The Committee will appreciate that the Estimate procedure demands that the original Estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1947, had to be prepared on information available in November, 1945. It is clearly impossible to forecast food supplies and prices so much in advance of the actual events without a margin of error, and this year under review has been particularly difficult. There has been a great deal of uncertainty so far as procurement is concerned and also, as hon. Members will know, so far as the distribution of food is concerned. In the circumstances, the difference between the original and the revised Estimates, which is equivalent to 4 per cent. of the estimated expenditure on trading services, is a comparatively small one. Even so, the revised Estimates which were prepared on a basis of information available in December, 1946, have already been affected by a number of factors, such as the labour problem in New Zealand and Australia and the transport problem from North America. These factors could not be seen at the time the Estimates were prepared. It is possible that my Department will not spend the full amount which we are asking the Committee to grant today.

It will be seen that the biggest increase, £48,500,000, is accounted for by expenditure under subhead H, Trading Services. The only other large increases are in respect of Divisional and Local Food Office staffs and the African groundnut scheme. The great bulk of the expenditure under subhead H represents the difference between the estimated expenditure on purchases, freight and storage and so on, and receipts from sales. This subhead represents in effect the trading losses of the Ministry upon a cash basis. It differs from the actual trading loss since it takes into account only cash payments and receipts and does not make allowances for differences in stocks, creditors and debtors.

The additional requirement of £48,500,000 is made up of an increase of £18,500,000 in anticipated expenditure due to increased prices, and, a decrease of £30 million in anticipated receipts due in part to lower sales of certain foodstuffs and in part to a reduction and release of stocks already paid for by the Vote of Credit. Since the Ministry's selling prices have been more or less fixed by the Chancellor's stabilisation policy, it follows that the result of any increase in acquisition prices is an increased loss to the Ministry. This statement is particularly true of those foodstuffs which feature in the cost of living index. The main reasons for the increase in anticipated requirements are, in the first place, increases in prices for home products. As a result of the Ministry of Agriculture's price review in February, 1946, and a further revision of prices in the summer of 1946, consequent upon the increase in agricultural wages, the prices payable to farmers for home produce were increased by £12 million.

Secondly, there have been increases in prices for imported foods. During 1946 there was a steady upward movement in overseas prices which affected almost every country in the world. In particular, prices were unfavourably affected by the removal of price ceilings in the United States and by sympathetic movements in other countries.

In addition, contracts negotiated with the Argentine involved the payment of greatly increased prices for meat, oils and fats, and animal feeding stuffs. Furthermore, during the year, increased prices were negotiated with the Southern Dominions in respect of meat products and milk products, and, with the return of Denmark to the export market, there have been a series of price negotiations in which the prices trend has been generally upward.

It will be seen that the revised Estimate for bacon and ham differs substantially from the original Estimate. This is due to the fact that contract prices for Canadian and Danish bacon have been increased, and higher prices have been paid for pigs in the home market. The effect of this has been partially offset by the maintenance of the ration at 3 oz. until 5th January, when we reduced it to 2 oz, but the original Estimate allowed for a ration of 4 oz.

In regard to meat and livestock, increased prices have been paid to home farmers, and to exporting countries. In addìtion, the decline in stocks has been less than was expected, which has caused an increase of approximately £9 million in cash requirements. Hon. Members will forgive me for dealing with each of these commodities but I think it better to explain them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—I understand that on Supplementary Estimates this speech is generally rather short, but when dealing with trading services, I think it is necessary to give some detail.

The additional sum required for milk, including milk welfare schemes, is due to changes in producers' prices. We have increased the deficit by £10 million. The further increase is due to the increased cost of the National Milk Scheme. Hon. Members will remember that we included certain categories in the welfare scheme, and, in some cases, these people are given free milk. This change in part contributed to the increased cost. In addition there was the distribution of free milk to school children from 1st August, 1946. The cost of milk products has increased owing to a reduction in the selling price of butter. The cost of Canadian supplies has risen with the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, and the cost of imported butter and cheese from all sources has increased. In regard to potatoes, the requirement is due to the increase of 35s. a ton in the rate of tonnage subsidies, following decreases in the wholesale retail prices on the 25th and 26th of May, 1946.

The additional sum required for sugar is attributable to the price payable for Cuban and San Domingo sugar, and home grown sugar increases. Hon. Members may ask why we have not received sugar from Australia and Java areas, but, unfortunately, these supplies have not been realised, and it has been necessary to replace them with supplies from other and dearer sources.

What about tea?

I have not dealt with tea as I do not want to weary hon. Members. I think it will be seen that tea leaves us in a rather favourable position, and I have dealt with the black spots, anticipating the right hon. and learned Member's attack.

There is a difference of nearly £4 million on tea.

The revised Estimate is £100,000.

The original was a credit.

But there is a profit of nearly £4million.

I said that that is not one of the black spots. Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to deal with that afterwards. I want to explain to hon. Members why there is a sum of £700,000 required to meet the cost of additional staff in local food offices. We have had many questions on this subject. I think hon. Members go to their local food offices and, seeing a number of people behind the counter, feel that the offices are grossly overstaffed. I can assure hon. Members that that is not the case. I have visited many of the offices myself, and inquired into the staffing. I have always been satisfied that there is no redundancy. I remind hon. Members that bread rationing, which was introduced last year, meat that thousands more had to be employed over a certain period. Then there was a complete re-registration of consumers of milk, and an adjustment of children's ration books in connection with the welfare food benefits. The item under Subhead B of £39,000 is required to meet additional travelling and subsistence payments. It has increased because during the last year we have encouraged our enforcement officers to make more visits, and there has been more audit activity.

More snoopers?

No, it has been legitimate investigation.

Now I come to the groundnuts scheme. I think hon. Members will realise that this is one of the most interesting projects which the Ministry of Food have introduced during the past year, and this was not included in the original Estimate. My right hon. Friend recently gave the House details of this project, which was amplified in the White Paper. This Estimate was made in December, 1946, on the assumption that the actual clearing operations would be commenced before the end of March, and payment would be required during the current financial year, not only for equipment landed in East Africa before 31st March, but also, for much of the equipment required during April and later months, for which payment would be required in advance of shipment. In addition, it was considered appropriate to include a provision of £250,000 to cover salaries, travelling, and preliminary expenses and contingencies. I apologise for speaking at some length on this point. I will deal later with other points which have been raised. I wanted the Committee to understand how this money was spent, and I hope they will grant us this Supplementary Estimate.

I am sure no apology is called for from the hon. Lady for giving the details which she has given. On the contrary, I am afