure which we are taking of rationing bread.

I would add on that subject of the ability of the United States—not their intentions—that there comes this morning the news that because of the removal of all those prices controls in the United States, the United States Government this morning ceased buying wheat. That need not affect us immediately, they have already very considerable stocks in hand, but of course it does depend on the action of Congress what action it takes about substituting some new price control mechanism, or what other measures they may like to take, whether there is to be any interruption in that very massive, and well organised, programme of bulk export of wheat which is going on in the United States. Therefore, I would say that, on that first assumption, to ignore it and to assume that we should have that 800,000 tons at the end of August, and, therefore, to postpone any decision on bread rationing, would be to gamble on American labour relations and to gamble on the course of things in Congress in the next few weeks.

Now I come to the second assumption on which this is based. The second assumption of the 800,000 tons stock is that we shall receive from our own harvest during August 75,000 tons and during September 250,000 tons. The 75,000 tons is, of course, alone relevant to the stock figure at the end of August, but the other figure is very relevant in our minds, because there is no immediate prospect of any very rapid rise in that stock during September. Therefore, while in some respects the harvest prospects, I am informed are good in this country, the harvest is not yet reached, and to gamble on the vagaries of the British climate during the next two months would, I think, be still more, rash. Therefore, to postpone again our decision to ration would again be to gamble on all going well with our own harvest which, though it promises well at the moment, is already running some three weeks late of its normal period.

I come to the third assumption on which these stocks are based—somewhat more indirect—and that is the Canadian crop prospect. This is in the long run by far the most important assumption of all, though it does not immediately affect to a great extent our August figure, because the Canadians have almost run their elevator stocks down to nothing, and can send us comparatively small amounts in any case during the next two months.

But their ability to send even these small but very important amounts in our pipe-line position depends to a considerable extent on the new crop which their farmers see, because the amount they re- lease of the last remnants of the old crop will, logically, depend on the new crop they see coming forward. If we look a little further forward, the question of the size of the new Canadian crop will be the dominant factor in our prospects of wheat supplies in the autumn, and also beyond the August point which I have taken. That must be the relevant consideration in our minds. Although the Canadian crop promises very much better than it did a few weeks ago, it has by no means passed the danger point yet. The Canadian Government do not make their first estimate of that crop for two weeks more. There may be scorching suns on the prairies and early frosts in August. The crop has several dangers to face yet. Once again, to gamble on any flinching from the rationing of bread at the moment, would be to gamble on the third factor going right, the weather on the Canadian prairies.

If I may sum it up, we are rationing bread because we cannot depend on "might be's" and "ifs" in our forecasts. If all these assumptions—I say this perfectly frankly to the Committee—and some others I am going to mention, turn out to be well justified, if things turn out to be even better than those estimates, possibly we might scrape through without rationing. But, what a wholly unjustifiable risk that would be to take with the food of the people. I say, for myself, and, I know, for every one of my colleagues, that we just will not risk it—and that is flat. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who affected to think last week that the Government were doing this for some obscure reasons of their own and through no necessity—I say in justice to him, that if he was in our place here, he would do the same as we are doing, because in office, and only in office, the right hon. Gentleman is a responsible person.

There is a further uncertainty, when we come on to the period of the autumn. In the present situation acute shortage will undoubtedly exist in animal feeding stuffs. If we do not ration wheat and flour, a good deal of wheat and flour will find its way, not to human consumption, but to animal consumption. That, again, is a risk which, if we have no control of the off-take, is a very serious one to take. In that connection, I would again like to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who alleged categorically in the House last week that our ability to make a small increase in the meat ration of 2d. a week, which I announced, was due to the fact that it was the Government's policy to slaughter our herds in the autumn—

That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said massacred."] That is not the Government's policy. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if I misquoted him, but in any case allow me to say that I have looked into the figures since then most carefully. Not only is it not our policy to increase the slaughter of herds in this country, but the figures on which the increase in the meat ration has been made are based entirely on our present stock of meat, and are due to more favourable imports of meat from abroad. In our estimates we hope and believe that there will be no appreciable increase in the slaughter of herds during this autumn.

I now come to the last of the imponderables which must be in our minds, when we have to take a grave decision of this kind. That is our inescapable international obligations. I wish to go into this problem fully, and to state fully to the Committee exactly what this country has done to help the semi-starving countries of the world and also to say why His Majesty's Government now believe that we have come to the end of our ability to help any more in that direction out of our own meagre resources. Since November, 1945, we have sent, or diverted, the following amounts of foodstuffs to the following countries: 60,000 tons to India—these are cereals, mostly wheat; 60,000 tons through U.N.R.R.A. to Italy, Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia; 60,000 tons to Germany; 10,000 tons to South Africa; and 10,000 tons to Belgium. All this tonnage was lent, and will be replaced by the United States Government in the figures I quoted just now to the Committee. In addition to that, we have sent to the British zone in Germany since the same date, 192,000 tons of wheat, 109,000 tons of flour, 105,000 tons of barley and 132,400 tons of potatoes. As the Committee will know, these latter amounts add up to just over 400,000 tons of cereals and these have been sent as a direct contribution from this country to the fighting of famine in the world. I would like to say of my right hon. Friend, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith)—who has been criticised from various quarters, I think utterly unfairly, for an unwillingness to send relief to the peoples of the world—that those figures should be the complete and final answer to any criticism of him in that respect.

If anyone thinks, on the other hand, that the Government have sent too much of our resources to help the rest of the world, then remember that the Government would have sent much more, if they had not resisted very strong pressure from many parts of the House. The sending of these amounts to India and Western Europe has been a factor—not the main factor, but undoubtedly a factor—in the present decision to ration our own bread. For my part, I believe that, faced with all the circumstances of the past nine months, the Government were fully justified in sending those amounts, and I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has made a contribution like that. Equally, I say once more, that those figures show what this country has done, and that it has reached the limit of what it can do in that respect.

Next I want to deal with the question of the real condition of nutrition in the countries to which these supplies are sent. Above all, I think I ought to deal—and it is undoubtedly the most difficult from the psychological and political standpoint—with the country which, for our sins, is our own most direct responsibility, the situation in the British zone in Germany.

Surely hon. Gentlemen know what I mean by that. Surely they realise it seems very hard for this country to be saddled with the responsibility of feeding 20 million of our ex-enemies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not our sins."] I refer to the British zone in Germany, not because I have any particular concern with the feeding of Germans. I admit frankly that I am far more concerned with the feeding of our Allies, with the standard of nutrition in India, France, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia, and many other Allied countries. I refer to the British zone because our direct responsibility is there, and for another reason, which should not escape us. That is, that the British zone in Germany contains the Ruhr, and the Ruhr is the industrial and raw material heart of Europe. Whether we like it or not, the industrial and economic life, and the prospect of recovery, of all Western Europe depends upon the Ruhr. Ask any Frenchman what he feels about the necessity of coal production in the Ruhr, any Italian, any Western European—they will not fail to tell you of the paramount importance, not merely to the Germans in the Ruhr or any part of Germany, but to the whole of the peoples of Western Europe, that there should be no breakdown in the situation in Western Germany.

Now even should all this be admitted, it may be said, "All these stories about malnutrition, or even semi-starvation, in the British zone in Germany are all nonsense," and "The Germans are managing to pull food out of their cupboards, and they are really perfectly well off." We really cannot run the Ministry of Food on travellers' tales. We cannot take into account the remarks of the odd brigadier who comes back, and who has met a man in Hamburg, who has met another man, who has told him that so and so has happened. Whether that brigadier—or corporal for that matter—tells us that the Germans are well off or badly off, we cannot possibly rely on evidence of that kind. So, in this vital matter for us, we have, on a number of occasions, sent our greatest expert on nutrition, Sir Jack Drummond, and his last tour took place in May last. We send him to the British zone in Germany, and he investigates, with his expert knowledge, in the utmost detail, what is the real standard of nutrition there and what is happening there. If the Committee will bear with me, I should like to read several extracts from his last report, that is, the report which he furnished, together with his colleagues, Inspector General Coulon of France, and Colonel Wilson of the United States, on their investigation of conditions in Germany about six weeks ago.

It begins by saying that children up to six years of age are "fairly all right" in the British and United States zones. Of children from six to 18 years of age, it reads:

I should like to give the figures, in the clearest detail I can, of what is needed to maintain today—no more than maintain—the caloric level of 1,000 calories, which produces the conditions which I have here described. We estimate that in addition to the very utmost that we can do by way of procuring grain for the Western zone from the Argentine, or anywhere else, the United States will have to ship at the very least 120,000 tons of wheat to the British zone in each of the next three months if that 1,000 calorie ration is to be maintained. During the most valuable visit to the United States of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—[ Laughter. ] I shudder to think what the position of this country would be if he had not undertaken that mission, and those who laugh at what he did and what he secured there, simply prove their ignore- ance of the facts. I have already said what he secured in relation to this country.

The hon. Member was, apparently, unable to listen to the figures which I gave earlier. With regard to the Western zone in Germany, he secured that the zone should be given the right to import up to a certain figure, but the further question of the United States share in that import—how much of it should come from the United States—was left open. Let me say quite frankly that during my own visit to the United States last week, I found that the United States authorities were much less definite about their willingness to ship that 120,000 tons a month for the next three months to the British zone in Germany, that they were much more hesitant about committing themselves finally to that, than they were in their determination to send 450,000 tons to us over the same period. That, of course, sounds gratifying and flattering to us, because it reflects the greater concern which the United States authorities have for the British than for the German people. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members really should not laugh too soon, because they are, apparently, just like the United States authorities. They fail to realise the very serious consequences, indirectly, to us, if the United States Government should fail to ship that 120,000 tons to Germany. It is just that mood, which I encountered—perhapss among the less responsible members of the United States Administration—which makes so difficult the task of securing the imports which alone can save the situation as a whole.

If that 120,000 tons a month does not go to the British zone in Germany, let there be no mistake about it, there will be a fatal breakdown in the 1,000 calorie ration which is now being distributed there. There would be from that breakdown, we must all agree, incalculable political and social consequences throughout Western Europe, quite apart from the human consequences. It is true that I found in Washington that there was a misunderstanding about a matter of some coarse grain which we hoped to import from the Argentine and Brazil. The United States authorities, not without some justification, thought that we were attempting to use for animal food in this country, the whole of this import of coarse grain, and trying to conceal the amount of it from them. I despatched the very fullest statement of the facts yesterday by telegram to the United States and I believe that that misunderstanding will be cleared up. Therefore, I have every hope and expectation that the United States Government, when they are fully seized of the whole situation, will supply that 120,000 tons a month over the next three months to the British zone in Germany.

Is there any hope of getting any supplies from Russia? I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about Germany because I have just been there. I ask quite sincerely, Is there any prospect of Russia shipping from her zone into our zone in Germany?

I know of no such prospect. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] If the hon. Member can get any grain out of Russia, I wish him luck. This is a matter of great importance to the future of this country, and to the future of the whole of Western Europe.

No, we must get on. I would say I have every confidence that the United States Government will ship that 120,000 tons per month to the British zone in Germany but I should like the Committee to face the facts now of what will happen if the United States Government are unwilling or unable to ship those amounts to the British zone. [ Interruption. ] I hope hon. Members will take some interest in this question. It is of some considerable importance.

I must request the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be seated when I rise. I hope the Committee will give the Minister the opportunity to develop his argument without interruption.

On a point of Order. What right has the right hon. Gentleman to look at me, and to say that I am not interested in this vital question? Why should not Russia also contribute?

I must, with the permission of the Committee, go back over what I have said, because it is a matter of the utmost importance outside this House and I am just about to make a declaration which is of great importance and not only in this country. It is this: I ask the Committee to face now the issue of what will happen if the United States authorities are unwilling or unable to ship 120,000 tons of wheat during each of the next three months to the British zone in Germany. If that happens, the ration of 1,000 calories in the British zone in Germany will break down and will not be honoured. I hereby declare on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we cannot, after having rationed our own bread for our own people, divert further stocks from this country to supplement that ration in the Western zone of Germany.

The new harvest will end in Germany, according to the weather, in August and September, as here. It is over July, August, and September that we are concerned with the matter. I believe it is impossible for us to say, at any rate with anything like the same assurance, that we were doing right and that we could make no further contribution, until and unless we were driven to the point where we had to take the hard and grievous step of rationing our own bread. But we have come to that point and, therefore, I can and do say, with the full authorisation of the Prime Minister, that we cannot go further and divert more of our own supplies to the maintenance of the ration scale in the Western zone of Germany. Therefore, I say to our American friends—and they are our staunch friends—that if the worst happens in the British zone in Germany, and the 1,000 calorie ration breaks down, then it must be for the United States Government to decide whether they will face the incalculable political and social consequences not only to Germany but to the whole of Western Europe which that breakdown would occasion. I ask them to consider in time whether it is not a paramount interest of ours, of theirs, and of the whole world, that they should maintain at any rate that 1,000 calorie ration scale in the British zone in Germany. We have done our utmost to maintain it. Doing that utmost, has contributed to the necessity of rationing our own bread, and we now feel it necessary to say to our American friends in time, in advance, so that they shall have notice of it, that we can do no more.

I have now reviewed the immediate considerations which have caused the Government to take this hard decision to ration bread. I will review them. There is the possible inability of the United States Government to ship the programmed quantity of wheat to the United Kingdom. There is the speed, dependent upon our weather, with which we can gather our own harvest, and there is the uncertainty of the Canadian crop prospect. Then, going into the intermediate term, after the end of August, there is the temptation, which undoubtedly will exist, to use flour or even bread for the feeding of animals instead of human beings in this country. There is the risk, which has happened time after time over the past year, that we should be called upon once again to make good some international deficiency. We should put ourselves in an impregnable position to be able to say we had done our utmost and could not go further in that direction. Rationing is, therefore, as I have ventured to say to the Committee several times, a safety measure, an insurance policy against a series of risks which I have endeavoured to describe to the Committee, an insurance policy which no responsible Government, in these circumstances, could possibly fail to take, in order to ensure the safety of the supply of the basic foodstuff of this country.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition again affected to think, when I put these points to him last week, that there was nothing in all this, but that the Government were rationing bread almost, it seemed, out of spite. Does he really suppose that any Government in the world would do such a thing as to ration bread, unless there was the most complete necessity to do so, or does he suppose that any Government would not improve the ration scales if they could, and at the first moment that they could, and would not abolish the whole rationing system at the very earliest moment they could?

I do not know at what point the right hon. Gentleman ceased to quote me. My question was directed to what was the cause that brought about this situation.

I have endeavoured to give the right hon. Gentleman an account of these causes. I come now to the other side of the picture. I have attempted to paint the picture of our supplies as they are over the next few weeks. I now come to the wider picture of how that situation has arisen, the world stock position, and the world balance between exporting and importing countries in wheat, for it is only in that way that we can find the answer to the question of why a squeeze is upon us, and almost every other country, in the field of wheat. Taking the old crop year which is coming to an end, the four great exporting wheat countries—and there are only four—Canada, the United States, Argentina and Australia—had an exportable surplus of 24 million tons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russia."] Russia certainly did not have an exportable surplus. I am talking of the current crop year. The importing countries needed 32 million tons. The exporting countries had 24 million tons to export; the importing countries needed 32 million tons. Therefore, there was a deficit of 8 million tons, and that is why, all through the latter half of this crop year, there has been this squeeze upon every importing country. This situation did not arise, let me point out, because the exporting countries had unusually little. On the contrary, they had more than usual. It was because the importing countries had vastly greater needs than usual. Take the figures for Europe. Last year, Europe harvested 31 million tons of wheat. In the year before, 1944, she harvested 46 million tons, and, before the war, her average harvest was 59 million tons. There, you have the record of the catastrophic consequences, inevitable and obvious, of the war, and, above all, of the last desperate year of the war in Western Europe.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by Europe? Is he merely talking about Western Europe, or does he include Hungary and Rumania?

Europe outside the prewar borders of the U.S.S.R. The result was that Europe needed to import 15½ million tons of wheat in order to live, compared with only 3½ million tons before the war. But that was not all. In the Far East, the situation was almost as bad. The Far East needed to import, during this crop year, 11 million tons in order to live, compared with 2½million tons of wheat before the war. It was this enormous emergency demand for wheat during this crop year which was the basic cause of the world's wheat difficulties. In Europe, it is obvious how it arose—the dislocation and devastation of war. In Asia, it arose, not only from those causes, but, first, by the cutting-off by the Japanese occupation and by the devastating effects of it, the cutting-off of the vast Burma rice surplus from India. That directly affected the wheat situation, because India was thrown back on the substitution of wheat. The dislocation of war, rather more far-reaching than the actual physical devastation, extended into the producing countries, and, indeed, to the two great Southern producing countries, Australia and Argentine. There, the dislocatory effects affected the actual amount they had to export, and they would have had still more—exporting countries as a whole—but for the fact that, in the case of the Argentine, the acreage was limited because there had been no ships to take the crops if they had been planted. In Australia, the same reason applied, with the additional reason that their man power was devoted to the war.

How could we, by far the greatest importer of wheat in the world, expect to avoid the consequences of a situation like that? We may be told by subsequent speakers, perhaps, by the next speaker, that the figures may be wrong. We may be told that it is all our own fault because we did not plant enough wheat in this country. I would only say that that is to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should have been able to foresee the failure of the monsoon last winter before it happened, and that he should have had second sight at that time. I would say—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will forgive me—that it might be possible to claim that there was one mistake,, and only one mistake, of which he could be accused. That mistake was that he did not instantly and without reflection, on his first day of office, reverse all the policies of his predecessor. He did, of course, reverse them, when he had looked into them; he reversed them fully in the matter of wheat growing. Perhaps, it would have been better not to have examined the thing at all, and to have assumed that everything done by his predecessor was wrong, but that is the only point which I can see the next speaker can legitimately make in this connection, and I am just wondering whether he will care to make it.

In any case, I would say that, in Great Britain today, in her wheat production, we are going back to our hard-pressed acres and we are going to ask them again to produce a very large acreage of wheat. Regarding the contribution which we have made to fighting the world famine, the figures of which I have given, I would say that this country has made a contribution second to none towards relieving that famine, and I say that we cannot make further sacrifices. On the contrary, as one of the great bastions of freedom and one of the great democracies in this world, we confidently call on our friends and our Allies to assist us in our situation today.

I now come to the world crop year that is ahead of us—the harvest of 1946–47. Of course, nothing would be easier than to paint a rosy, optimistic picture of what is going to happen in the next year. The prospects do look better; there is a prospect of improved crops. In North America and Canada, the crop in some ways looks good, although it looks late, but these crops are not yet harvested, and I do ask the Committee not to count their bushels of grain before they are in the elevator. In the case of two of the most important exporters, Australia and the Argentine, the crops are not only not yet harvested, tout not yet planted, and that is also true of some of the staple crops in Asia.

There is one other important factor which is very often forgotten when we hear very optimistic estimates of what the situation is going to be next year. That is the factor of the fall in the stocks of wheat in the great exporting countries. The great exporters started the last crop year, 1945-46, with great stocks. They had no less than 22,000,000 tons of wheat in stock and, it should be remembered, their total exports were only 24,000,000 tons. This year, their carry-over stocks from one crop year to another, will be down to 11,000,000 tons which is about the normal prewar average, and cannot, in practice, we are informed be cut down much lower. Therefore, we start the new crop year with an adverse factor of 11,000,000 tons, in the balance sheet, the difference between the old carry over and the new carry over, and all our hopes for better harvests in Europe, all our hopes for no more droughts in Asia, all bur hopes for equal or better crops in Canada and North America, all our hopes of larger crops and larger acreages in the Southern Hemisphere. All these are substantial hopes, but these countries all have to make up that massing 11,000,000 tons before they can begin to improve the balance of the situation.

In this connection, I want to refer to a speech by ex-President Hoover recently, which has been quoted in several British newspapers. They have referred to it and said, in the most optimistic terms, that Mr. Hoover had stated that the grain gap had been closed. This has been prominently featured, and is featured again today, in Lord Beaver-brook's newspapers. These newspapers say that they have no facts and figures whatever on which they can judge the situation, and, also, that they know that bread rationing is totally unnecessary. I can only imagine that, like another very prominent man who came to an unfortunate end, Lord Beaverbrook is relying on his intuition. But we cannot rely on our intuition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We do not. I give that most readily to hon. Members. We rely on hard facts; we think they are a little better than intuition. But I was not wishing to judge what ex-President Hoover had said from reports of his remarks in the Beaverbrook Press and, therefore, I took the trouble to obtain a cabled version, of what he really did say. The Press have suggested that Mr. Hoover said that the grain gap had been closed, and that everything would be all right for the future. I find that what he did say was that, on the basis of certain assumptions which I will give in a moment in his own words, the gap in the old crop year, that which closes in a few weeks' time, at the end of July, had been closed on the basis of these assumptions. These are his own words:

But what do we have from the "Evening Standard" on the prospect of the next crop year? It actually commented on that wise warning. Lord Beaverbrook's journal, on 29th June, said: have been to gamble, for the sake of popularity, with the safety of the British people. Would the Opposition have had us do that? I do not really think as ill of them as that. I do not believe for one moment that they would sink to the level of their own Press.

What is the Press doing today? Not the whole Press, of course, and not the whole Conservative Press; there are many honourable exceptions. But the Beaver-brook, the Rothermere and the Kemsley Press is undertaking a raging campaign in this country in favour of agitation to gamble with the bread of the people of this country. Posing every day as the housewife's friend, what is it asking the housewife to do? It is asking her to agitate against something which may be her safety and her assurance that there will be loaves to give her family during the coming weeks and months. But, of course, the millionaire Press are not concerned with loaves; they are concerned with one thing only—votes. They believe in them; they believe that they can turn utterly reckless and utterly irresponsible agitation—[ Interruption. ] I should be very interested if the right hon. Gentleman denied that that was a mere irresponsible agitation.

I notice that he does not deny it. The Press is campaigning to agitate against the measure of safety and assurance of the basic food of the British people. It will be very interesting to see what effect that campaign has. It is not a new thing for us on this side of the Committee to face campaigns of that sort. We faced a very similar one just about as wild about a year ago. Now we are told that we are rationing the bread of the people out of fun, or out of spite against them. Then we were told that we were loosing the Gestapo in Britain.

I think we shall find that the results of the two campaigns in the end will be very similar. We shall find that the people of this country are a little too steady and sane to fall for an agitation of that sort. I think we shall find that the people will respect a Government which prefers the safety of the bread supply to its own immediate popularity. In any case, whatever the consequences in terms of temporary voting, we are determined to go through with this thing because we know that it is right, that it is necessary for the safety of the country, and we should not be men if we were deterred from going through with it. It may be that we shall be able to end this measure when the immediate squeeze is over, if all goes well. I can, of course, give no pledge of that, because I cannot foresee how crops will turn out and how all the factors to which I have referred will be decided. But I can give one pledge to the Committee, and that is that we shall remove bread rationing on the very day that it becomes possible to do so, compatible with the safety of the British people.

4.42 p.m.

We have listened to a sombre speech, and I hope to show in a moment or two that it fully justifies the action and the attitude adopted by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. When this question was first raised, we asked that the Government should provide a full day for a Debate on this subject. We on this side of the Committee took great exception to the method by which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food announced the Government's decision. He merely condescended to say that rationing would begin on 21st July. He made no attempt whatever to give any adequate reasons for this decision, and such reasons as he did give were in vague and general terms.

The Government, when questioned and pressed, repudiated any idea that Parliament was entitled to an opportunity for a full discussion on a question which is vital to every single household in this country. They said that if the Opposition wished to discuss this matter they could put it down for a Supply Day. That is not the proper way, we submit, in which to deal with this matter. By long tradition, Supply Days, on which the Opposition has the right to put down matters dealing with any individual Ministry, are limited to 20, and it has been the understanding, at all events, in the past, that Supply Days exist in order to provide an opportunity for Parliament, especially the Opposition, to carry out the function of conducting a grand inquest of the nation, into the administration of any particular Department. If the Committee will look on the Order Paper, they will find that in order to ensure a proper discussion of this subject we, as an Opposition, have had to put down the Votes of several Departments. That is not what was meant for a Supply Day. That shows that the question under discussion ranges far beyond the administrative details of a single Department. It covers the responsibility of the Government as a whole.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, time after time, the Votes of several Departments are put down on a Supply Day at the request of the Opposition in order not to cramp the Debate?

Yes, but that is done at the request of the Opposition, in order to raise some particular point which the Opposition wish to discuss. We submit that this is a matter in which the whole nation is interested. If any proof were needed, hon. Members need only look at HANSARD tomorrow and they will find that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food singularly failed to discharge the duties of a Minister defending his administration. He devoted the major portion of his speech to explaining why a particular decision of policy had been taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what you asked for."] That is what we were compelled to ask for. If the right hon. Gentleman had made proper use of a Supply Day he would have devoted the bulk of his speech to explaining how this rationing will work.

It is my fate, if the Committee will bear with me, to speak once again today in the summing up of this Debate and, if the Committee wish it, I propose to deal exclusively with the administration and details of the rationing scheme.

My answer to that is twofold. We on this side of the Committee received this news with astonishment. We expected that on a matter of this importance, touching so many aspects of the Government, at least a senior Member of the Cabinet would have been put up to reply to the Debate. In addition to that, the complaints of the right hon. Gentleman, who spent so much time abusing the Press, would have been rendered unnecessary if he had done what we have repeatedly asked, namely, published the figures. He would have had time to deal with the proper subject and the details of bread rationing. The third grievance that we have is that only with difficulty were the Government forced to produce the necessary facts and figures. The Government have made repeated promises. The former Minister of Food, in answer to a request by my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), promised that he would publish fuller statistics, and as lately as 31st May this year, in answer to an interruption by my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University, the present Minister of Food gave the most explicit promise that he personally would go into the matter, and he agreed that the House were entitled to receive figures. These figures have been in his possession all this time. Why could not he have published them on Monday, so that the whole country could have had an opportunity of seeing them; and hon. Members on this side of the Committee would have had an opportunity of digesting the figures, instead of having to deal with them at a moment's notice?

The Opposition were offered Monday for this Debate, in which case, of course, I would have published the figures.

The right hon. Gentleman has indeed dug a pit for himself, because on Friday the former Patronage Secretary and I both asked that the figures should be published on Monday, so that we would have time to consider them before this Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to publish the figures in a Debate on Monday, why could not he put them in a White Paper on Monday?

With those preliminaries, let me now deal with the problem of bread rationing and the present situation The defence put up, not only by the right hon. Gentleman but by hon. Members opposite in their excursions to their constituencies during the weekend, follows three lines. First, they attribute the blame for the present situation to world scarcity; secondly, they say the Conservatives would have taken no different action; thirdly, they defend rationing on the ground that it will ensure equality of distribution. I think that is a fair statement of their attitude. I shall have something to say about the scheme itself later on. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food was unable to refrain from following the second of those courses, namely, that if the Conservative Party had been in power they would not have done anything else.

They would have starved the people, as they did after the last war.

That is a most appropriate intervention, because if that is what we would have done, it is obviously what the present Government are doing. Apparently they are following our example. The first line of defence is to say, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman did say, that the present Minister of Agriculture, his poor colleague, really could not be expected to reverse my policy at a moment's notice. We never expected him to do so. He had plenty of time to make up his mind. I will now read to the Committee an extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, speaking on 4th April. I have taken the precaution, unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, to fortify myself with a copy of HANSARD so as not to make any mistakes in quotation. In a very fair description of the situation, as I think the Committee will agree, the Prime Minister said:

"It must be remembered that we could not estimate what would be the food position in the enemy countries, or the enemy occupied countries, and of course we could have no foreknowledge of the drought. Therefore it was quite reasonable for the Coalition Government to decide that we could allow our own wheat production to fall from its wartime peak. We could anticipate that increased feeding stuffs would be available for farmers in successive stages from the Autumn of 1945, so that we could begin to build up our depleted livestock. We had probably reduced our livestock more than the vast majority of countries."

I digress to say that he was perfectly right, and I have figures published by the Ministry of Agriculture in answer to a Question the other day showing conclusively that that was true. Other countries, like the United States, Canada, Argentina and Australia, have substantially increased their livestock population since prewar, whereas ours have substantially decreased. The Prime Minister went on:

"When the present Government assumed office the position was already different from that which obtained during the war."

I emphasise that.

"We had the claims of liberated Europe; Lease-Lend came to an end … supplies rather than shipping became the major consideration."

I invite the Committee's particular attention to the next sentence:

"By September, reports came in which showed that the wheat position was not as good as had been hoped."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1408-1409.]

I have no hesitation in saying that had the information, which must then have been available to the Government, been available to me, and had I been entrusted with the job of Minister of Agriculture, had we been in office, I would definitely have asked the farmers of this country for an increase of 500,000 acres of autumn sown wheat.

What did the party opposite do in July? They curtailed production.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) has not taken the trouble to follow his own leader's words.

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the words of his own leader, he would have heard that the Prime Minister said that by the time they came into office, in September, the situation had changed. He may have forgotten that by then the Japanese war was over. In any case, I say, standing at this Box, if I had been Minister of Agriculture I would have asked the farmers of this country for an additional 500,000 acres. In answer to that proposition, which disposes of the idea that I would have done exactly the same as the present Government, a new line of defence has been adopted lately. People, speaking on behalf of the Government, in another place last week, took the line that even supposing I had done that, and even supposing substantial quantities of wheat had become available as a result of that additional 500,000 acres, the Combined Food Board would have got to hear of it, and they would have reduced pro tanto our allocation. Therefore, the argument runs: "Even if you had planted more wheat it would have done you no good, because your allocation would have been cut." Not only was that argument put forward in another place, but I think I am correct in saying the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made a similar suggestion in a Debate in the House the other day, although I have not been able to trace his exact words. I do not believe it. I do not believe the Combined Food Board would have done that. Therefore, I do not believe it is a sound argument. Let us assume for the moment that it is so, and let the Committee see where it takes them. If you have this doctrine that planting more wheat in this country would have done no good, what becomes of the doctrine that importing countries ought to do their utmost to make themselves self-sufficient?

More important still, what becomes of the claim by the present Minister of Agriculture—made as lately as 18th June in this House—that in February he took every effective measure possible to increase the spring sowing of cereals, especially wheat? I believe he said that he was aiming at a target of 200,000 acres. Presumably he must have known in February what his right hon. Friend now says was the case about the Combined Food Board. In that case why did he ask the farmers for 200,000 acres more wheat if the Government know that the only effect would be a further cut in our allocation? For the first time, possibly, we may have discovered the reason why the Lord President of the Council, when he went to America, gave away 200,000 tons of wheat without any promise of replacement. [ Interruption. ] But that is where this argument of the Government leads. If the argument is carried to its logical conclusion, it suggests that the only effect of the appeal by the Minister of Agriculture in the spring of this year to grow more wheat was to deprive the farmers who responded of a corresponding acreage of tillage—which they could have put down to feeding stuffs—and thereby further jeopardise the milk supply. The fact of the matter is, of course, that the argument is nonsense, and it is perfectly clear that if we had been in power we should have acted otherwise.

I go further. I say that had we been in power, we should have taken more effective steps to resist the cuts that were suggested. We should like to know in detail what were the actual figures submitted to the Combined Food Board. Just now the Minister of Food gave us some global figures which were no more use than the breath with which he uttered them. We do not want to know, it is of neither interest nor value to know, the global amount of wheat from the harvests in Europe in 1945 and 1946, including Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania, which were not within our control. What we want to know are the exact demands made by the different nations on the Combined Food Board and the actual supplies available from the different sources. Then and then only shall we be in a position to know whether there is anything in the right hon. Gentleman's claim, and that of the Leader of the House, that he did a good job on behalf of the country. Personally, I say quite frankly—

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I settled that at once. The figures I gave were precisely that. Those countries, such as Yugoslavia, did make demands on the Combined Food Board, and were supplied by the Combined Food Board with considerable amounts, and the totals I gave were exactly the demands and supplies covered by the Combined Food Board's allocations.

The right hon. Gentleman says we can have as many as we like. We have repeatedly asked for them, and he has promised that he would give them and he has not. It is perfectly clear that what in fact happened was that the various nations put in to the Combined Food Board claims and estimates of requirements that were far too high, and estimates of supply that were far too low. That is why Mr. Hoover, in his last speech on Saturday, said that the gap had been closed. The fact of the matter is that we in this country have suffered from being too honest. We are the only people who have exact details of our requirements and exact details of our harvest, and so the accusation we deliberately level against right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they failed to put that across in the way we believe it should have been put across. [An HON. MEMBER: "Should we have been dishonest? You would have had something to say about that."] Yes, and the housewife will have a word or two to say about this.

If any more proof were needed of what I have said, it is to be found in Mr. Hoover's statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had fortified himself with a copy of what Mr. Hoover said. Well, for the purposes of greater accuracy, I did the same. The right hon. Gentleman read out the bits that suited him, and I shall fill up the gaps by reading the bits that did not suit him. What did Mr. Hoover actually say? He said:

The original estimates were based on something like that.

The Committee will, perhaps, be interested to have one or two details of what can be got. In June, there were 150,000 tons of maize afloat from the Argentine. Of that, 64,000 tons were destined for France; 30,000 for Belgium; 23,000 for Italy; 10,500 for Spain; 9,000 for Holland; 7,000 for Norway; 5,000 for Sweden. How much do hon. Gentlemen think was for the United Kingdom? A beggarly 8,000—8,000 tons of maize out of a total shipment afloat of 150,000 tons; and all the rest going to other countries.

We could have bought that if proper steps, and energetic steps, had been taken. It bears out the suggestion I made on the last occasion, that the real "nigger in the wood pile" was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would not provide the necessary cash, because he thought that the price was too high. He has done exactly the same thing about bacon from Denmark. We are short of fats; we are short of bacon. The Danes have a considerable potential capacity for producing bacon for this country. Do the Committee know what they are doing? They are not producing it. They are not breeding the number of pigs they could. Why? Because the Minister of Food says he will not pay more for bacon from Denmark than a certain fixed sum, and the Danes say they cannot produce it for that sum. Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay an adequate amount for bacon from Denmark, we are not getting the supplies we could get in this most dangerous crisis.

May I interrupt a moment? It is a very serious statement, and I should like to deny it at once. Negotiations are going on at the moment with the Danes over the price of bacon—

I prefer to eat the bacon after the pigs have been killed. But these negotiations are going on, and I have every confidence that they will be successfully concluded.

Yes, they may now. But the fact remains that, at the present moment, there are numerous farmers in Denmark who have not raised the number of pigs they could have raised. One of them stayed with me only last Sunday and he told me some of the details. I would sooner trust to what a Danish farmer told me of what has happened so far this summer, than to mere consideration being given to future purchases. I am concerned with bacon today, and so is the housewife. The Government claim that they have done everything humanly possible to get maize from the Argentine. But one of the things that the Argentine required was coal for the railways, in order to avoid having to burn maize. Everybody knows that the Minister of Fuel and Power has fallen down badly on his target for the extra 8,000,000 tons. Therefore, everything humanly possible has not been done. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture said the other day that the Minister of Agriculture in this country really could not be expected to compete with the inscrutable workings of Providence, but I do not think that even he, as an old miner, would describe voluntary absenteeism as an inscrutable working of Providence.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the forthcoming crop. He did not tell us anything of his visit to Canada. We should very much have appreciated it if he had told us a little more about his visit to Canada. We should like to know about the wheat agreement. We understand from the papers—and if the Press are wrongly informed, it is only his fault, for not having given them the necessary information—[ Interruption ]. Well, he held innumerable Press conferences. I took the trouble to get telegraphic copies of many of them. I do know what I am talking about. He is quoted as having said at one of those Press conferences that it would be suicide for us if we did not sign a wheat agreement with Canada. That is very strong language—

Oh, no. If I was quoted as saying that, it was completely untrue. It is quite possible that I said it would be suicide for us and Canada if we did not come to some new wheat agreement when the old wheat agreement, which we sign annually with them, comes to an end on 31st July.

Obviously, if the right hon. Gentleman says he did not say it would be suicide for us not to sign an agreement, I accept it. But, at all events, it shows clearly that he attaches very great importance to this agreement, and I think he is right. We understand—and, again, we are bound merely to go from what we learn from outside—that what he wanted to do was to make a long-term agreement with the Canadian Government covering a period of years—I do not know whether for four years, six or eight—but, at all events, a long-term agreement. When he went to Washington he found that the United States Government did not look with any great favour on such a proceeding. That confirms many of my fears. During the Debate on the Washington Loan Agreement, we were assured, on more than one occasion, that there was nothing in the Commercial Agreement attached to the Loan Agreement which would prevent the agricultural policy of this Government being carried out.

We were also assured that there was nothing in the Agreement that would prevent bulk purchase agreements, long-term bulk purchase agreements, being entered into. I have never, personally, held the view—at all events, I do not hold the view—that long-term bulk purchase agreements are, in themselves, bad. I think that from the point of view of promoting our agriculture and food production in this country in the future, they will form one among other very valuable weapons in our hands. But I have always, myself, doubted whether they came strictly within the spirit, if within the letter, of the draft Commercial Agreement attached to the Loan Agreement. Now we find Washington objecting. In the Debate on the Loan Agreement, the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee) made what I thought was a very wise and sound remark. This is what she said:

There is one other point with which I should like to deal about his visit to Canada, and that is his use of the word "I." He says, "I am going to try to give greater variety to the diet." I warned him, when he first said that, about the fate of the last Minister, who made that promise, shortly to be followed by his having to announce cuts in the rations. The same fate has overtaken the right hon. Gentleman. He said, in particular, that as a result of his trip he was going to provide more apples. He said that he had had conversations with the growers in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, in the Maritime Provinces. But the Minister of Food has nothing to do with providing apples from the Maritime Provinces to this country. That supply is due to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayers, who have made us a great loan to enable us to buy food, and to the action of the growers of apples, who for years have been planting apples suited to this market—namely, Cox's orange pippins, which have no value in the United States or Canada, because they like a larger and more fleshy apple. It is the growers, and not the Minister of Food, who are entitled to the credit of getting these apples. If there had been no Ministry of Food, and there had been ordinary private enterprise and commerce, we would have got the apples; in the ordinary course of commerce, in the shops and without, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to warn us, having to buy them on points.

Then, the right hon. Gentleman went to the United States. He told us today—I do not wish to quote anything that he might have been reported to have said in Press interviews—of the misunder- standings which he found prevalent in the United States about our action and our stock. We know that in the United States he waved a copy of the newly-printed ration book in order to convince the United States that we meant business. But he forgets that the Lord President of the Council, when he came back from the United States, told us that he had done that, that he had cleared away all misunderstandings, that he had given away 200,000 tons as a gesture, a sacrifice. Evidently, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food seems to have formed a pretty poor opinion of the success of his right hon. colleague.

Let me come now to the rationing scheme itself. Up till today, the general impression that had been given to the country was that the rationing scheme had been introduced as an insurance measure and also to save wheat. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures. He was quite right in saying that it had always been considered, during the war, that a stock of 10½ weeks' supply of wheat was the minimum necessary stock to enable distribution to be maintained. In addition to that, it was normally the case that we held an additional two or three weeks' supply of flour. During the worst period of the war, when ships were being sunk, when towns were being bombed, when mills and ports were being destroyed, the stocks of wheat in this country never fell below 11 weeks' supply, and usually there were one or two weeks' supply of flour in addition.

When we handed over to the present Government, as a result of the General Election, there were at least 11 or 12 weeks' supply of wheat, plus three or four weeks' supply of flour. The people who will have to stand in queues this winter, and the 11 million people who voted this Government into power, can reflect on the fact that the Government in 11 short months of office have brought the stocks of wheat and flour in this country to a point which the packs of U-boats and the massed power of the Luftwaffe never succeeded in doing in six long years of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith) gave away 200,000 tons against a promise of replacement; the Lord President of the Council gave away 200,000 tons without a promise of replacement; and some 75,000 tons or 90,000 tons have been sent to Germany. Those amounts about make up the difference between the stocks with which they started and the stocks they have now. It is abundantly clear that, in fact, the rationing scheme will make no appreciable saving—at the most, a saving of 5 or 10 per cent., and that takes no account of the increased consumption of flour, and so forth, that will take place under other heads.

It is quite clear, from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, that the real reason he has introduced rationing is that he is afraid that if any one of the numerous assumptions he mentioned to us does not come off, he will be compelled some time, at the end of August or the beginning of September, to put the screw on and cut these rations still further. That is a state of affairs which I ventured to predict the last time I spoke. It is quite clear that that is the real reason this rationing scheme has been introduced. The right hon. Gentleman said that this state of affairs would arise if there were any interruption in the flow of 450,000 tons of wheat from the United States in the three months; and in addition to that, there are 120,000 tons a month for three months to Germany—a total of 810,000 tons. It is expecting a great deal, in view of our recent experiences in the United States, to hope that they will succeed over three months in maintaining unbroken a supply at that rate, and for that reason I quite see why the right hon. Gentleman has taken some decision.

Let us now look at the effect of the scheme on the housewife. I have here the history of the successive steps that were taken by the Government, in conjunction with the bakers, but I do not think I need go into them now. Let me say that the effect of this scheme is bound to be longer queues. I have heard it estimated—I have not made the calculation myself—that at the present time the ordinary housewife spends an average of 12 hours or 15 hours a week in queues.

It is clear that the housewife will have to spend considerably longer in queues in future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Housewives' League approached the House one year ago asking for the rationing of certain goods on the plea that it would end queues?

There is all the difference between bread and other commodities that are rationed. In the case of the majority of rationed foods, the housewife purchases once, or probably at the most, twice a week. Normally, bread is purchased every day or at best every other day—

The present scheme provides that each person shall have a choice of bread, flour, or flour confectionery. Not every baker sells all three of these. There are some who sell only two out of the three. If it so happens that the unfortunate housewife wants two of the three at a shop where only one of the two is sold, she will have to go to another shop and into another queue.

I will deal with that. I will repeat to the Committee what I was told by a lady the other day. She said: "When the new Minister took office, we saw all sorts of photographs of him helping his wife to wash up dishes. What we should like to see now is a photograph of him standing in a queue."

The housewife will have to stand longer in queues. Let us look at the effect which this is bound to have on shops. It will obviously take longer to serve each customer at the counter, because coupons will have to be snipped. The grocer, the baker and the confectioner will be faced with the almost insoluble problem of how they are to get through their day's work because of the longer time it will take to serve each customer. They already have inadequate staffs, and in spite of the efforts of the Minister of Labour in many areas he has been unable to provide them with additional staff. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said "What about the vans?" I will deal now with the question of roundsmen. The roundsmen will not be able to get through their work with the same ease. Every time a roundsman comes to a house to deliver bread he will have to make a separate calculation. He has to calculate the entitlement of the wife and the husband, and make a calculation about each child, whether it is under five years of age, or whether it is going to school.

Finally, this is a matter which will particularly affect my constituency and those like it, namely, those which are holiday resorts. It will affect considerably the confectioners and bakers in the holiday resorts. There could have been no more inopportune moment to start bread rationing than just before the August Bank Holiday. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that he has secured reasonable equality of treatment because of the provision enabling people to exchange bread units for points, and that he expects he will save a certain amount of bread and flour each week because a number of people throughout the country will not eat up to their bread, flour or confectionery units and will exchange them for points. With all respect, that is very much like a bogus company prospectus. First of all you cannot get points for these bread units without taking all the trouble of going to a food office and standing in another queue. Secondly, what is going to be the effect on the goods which are purchasable for points? If any great use is made of this exchange, the normal amount of goods available for point purchasing will obviously be insufficient, and to meet the situation the Minister of Food will therefore reduce the point value, and all the people will be back where they started. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Can he give a guarantee that the general point value will not be reduced as a result of this action?

That is an important point which I should like to answer right away. I can give that guarantee immediately. As a result, we have made provision of points goods, and exchange of bread units will not result in a shortage. I should like to correct the other statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, which is at complete variance with the facts. He said that the roundsmen will have to make some calculations as to the entitlement of each member of the family. On the contrary, those families whose bread is supplied by roundsmen will deposit their bread units with the shop at the beginning of the week. The family will give in the bread units, and the roundsman will see that the family is entitled to so many bread units, and he will supply that amount each morning. There is nothing for him to do.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman made a very long speech, and has since made four or five interruptions, and in view of his announcement that he is to wind up the Debate, why does he keep on making speeches?

As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) gave way and apparently did not object to the remarks of the Minister, I saw no reason to intervene

I am sorry that I have detained the Committee longer than I expected. I will sum up the situation as follows. It is clear that this scheme as introduced is not going to save an appreciable quantity of wheat. It is arguable already, by forewarning the public, whether we have not already wasted more wheat than will in fact be saved during the first three months of its operation. We still believe that with reasonable foresight the necessity for it could have been avoided. For reasons I have given, I think it is likely to break down in operation. Be that as it may, we are faced with the fact that the Government have decided on its introduction, and the result will be, if any of these assumptions do not come off, broadly speaking, that with the exception of Germany and Austria, we shall probably be about the worst fed white nation in the world.

I think it would be better if the Debate was continued with less heat. If the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement which he does not wish to withdraw, that is purely a matter for him to decide.

On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Is there any way in which we can give protection—[ Interruption ].

Is there no way, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, in which we, as a Committee, can protect the housewives of this country from statements that are at variance with the facts?

I cannot assess or determine the value of any statement made. Neither is it my duty to do so. That is the responsibility of the person making the statement. If the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member makes a statement and is challenged to withdraw it, that is a matter for him to decide.

I must ask the Committee to allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.

I repeat that I must ask the Committee now to permit the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Is it not in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to produce facts to substantiate a statement of such a nature as that, and, if it is in Order, will he now produce them?

I have already stated that it is not within the power of the Chair to compel any Member either to withdraw—unless it is something unparliamentary—or substantiate any statement which he has made. That is purely the responsibility of the one who makes the statement. When the right hon. Gentleman has finished his speech there will be opportunities for other hon. Members to reply to the speech.

The real burden is going to fall on the housewife. After seven years' hardship and shortage, we on these benches believe she does not deserve this added tribulation. The housewives, more than anyone else, need a break this winter, not extra problems to face. We do not believe that the system as announced is fair as between individuals. My last quotation is from a housewife. She says:

"If it is truly essential that bread must be rationed, we must do our best to put up cheerfully with yet another difficulty, but why should there be such inequality in the allowances. The window cleaner"—

She gives a long list of other people—

"have all been classed to receive 15 oz., but the young housewife with tiny children has been forgotten. She has to clean windows, scrub floors, push the pram, take her children with her to do the shopping, stand in queues, do the cooking, and yet she is not classed as a manual worker."

The question which I ask this Committee—all quarters of this Committee—is "What has that woman done to deserve it?"

5.45 p.m.

It is many years since I have witnessed such a scene as that which has taken place this afternoon, either in Committee or in a full House. There were moments when anyone listening to us and the hilarity that there has been in this Committee might have thought that we were celebrating a victory, instead of having to discuss one of the most serious economic positions that this country has ever had to face. What is more, a solemn declaration has been made with regard to the rationing of bread, the most vital of all foods, and the most difficult to ration, because the amount which each one of us requires varies according to our work and our own idiosyncrasies from day to day. It seems to me that on the statement that has been made it is inescapable that we have now to ration bread. Think of the serious statement that has been made. We have no reserves in this country at all; they have all been exhausted. We have only what is coming through in the ordinary course of events from the mills to the ovens and from the ovens to the shops. That is the serious position which we have to face. I wish that we would face up to that serious situation without making political party capital out of it. [ Interruption. ] There has been an organised propaganda in the Press and in the country, not based upon any facts or figures, but carried out with one object and design, which I most vehemently deprecate. I say this also in reply to hon. Members opposite. The very fact that the Minister has made this statement today, even after he had announced rationing, has shown the necessity for the public to have been taken into his confidence long ago. To some extent the Government, in withholding these facts, are responsible for what the Press can do and have done. May I also say this to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to some of his supporters? They are too ready to accept the dictum of their Government without considering carefully what has led to the decision or the reasons underlying it. I say to them, "Do not treat everything that the Front Bench does as sacrosanct."

The hon. and learned Member need not lecture us in that way.

—and too often that is appreciated only on one side. I also say this because I sincerely believe it—no Government has the right to come to a decision in private which affects the wellbeing and the welfare of the people of this country, without disclosing all the facts and figures which brought them to that decision. That is absolutely the essence of democracy, and anything short of that is the negation of democracy. It seems to me, as I have already hinted, that in the position which has now been disclosed by the Minister of Food, rationing is inescapable at this moment. Whether it will work out fairly, I do not know. All I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider is that he will keep it as elastic as possible. I do not agree with what has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) that there is no value in this exchange for points. It is a valuable concession, and it does make it a little more elastic, but let us face the fact that the position is an extraordinarily serious one. Having made that admission, let me come to the other point. Ought we ever to have allowed ourselves to get into this position? I do not think we should. No blame attaches, or can attach, to the present holder of the Office. He has an extraordinary task. He came in at the worst moment of all, but I can assure him that, not only this House, but this country always admires a man who attacks adversity with courage. There are any number of us who do not belong to his Party who wish him well.

His predecessors in that Office—not merely those who entered the Office after July last—are responsible for the position in which we are today. It passes my comprehension how anyone would ever have thought that, the moment the war was over, we were going back into purely normal conditions. How anyone could act on such an assumption as that is beyond my comprehension altogether. The way in which the war was conducted by Germany in Europe, the methods which were used to feed her own people and the occupying territories, the taking away of millions of people from their ordinary avocation on the land, the fact that it took us so long to come up through Italy, following which there was the fighting in France, across Holland and Belgium, and in Germany itself, must have made anyone realise that there would be more chaos than anything else, and a much more difficult situation would have to be faced. What happened? An announcement was made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on 5th February last which showed that this country began to eat into stocks on D-Day, 6th June, 1944, instead of building up stocks, and by 5th February, 1945, they had so used up their stocks that they were practically in the position in which the right hon. Gentleman is today. If that was not criminal negligence, I should like to know what was.

The same kind of thing that was happening here was happening in the producer countries. I was one of those—I believe I was the only one—who, early in 1940, pointed out the need for this country to help to bolster up the position in the producing countries, knowing full well the difficulties that would come with regard to shipping when the U-Boat campaign got into its worst period. There would be a reduced flow to this country and a more restricted means of shipping it. I asked that those making arrangements with producer countries would so make them that there would be an assured flow into this country, which needed it, steadily throughout the whole period. When the turn of the tide was seen, which was obvious, they did not encourage the producer countries at all, except to waste, so that in the United States they were feeding 75 per cent. of their grain to animals, and in the Argentine they were burning it in the furnaces of the engines. Is it to be wondered at that we have got into our present position? It is no good any one of us over-emphasising the failure of the crops. Crops fail every year somewhere. What we have to do is to calculate on that over a series of years, and take the average. That has not been done, so that we get to the position that no one seems to have been taking care of matters of that kind, even at the beginning of 1945. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport took away the £4 grant from the farmers and encouraged them to go back to grassland and the raising of more animals, having the support of the present Minister of Agriculture, who was with him.

No. Then what happened? From words used by the ex-Minister of Food, when he was speaking on 5th February, they realised, by the summer of 1945, how dangerous the position was and that we were getting down to rock bottom. Did they take any steps in regard to the matter? No. We were begging, at that time, for the figures to be published. It has always been my cry that it is always best to tell the public the bold, plain, truth. They will always face up to it. Even in the last Parliament the answer was given against me that it would be giving information to the enemy to give the figures. In my opinion, the enemy probably knew them. The only people in the dark were our own people. If there was no excuse in time of war, there is none in time of peace. We were asking for the figures in October, but they were not published. If they had been the United States might have taken a different step, for it was not until November that they decided to go off rationing altogether.

Then what happened? Men were called up from agriculture. Pressure was brought to bear on the Government to release men for agriculture under Class B. At last, but not until December, they said they would release 18,000. All we had were 1,500 in two months, and in January the Government were still hoping to call back, for agriculture, 8,000 men. It cannot be said that they are not to blame. What is really the fault? It is lack of foresight, because of lack of coordination. That is the real truth. As long ago as 1940, I asked that the Minister of Food should be put in command. It is often forgotten that the purpose of agriculture is to raise food. The Minister should have been put in control of labour and machinery in order to do what was required. It was true then, and it is true today. I am surprised that this Government, with these facts facing them and, knowing the danger which existed, have not even put the Minister of Food in the Cabinet. Where is the coordination? The office of Minister of Food is one of the most important there is, now so important that the very act which the right hon. Gentleman is now taking will affect every man, woman, and child in the country for months and months.

I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the Committee, except to say that I hope the full information which the Minister has promised will be regular and detailed, and that it will be given month by month. I hope it will be coordinated information, because I want to know how it will be related to the great work being done by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Already this country is under a deep debt of gratitude to that remarkable scientist and humane person, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd-Orr). When the hon. Gentleman spoke here last he referred to the advice which he had tendered to the Government. I would like to know whether the Government are following his advice and recommendations. We want to see everybody, not only here but in other countries, have a sufficiency of food to keep them going, and raise their standard of life. It can only be done by a world organisation seeing that the goods are produced, that the producer gets proper payment for them, and that there should be even distribution among us all.

6.5 p.m.

Everyone in this Committee has, I am sure, listened with admiration to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. I even detected admiration on the face of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), although I admit that it seemed to be reluctant. We have listened, too, with pity and contempt to the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) to salvage the tattered remnants of his party's attack on this great issue. We have seen him scratch around, like one of the poultry he is so anxious about, for odd grains of abuse, chicken feed of attack, to throw at this Government. I must say that as someone who accepts this move with a great sense of the responsibility that devolves upon a Member of Parliament, as one who came to this House full of innocent admiration for Ministers and ex-Ministers, as people on whom one could rely, at least, for factual accuracy, I have been amazed at the statements which have come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport, who, I understand, held high office in the Coalition and Caretaker Governments. I now understand a good deal of what led up to this situation.

I would like to point out to him that most ordinary housewives in this country could teach him a thing or two about the practical details of this rationing scheme. It is one of the first things they went out of their way to obtain some knowledge about, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has taken steps to protect them as much as possible from more elaboration of their already over-elaborated lives. They will not have to queue at the food office. They can post their bread units for exchange into points. To imagine a roundsman standing on a doorstep to calculate how many members there are in a family, and how many bread units there are per head, is to imagine something out of "Alice in Wonderland," and shows that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about this scheme without even having read it. But, more serious still, is the fact that he has come to this Debate to which the world is listening, to claim, with the intention that it should be echoed round the world and creep into the hearts of every housewife like a note of despair, that we shall now be the worst-fed white country in the world—

There is not the slightest doubt that there was either a deliberate slip of the tongue, or an intention to deceive by the right hon. Gentleman, because he refused to withdraw when an attempt was made to point out the effect of what he was saying. Plenty of opportunity was given to the right hon. Gentleman to give way; we pleaded with him from this side of the Committee to remove any suspicion that we were to be the worst fed white nation in the world. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has been taking part in recent food Debates without having read the Government's White Paper on the world food shortage. He clamours for facts and figures, but does not read them even when they are pushed under his nose. More facts and figures have been given during the past months than have ever penetrated the head of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or into the headlines of the Conservative Press of this country.

I want to take this opportunity of clearing up this point by referring to the White Paper on the world food shortage, which was published in April of this year, and show how we stood then, and how we shall stand as a result of bread rationing. The document shows that at that period the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, was enjoying, in calories per head, per day, a diet of 2,850 calories, or 93 to 95 per cent. of the level of our prewar diet. I understand that bread rationing will reduce that diet by no more than 50 calories per day where any reduction does take place. That compares with a diet in France, Belgium, Holland and Norway of 2,300 to 2,500 calories per head per day, which is 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the prewar level. U.N.R.R.A. countries, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Italy, drop spectacularly to below 2,000 calories, 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the prewar level. As for ex-enemy countries they are now, as we know, down to 1,000 calories a day, ekeing out an existence at a level of about one-third of their prewar consumption.

I want to suggest that if we really desire as a country to get through the next few difficult months—and Heaven knows that they are difficult enough—now is the time to give heart to our people and to encourage them and to say, "Hold on, then we shall turn the corner to those fruits of abundance which under Conservative rule the ordinary people of this country could never enjoy." I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport is leaving us; I assume that he is either impatient for his tea, or that he cannot take it. Deliberately to spread at this moment alarm and despondency on the basis of rumours and claims that cannot be substantiated is an act of nothing less than treachery by a Party which for years has prated of patriotism.

There is plenty that is constructive and helpful to be said on this situation which faces us and which an Opposition that knew its job or really cared for the housewives of this country could have said with benefit to them and to the country as a whole. There is plenty to be done to offset the effects of the rationing scheme, the necessity for which I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has proved conclusively this afternoon, whether we like it or not. I challenge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to table a Vote of Censure and carry this thing to an issue, and not be "willing to wound but afraid to strike." I believe the Minister has proved the necessity for this bread rationing scheme; it is another of those evil consequences of war that we must, as a country, work out of our system like the after-effects of a terrible and devastating illness. When one has that kind of illness there are always poisons left in the system that have to be worked out. This is one of the inescapable consequences, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it as well as we do, and therefore they know in their hearts that the case for necessity has been made out.

Not one word has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-port as to how we might try to offset some of the effects of this rationing on the diet and lives of ordinary people. I have every confidence that, having gone out and struggled with the facts and with his own soul about this problem, and having courageously decided that it was necessary to introduce this scheme, my right hon. Friend is now going to bring his great, courageous, and humane mind to a consideration of how we can modify its effects. It is, unfortunately, true that this bread rationing will bring difficulties into the homes of those people who, in the past, have been eating up to the maximum of the bread ration. I admit that that may be only a few people, but the trouble is that it is those few who, because they have young children or hardworking men to look after, can least afford any kind of cut.

I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the time has now come to take a step which Lord Woolton was never prepared to take, and to curtail drastically in this country some of the privileged eating which is still going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the House of Commons."] We on this side are prepared to face that. We must be honest enough to admit that it is still possible in this country, if one has enough money, to eat as much as one likes, under the rationing system left by the Conservative predecessors of the Minister of Food, and I should like to see this House of Commons in this moment of national strain set an example to the rest of the country. I know there are some very exaggerated ideas about in the country, as to the extent of the orgies we are supposed to indulge in in the dining rooms of the House of Commons. They are, as I say, very exaggerated ideas and, as a matter of fact, I think the herring industry of this country should be very grateful indeed to Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) must be aware of the number of times the humble herring features on he 1s. 6d. luncheon menu, and the great mass of Members of this House eat modestly and at no higher level than anyone outside.

The fact remains however that it is possible not only for us but for restaurant customers throughout the country to obtain two, three, and four meals a day without ever impinging upon their ration books. We have to eat on the job and we only do it because we have to, but I still maintain that the psychological effect on the ordinary people of this country of knowing that, at a moment when the housewife, who really needs her five per cent. of bread is having it taken from her, there are people in this country who can eat lavishly and endlessly in restaurants, is one which is very injurious to our sense of unity and equality as a nation.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether, if it is worth the administrative trouble of setting up this machine to secure the five per cent. cut in wheat consumption, it is not also worth the trouble of setting up an administrative machine to limit every man and woman in this country to a maximum of one restaurant meal out per day. One meal out should be possible, so as to safeguard those who have to eat in works canteens and office restaurants. I also ask him to abolish the privileged eating of the private room. I want to suggest to the Minister, too, that he could, by scaling down the sort of food which is eaten in restaurants, make sure that some of those more luxury commodities in short supply, which now go headlong into the restaurants the moment they appear in the market, should find their way into the ordinary homes. I should like to suggest that he should prohibit the serving in restaurants of un-rationed, price-controlled foods in short supply such as chicken, strawberries, salmon, and even tomatoes. We all know that the possibility of the ordinary housewife obtaining a strawberry through her ordinary shop is absolutely ludicrous, whereas if she were able to go to the West End, and could afford to pay half-a-crown for three strawberries on a plate, with a dollop of ice cream, she could get as much as she liked.

These are the ways in which we can show the housewives of this country that, at a time when wheat is precious and must be husbanded, we are prepared, starting with ourselves, to say that those who can eat because they have money shall be limited in their eating, and that every effort shall be made to distribute to the ordinary housewife those little extras which make the job of planning a daily menu so much easier. I make these suggestions to my right hon. Friend, confident that nothing will prevent him from giving the utmost consideration to carrying out a policy of equality in food. I know that that is dear to his heart. And I do say to him that it is along those lines that we ask him, recognising the courage of the step he has taken, to look in the future difficult months that lie ahead.

6.21 p.m.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) seems to have thrown out a challenge to hon. Members on these benches to make a housewives' speech. I will take up that challenge. Many hon. Members must have done as I did last weekend, and gone down to their constituencies to get the first thoughts of their electors about bread rationing. That is what I did in Chippenham, and, from all the conversations that I had, I drew one general conclusion. Bread rationing, quite apart from its effect upon the feeding of the housewife's family, is a cruel blow to her peace of mind. Up to now, the housewife has always been able to say to her men, "If there is nothing else in the house, you know I will have plenty of bread." If she has had a little fat, she has been able with flour to make a pudding for his supper or a pie for his dinner. There has never been any "by-your-leave" or "where's-your-coupon" about bread and flour. Bread and flour have been, with potatoes, the links with the days when shopping was free, and coupon headaches and queues were unknown.

Will the hon. Member tell me when shopping was free? Was it not only when you had the money?

I am talking about prewar days when consumer choice depended only upon how much money one had in one's pocket. Where is the housewife now? She feels that one of the two bridges back to freedom have been blown up. There is nothing but potatoes that she can get without a coupon and a calculation. Housewives have learned, after a hard period of trial and error, to make the best of their ration books and of their points. Like acrobats, many of them have trained themselves to the very limit of their powers. Now comes a new handicap and a new hazard. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) told us last week that housewives would welcome bread rationing. In my experience, she is unique. It is a grievous blow, and because it is a grievous blow I want the Minister who is to reply, and who is not here at the moment, to pay attention to the criticisms and the suggestions of my constituents.

The first woman who came to see me was a district nurse. She said that she was always hungry. I am glad to find, in the schedule to B.M.W.1, category 45, that district nurses are to get the extra allowance for women, but it is expressly stated in that category that nurses resident in hospital shall not get the allowance. That is quite unfair. Nursing is a profession, where women are on their feet and are using their brains for long stretches at a time. Exercise and using the head at the same time causes hunger. I am sure that any hon. Member who has ever taken a student nurse out for supper must have been told that she had been ravenous from morning to night. The Minister has to put category 45 right and include all nurses.

The second person who came to see me was the wife of a farm worker living in a village on a bus route from Chippenham. Her food office is in Malmesbury, but she shops in Chippenham. She hardly ever goes to the other town. She wanted to know whether the Minister thought that she had nothing else to do but to go to the food office in a town where she does not shop. The Minister now tells us that this exchange of coupons may be done by post. This puts the Minister in a dilemma. Either he will insist that the housewife sends her ration books by post to the food office. In that case the housewife will be without her ration books for a good many days, owing to the crush of business at the food office at the end of the month—and we all know what an anxious and irritable companion a woman is when separated from her ration books. Or he will let the housewife cut the coupons out and send them loose through the post.

The latter alternative is the sensible thing to do, but if he does that, why does he not allow bakers and grocers to act as collecting agents for the coupons? They could do the business with the minimum of trouble. We on this side of the House know why the Government have laid down the rule that the B.U's and the points have to be exchanged at food offices. It is because they are afraid of a racket. The Government are always afraid of rackets. Such a persistent fear must come from a bad conscience. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith might put their heads together. Each might give the baker four coupons, making a block of eight, and he would give them back four B.U's each. If there is the slightest chance of a racket the Government prefers control to confidence in the people. Only last week we saw the Chancellor refusing to allow the small shopkeeper to get Purchase Tax back on certain goods because he was afraid that the shopkeepers might not reduce their prices. The present proposal is something of the same nature. They fear a racket. They will not trust the housewives and the tradesmen to do the business. I warn the Government that if they will not trust the housewives and the tradesmen, the housewives and the tradesmen will not trust the Government.

My next visitor was the wife of a limestone crusher. He works for one of the Bath and Portland stone companies. This woman has a baby and two children in the 5-11 group. She had calculated how much bread she was going to be short on her usual consumption when rationing came in. She had calculated that her husband would get 15 ounces and yet she would be short of one 2 lb. loaf every two days. The baker comes every other day. There is a family of five people getting 120 points, and 15 2 lb. loaves will take 60 points. So this woman will have to give up half her points if she is to maintain her bread consumption. I may add that she does not keep chickens and she had completely forgotten that if she used all her B.U's for bread she would have nothing left for flour and cakes.

The reason why her consumption is high is that the man leaves home at 7 a.m. and gets back at 6 p.m. He has to take his dinner and tea wits him because there is no canteen at the quarry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is a small quarry. The quarry-men get the special cheese, ration, but the limestone crushers do not. The Minister said in his statement last Thursday that where the special cheese ration is given he will give still more bread, but he will not give it to the heavy manual workers who have not qualified for the cheese ration. This woman said to me, "It takes me all my time now to get things to put with his pack for dinner. When I have to give up half my points, there will be nothing to put with the dinner at all." That example throws a searchlight on the position in small industries where heavy manual work is done but where the cheese ration is not given.

If Ministers knew anything about working men's homes in country districts they would know that the giving of a cheese ration to farm-workers and withholding it from other people who do just as heavy work has, for a long time, been a very sore point. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that an extra ration over and above the 15 ozs. will be given not on the test of qualification for cheese but where the man has to take his dinner with him. I hope very much that the longstanding grievance of the smallholders will be put right and that they also will be put on the same basis as the farm-workers.

I have two more points about packed meals. A mother rang me up and said that she had two children in the five to 11 group. One goes to a school where there are midday dinners and the other to a school where there are not midday meals. The one at the school where there are no midday meals is so far from his home that he cannot come back for the midday meal, but the mother gets the same bread for the child going to the school where there is a midday meal as for the child who has to take sandwiches. That is not fair. It is a matter that requires an answer, and we hope to hear from the Minister tonight that where a child lives too far from school to come home for the midday meal and no midday meal is served at the school, extra bread will be given. Here is another point about the packed meal. It is astonishing that the Government should have overlooked the night-shift worker. A man on night-shift work, burning the candle at both ends, eats oftener and, in the aggregate, more than a man working a normal shift. There is nothing in the Schedule to B.M.W.1 to show that the night shift worker, where the canteen is closed, will get any extra. That must be put right in the Schedule. I hope we shall hear something about this in the Minister's reply.

I come now to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson)—the housewife's own ration. Has the Minister taken any scientific measurements of the expenditure of energy and related it to the need for bread? For instance, what expenditure of calories is needed to stand for an hour in a queue? Housewives will have to stand longer in queues now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] How much energy is expended scrubbing floors, cleaning the house, cooking meals and looking after children? How much does one of us expend here listening perhaps to the Financial Secretary to the Solicitor-General replying to a Conservative Amendment on the Finance Bill? Do we expend the same sort of energy as a woman cleaning the floors with no help at home? Has any scientific measurement been taken on this subject? On what basis is the housewife given only 9 ozs. in the scale?

In the market place I met a farmer friend who reminded me of an important point. Potatoes are the ultimate substitute for bread. Potatoes are in extremely short supply now. We have exported a great deal in the past few months and we ought to know what our stocks of potatoes are. This is relevant to the bread issue. What are the prospects of the potato harvest in this country this year? What is the acreage? The Minister cannot push that on to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) because the potato acreages are fixed in February. We must have an assurance tonight that there will not be potato rationing this winter That is the last cushion of supplies. That assurance must be given. If it is not, we shall know how to construe the Minister's silence.

Is the hon. Member deliberately attempting to spread alarm in suggesting that there might be a potato famine and potato rationing? He said that there is scarcity of potatoes now.

My intention is the exact opposite. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman grows potatoes or not, but if he had been in my village last weekend he would have had people coming and asking for a sack or half a sack of potatoes. An assurance must be given that it is not worth hoarding this year's crop of potatoes. I am trying to help the Minister. If he knows his business, he will give this assurance. I believe he can give it. What are people going to give to their chickens if not potatoes? It is necessary to—

I will leave the subject of potatoes by saying that in the town of Andover housewives can only get 2 lb. at a time. I should like to tell the House what the bakers in Chippenham said about this scheme. Wishing to be helpful, I will not tell the House what the bakers said about the Minister. The burden of the bakers' criticism was this. They calculate that it will take twice as long to sell a rationed loaf as it now takes to sell an unrationed loaf. I agree that there will not be coupons cut out every day, but a tally has to be kept and the bakers will have to give the customer advice as to what she can take on a particular day having regard to the balance of her tally, and so on. The Minister may say that there will be no need to cut and weigh bread because of this tally, and that it will all come out in the wash at the end of this month, but I am afraid that is not so. People with very small households and knowing how quickly bread gets stale nowadays, will not be content to take a whole loaf every time. They will want a part of a loaf, and that means cutting and weighing.

I think the hon. Lady will find that is not so. When one has to save and scrape to keep a B.U. for a cake or a bun, one must be extremely careful not to take more bread than necessary. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I am merely repeating what the bakers in my constituency told me. They say it will take twice as long to sell bread. That being the case, there are bound to be queues. There is no escape from that for there is no hope of increasing the labour forces of the bakers quickly.

As a result of all these conversations, I wish to make one or two practical sug- gestions to the Government. First of all, I hope that the extra bread over the 15 ozs. for manual workers will be given where the man has to take his dinner, and not because he qualifies for the cheese ration. Secondly, I hope a scientific measurement of the bread needs of all types of workers will rapidly be put in hand. Thirdly, the most important point to me, I dislike a scheme which helps those who are already feeding well to pick up more points and hits those who are not so well off by taking away the points they have. That is the effect of this scheme, make no mistake about it. For a long time I have suspected that the Socialist Government would create in a couple of years far more new privileges than the Conservative and Liberal Governments have done in 100 years. They are doing so in this bread rationing scheme.

I have a practical suggestion to meet this case because I do not consider it fair that bread units and points should exchange at evens. I suggest, therefore, that one bread unit should exchange for half a point, and that one point should exchange for two bread units. If the Minister does not accept that proposal put from these benches, he will be creating a lot of new privileged people, as the hon. Member for Blackburn rightly said. If he accepts this, the average consumption of bread will be slightly higher, because I believe there are many manual workers who want more than 15 ounces. Perhaps it will be necessary to cut one of the other rations. If that is so, I would cut the normal male ration from 9 to 8 ounces. After all men consume a great deal more beer than women, and beer takes bread grains. In a situation like this, it is reasonable that women should be compensated for not having so much beer. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who is replying to give us the statistics so that we can see what would be the effect if we were to transfer more bread grains from brewing to baking. It may well be that we should not do it but we are in the dark on this; we are not told the facts on which we can make a sensible judgment. I do not want to give up my glass of beer but I want to know the facts to find out how much grain beer is using. If a man has beer with his lunch, he should not have bread.

How long does the hon. Gentleman estimate it will take the baker to sell a loaf at the door when he has to ask a man whether he had beer for his lunch? How many calories does he suggest are involved?

I cannot make much of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intervention. I think, when he reads my speech tomorrow, he will see that his intervention is not relevant. I now turn to the general question of why the Government have been surprised by this food shortage and are now taking tardy, clumsy action to deal with a situation which might have been foreseen earlier. There is no Member of this Committee who believes that all that humanly could have been done has been done. We all know that foodstuffs from overseas have not been bought as well as they might have been; we all know that the short term agricultural policy was not adjusted in time; we all know that the Prime Minister had to change the Minister of Food—so there is no hon. Member who would say that all has been done which humanly could have been done. However, I do not want to argue now by how far short the Government have fallen from what they might have done. I want to suggest that it was quite inevitable that the food muddle, delays in adjusting our agricultural policy—good news one day, bad news the next; bewildered housewives and farmers—why all these things are the necessary products of this Socialist administration. The fact is that from the day of taking office this Government have never put first things first. They have had their priorities all wrong. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to recall that in the Debate on the Address last August, I described the Government programme set forth in the Gracious Speech, as one of unpractical priorities. I think events have justified that description.

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt a moment to remind him that he was then asked to say what the priorities should have been, and that he failed to give a reply?

I am grateful for that interruption because in February I gave these priorities; in fact, in a previous Food Debate I contrasted the priorities of the Socialist Government with those put forth before the end of the war by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who, with his unrivalled insight into the needs of the British people, nailed his flag to food, work and homes. Before I describe to the Committee what I consider to have been the Socialist priorities, let me remind hon. Members that Ministers of whatever party are human beings; they cannot escape the limitations of our mortal stuff, which puts a finite number on the jobs which any man can take on at one time or the number of Bills which can be put through in any one Parliamentary Session. All modern governments are like jugglers throwing up into the air the maximum number of balls they can manage, and if they add one more than their skill allows them to keep going, they must drop the lot. That is what this Government is doing.

The priorities on the Socialist list are these: first, houses to let; then, schemes of nationalisation—

—then the American loan; then social services, and finally an orgy of self-adulation. With these jobs Ministers' hands have been full, and they have been quite unable to grasp food as a sixth priority to deserve their highest attention. Food and agriculture have been nowhere. It was only the world crisis that forced food and agriculture on the attention of Ministers, very much like it takes a raging fire in the next door house to break upon the bliss of a honeymoon couple.

No, I am sorry. Last February I ventured to say that the pronouncement of the Minister of Agriculture about the wheat shortage was the end of this Government's honeymoon. Now they are right up against the hard facts of housekeeping. I see them sitting on their empty packing cases scratching their heads about all the things they have entirely forgotten to get in. They have already lost the hearts of their electors and, if they go on like this, they will lose their votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wishful thinking."] I see their popularity disappearing like mist before the sun. I rejoice at that, but I am more sorry at the thought of the hardship and anxiety coming into millions of British homes as a result of the incompetence and complacency of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

6.48 p.m.

I hope the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) will forgive me if I do not follow up the particular line he has been pursuing and I will, as far as possible, try to eschew any diversion into politics. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the attitude of the Master Bakers' Association because I shall show that there is a direct connection between the campaign that is being waged in the country and certain interests that are not already disclosed. I want to put it quite bluntly to this Committee that the master bakers of this country are not concerned with the consumers. Let us refresh our minds for a moment or two as far as their campaign is concerned. It was not until this afternoon that the actual facts of the stock position were disclosed to the Committee and to the Master Bakers' Association. How, then, could they have had information upon which to state the actual position? What gives them a specially privileged position that they should claim, provided the case is proved from a stock position, that they should avoid the inconvenience of rationing?

It is claimed by them that they were not, in fact, consulted. Yet, there is on record, and the Food Minister himself can give clear evidence, that at a meeting at the Food Ministry on 4th June they were consulted, opportunities were given for questions, and practical points were fully discussed. But, obviously, the responsibility of making a decision for rationing must rest with the Government in the light of information on the stock position.

I am sure the hon. Member would wish to be accurate. Is it not a fact that the only point upon which the bakers were consulted by the Ministry was on the actual machinery of the rationing scheme, and not whether or not rationing was necessary?

Yes, of course, I said that. I pointed out that the responsibility, obviously, must rest with the Government. It can rest nowhere else. But despite that, unscrupulous propaganda has been made by the master bakers who have lent themselves as stooges of the political campaign behind these false statements, misstatements and half statements which have been made.

I am going to be very direct on this point. One of the difficulties in discussing this question in the Committee, or in the country, is to place all the facts in regard to profit margins on the table. If there is any representative connected with the baking trade in the Committee, he can immediately refute my figures, if they are wrong. Taking the length and breadth of this country, and an average sample of the baking trade—I am referring to bread—the net profit margin is between 2s. 6d. and 3s. on every £ of retail sale. That is point number one, and I challenge the baking industry to deny it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very well advised to consider these facts in relation to the £65 million subsidy that is going to the bread industry. There are two other points behind this campaign. One is the maintenance of profit margins by getting either an increase of price, or an increase of subsidy. The second point, which is of major importance—and it discloses a weakness in the rationing scheme—is that, as the scheme stands, there is nothing to prevent bakers, particularly small bakers, from diverting flour from the making of bread to the making of flour confectionery, on which the average profit margin is nearer 50 per cent. than 33 per cent. The Minister, and the Government, will have to do a bit more thinking in working out the details of this scheme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I do not mind hon. Members giving me a friendly cheer on this point, but what I regret in this Debate is that hon. Members opposite have been bursting to make political capital out of it, rather than to face practical questions which we have to consider. I frankly confess that there is undoubtedly a very real danger that the actual result desired may not be achieved.

There is another aspect of the political campaign to which the master bakers are lending themselves. I have a quotation from "The Times" of today and "The Times" is, I am sometimes told, absolutely above reproach. It says with regard to the Yorkshire Federation of Master Bakers—and this is splashed across the "Daily Mail" also this morning, but, I refer to "The Times" to make it quite clear—that unless the Minister is prepared to consult with them on an alternative scheme they will refuse to produce the bread. There can be only one possible reply to that. The Government will be compelled—if that attitude is persisted in by these people allowing themselves to be used as stooges for a political campaign—of necessity to operate these bakeries to get bread to the people. I am a member of a management committee of the Cooperative Society. I am very proud of that fact, because it helps one to get down to real business, instead of talking in loose phrases copied from textbooks. If the country is up against it, the Cooperative movement will put up a 100 per cent. effort to supply the gap left by private enterprise[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] It is really surprising what I do know.

I am going to make one or two criticisms to which I hope the Minister will address himself, apart from the major criticism I have made. There are far too many classes in the rationing scheme. The variation in ounces is extremely difficult and I do not think it can be logically held that the B.U. system is a satisfactory system in working out the variation. We have avoided a lot of these difficulties in rationing fats, bacon, and meat.

I want now to be, quite frankly, very political, and I make no apologies about it. This is the third of the great campaigns in which the tom-toms have been banged from the other side. First of all, almost before the Gracious Speech had been debated, the tom-toms were beaten because demobilisation was not speeded up. I felt that when Cymbalist and Noble faced the court-martial, the responsibility should have lain at the door of some of those who made irresponsible propaganda on the other side. Then the tom-toms sounded again over the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act, and that ended with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) finishing it in a glass of bitter in a Tory club. Finally, we come to bread. When I last addressed the House, I followed an hon. Member whose name is associated with many lost causes, and he made a jibe about the soap box. I do not apologise for the fact that many of us have learned our politics on the soap box. To a great extent that is a distinguishing feature of our party. It means that we have been close to the people, but the Tory Party today have demonstrated clearly to the world that their politics are not the politics of the soap box, but those of the gutter, and I leave them to it.

6.58 p.m.

I do not propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), who began by complaining that other people had talked politics, and then made the speech to which we have just listened. I put my name down a few days ago to a Motion signed by, among others, the Leader of the Opposition. It is not now formally before the Committee, but it is doubtless in the minds of all who are present. I thought, when I signed the Motion, that it was, in the face of a grave and serious position, perhaps the most modest Motion that had ever been put on an Order Paper. The people asked for bread. We did not ask even for a stone—for David's sling against Goliath. We asked only for facts. I came here today intending to make a longer speech than that which, the Committee will be glad to know, I now intend to make. I had intended to repeat the arguments I have frequently had with the Government, with the present Minister's predecessor, inside and outside the House, to the effect that there was no adequate, valid reason for withholding the vital information without which no one could really make a responsible recommendation with regard to such a question as bread rationing. At that time I thought and I believe rightly that with the exception of the completely disciplined supporters of the Government there was no body of opinion in this country which would have opposed that Motion on any ground except that it was too modest. I am glad to say there is now not even that exception, because at the very last moment the Government have, by a kind of ju-jitsu device, yielded and given us this essential information.

The right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, because at the time of which he is speaking several hon. Members here supported him in that demand.

It does from the point of view of the correctness of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He is not fair to hon. Members when he talks about them being severely disciplined. I went with him, as did others, to make that request.

I did not say that all Members on that side of the Committee were completely disciplined. I said that I thought no one dissented except those of the Government supporters who were severely disciplined. I did not include the hon. Gentleman.

The Government have today, on the very day of this Debate, given us a great deal of the information for which we have pressed. They have given us what we are encouraged to believe is an instalment of what will be, in the future, adequate and sufficient information. But what a tragedy it is that it is only today that this information has been given. By giving it today, the Government have admitted the unreality, the incorrectness, of all the arguments used over all these months in favour of withholding it. What is much more important, they have lost the immense benefit to this country and the world which would have resulted if the true situation had been realised, so that action which is now being taken, tardily and with great difficulty, might have been taken many months earlier, and we might have had the benefit of the consequent saving throughout all these critical months.

Part of the Government's case is not only strong but unanswerable. I dissent from any suggestion in this Committee or outside that the contributions that have been made, at the expense of sacrifice in this country, to aid distressed and famine areas in Europe and elsewhere in the world are excessive, or should not have been made. Quite the contrary. There may have been undue exaggeration in some estimates here and there, but, by and large, what has, in fact, been contributed is not too large; it is lamentably below the real needs of the situation. I find it difficult to understand how anyone who reads and considers the statement which the Minister of Food made today about the position in Germany, supplementing the equally grave statement which was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, can, if he has any humanity or sense of responsibility, suggest that we should have done less than we have done. What disturbed me in the Minister's statement today was the continuing gravity of the situation he depicted. His statement said that even the miserably inadequate ration of about 1,000 calories in the British zone in Germany still depends upon a large and still uncertain import into the zone. He suggested, at the same time, that the arrangement as to the importation of the required cereals from America was not as clearly made as I think we understood from the Lord President of the Council. He further added, and I realise the delicacy of my argument at this point, that we ourselves cannot in any circumstances do more. I do not want to develop that argument at this moment. I hope that it will never be necessary to do so.

I want to remind the Committee of the bare facts of the position in Germany as as they have been put before us. The ration there is now just over 1,000 calories a day. That compares with about a 2,850 calories average consumption in this country and one of well over 3,000 calories average consumption on the other side of the Atlantic. This low ration, if not substantially supplemented means, I challenge anyone to deny it, nothing better than slow starvation. It is even that which is now the danger. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at the beginning of April, in answer to a question of mine, told me that there were then about 10 million people in the British zone in Germany who were not getting more than that 1,000 or so calorie ration, and were not able to supplement it from outside. I rather fancy that at that time rather more were able to supplement it, and that his figure was a little too high.

I was talking about the official ration. I was not challenging the fact that some persons had supplementation.

I am glad to have that reply. On reading and considering carefully what the Minister previously told me, I thought he had misunderstood the question. The question was how many were in fact getting more than the official ration.

It is obviously impossible to say how many people have private stores. My reply dealt with the official ration.

I asked for a guess, and the Minister was not able to make one. There are anyhow several million people who are now, or very soon will be, unable substantially to supplement the official ration. For them the ration is undoubtedly starvation. As I say, I do not want to press this point further; I hope it will never be necessary to do so. I would like to point out. however, as I have done previously in this House and outside, that having regard to the difference of numbers in the British zone and here, even if as many as 10 millions—half those in the zone—had to have a supplement amounting to 500 calories a day, that is equivalent, in view of the difference in the numbers of the population, to only about 100 calories in this country; or, if one lumps British and American resources together, it would be equivalent to something like 20 calories per person in relation to the overall calorie consumption of some 3,000. I wish to note those figures in passing, because I think that the position in Germany remains extremely grave. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will keep us currently and constantly informed, as to the extent to which the imports on which he is relying do, in fact, come into that zone.

I also ask him whether he can give an answer to the question I have asked of the Lord President of the Council which bears very closely upon this problem. As soon as the Lord President returned he reported to us that he had arrived at agreement on the principle, which was obviously right and very valuable, that there should be an equal ration in the different zones of Germany, or at least in American and British zones. As soon as he made that statement I asked him whether we might take it that an equal ration equally assured might now be immediately assumed in those two zones. He replied that I must not tie him down to the "immediately" but that instructions had been given to the two commanders-in-chief to work out the arrangements on the basis of that principle. That is rather more than a month ago. I ask the Minister whether that principle is now in operation and whether the rations in the British and American zones in Germany are equal and equally assured? I also request the Minister to keep us currently informed as to the achievement and execution of all the arrangements that are made for imports into this country or into any area for which we are responsible.

In asking this, I do not in the least suggest that any country with whom we have made an arrangement will break that arrangement but as the Minister himself recognised, there are a great number of uncertain factors in the situation, many of which are beyond the control of any Government. I have in mind also the particular danger at this moment of arrangements made with boards like the Combined Food Board or the new international body to which responsibility is being transferred, the International Emergency Food Council. I think it is well that we should remember that any international body of that kind is, in the nature of things, dependent for what it can do upon two things. It is dependent first upon its ability to influence effectively the policy of the constituent governments and, secondly, upon the power of those governments to secure effective action in their respective countries. In regard to the second of those points, it is quite clear that as we pass from war conditions the power of international boards, and of the countries behind them to secure action, is decreased. Controls are relaxed or removed, and means of pressure upon neutral countries, such as we had during the war, are lost. It is of the greatest possible importance that we should all the time follow the arrangements made through bodies such as the Combined Food Board. That is one of the reasons why I am anxious to have monthly White Papers in order to keep a constantly up-to-date balance sheet.

I now turn to the question of information and the date at which this information has been, and should have been, given. I am certainly not going to express any opinion against the decision of the Government to ration bread in view of the absence of the relevant information until today, and in view of the information which the Minister has given this afternoon. But, surely, when such grave decisions have to be taken, much more information should have been given as a background. Only this afternoon have we had the information which should have been given much earlier. In this very serious Debate every hon. Member has been gravely handicapped. The Information, which is the very core of any responsible argument, has been given us only while the Debate itself has been taking place.

This information could have been given earlier. Even if it could have been given only a couple of days earlier, we could have reflected upon it. After all, the decision is a grave one though it may be necessary. We all know—though apparently the Minister of Food did not know it when he first spoke in this House on this subject—that never in either the 1914-18 war or in the last war have we had a system of bread rationing in this country—

There are two forms of bread rationing. There is the form of bread rationing now proposed by the Minister, and there was a form of bread rationing between the wars, which was determined by a person's income.

In this country there has never been real bread rationing. I said that this country had never had a system of bread rationing, and that is true. Think what that means. For years in the crises of two great wars a diminishing mercantile marine, on which demands were made to supply our forces in every region of the world, was bringing in our food supplies by convoy under peril from submarines. During neither of those wars did we go as far as to ration bread, even in the gravest days. When the late Minister of Food said that his difficulties were greater than those of his predecessor of an earlier Government, I wonder whether he could have forgotten so quickly what it was to assure the bread and food supplies of this country under the conditions of a great submarine attack.

I am talking about the difficulties of the Government. The Minister had his place, and other Ministers had their places, in the task of dealing with that great problem. There were many difficulties. Some of us do not forget the difficulties of that time and do not disparage lightly the character of the task which was then undertaken. Why was it that under those grave difficulties at any cost, and straining every nerve, we brought in enough bread, to avoid bread rationing? It was because the Governments in both wars realised that bread rationing is, of all forms of rationing, the most difficult, expensive and unequal in its incidence, and the least remunerative in its economies. It is in fact a tax which, unlike Income Tax, is graduated the wrong way, so that it falls most heavily precisely upon those who are least well fed.

We also know that throughout both wars bread has been the safety valve of the rest of the rationing system. It was there as a supplement and corrective wherever there were intolerable hardships and deficiencies in the rest of the rationing. I do not say that under the present circumstances this decision is wrong but I say that it is a grave decision which certainly ought to have been presented with every possible explanation and background of information. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions in relation to this scheme. I ask him to say what is the precise basis of the estimated saving? I think he put it at something between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. Is that really a net saving for food as a whole? One of the characteristics of this scheme, as I understand it, is that a considerable number of the better-to-do classes, who in any case do not and have not consumed as much bread as they will be entitled to draw under this system, are able to change their B.U.s for coupons and get extra food of a different kind. Therefore, I imagine that, whatever is the actual saving in wheat and flour, it will be, to some extent, offset by extra consumption of other foods.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether he has considered whether the new ration is sufficient for every class? I will just give one instance. Take the young men at the universities who are beyond the adolescent age of 18. Does the Minster really think that the normal sedentary worker's allowance is enough for the young, athletic, hungry university undergraduate? Thirdly, I would like to ask him whether he has really consulted the master bakers as to the accuracy of his calculations and as to the character of his scheme, and whether they agree that these calculations are right, that this is a practicable scheme and that it is the best scheme that could be devised?

I return now to some of my comments upon what would have been gained if the Government had done earlier what it is doing now and given us this essential information before. In the first place, the way in which the people of this country would have received this rationing would have been different. One has heard on every side the comment "Perhaps it is necessary, but why were we not told why?" We all know that any rationing scheme, and especially one like this, depends for its efficacy upon the willing cooperation of the public, which, in turn, depends upon their believing that it is both necessary and just. The Minister would have gained a very great deal if he had been able to give that information before announcing his decision. In the second place, and here I go back a little further, if the previous Minister of Food had done what I have been begging him to do ever since this Government took office, that is present the general picture of the world situation, so far as it was known, from month to month, in a White Paper, comprehensive but concise, objective, vivid—and reliable and authoritative as our White Papers always are, I believe that the situation in the world would have been profoundly different. America stopped all her rationing, except that of sugar, last September. It is quite clear that the world did not then know what the world situation really was, as it might have done at that time. Once the real information began to come out, how great were the efforts made, and how great would have been the saving had that action been taken earlier. Let the right hon. Gentleman not say that we informed America, meaning that we informed the American Government. The American Government, perhaps even more than this Government, needs to act, particularly when it is a matter of large and generous action, against a background of informed, interested and active public opinion. For this arguments and selected facts in the speech of an advocate in debates are not enough. Grateful as I am for the information we have been given today, it will become immensely more effective if it is related to the wider information which can only be given in something like a White Paper.

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I recently had the great privilege of attending the conference at Washington, where a large amount of information was placed before us in connection with the formation of a World Emergency Food Council. There was placed before us a statement on the world food situation then existing. I very much doubt whether—that statement having only been prepared for a meeting on 20th May—the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would have been possible month by month. In fact, I am quite sure it would not.

I am not saying that we could have given the public as much in September last year as was published at the end of May. But I am quite sure that the information that could have been made available as to the world situation in September and October last year would have had a profound effect upon world policy. We have suffered in this Debate from two disadvantages. One is that we have not had, until the Debate began, the essential information we required, and the other is—and I address myself especially to the present Minister—that the Government are represented today by the only Minister of his rank who really shares no part of the guilt for what I am alleging against the Government of which he is a Member. The right hon. Gentleman has only just become Minister of Food, and he has acted with great promptitude in giving us a great deal of the information we wanted. All his colleagues share a guilt of which he is innocent. In my last words, I say that the Government, by now publishing this information, have admitted their guilt; but they have not purged it. I trust that the new Minister, who came with a very high record for desiring to give full information and to explain the policy for which he is responsible, to Parliament and the public, will now, in the new White Paper which I trust he is going to issue, really remedy the defects of the first one, will give us monthly editions and will make these future and fuller publications an adequate sequel to the very good beginning which he has made this afternoon in breaking through the obscurantism of the Government. We shall look forward to seeing him keep his escutcheon clean in this respect.

7.27 p.m.

As one of the semi-disciplined hon. Members of this side of the Committee, I support the Government wholeheartedly in regard to this question, not because of that discipline, but because of my determination that the Government are right in the steps they are taking. It is always difficult to follow the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) in a Debate on food, because of our cognisance of his great knowledge, which is never denied, with regard to the international aspect of this position, and, therefore, I am not going to attempt for one moment to do so.

May I point out straight away to hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee that they are not alone in their concern over the fact that we are to ration bread? Psychologically, we believe that it is a bad thing to ration bread in many and most circumstances. We are enthusiastic in regard to that matter, but it is only because hon. Members on this side have made up their minds about the grim necessity for it that they are, at this time, behind the Government. Some of us have had the opportunity of taking part in previous Debates on the food situation and have had the audacity, if it might so be called, of advocating bread rationing during the course of the present summer on the main ground—and this, to me, is the most important point of all—that the rationing of bread will eliminate waste, because, however much we reduce the size of the loaf, we do leave the temptation to the housewife to buy more loaves for the purpose of making up the deficiency on the smaller ones Therefore, the only way to eliminate the waste is to ration bread.

There is another reason. In spite of all we have heard about the United States feeding grain to poultry and pigs, I believe that they have at last awakened to the terrible necessity of looking after Europe. There may have been some black markets in Europe, but I feel that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, yesterday, and the Minister of Food, this afternoon, have dispelled for ever the rumours we have been hearing to the effect that the wool is being pulled over our eyes, as far as the food situation on the Continent is concerned. Therefore, as a very humble Member of this Committee, I want to say that, whoever else shirks an issue, Britain must not. I have tremendous faith in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and I am confident that the experience which we have already had of irresponsible consumption, is now being altered, and that the whole of the exporting nations of the world are accepting the full responsibility. It is equally true of nations as of men, that no man ever lives alone and of himself. Nations are appreciating that fact to the full, and I believe that the difficulties and dangers of the past few weeks and months will never occur again.

Another point on which I support the Government today, is that rationing, in itself, in a time of shortage, is not an evil thing. It is the only way to achieve equitable distribution. I believe it will be accepted by the masses of our people with real understanding, and that the agitation which has sprung up through the activities of the Tory Press will meet with no response. During the time that has elapsed since the Minister made his statement that bread would be rationed, I have received from my constituency of 45,000 electors, only two letters protesting against the rationing.

I want to go even further, perhaps, than some people on this matter. I want to put forward to the Minister a plea for registration with regard to the rationing of bread. I know what I am speaking about. If there is registration and people are compelled to register at specific shops for their bread and flour rations, the queues will be eliminated, because everybody knows that if they are registered with a specific shop, whatever time of the day or week they go for their ration, it will be there. The second point is that the dealer and the trader would then know, from the word "go," how much bread and flour they would be dealing with during the course of a particular week. Throughout the war I was engaged in a rationed food trade—the meat trade. I dread to think what would have happened in that trade if there had been no registration, and if people had been able to go to any shop, and spend their coupons, week by week. Therefore, I press upon the Minister to reconsider the question of registration at specific shops.

I do not wish to take up too much time, but I would like to relate the question of wheat to that of meat. I feel that I shall be in Order in doing so, because of the calorie question. In everything that has been said since the announcement was made that bread would be rationed, it has been very convenient for hon. Members opposite to forget the latter part of the Minister's statement in regard to the increase in the meat ration. The increase in the meat ration will, to a large degree, level up the calories involved. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) will not agree with me, I say that man cannot live by bread alone. He sometimes needs a little meat. That matter has been conveniently slipped over by the Opposition, but I want to say that it has caused tremendous satisfaction to those engaged in the meat trade and to the consuming public. I believe that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who said that the promise of an increase in the meat ration could not be maintained because of the lack of feeding stuffs. I suggest that we shall not experience a reduction in the meat ration because of the shortage of feeding stuffs for cattle. In these days, large numbers of farmers in many parts of the country have learned how to feed their cattle without using much grain. Instead, they feed them with beet tops, beans, oats, silage and clover. Salvage from the beet factories is proving a wonderful feeding stuff for cattle, and we shall find that it will be used to an increasing degree in the future.

In passing, may I mention that, in considering the food of the nation, one animal which does not need to be fed with grain is often forgotten? It is the sheep. I am quite confident that the Minister's statement today, that we are receiving better supplies from our Dominions than ever before, which are helping the increased ration, is largely due to the fact that the little Dominion, which we often forget, New Zealand, has already reached in her lamb exports to this country 85 per cent. of the 1938 figure and, as far as beef is concerned, 175 per cent. of the 1938 figure. Australia is also rising to the occasion. We can always depend on Labour Governments in whatever part of the world they are in power. Because of my knowledge and experience of world meat supplies, I have also gained some knowledge of general food supplies as far as the world is concerned. I am confident that our ration of meat will never fall again, and I am equally confident that we shall never do any worse with regard to wheat than has been expressed in the present rationing figures.

I would close by saying to hon. Members opposite that, in one respect, their worries are very well founded. The food policy of this Government is sound and the worry of the Opposition is that the Government policy is sound. The concern of the Opposition has not been the food of the nation; their concern has been to make debating points out of a world food shortage. Therefore, they still have one worry today, the worry that the Minister of Food has made a statement which is irrefutable and one which has proved that the food policy of this Government is of the soundest possible character.

7.40 p.m.

We would all feel much happier in this Committee if we could unanimously agree with the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) that the Government's food policy was beyond reproach. Our concern on this side of the Committee is that the Government have no food policy, which is why we are in our present predicament. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Food, and I also listened to my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). I am not convinced that the immediate rationing of bread and flour is inevitable or desirable on the eve of harvest. It is by no means certain from what the Minister told us that rationing would give us any saving beyond possibly five per cent. If we are doing this to impress American opinion we are chasing a will o' the wisp. Surely, the Minister knows American opinion well enough, after his many journeys over there, to be aware that it is not so easily impressed by such measures on paper.

Let the Government trust the people of this country. All the patriotism and responsibility of our people has not been extinguished in the last 11 months. Even now, let the Prime Minister invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and Lord Woolton to join him in a direct national appeal in the Press and on the air, putting all households and citizens on their honour to reduce their consumption of bread and flour during the next month. At the same time we should cut out altogether the use of flour for midday lunches and evening dinners at hotels and restaurants. I believe we could make our people work together as a team again, and we could get a 20 per cent. reduction in the consumption of bread and flour during the next month. I ask the Minister of Food, Is it not sensible to give this a trial? The bakers would willingly cooperate. They hate the idea of this bread and flour rationing. They would do anything to avoid the pernickety job which is being thrust upon them. If we did this and we found at the end of August that the people had not responded by reducing the consumption to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., we would certainly have got at least the reduction which the Minister hopes to get under his bread and flour rationing scheme, and we should also have given the bakery and confectionery trades time to consult with the Minister of Food to make the Government's scheme really workable.

So far, in our rationing arrangements, which have been, and still are, the most honest in the world, bread and potatoes have been freely available as fill-up foods. Perhaps we have not yet appreciated that boon to the full. If we are to continue to have this boon, we must ensure that the policies of the Ministry of Food, which is responsible for all food supplies, and of the Ministry of Agriculture, which is responsible for home production, are worked out much more closely together. Our farmers today are not producing all the food that they could to meet our needs and to make our full contributions to the feeding of the world. Ministers are surprisingly complacent about this. Some of us could hardly believe our ears when we heard the Minister of Agriculture say in a recent Debate that we would not have achieved much if we had got another extra half million acres of wheat from this harvest because it would not have benefited consumers here, as the Combined Food Board would have knocked that amount off our allocation. We cannot be so irresponsible as world citizens, on the one hand, and yet take responsibility for feeding the British zone in Germany. I am afraid that the British housewife is now asked to pay the price for this bread and flour rationing scheme, and, while it no doubt satisfies civil servants as being neat and complete on paper, it will prove most irksome to housewives generally, and particularly to the country housewives.

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he indicate whether he is prepared to divide on the proposal for bread rationing?

I hope we may get some further light thrown on this difficult problem when the Minister replies. He has told us little about bread rationing. He only gave us the background of the picture. I repeat that bread rationing will be particularly irksome in the country districts, where the baker often has a very long round and where the small farmer and farm workers live at a great distance from the food office. We should watch the interests of the small farmers and farm workers under this bread rationing scheme, because they are great consumers of bread and they have to take their meals away from home. Moses gave some sound advice to the Israelites when he said:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

I hope those who get the harvest for us will get the food needed to pull their full weight in gathering this harvest in good condition. Let us be quite sure that in planning our own food production for next year, we are getting the maximum output of those things which this country will need; particularly wheat and potatoes will be necessary for another season. Let us see to it that the farmer has the means, including the fertilisers, the machines, labour and the right price, to ensure that we get maximum production. Then, I believe, our own soil will again surprise this country, as it did in 1943 and 1944, by the contribution which it can make to the feeding of our own people.

7.48 p.m.

I always think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) is anxious to solve this problem of providing food for our country, and he has given us some practical solutions. But his suggestion that we should ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and others to join with the Prime Minister in asking the country to enter into what he suggested would be a voluntary system of rationing, and on the results decide what course we should then follow, has come too late in the day, and it is also an impracticable proposal. We have all had the experience of trying to supply voluntary solutions to serious problems on a large scale, and we always find that, while a certain number of the population are considerate, generous and eager to carry out these voluntary schemes, unfortunately, there is a larger number of people who are not so considerate and who are inclined to scramble for all they can get, leaving the others to go without, or to get very little.

That has just been proved by what has happened recently in America. The announcement that price controls were removed resulted in a rush to the shops. During this last weekend we had the example of prices rising by a terrific amount, and butter was costing as much as 10s. a lb. I hope the British housewives will take note of this. The shops were asking 10s. a lb. for butter because people rush to the shops when they think goods are in short supply, and they are too inconsiderate to be concerned with the needs of the great majority of the population.

Although I would like to think that the suggestion offered by the hon. Member for Newbury would be a practicable solution, I fear that would not be so. Whilst I praise the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newbury, I cannot praise some of his hon. Friends on the Opposition benches. We have here one of the most serious problems which could ever face the population. I remind hon. Members opposite that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have had bread rationing. I remember rationing in my family. We got no ration at all, not because there were no supplies, but because there was another form of rationing, namely, the rationing of the pockets of the workers who had not the money to buy goods when they were in plentiful supply. We had recent examples of that, just before the war.

To illustrate the other side of the picture, I remember going to Canada in 1933 at the time of a depression there, when they had in their elevators two whole harvests waiting for consumption which could not be sold. When one talked to the members of the wheat pool in Canada they said there was no market in the world for their goods. Yet at the same time, in this country, people were literally starving for want of those goods, and people in other parts of the world starved because they could not get food. Hon. Members opposite believed in rationing: The rationing of the individual pocket, which could not supply the means whereby to buy the goods. Much of what has been said from the Opposition benches today has really been said in an attempt to make the people afraid that the Labour Government will not meet their needs in supplying them with the necessary amount of proper food. All through the experience of our party we have met that kind of propaganda. When we wanted to put the sober facts in front of the community, in order, for example in elections, to have results based on quiet thinking and reasoning, we always had to face the mob appeal from the other side, and the appeal to fear and ignorance. In connection with the ignorance of the general population about the background to the experience through which we are passing, I support the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). The real facts must be put before the housewives of this country.

Mr. Hoover, in one of his recent speeches, mentioned that the five major producing countries of the world had a failure of crops last year. I believe in reiterating a fact like that until it sinks into the mind of every woman in this country. This country is not a producing country, it is a receiving country; it has to depend upon the countries which are producing food. If the food producing countries had a failure of crops last year it is inevitable that there must be shortages in the world. Therefore, steps must be taken by which the worst results of those shortages can be avoided by the people of this country. The first thing I want, therefore, is for the facts of the world food situation to be got into the minds of the housewives of this country. I am proud to stand as a Labour Member of Parliament on the side of a Government which have used part of their resources to feed the starving populations of Europe, and I make no apology to anybody for doing so. I have recently returned from Austria, and I want the housewives of Britain to know that every housewife in Austria is trying to live on less than half the calories that the British housewife has for her family. I want the housewives of this country to know that there are millions of women in other parts of Europe who, for the next few years, will have less than half what the British housewife, will have. In my view it was a foul thing for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) to say what he did say about this country being the worst fed white country in the world, except Germany and Austria. I would have liked him, as a gentleman, to have moderated that kind of thing. [ Interruption. ] I mean this. I am serious when I say it, because I know the effect a statement like that can have upon ignorant housewives who do not know the facts of the situation, who are unaware of the background to the experience through which we are passing. I think the right hon. Gentleman should moderate and qualify that statement, and not allow to go out to the country the impression which that statement, unqualified, will make.

I am sure the hon. Lady does not want to misrepresent what I said. I think that when she reads HANSARD tomorrow, she will find—and indeed also the Minister who got so excited—that I put in many qualifications. It is really a matter of opinion.

There is no possibility of seeing, at this stage, to what we will be reduced if the assumptions of the right hon. Gentleman are right. It is a matter of interpretation.

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that that statement, at its face value, was designed for the Press, and it will be in headlines tomorrow for the housewives of this country to read. It will be a good headline for the Beaver-brook Press tomorrow. If they know their job they will know how to use it. I think it is a very disturbing thing for the housewife, after six years of war, to have bread rationing. Some of the amounts allowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister might be varied and made more suitable to particular cases. For example, I take the amount allowed to children from five to 11 years of age, namely, eight ounces. Will my right hon. Friend reduce the age of 11 to nine, making the group five to nine years of age? Boys and girls between the ages of nine and 11 run in from school, very hungry, saying, as I have heard again and again, "Please can I have a piece?" That desire for just a piece of bread and butter, or margarine, and jam, when the child comes in from school, could not be met if the ration was eight ounces for the ages of five to 11. Could he not make that limit from five to nine years of age, and make the 12 oz. ration from nine to 18? I hope that can be done without too much difficulty because it would have a very big effect on those young housewives to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport refers. I agree with him on that point; the young housewife with two young children will be very badly off, and this small alteration would help in that direction.

I then want to plead with him for the housewives themselves. I want him to give a little more for the ordinary housewife. I know he should not be too generous to all housewives, because there are some who go café visiting and restaurant haunting; they are well enough off to do that, but for the ordinary working class housewife the amount allowed is not enough. I would like her to have at least the same amount as an expectant mother or a woman manual worker, because, believe me, the housewife is a manual worker. I have done it for five people—all the washing and everything else—and I have been really tired and have wanted something to eat after I have finished. If the right hon. Gentleman could do that I would be very grateful indeed.

Another point concerns the night worker. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who mentioned night workers. I have had a letter from a constituent in my Division, who says that her husband works from 7·30 in the evening to 3·30 in the morning, and she makes him a meal to take consisting of 10 slices off a small loaf made into sandwiches, because he cannot get to a canteen or anywhere else. She has weighed those 10 slices and they weigh 8 ozs. He is only to have 9 ozs., and I do not think the 1 oz. remaining is sufficient for the rest of the day. I think night workers, regardless of the work they do, should be included in the heavy workers' category. I hope that the work of the Committee today will encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go on with his job. We on these benches will back him, and we will show the housewives that he is doing the job they want him to do.

8.5 p.m.

I am fortunate in being able to take part in this Debate at this stage because I find that the constituency I represent has entirely different views from those held in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton). I find, too, that some of the views held there are quite different from those expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I have had letters from my constituency in North-West Devon, which, I should like to remind hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, has a long and very beautiful coastline, on which are many towns and villages which cater mainly for the holiday trade. The visitors who spend their annual holiday in the months of July, August and September in that region are the people who, I am informed by the housewives of North-West Devon, will suffer most under any bread rationing scheme. There are towns like Ilfracombe, Combe Martin, Linton and Lynmouth, Westward Ho and many others, all of which have sent me petitions through the North Devon League of Housewives. They have asked me to stand up in the House and protest on their behalf against this rationing scheme.

I am not overstating the case when I say that the announcement of bread rationing was met with astonishment and dismay—astonishment that an additional burden should be laid on their shoulders at this moment, 12 months or more since the end of the war, and dismay that the moment chosen should coincide with the holiday season. An hon. Member interjected that we worked it out. I would venture to say that so far from that being true there have been many Labour ladies and gentlemen going around in my constituency saying that this was all a mare's nest, that it was being put up by the Conservative Party, and that there was no question of bread rationing, which would never be brought in by a Labour Government. That is what they felt about it, and it is with surprise that they have found that they were not quite telling the truth. The housewives in the towns and villages that I have tried to tell the Committee about have asked me to protest, and to suggest that there should be some measure of delay. They consider that the future holds for them endless bread queues. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that there would probably be no bread queues. That may be so—

May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member? Has there ever in his experience been an occasion when one has had to queue for rationed food? If we ration bread, how can there be queues?

Because there is no registration for bread. It is extremely difficult to get bread in the towns and villages to which I refer.

As I was saying, they envisage endless bread queues, with no certainty or guarantee that when they have waited their turn there will be any bread or flour for them at the end. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is certainty."] There is no certainty if they are not registered. A particular shop may be besieged one morning and have no bread left for the last comers. In Brussels just after the liberation, I saw hundreds of people who, having queued for bread and fats, were told that their coupons would be credited to them for the following week. In my opinion it shows a complete lack of foresight on the part of the Ministry of Food not to have foreseen this and taken steps about it at an earlier period than the present. Twelve months after the cessation of hostilities one would expect to find that some plan had been made in the interim by which bread rationing could have been avoided.

Will the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, consider whether it would not be possible to delay putting bread rationing into effect for at any rate two or three months, during which time one of the plans which have been put forward by the trade could be put into operation? I suggest that an appeal to the country to eat less bread and flour and waste less, would have a considerable effect, probably to the extent of the five or 10 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman foresees saving by rationing. The Government should consider postponing bread rationing and give the other plan a trial. At any rate it would have the great advantage that in those three months, the necessary scissors could be issued, and the necessary labour could be engaged, for it is indeed a very great increase in labour that will be required to put this scheme into running order. Last, but not least, at the end of three months, this peak period of the holiday season will be over.

8.10 p.m.

I am very glad to enter into this Debate for just five minutes. I was amused to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who led the Opposition today, on the causes that have induced bread rationing, because he, in the autumn of 1944, was responsible for 720,000 acres going out of production, and for the consequent loss of 950,000 tons in the 1945 harvest. I am quoting from William Adair, the expert agriculturist, who writes for the Tory paper, "The Glasgow Herald." The right hon. Member quarrels with the Front Bench here, because they did not reverse his policy immediately they got power.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman went round at Election time making Election promises, and if he promised that, immediately he got back, he would impress on Labour Ministers the necessity of immediately altering his policy. I suggest that the first rationed loaf be named "Hudson's Folly." Then, he referred in tender terms to the young mother with children. It has been a source of perpetual amazement to me, since I came into this House, to observe the terrific interest of hon. Members on the other side in the young mother with children. It seemed that they expected a fortnight ago to slide back to power on a piece of household soap. After the last war, do not forget, rationing continued until 1921. They still pretend to the housewives that rationing should cease immediately, and conceal the fact that it continued until 1921 after the last war, and that butter was then 2s. 10d. per pound—

I am talking of its rationed price. Tea was 4s. They increased our house rent by 47½ per cent., and at that time they gave me, and the wives of unemployed men, 1s. per week to bring up our sons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I only say, when I hear of their tenderness towards the housewives, that they are a bunch of hypocrites. With the Press that they have at their command, they have been feeding the housewives on bedtime stories about the plentiful supply of food abroad. The housewives of Great Britain will struggle through for the good of our country. The housewife is a reasonable woman. If a case is put to her reasonably and honestly, she will put her back into the task and get through. It is altogether wrong that she should be misled by newspaper headlines that are screaming out lies by saying there is plenty of food abroad. Look at any fruit shop in London, or in Glasgow. One may see peaches, grapes at 35s. a lb., asparagus, which was 22s. 6d. per lb. It would be totally untrue for an American to say, "I have seen all these things in Britain: therefore, the British people are well fed." But that is analogous to what the Press are putting to our people.

Who are the housewives who are in revolt? I had my constituency advised from end to end this weekend that I would speak on bread rationing at West End Park at Coatbridge. I had hundreds of men in the audience. Only 14 women turned up. After I had dealt with the situation, including "Hudson's Folly," there was not a question on rationing. What is the bugbear of the housewives today? I have been queueing for my five children, husband and self, all during the war. Yes, and washing blankets as well, and doing my reading at night, between 11 o'clock and two o'clock in the morning. What is the position? We all know that as soon as butter, cheese, tea and sugar went on the ration, it did not matter if one called at nine o'clock or 11 o'clock in the morning, or at five at night, or even the next day; they were there. But as for cakes, buns, biscuits, she who can crawl from queue to queue can pick up the lot. Without any surrender of coupons, she can have éclairs and gateaux sent up, and then there is none for the rest.

She who can surrender coupons is going to be equal to the woman who 'phones. Let those who witnessed the scenes on Victory Day remember what happened then. The very fact that bread would be short brought out the housewives at six o'clock in the morning, some of them purchasing, in their frenzy, twice the quantity they needed. We saw the picture of 12 cwt. of bread in the dustbins. This sort of thing must not happen. Rationing is the only fair way to secure a fair share for everyone in a time of scarcity.

8.18 p.m.

Provided one takes the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) one would be bound to say she has made a very strong case for the rationing of bread. She having made that case, in her own way, it surprises me that rationing of bread was not one of the proposals contained among the other points in that famous booklet which gave the Government their mandate. What the hon. Lady has done is to justify rationing for everything, and the rationing of bread, in particular.

Great numbers of people do not take that view, and neither did the Government, until a few days ago, take that view. When the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education let the cat out of the bag before Christmas, she was stamped upon. Apparently, it is not in the hearts of the Government Front Bench to believe that bread rationing is a good thing in itself. In view of the facts given today by the Minister of Food, facts which time does not allow us to contest, I feel it is impossible to do other than support the rationing of bread today. In view of those figures, I could not myself take the responsibility for voting against that proposal, and I think that probably most of us take the same view; but I am bound to ask, as others have asked, why it has taken the Government so long to give us those facts. It was only on 27th June—not many days ago—that the Minister of Food said that it would be most inappropriate to disclose the figures, and that there were very great objections to doing so. If that was so then, why is it not so now? I think I know the answer. It is that the Government have had to succumb to the pressure of public opinion during the last few days, public opinion which most hon. Members on the Government back benches have been trying all the afternoon to say is not there. It is there. It is because of the rising protests throughout the country, particularly from the poorest of the poor, that the Government have had to yield.

Let us wait for a month or two until this thing has been operating, and then we shall know.

The hon. Lady must resume her seat if the hon. Member does not give way.

I am less than ever satisfied that this step could not have been avoided by more enlightened action by the Government during the last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, in his very admirable speech today, said nothing to meet that criticism. Yet he must know that people throughout the country are asking this question: Have the Government, during the last 12 months, taken every step open to them to purchase supplies from abroad? That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to answer today. He said it would have cost us millions. He furnished the facts about stocks. No doubt he would say that it would have cost us millions to purchase adequate supplies. That is true. At the present time, Russia is buying, or has bought, practically all the linseed that is available in South America, at a price, with the result that there are linoleum factories in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland which will have to put men off work. That has happened directly because the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to pay the price.

What I said was that the commercial advisers of the Ministry considered that if we gave all our stocks of all commodities currently month by month, it would cost us millions of money. It had nothing to do with whether we would spend to the limit to obtain the procurable food in the world. Certainly, we will do that. I would like to deny the hon. Member's statement that the Soviet Union have purchased linseed in the Argentine. It turns out to be completely untrue.

The right hon. Gentleman knows my special interest in this matter. Is he telling us that no linseed has been bought in South America by Russia?

My information—it is subject to correction—is that this linseed, which caused such a sensation, and which was loaded into Russian ships, was linseed bought on U.N.R.R.A. account, and the amount in any case is extremely small.

If that information, which the right hon. Gentleman does not pretend is certain, proves to be true, nobody will be better pleased than I shall be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer the following question in his reply: Have the Government taken every possible action to procure supplies of wheat from all other available sources in the world? I think the country has very grave doubts on that matter. We have little reason to be encouraged to trust the Government in these matters. The history of the last six months gives a series of different and often contradictory statements about food from every Minister who has made any statement upon it. It is not surprising that the people have their doubts. It is not surprising that the United States have their doubts. I am bound to say that I have been somewhat shocked by the answers of the right hon. Gentleman today and in recent days. Surely, it is an unprecedented thing in our relations with foreign countries that, in order to persuade America that the British Government are talking the truth about their stocks, they have to introduce this revolutionary process of rationing bread in our land. As far as I am aware, never at any time in our history has it been necessary to prove by such drastic means that the British Government were talking the truth. It is most surprising that, when in January the Minister of Food went to America to tell them, when a few weeks later the Lord President went there to tell them, and when, not very long after, the Minister of Food went there, these three Ministers, one after another, could not convince America that they were talking the truth. The British public have to be made the scapegoat and instrument by which America can be made to believe that we are telling the truth. It is a shocking commentary upon this Government.

Is it not a fact that constantly the American Government have accused this country of having undisclosed stocks? We have been obliged to give them the whole facts, and to show them how keen we were on getting food for our people by having rationing.

That is so, but previous British Governments had only to make a statement to foreign countries, and it was believed. [ Interruption. ]

I am quite aware that my statement is not liked by hon. Members opposite. I was asking whether all possible sources of supply had been tapped. I do not want to cause any international difficulties, but is it not a fact that one of the greatest world wheat-producing countries is Russia? Is it not also a fact that Russia is on the doorstep of British occupied Germany? That being so, and Russia being a member of the United Nations, our ally, surely we ought to know what effort the Government have made to approach Russia with a view to obtaining help in the solution of this world problem. Nothing has been said on that. If the Minister refuses to say anything about it tonight, the country will be bound to come to certain conclusions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish that. I am sure he would wish—we are beginning to know and respect him—to state frankly what steps have been taken, what approaches have been made, and what response has been received to those approaches. We ought to know. In sharing our meagre supplies with foreign countries, I wonder whether the Government have always shown the wisdom and judgment that we would expect from the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that Belgium have been given 10,000 tons of our precious wheat. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, British troops are returning from Belgium every day and every week. They are bringing with them leaflets, of which tens of thousands are being distributed in Brussels and elsewhere, stating what sumptuous meals are being offered in Belgian restaurants. I have a leaflet which states:

"Warm and cold dishes."

[ Interruption. ] I know hon. Members will not like this, but they really must listen. This is the sort of propaganda which British soldiers are bringing home.

"Warm and cold dishes.

Good cooking.

Well known pastries.

Three fresh eggs, with chips, for every customer."

These men are coming home and are telling their people that Belgium—and it was that country which the right hon. Gentleman was quoting—is very well off in a great many things, such as eggs, poultry and feeding-stuffs for poultry. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that none of the 10,000 tons of wheat which are being diverted from our meagre supplies is being fed to chickens in Belgium? There is no conviction in any statement of the Government that they are watching carefully the distribution of our precious supplies. These men are coming home and telling men and women here that for the most part the Government's talk about imminent shortages in European countries is boloney. Does the right hon Gentleman want them to go on saying this? If not, he had better make some statement.

Is it not a fact that the average foreigner making a tour of the West End of London, the Dorchester, the Mayfair and the Ritz, could, if he knew how, get three main dishes at a meal, and could convey the same impression to the people in his own country?

I am glad that the hon. Member has asked that question, because it shows the appalling ignorance of some hon. Members opposite. I have had dozens of different restaurant leaflets from Brussels of exactly the same kind as the one I have quoted. It is not offering three eggs for each customer at a vast sum but for only 30 francs. These are available to the poorest of the poor

What I have said is a statement of fact. I have given to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Food a menu of meals far in excess of those quoted by the hon. Member, served this Sunday in the West End of London.

It is not for hon. Members to talk too much about these matters. We ourselves enjoy very full meals at very reasonable prices, and I think we should be the last to start talking—

The hon. Member is referring to the rate of nutrition in Belgium. Has he made any attempt to read the official figures given in the White Paper issued by this Government in April about the standard of feeding in Belgium? If he studies the facts he will see that nutrition standards, even in Belgium, are considerably lower than in this country. Has he read the White Paper?

It is precisely because these statements in the White Paper are disputed by returning soldiers that I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give us the facts. These statements are disputed and doubted by returning soldiers, and nothing which the hon. Member can say can alter those doubts.

I must point out to hon. Members that if these interruptions continue, it will be impossible to call many other Members in the time available. I suggest to all concerned that there should not be these continual interruptions.

On a point of Order. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has made a very serious allegation regarding hon. Members of this House and the Catering Committee of this House. I would ask you, Dr. Haden Guest, if it is in Order for an hon. Member to state that the Kitchen Committee are disregarding the regulations of the Ministry of Food and allowing hon. Members to enjoy food obtained from the "black market"?

The hon. Member, in replying to an interruption of an hon. Friend behind me, who referred to meals being served in the West End of London regardless of all the regulations of the Ministry of Food, said, or implied that, that practice was going on in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I would ask that that statement should be unequivocally withdrawn.

I decline to withdraw a word of what I said. I will repeat it. The hon. Member said it was only in a few rich, luxurious restaurants in London that one could get a square meal. My answer jwas—[ Interruption. ] The Committee will recognise that half of the fifteen minutes during which I have been speaking has been occupied by interruptions I represent an agricultural area. This question of bread rationing cannot be considered except against its background. At present, when bread is in unlimited supply, if there is a shortage in any week of any particular foodstuff, the houseewife is able to make it up by buying a little extra bread, and she has learned a hundred and one different ways of using bread in an appetising way. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in little houses who are using their stale bread to feed chickens so as to help increase the weekly ration for themselves and their children. Eggs can help to do that. This business of bread rationing is going to limit supplies of bread, and is going to cut down that supply of extra food. More than that, if this new Measure had been introduced at a time of increased supplies of other foodstuffs, it might have been acceptable. But it is being done immediately following the announcement of the Government's decision to cut down supplies of feeding stuffs for fat cattle, cows and pigs, thereby reducing the supply of milk, meat, eggs, bacon and butter—all those things in the course of the coming months are going to fall rapidly in supply. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, who ought to know something about this, has warned the country, in the planiest language, of the milk crisis looming ahead. Do the Government realise that, in the opinion of these experts, not only will milk be cut down to ordinary customers but that milk for school children will have to be cut and also milk for invalids before this winter is out? That is what the Government are doing. Let the whole country know that this Labour Government is bungling in this way.

8.40 p.m.

I have a number of Liberal friends whose friendship I would not like to lose, so I hope that I am not right in understanding that the hon. Gentleman for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has been putting the Liberal point of view.

May I be allowed to answer the hon. Lady? There are apparently two kinds of Liberals, Socialist Liberals—

I do not think we should stray any further. Do not let us stray down the byways.

I was myself constantly interrupted. May I answer the hon. Lady? There are Socialist Liberals and Liberal Liberals. I am a Liberal Liberal.

I would point out that that is the story of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and he is sticking to it.

There is not one of us in this Committee who does not like a little fun. Some of us, however, find our sense of humour straying at some of the speeches made today. Our universal wish must be that from today's Debate the householders of this country—I am not going to say the housewives because the children of this country have got fathers as well as mothers—will have an accurate picture of what is happening, and why. I submit to the Committee that there has not been, in the history of this Parliament or, I should say, in any Parliament, a more irresponsible or cruel case put up by Members of the Opposition. It is not worthy of those who have had opportunities of education to introduce a note into this Debate of the kind which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has just made. I must not detain the Committee with anecdotes but it is so symbolic of what I experienced when I was travelling through Lisbon in the middle of the war. When I lunched, I thought I was in a land of plenty. I had pineapples and bananas and other things about which I am not going to tell hon. Members. I was, however, in the company of a friend who knew Lisbon, and she said, "Come with me." We went round a corner and into a side street. There we saw the poor folks of Lisbon queueing up for an inadequate quantity of oil and bread.

Please do not let us in this Committee further harass and bedevil the housewives by not accepting this basic fact that, during the war, we in this country did a job of which we can be proud in not just maintaining the health of our people, but in improving the health of our people. Even without being a statistical expert, that is easy to see. One has only to go to any industrial area to see the general standard of health, particularly among the children. That is something in which hon. Members opposite have a right to share. Why should they try now to tell the world what would have been implied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), except that my colleagues have given him a pretty thorough repudiation—that we are doing a worse job? Why should they try to anger the housewives of this country by telling them that they have not been reasonably looked after when we know that they are enjoying food better than in any European country?

Hon. Members opposite can make little interruptions if they like about Switzerland or Denmark, but if they go to any industrial population in Europe, hon. Members will find the people having to live on basic supplies which are far smaller than our own. I have been particularly concerned, with other Members, with the question of aid to Austria. I know what is happening in Vienna. I know families there who have a little shop and are doing quite well. They are able to trade between one shop and another and they lack nothing. We can, with the purest of views, say, as some people are saying, "Let Soviet Russia tell us what their supplies are. Let us be perfectly certain there is no black market anywhere and that from the country districts of Europe the last scrap of food has been brought in. Only after all that has been done will we consider that we have any responsibility to the rest of the world as well as to our own country."

You can take that curious point of view and people can die in the meantime of hunger. It is not just Europe; it is India, the East, and all over. I suggest to Members opposite that even on the lowest level of political calculation—and if I introduce that I am following their example—do they think they are being very clever over their bread rationing campaign? Do they think it will stand the test of time? The Minister of Food, very wisely, did not strike an over optimistic note about the coming harvests. Some of us are very comforted by the news reaching us from various parts of the world. We are hoping and praying that by the next harvest there will be an all round easement, that we can look forward to it reasonably certainly, if not in a matter of months then in the next year or two. Should we not be proud if we could maintain a standard of honour and conduct as a result of which we could say, "We provided for our people, as was our duty, but, at the same time, we were concerned about those who would starve in other parts of the world if we played too greedy a game."

In America there is stock of Italian, German and Austrian descent, to name but three countries. America is a very divided country. There are those over there who are concerned to see that we get our fair allocation, but who are also concerned to see that other countries get their fair allocation. In the Press here, there has been the consistent note that if there was a Tory Government instead of a Labour Government this country would have better treatment from America, that there would be no need for bread rationing. If there was a Tory Government perhaps in America there would be no risk, in the next few months, of strikes tying up deliveries from coast to coast. Perhaps there would be no risk of American price control being completely withdrawn, and an inflationary situation and conditions of horror created. Cannot we agree, on all sides of the Committee, to explain simply to the people of our own country that we will carry them through as safely, surely, and fairly as we can during the next few months, but that we do not govern America, or other countries outside our own domain? Cannot we tell them that because of the elements of uncertainty in America we are bound to see that there is a basic ration given to everyone at the present time, that we are bound to see everyone is given a fair chance? If America, for reasons which the American Government cannot control, finds itself in a difficult position in the next few months then we will carry through the next few months as we carried through the war, by trying to give a basic ration all round.

I have been conducting a survey among my colleagues in the House—some of whom looked a little startled when I asked whether they were married and, if so, how many children they had. I have been checking up with some of my friends, people I work with, and people in my constituency and elsewhere, to see how bread rationing will affect them. Members of the House with young children have told me that they will make little on the rationing scheme. Is there a Member opposite who will be in domestic difficulties because of the bread rationing scheme? Can anyone say, honestly, that he cannot manage on it? What we hope will happen to our people—and this is the reason we must give to the housewife—is that no family need go hungry or short of food. The sharpness of the whole concept of bread rationing will lead every woman who runs a house to say to the Minister, "I should like you to tell me if you can what is the wastage of bread at the present time?" Some hon. Members have said that we should have a voluntary appeal from the Party opposite and other people to the country. Those appeals were made during the war, and no one will pretend that we were completely successful in avoiding waste by that means. We are going through a unique period in world history, and we have to carry on for these few months, helping others as well as ourselves to get through. I want to tell hon. Members opposite what is the position in this country when compared with many other parts of the world. It is that we have put a basis under every family so that when we do receive our allocations, every household gets its share. Of course, there are European countries where there is a more superficial plenty, because many who were hungry in 1939 are hungry now, but cannot we agree to be proud of the fact that, in our country there is a surface shortage because, when one gets down to individual households, there is a point below which this Party will not allow any household to fall?

I hope the Minister can make some concession on this business of feeding in restaurants. It is all very complicated and I do not believe in symbolical gestures but in really doing things to make the fairest possible distribution in our power. But even a symbolical gesture, although the Minister cannot prove to us that it would mean an increase in actual supply, would be a sign that we were getting something done in restaurants, whether removing bread or something else. I ask the Minister to consider that under the ration I have more bread than I need for my household and most hon. Members of this Committee are in the same position. What I am going to do is that if I know of any friend, neighbour, or any family at all short of bread, I shall buy up to my maximum ration and hand it over. I shall only be carrying on the tradition on which I was brought up, because where I come from it was not unusual to be asked, "Can you let me, have a loaf to carry me through till the next pay day?" and this has a deep influence. I am being quite frank with the Minister and I am asking him to consider that every woman has an element of the black marketeer in her and that every husband is quite capable of saying, "Have you nothing for my breakfast?" When we are given our bread ration what the Minister wants us to do, ideally, is to draw as little as possible But he can help us by working out a scheme whereby after the ration has been in operation for say a month or six weeks, any family which is in difficulty because of hungry adolescent children or a heavy manual labourer, and which has no canteen or school feeding help, can go to the Food Ministry and say, "My ration is not enough."

I think it would be perfectly feasible to have an appeal on the ration scheme coming into operation in the local food offices a month or six weeks after it has been tried. I support that suggestion by saying that it is not fair to ask any of our mothers and housekeepers to see ahead, in abstract terms, how the ration will affect them. I believe that they are worried at this moment more than they need be, because of elements in the Press which have already been referred to. I have here a copy of the "Daily Telegraph" containing an article which is excellent, and I do not think it is fair to make a general charge against all that is written in the Opposition Press, or against all hon. Members opposite. I believe that there is a greater degree of agreement among all honourable and reputable people than might be obvious from the headlines of a Beaverbrook or a Kemsley newspaper. If, after the scheme has been tried, there can be a kind of appeal court, then those of us with more bread than we require will not be tempted to draw up to the maximum and the Minister will be able to meet the situa- tion in those exceptional households where the present ration allowance is not sufficient. If that is done, I believe we shall reassure the housewives of the country. We shall do a decent and honourable job, both in respect of our obligations, and of our responsibility to see that we do not carry on the old Tory prewar tradition of suffering waste and hunger side by side, either in our own country or anywhere else.

8.56 p.m.

I have promised to sit down promptly at 9 o'Clock, and I start by saying something about the attitude of the Government of Northern Ireland towards food rationing. Sir Basil Brooke, the Prime Minister, and his Ministers, have definitely decided that they could not oppose the present scheme, and just as they supported this country during the war so, if the people over here have to tighten their belts, the people in Northern Ireland are ready to tighten their belts also. Anything that I say now however is my own opinion, and is not that of the Government of Northern Ireland. Last Friday night, when I got home, I had a telephone message from a little village near my home. The people there wanted to see me about their food rationing. I went along there on Saturday afternoon and met the people that one usually meets in those little villages, the rector, the grocer, some consumers and so on. They started by asking me if I had read the message of the master bakers' organisations in Northern Ireland. I would explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in some things, Northern Ireland has not always taken the same line as the people of England and Scotland. For instance, we nationalised our road transport some 10 or 12 years ago. That still remains to be done in this country. I am pointing out that we take an independent line there.

This is the message of the master bakers' organisations in Northern Ireland. They good. We reduced our consumption of bread and flour in Northern Ireland then, because we wanted to stop the smuggling of flour from Northern Ireland into Eire. There is no doubt that if this scheme were introduced, we could reduce the consumption of bread and flour in Northern Ireland by another 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. That is the first object that the Minister wants to achieve. His second object is to see that it is done fairly. We do not want bread, like kissing, to go by favour. We want everybody to get a fair share of the commodity. We all know that the rationing plan has been a very grave burden on the small grocers in the villages. They have had to spend their leisure hours in counting up points at night. Certainly this scheme will be a great hardship to our tradesmen.

I would point out also to the Minister that in Northern Ireland 76 per cent. of bread is taken off the bread vans or carts. In England only 25 per cent. is taken off the vans. I hesitate to think what hardships those bread servers will have in the isolated districts in my constituency,

9.1 p.m.

I happen to be a trade union official; and among my many jobs I negotiate on behalf of 1,500 catering workers employed in and around the West End of London. Incidentally, I represent an industrial constituency. Without fear of contradiction I say that the average worker does not mind bread rationing, provided it is worked fairly, and provided that what happens now in relation to the general food situation does not happen in relation to bread rationing. By that I mean that in the West End of London—I could produce hundreds of waiters and waitresses to prove this—evasion of the regulations is going on among the majority of the big hotels and luxury restaurants. The average worker knows that if he has the money and the time, he can go round to one, two, three or four of these luxury establishments and have as much food as he wants without being troubled by any restrictions whatever. I mentioned earlier that I had handed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food a menu of a dinner served at a private dinner party last Sunday in the West End of London. Three main dishes were served at that dinner, with a host of other minor dishes—all on the same evening. That is going on throughout the West End of London, and the ordinary industrial worker deeply resents the fact that because people have the money, time and opportunity to frequent these places, they are in a position in which food rationing does not in any way affect them.

I therefore suggest to the Minister that he should take steps to see that the bread rationing scheme works fairly between the rich and the poor, and between the workers and those who do not work. Those who do not work very often frequent these luxury establishments. If bills were issued to the customers at these restaurants, it would give the Minister an opportunity to check what is happening in relation to the regulations. An hon. Lady raised the question of bread rationing and wastage of bread, and asked whether the Minister could give the figures for wastage. If the Minister likes to come round to the kitchens in and around the West End of London, he will see wastage of bread where snacks are being prepared for cocktails. The crusts are cut off because the ladies and gentlemen cannot eat the cocktail snacks with the crusts on. Therefore they waste the crust. [ Laughter. ] It is not a laughing matter because a vast amount of bread is being wasted in this way at present.

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt, because I must sit down in a moment. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister if he cannot take the workers into his confidence and operate a scheme similar to that operated during the war, namely, the setting up of consultative committees of workers within the catering industry, the luxury establishments, and the factory canteens to keep him advised, and to give him the facts and figures of what is really going on behind the scenes in the West End of London at the present time.

9.6 p.m.

The hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) has just made some criticisms of the hotels and restaurants in the West End of London. For all I know, they may be justified; I do not know. If they are justified, it is up to the Government to deal with them, and if a situation is found such as the hon. Gentleman described, they should act. I would even say they should have acted. I would only add about that, so far as I have ever entered the portals of some of these hotels, I have not found them catering exclusively for any one political party. I thought it fair to say that because I had slightly the impression that that was the implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

Now I want to say something to the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss J. Lee) in regard to the very sincere speech she made. There is certainly no complaint on this side of the Committee that we should concern ourselves about the state of the food situation in other lands. I do not think anybody ever intended to suggest that. What has been worrying us, and what, as I propose to point out to the Minister, is still troubling us, is the difficulty of making comparisons, because we are not in possession of the figures and facts that we need in order to do that, as I want to show the right hon. Gentleman. I would only say to the hon. Lady, who was a little severe with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) that she did mention Austria, and that he specifically excepted Austria and Germany in the remarks he was making.

In referring to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in opening this Debate, I must tell him—and I think it is the feeling of most hon. Members here—that the situation which he revealed in the course of his speech was much more serious than anything that I myself anti- cipated.I give the Government the full benefit of that. I did not myself realise that our stocks had fallen to so low a figure; my estimate would have been higher. However, I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman—and not so much he as the Government, because he has only recently been a Minister—that I think it a great misfortune that they did not make that situation public long since, and I cannot understand why they did not, from anything that has been said today. The right hon. Gentleman has just been to the United States. I know he can judge as well as I can what would have been the effect on American opinion of the statement he made today if it had been made months ago, as it could have been, for instance, last Autumn. Of course I know that the administration presumably is perfectly well aware, because I have no doubt that the Government has informed the administration, but the United States, like ourselves, is a democracy and subject to the play of popular opinion. Who can doubt for a moment, therefore, that if American opinion had known to what straits we were being reduced, how narrow was our margin, they would have been influenced by that knowledge? Until today, however, they have never been told, just as we have never been told.

I am bound to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he replies, When would we have learnt of this, if the Opposition had not asked for a Debate? Would the Government ever have volunteered to tell the country what the position was? In a situation like this, it is not treating the public fairly not to tell them, when the Government know what the position is. Nothing has been said today to show why what has been said today could not have been said six or nine months ago. I would be glad to know if there is an explanation for that.

One word about this country. A great deal has been said, and I think rightly said, as far as I can judge—I have no official information—about the German position. I think it is pretty bad in our zone. On the other hand, there is something which should be weighed against that—I do not wish to put it too high—that this country has had six years of pretty hard rationing and certainly a large section of the German people, not all of them, have lived pretty well on the supplies from occupied countries throughout the war. That has to be borne in mind when we are assessing the position.

I must tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly that I do not feel able tonight to pronounce on the actual merits of his rationing scheme, or about its immediate necessity. It is quite clear to me that some restriction of consumption is necessary from what he has told us, but he has not described to us his rationing scheme at all. If I might make a criticism of his speech, I think it would be that he should spend less time criticising the Press for displaying intuition, which is all they can display when the Government will not give them any facts. Instead, he could have described to us how his scheme was going to work. Then, I think, his speech would have been better. I presume the right hon. Gentleman is going to do that later tonight. I am not complaining about that from the point of view of the Opposition, because, as I understand it, it will be necessary when the scheme is prepared for it to be laid before the House and we shall have the opportunity of praying against it, and will be able to decide whether we want to vote against it or not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Oh yes, we shall certainly debate it again; there are a lot of things we want to know. What is this House for except to debate subjects? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not have the least objection to that.

We have another issue tonight. We have before us tonight a series of Votes by a number of Departments responsible for the administration of food supplies and various aspects of it. I am afraid I cannot tell the Government that we approve the methods of administration which have brought matters to this pass. I want to be absolutely fair about war conditions, but there are some mistakes the Government have made which I am going to mention, and I shall therefore later have to move a reduction in the Vote. We have had to spread all these Votes out over a Supply Day to meet the wishes of the Leader of the House, and we would restrict the Minister in his reply if I moved the reduction now, and I am most anxious not to restrict him. So I do not move the reduction now, but will do so at the close of the Minister's speech.

I want to say something about the world situation as revealed by the Minister's speech. The right hon. Gentleman, as other Government speakers have done before, was inclined to put all the blame on world causes and to suggest that any criticism to which the Government might be subjected by the public was of course the outcome of misrepresentation by Members of the Opposition.

Some of the Tory Press. I submit that that is not true, and that the Government are not free from blame, as I propose to show. I think that there has been order, counter-order and disorder in the administration of these food problems. The right hon. Gentleman is a good Parliamentarian, although he has not been in this House for long. It is good tactics, when you are vulnerable here and there to go plunging against your opponents. He complained a great deal about the patty capital, which he alleged we have made out of this situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Very well. I will ask the Lord President of the Council to reflect in his conscience tonight what he would have been saying tonight if he had been standing at this Box, and I had still been Leader of the House, trying to explain what the Minister has been trying to explain today. I leave that, with perfect contentment, to the reflection of the right hon. Gentleman and of anyone else who says we have been trying to make party capital out of this matter.

I am not making party capital, but I intend to put a few questions. First of all, I say that the Government's major error in all this business has been not to inform this House and the country and the world about the facts. No reason of any kind has been put forward why what has been said today could not have been said long ago. We have not yet got all the figures. May I ask the Minister to be good enough to look at the White Paper issued by his predecessor in February? If he will turn to page 5 he will see his right hon. Friend's statement that when he was in Washington it was estimated that there would be about 12 million tons of wheat available during the first six months of the year. That was the estimate made in February. I do not think it differs from what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I ask him, the next time he has an important and complicated statement like this to make, full of figures, to give the House a White Paper some days ahead. It was rather cheap to say to my right hon. Friend, "If you had had this Debate on Monday you would have had the figures on Monday." Why not have given us the figures on Monday? Surely the Government want the House to debate the matter intelligently, and if we had had those figures we could have had a better discussion on them than we have been allowed to have.

The figure of about 11 million tons was given in the White Paper as the total which was to have been available for distribution. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman where that 11 to 12 million tons has gone. We still do not know how much of it has gone to Jugoslavia, how much, if any, to Hungary. It is quite important, in view of Russia's lack of contribution, that we should know. How much has gone to Belgium and to France, and how much to ourselves? If we knew that, if we knew how much of this 11 million tons was available in the past six months, we should be able better to assess our position and contribution. Until we know those figures, I do not see how we can.

I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another point. He will see in the White Paper that the figure given of stocks of wheat in the possession of the producing countries—I ask the Committee to note this, as it is important—in 1938, totalled about 9J million tons. This year, in June, according to forecast, the corresponding total was to be over 11½ million tons. That is to say the producing countries had something over 2 million tons more available in their own countries than they had in 1938. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened about that 2 million. Before the war the stocks of the producing countries were 9½ million tons. Now, according to figures, the stocks are 11½ million. Are those 2 million tons still there or have they been got out? If they have been got out, do we add them to the 11 million tons? In other words, were there 13 million distributed, and, if so, who has got the 13 million? That is what we do not know. We are completely without information as to what countries have received what amounts from the producing countries. It really is of no use to give us a global figure saying that all the world has got X quantity.

I would like to know the answer to that very much and I will tell the Leader of the House why I would like to know. To take the figure of 11 million tons, I wonder whether the Committee realised how much it represents. That was the available surplus for export during these six months and it represents six months—that is to say the same period—of rationing for 235 million people, which is a very large number. I would like to know who have got this ration for 235 million people. If it has gone to those in great need, we would like to know who they are. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is a very considerable figure. I ask that at the earliest opportunity he will lay a White Paper showing what the exporting countries have sent abroad during the last six months and to whom it has gone.

I do not think the Government ought to accept it that they are not allowed to tell about this, because some International Board wants to maintain secrecy on the subject. If the British public are asked to undergo bread rationing, they are entitled to the facts. A lot has been said tonight about the Press. I have here an article from no wicked Tory paper but from one which consistently supports the Government, the "News Chronicle." It is dated 1st July—quite modern and up to date. It says to the right hon. Gentleman, "End this fat ration," and it asks the Government to insist that these boards should say to where they are sending the fat. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the cutting afterwards. I think it is an absolutely reasonable request. If I embarrass hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I can only say I agree with every single word of this article.

The Government have been guilty of order, counter-order, disorder. I propose to give them one or two examples. I am rather sorry that the Lord President is not to reply because this relates to the time previous to the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food. The Lord President will remember, as I do most vividly because I had to ask a private notice Question about it, the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith) from America on 22nd March of this year. Immediately he returned, the Ministry of Food issued a warning that there would have to be a cut in soap and margarine and that there would have to be a darker loaf. Immediately after that No. 10 Downing Street issued an emphatic denial that anything of the kind could possibly have happened. Some official had made a most unfortunate mistake, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe came to the House the next day and said he was very sorry and it would not happen again. But the right hon. Gentleman was quite right. He said there was going to be a darker loaf. No. 10 Downing Street said there would not be a darker loaf. A few weeks later there was a darker loaf and a few weeks later still there was a still darker loaf.

I rise tonight only in the interests of truth. On no occasion did I say there would be a darker loaf.

The right hon. Gentleman need not be so angry. I have got the quotation from the Press. I am not trying to make capital out of this; if it is wrong I will admit it. This is the "Daily Telegraph." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, the hon. Lady herself said that they had been very fair. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find the same thing in the "Daily Herald," but I have not got it tonight, though usually I have the "Herald." This is the statement put out by the Department:

"Further cuts in margarine and soap, and the necessity for a still darker loaf, may be announced soon."

Certainly, the denial, I must point out, dealt with the loaf. It said:

"Forecasts of cuts in fats and of a darker loaf, which were widely published yesterday, were the results of an official blunder."

The right hon. Gentleman said that I stood at that Box and made that statement.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not really. I said there was a statement put out by his Ministry, and it was immediately contradicted. I think I said that. Very well, I say it now. That statement was put out by the Ministry and was immediately contradicted by No. 10, and what the right hon. Gentleman said when he came to that Box was that there was a mistake. He said: and hon. Members here interjected "Oh"— Interruption. ]—It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to complain, but we are entitled to make our points. The next thing was that there would be no cut in soap, and, a few weeks after the darker and still darker loaf, there was a cut in soap. The Government must not be surprised if the people of the country feel that there has not been consistency in their policy or foresight in it either.

I give another example. Last November a very respected Member of this House, the Minister of Education, made a speech in Barrow and warned us that, if the war continued, bread would have to be rationed. She came down to this House and made, as only she could make, an abject apology. Yet, what was she? Just a prophetess without honour in her own country. The right hon. Gentleman must not be too surprised if the country notes those things and does not feel that the Government's record has been entirely consistent. I am going to say something to the Lord President. I do not think, either, that the Government have been wise in their handling of this situation from the point of view of Ministerial appointments. At the close of the Japanese war, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman well understood, one of the biggest issues was going to be food. The Government kept telling us that, the moment the Japanese war was over, food would become the biggest issue. They ought, I think, to have made the Minister of Food a Member of the Cabinet. It is really no good talking about Lord Woolton not being a member of the Cabinet. Anyhow, the military operations were over and, in my judgment, the Minister of Food should have been a member of the Cabinet then. I would say, again, that when, later on the Government found it necessary to make a change in the Ministry of Food—I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that these appointments are a little evanescent—the new Minister of Food should have been a Member of the Cabinet. I think the hon. Member was quite right who said today that there should be one Minister responsible for all aspects of food. I would have said, if I could give any advice to the Government, that they should have taken their best and ablest administrator and put him in charge of every aspect of the food question. If hon. Members would like me to name a candidate, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council might well have taken it on himself.

I would say one word to the right hon. Gentleman about the Argentine. I do not want to repeat my right hon. Friend's arguments, but I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in a speech last February, I asked the then Minister of Food, as he may remember, what was being done about purchases in the Argentine. It is no good the Government saying that no one suggested it. We did, and we got no answer. I did not press the question then because I thought that the Government had a particular reason for not answering—good reasons for not negotiating or buying. But, now, we discover that everybody else has been dipping into that Argentine market, except ourselves. Why should that be? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation.

Now a word or two about his scheme. When he came back from America, the right hon. Gentleman said, according to "The Times": them and were originally set up by Lord Woolton, and were consulted several times by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Food until recently. Did the Minister consult this body before be introduced this scheme? If so, what was their advice? I feel that this specially constituted body, which has advised successive Ministers, should have been able to give him good advice.

So far as this scheme has been explained to us, I feel that it is immensely complicated and that its operation in rural areas is going to be extremely difficult. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that the bakers can go and consult the local food office, but, in rural areas, that would sometimes involve a journey of 20 miles or so. These people, who are working, on an average, 70 to 80 hours a week, cannot do that. If, as I understand, the bulk of the burden would fall upon the roundsmen, I should like a further explanation in respect of them.

The Minister says "No." If there is some other arrangement, how does it safeguard against the risk of fraud? I know that the Minister will agree with me that it is essential that there should not be a black market. The scheme has got to be fairly carried out for everybody and, so far, I cannot see how that can be done unless the roundsmen have to do the jobs themselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain that point in a moment or two.

Some hon. Members opposite said that this scheme does not compel registration. It is quite true that it does not, but I do not think that one can complain of that, because I do not see how registration is possible in these particular conditions for this particular commodity. But, if there is no registration, the inevitable result will be longer queues. I do not see how that can be avoided. The demand for bread, flour and confectionery cannot be foreseen by the shops, and it is possible that the housewife, having reached the head of the queue at one shop, will find that her particular requirements have been sold out and will have to go to another shop. To sum up, I maintain that there have been administrative errors on the part of the Government in their handling of this matter. I think that they should have taken steps to increase the extraction rate of flour earlier. They could have made a direct appeal to the people earlier. They have failed to do that. They failed to give the information. If we had not asked for a Debate, this Committee would not now know the facts which we have learned today. They have not put first things first. Therefore, we shall be obliged to oppose the Vote.

9.35 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in his concluding remarks returned to the subject under Debate after an excursion and if I may say so, a delightful interlude such as he always gives the House in chasing ancient history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nine months old."] Yes, nine months old We are debating a very burning and vitally important issue, and that is the subject to which the Committee will expect me, at any rate, to address my remarks. Before I go on with that subject, I must clear up the extremely serious statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). The figures, of course, are just as well known to him and, I should think, to every Member of the Committee, as they are to me, because they were published in the White Paper in April last. The figures are that today the calorie consumption of this country per head is 2,850. I was careful to get our statisticians to calculate the effect which bread rationing, and also the increase in the meat ration, would have on that; and their best estimate was that it would probably reduce it from 2,850 to 2,800. It is a very small reduction. I will now give the figures for the countries of Europe. I will give them in groups as they were given in the White Paper; they are, therefore, well known and accessible to everybody. The group of countries, France, Belgium, Holland and Norway, have a calorie consumption of between 2,300 and 2,500; the group, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Italy, have a consumption of between 1,800 and 2,200.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the existence of a black market and, therefore, the maldistribution of the available supplies alters the average level, he is completely wrong. Obviously, the black market only makes those figures worse. Even those available supplies are grossly maldistributed between the population. That is the only effect of a black market. The issue is this. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he made a slip, which is a thing we certainly all do in this Committee, and which I may do at any moment. We all may make a slip. I think if he will make that clear, the matter will end completely. What he did say—I have taken the precaution to get his remarks from the OFFICIAL REPORT upstairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it seemed to me wise and fair to do that. He said:

"The result will be"—

that is the result of bread rationing—

"if any of these assumptions do not come off, broadly speaking, with the exception of Germany and Austria, we shall probably be the worst fed white nation in the world."

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw that statement?

I confess I was astonished when the uproar arose on the other side of the Committee. My intention was to say "among the most." I also have consulted HANSARD, and what I said was, not exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, but "would probably be about the worst fed." That was on the basis of these assumptions. That is an expression of opinion which is hedged about with every possible safeguard. It is purely a matter of opinion.

I would like to explain to the Committee what that means, because these assumptions were, for example, that our own harvest was late or that American supplies were delayed. The decision to ration bread has been taken in case those assumptions are fulfilled, and rationing will protect us against the consequences of those assumptions. There is no question of rations being reduced. To show the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman was, shall we say, exaggerating, to use no stronger term, it would be necessary for the entire bread ration and cereals ration of this country to be done away with altogether, and there would have to be no bread at all available to the people of this country to bring us down to the lowest levels of the worst fed countries in Europe today. That is the enormous extent of the wild exaggeration.

There has been quite a genuine misunderstanding. I venture to think it is a very important one to clear up. I certainly based my statement on the assumption—and this is where I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would clear it up—that if those things did happen it would, in fact, be impossible to maintain the ration. That is very important. That is the whole essence of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said he would have 800,000 tons in stock in this country at the end of August, if certain things happened. Quite honestly and sincerely I drew an inference from that, that if those things did happen we would not have 800,000 tons. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that whatever happens he will still have 800,000 tons and not have to reduce the ration, that alters the picture entirely, and I quite realise why he was angry at what I said.

The issue, as I thought I endeavoured to explain—I am very glad this has been brought out clearly—is that 800,000 tons is, in the opinion of many people, below the minimum, certainly the minimum pipeline stock which this country can have without rationing. If we go below that—and there is the risk of going below it because of those assumptions—we must, in our opinion, have rationing. If we have rationing we can certainly get through this dangerous period with a considerably lower stock, because it enables us to make do with a very much lower pressure, a lower head of steam in the pipeline.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman means, and assures the Committee and the country, that there are sufficient stocks, and will be sufficient stocks to avoid any reduction in the rate of the ration which he proposes to bring in on 21st July, then quite clearly I was under a complete misapprehension and I withdraw my remarks.

In this period, yes. If this harvest failed all over the world, and if the next harvest failed all over the world, we do not know. That disposes of that matter. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last man to wish a statement like that, which I think he must realise could be used in the most damaging way, not to this Government but to this country, to go out to the world.

Now I pass to another very important point which he mentioned, and which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington also mentioned—the question of our purchases from the Argentine. They are apparently very strongly under the impression that our purchases from the Argentine have been inadequate, and that we are getting far less than anybody else, far less than our share from the Argentine. In support of that they quote—what they evidently felt was the impressive figure—that during the last month 150,000 tons of coarse grain were afloat, coming from the Argentine and destined, almost the whole of it, to destinations other than the United Kingdom. As against that, I think it is worth while to set the fact—to show that my officers have not been entirely asleep at the switch—that we do possess—we have at this moment purchased and there is in our possession in the Argentine and in Brazil—over 300,000 tons of these coarse grains. Therefore, the figure of 150,000 tons which other people have got as their share of exports from the Argentine is completely misleading, unless it is put against the size of the purchases which we are making.

I now pass to the scheme itself, and I must go quickly because I have very little time. Again, both right hon. Gentlemen referred to the question of queues. Whether there will be queues after rationing or not is, of course a subject on which none of us can give any proof. I would put this to the Committee. What is our experience in this matter? When a foodstuff in short supply has been un-rationed, have there not always been queues for it? And whenever a foodstuff has been rationed, have not the queues, at any rate, been vastly minimised? It is possible, of course, that if we had a more severe scheme and made the customer register with one particular baker, it would do even more, but I think it would be too severe a measure. However, the customer and the baker have the option to make their own registration; the customer can deposit his bread units, or the family bread units, for a week or for a longer period at the baker's, and then the bread is delivered by the roundsman simply by a note on the doorstep.

This applies to holiday districts also; I see no reason why a family which has gone to stay in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency in the West Country—lucky for them, it is a nice place to stay—should not deposit their bread units for a week with a particular baker, and not have what is undoubtedly the irksome and the tiresome business of cutting the actual coupons for every loaf they buy. Of course, if they stay in a catering establishment the question does not arise. So really I think we are doing a disservice to the housewives, and to the bakers too, by trying to raise bogies which do not exist in the administration of this rationing scheme. Of course, any rationing scheme is irksome to administer. Let the Committee not think for one moment that I am denying that, but it is no great service to the country, or to the whole way we run our affairs, to invent ways in which the scheme certainly will not be irksome.

I think I must get on. I have only five minutes left and I should very much like to clear up all these points. I am asked about the schedule of manual workers. That is not something which we have arbitrarily decided. That will be applied by the food offices. It has been most carefully worked out between the T.U.C. and the Ministry of Labour, and we shall, of course, always be open to representations from the T.U.C. as to borderline cases, or cases that may have been excluded. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the housewives be included?"] As to the question of the points switch. It has been pointed out that it is very irksome to go down to the food office when one wants to make a change in one's rationing arrangements. I quite agree. I find it so myself. So we have arranged that this can be done by post. Nor will one have to send a whole ration book to the food office. One can cut out the relevant page of it, and send that page to the food office.

That type of interruption is, surely, not very helpful. I should like to say a word to those hon. Members on this side who made important points about the restaurants. This is a question with which I am very much concerned. I am proposing to make three changes in the Meals in Establishments Order. I should like to put them before the Committee and, quite frankly, to ask the Committee to think them over during the week end; and if hon. Members should have any good reasons why they should be modified or altered. I should be willing to consider them. I propose to do three things. I think that, quantitatively, this is a very minor scandal, but it is a scandal, that meals up to any amount of money can be served in a private room. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] I do know my own Orders, I assure the Committee. It is perfectly possible, while serving only three courses, indeed, to charge any amount of money for them in a private room. So I propose to make a charge of 2s. 6d. per head, maximum, for the use of a private room; and no more. It is a small change, but I think it will end what has been a scandal.

Much more important than that, I think, is this. When we have to ration our bread it becomes a scandal that a man or woman who goes to eat in a restaurant can take bread quite easily, without let or hindrance, and put it on to his or her side plate, and either eat it or not eat it, or play with it or not play with it, as he or she likes. So what I am proposing is this, that in all catering establishments the bread should be made one of the three courses allowed. [ Interruption. ] I am surprised to find that hon. Members think that is so funny. What they think is so funny, I really do not know. It seems to me a very small, modest, reform, but something which, I should think, we, certainly, in our own dining room in the House of Commons, and all of us who eat in restaurants, would be very glad to comply with; instead of our being offered bread we certainly do not need.

If one sacrifices one or another of his three courses, he can have bread. I may say, now, that I am doing something for the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). During this season herrings are plentiful. I am exempting herrings from being a main course.

I am afraid there is a very large number of points with which I shall be unable to deal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Canteens."] What I have said refers to all eating establishments. We find on most careful investigation that only a very small percentage—quite a trivial number—of three-course meals are served in canteens. I have been strongly pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), and other hon. Members, on the question why we did not give earlier the information which I gave today. It may interest the Committee to know that the stocks figure as at the end of August was, in fact, the only wholly new figure that I have given in the whole course of the Debate. I brought certain other figures up to date, as, of course, can be done from time to time, but that was the only wholly new figure given in the course of my speech. I was pressed as to why it was not given eight or nine months ago, but eight or nine months ago we certainly did not know what our stocks were likely to be at the end of next August. It is only a forecast now. Eight or nine months ago it would have been quite impossible to give it. But, in general, I quite agree with the main line of argument of the right hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University, and I believe that we should give the very maximum amount of precise information on the situation, and on the situation in Western Germany. It is most important that we should keep that before the mind and conscience of the world, and I will endeavour to do that in the most effective possible way. The right hon. Gentleman asked me one more point on his own subject, universities and schools, and institutions of that type. The inmates—if I may use such a word—of such institutions

are not, of course, rationed individually, but are rationed in bulk. It will be recognised that they have especially high needs, and they will be taken care of. On the question of the bakers, they were fully consulted at a very large conference on 4th June, at which Mr. Phillips, who complains about the matter, attended, and took part, and I simply do not understand his statements that he was not consulted.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question: Did he consult his own Bakers' Advisory Committee or not?

No. This committee was enlarged, and the other bodies interested were included. In conclusion, the Government today have put before the Committee the facts and the figures which have made it absolutely inevitable, in the interests of the safety of our people and of the supply of essential food to them, to ration bread. I ask the whole Committee, and not merely hon. Members on this side, to give support to the Government. I know that the Opposition must oppose, and that it would not be doing its job if it did not oppose; but there are different ways of opposition. This is a national issue. It matters very much to this nation how it works this scheme, how it administers it, how it goes through the period ahead, and I ask for the co-operation of the whole Committee in working it.

I beg to move, "That Item Class X, Vote 2, be reduced by £5."

We shall have further opportunities of discussing the rationing scheme itself.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 343.

Division No. 232.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Baxter, A. B.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Beechman, N. A.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Bennett, Sir P.

Butcher, H. W.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Butler, Rt. Hon. R.A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Boothby, R.

Carson, E.

Astor, Hon. M.

Bowen, R.

Challen, C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Bower, N.

Channon, H.

Barlow, Sir J.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Keeling, E. H.

Price-White. Lt.-Col. D.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Raikes, H. V.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Langford-Holt, J.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Renton, D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

De la B¸re, R.

Linstead, H. N.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Digby, Maj. S. W.

Lipson, D. L.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Ropner, Col. L.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G (Penrith)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Ross, Sir R.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Drewe, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Duthie, W. S.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Smithers, Sir W.

Snadden, W. M.

Eccles, D. M.

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Studholme, H. G.

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Sutcliffe, H.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Gammans, L. D.

Marples, A. E.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddf'n, S.)

George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Marsden, Capt. A.

Teeling, William

Glossop, C. W. H.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

Gridley, Sir A.

Maude, J. C.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Grimston, R. V.

Medlicott, F.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Mellor, Sir J.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Molson, A. H. E.

Touche, G. C.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Turton, R. H.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

Vane, W. M. T.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Henderson, John (Carthcart)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Walker-Smith, D.

Herbert, Sir A. P.

Nicholson, G.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Hollis, M. C.

Nutting, Anthony

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Hope, Lord J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southporl)

Osborne, C.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Hurd, A.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Pickthorn, K.

York, C.

Jarvis, Sir J.

Pitman, I. J.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Jennings, R.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

Prescott, Stanley

Commander Agnew

NOES

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Cove, W. G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

Allighan, Garry

Brown, George (Belper)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Alpass, J. H.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Daggar, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Daines, P.

Attewell, H. C.

Buchanan, G.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Austin, H. L.

Burden, T. W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Awbery, S. S

Burke, W. A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Ayles, W. H.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Byers Lt.-Col. F.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Bacon, Miss A.

Callaghan, James

Deer, G.

Balfour, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Barstow, P. G.

Champion, A. J.

Diamond, J.

Barton, C.

Chater, D.

Dobbie, W.

Battley, J. R.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Donovan, T.

Belcher, J. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Bellenger, F. J.

Cobb, F. A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Benson, G.

Cocks, F. S.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Berry, H.

Coldrick, W.

Dye, S.

Bing, G. H. C.

Collick, P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Binns, J.

Collindridge, F.

Edelman, M.

Blackburn, A. R.

Collins, V. J.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Boardman, H.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Bottomley, A. G.

Cook, T. F.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lindgren, G. S.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Logan, D. G.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Evans, J. (Ogmore)

Lyne, A. W.

Royle, C.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McAdam, W.

Sargood, R.

Ewart, R.

McAllister, G.

Scollan, T.

Fairhurst, F.

McEntee, V. La T.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Farthing, W. J.

McGhee, H. G.

Segal, Dr. S.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington E.)

McGovern, J.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Follick, M.

Mack, J. D.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Foot, M. M.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Forman, J. C.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

McKinlay, A. S.

Shurmer, P.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

McLeavy, F.

Simmons, C. J.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Skeffington, A. M.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

McNeil, H.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Gallacher, W.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Skinnard, F. W.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Gibbins, J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Gibson, C. W.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Gilzean, A.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Marquand, H. A.

Solley, L. J.

Gooch, E. G.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Sorensen, R. W.

Goodrich, H. E.

Martin, J. H.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mathers, G.

Sparks, J. A.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Mayhew, C. P.

Stamford, W.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Medland, H. M.

Steele, T.

Grenfell, D. R.

Messer, F.

Strachey, J.

Grey, C. F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Stubbs, A. E.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Swingler, S.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Monslow, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Guy, W. H.

Montague, F.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hale, Leslie

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Morley, R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Hardy, E. A.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Thurtle, E.

Harris, H. Wilson

Mort, D. L.

Tiffany, S.

Harrison, J.

Moyle, A.

Timmons, J.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Murray, J. D.

Titterington, M. F.

Haworth, J.

Nally, W.

Tolley, L.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Naylor, T. E.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hicks, G.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Hobson, C. R.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Usborne, Henry

Holman, P.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Viant, S. P.

House, G.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Wadsworth, G.

Hoy, J.

Oldfield, W. H.

Walkden, E.

Hubbard, T.

Oliver, G. H.

Walker, G. H.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Orbach, M.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paget, R. T.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Warbey, W. N.

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Watkins, T. E.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Weitzman, D.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Parker, J.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Irving, W. J.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Janner, B.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Perrins, W.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Wilkes, Maj. L.

John, W.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Popplewell, E.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Keenan, W.

Porter, G (Leeds)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Kendall, W. D.

Price, M. Philips

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Kenyon, C.

Pritt, D. N.

Williamson, T.

King, E. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

Pryde, D. J.

Wise, Major F. J.

Kinley, J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Woodburn, A.

Kirby, B. V.

Randall, H. E.

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Kirkwood, D.

Ranger, J.

Yates, V. F.

Lang, G.

Rankin, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Lavers, S.

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Reeves, J.

Zilliacus, K.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Rhodes, H.

Leslie, J. R.

Richards, R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Levy, B. W.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Mr. Pearson and

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Robens, A.

Captain Michael Stewart.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Engineering Apprentices (Call-Up)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do new adjourn."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor. ]

10.13 p.m.

There is another kind of famine which threatens this country. Last Sunday a reputable newspaper had, as one of its headlines, "Famine of youth in industry." I make no apology tonight for raising again in this House the subject of the call-up of apprentices in the engineering industry. I raise this subject as the representative in this House of many young men and their parents, who are directly concerned with and affected by the decisions of the Government and the Minister of Labour regarding the call-up and training of apprentices in electrical engineering. Everybody knows that the engineering group of industries in this country is a vital group in the production system of the country and plays a particular and increasingly important part in the drive for exports. The figures for the export of electrical goods and apparatus have been increasing in value over a considerable period of time, and this section of the industry today is faced with a severe crisis in the recruitment of young men. It is faced, too, with a great and growing problem of the supply of skilled craftsmen and technicians.

A year ago, a report was made by the Percy Committee on "Higher technological education", which dealt with the problem of technicians at the top of the tree, as it were, so far as the engineering and other industries were concerned. In this Report there is quoted the estimate of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, which calculated that in this country in the postwar years we shall require annually, to train as technical assistants and designer draughtsmen in the electrical engineering industry, 1,800 men per year and as draughtsmen and craftsmen 3,200, making a total of skilled intake into the electrical section of the industry of 5,000 per year. We can compare that figure with the fact that in 1943 the total output of tradesmen with higher certificates or degrees from the universities was 3,000 from the whole of the engineering industry and with the figure, in the years before the war, of the output in this country of civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers, of a total of 2,100. The conclusion of this section of the Percy Committee's Report is that:

The question was whether an additional number of skilled craftsmen should be called up or some of the deferments of apprentices in the engineering industry cut down. The result, as explained to me in a letter from the Minister a short time ago, was that the Government came to a decision of compromise whereby they reduced the number of deferments of engineering apprentices from a figure of 20,000 per year to roughly, as it has worked out, 12,000 per year, which will mean that between July, 1945, and the end of this year about 18,000 instead of some 30,000 engineering apprentices in all will have been deferred.

I want, briefly, to illustrate the way in which this has affected a particular works in my constituency, namely, the Stafford Works of the English Electric Co. In those war years this firm required a total of 40 engineering trade apprentices of all types per annum in order to maintain a ratio of one apprentice to five skilled men. That meant that over the period of years 1939 to 1945, seven years inclusive, they should have recruited a total of 280 trade apprentices. In actual fact they were only able to recruit 131 in that period and of those 131, in the position as it was last year, they retained as deferred a total of 92. The deferments of 36 of those 92 expired this year, so that of the group of 131 apprentices, some of whom became skilled men in the meantime, they are left this year with 56 apprentices or trained men instead of the 280 which was their actual requirement to maintain the ratio of apprentices to skilled production craftsmen. The particular difficulty with which they are faced in their production drive at the moment lies in the heavy electrical section of the industry in which there is a dire need for skilled production crafsmen, and they have roughly 20 per cent. only of the number they require in that respect.

I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions and I should like to say that both he and the Minister have given very great consideration to the cases which I, and I believe other hon. Members, have put up about this position. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this evening what the policy of the Ministry is going to be to fill this gap which occurs between July of last year and the application of the Government's White Paper, which I welcome, and which comes into operation on 1st January, 1947? Under this White Paper all apprentices will be deferred. I believe there is a great necessity today for the Ministry of Labour to discuss this question with the employers and the trade unions in the industry, particularly in relation to the fact—which I have not time to go into this evening—that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has emphasised to me in a letter, in the Forces into which these apprentices are going when their deferments are cancelled, there are not the vacancies for them to become technicians. I hope we shall have a word of encouragement from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight in regard to the points I have raised.

10.24 p.m.

I am sorry that the amount of time available in which to reply to the very reasoned case which has been put forward is so short that I am afraid that I shall not be able to do justice to it. One cannot do justice to so vital a matter in so short a time. I hope, therefore, that the House will be tolerant with me, at the very hurried way in which I shall run through the points which I wish to place before the House. In the first place, the position as from 1st January next is settled to the satisfaction, I think, of everybody concerned with this vital question. All genuine apprentices serving a proper apprenticeship in the engineering industry and in other industries will be deferred until their apprenticeship has been completed. As from 1st January next year, we shall wholly meet the case that has been so ably put my hon. Friend.

We have been pressed from both sides of the House to speed up the release of the men in the Forces. In the White Paper on the call-up to the Forces issued to the House, a Paper which met with approval, it was agreed that the target of 1,200,000 at the end of this year was a reasonable one at which we could aim for our Armed Forces, but in order to get those Armed Forces by this year it is necessary, if we are not to do injustice to the men who have served fairly long periods, that we should scrape the barrel from civilian industry and call up as many young men as we possibly can.

We have decided, as the House knows, that after 1st January the maximum period of service will be two years. In order to do that, we must look for this new intake during the rest of this year, so that we can have our target figure at the end of the year, and have the men coming out of the Forces after a reasonable length of service.

From where are we to get these men? We have to look round all the industries. Except for four industries, including the industries which have been referred to, not a single apprentice can be deferred this year. In that sense, the engineering industry, compared with other industries, is having preferential treatment. In whatever I say, I do not want to underestimate the vital part that the engineering industry plays in our transition from wartime production to peacetime production. It is vital, and I fully appreciate that fact, but because it is vital it is one of the industries in which we have made an exception in regard to the deferment of apprentices. We are giving to the engineering industry, apart from mining and agriculture, a greater measure of deferment, than to any other industry in the country.

What is the position? During the war, this industry had a reasonable amount of cover. It is interesting to look at the figures. We have to look for men. We look at what is in this industry and in that industry. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that, in January, 1939, there were, roughly, 130,000 persons employed in the electrical engineering industry, while in 1946 the number was 152,000. Take general engineering. In 1939 there were 704,000. In 1946 there were 906,000. Take the purely electrical branches producing heavy apparatus. In 1939, there were 195,000 persons engaged. In April of this year there were 236,000. Those are the industries which had the greatest intake of manpower during the war of any industries in this country. In that sense there is a residue of skilled men left that is not available in almost any other industry in the country. We decided to ask whether this industry should make some contribution from the tremendous increase of manpower which accrued to it during the war, in order that we might get our scheme started off on 1st January next year. We decided, "Yes." It has been the habit to defer in the engineering industry 20,000 apprentices a year. We felt that the industry ought to make a contribution of 8,000. From where were these 8,000 to come? Were they to be 8,000 skilled men or 8,000 apprentices? What would do the least harm? We decided, 8,000 apprentices. We had decided to take them, leaving the general industry 12,000 apprentices, a proportion much higher than any other industry.

I am sorry that I cannot deal extensively with what happens in the Forces. I can just state what I am authorised by the Service Departments to state. They assure me that when apprentices go into the Forces that in the Navy correspondence courses and books on technical subjects are available, on application to the local education officer. In particular, there is a course in electrical engineering, leading up to the City and Guild's certificate. In the Army, it is the intention to provide facilities for continuation of technical studies, as far as Army conditions permit. In the Air Force, it is the aim of the R.A.F. to provide technical and educational facilities on a voluntary basis for men in non-technical arms.

In the war, the Adjutant-General had a very wide review of this position. His intention was to widen the scope of educational opportunity inside the Services. I am sure that the policy will be carried on.

I am extremely sorry to make that very hurried reply. I want to assure hon. Members on both side of the House that this question caused us great heartburning in weighing out the importance of engineering, the demands of the Forces, equality as between apprentices in one industry and in other industries. I hope the reply will help to relieve some of the dubiety which has been expressed.

It being Half past Ten o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.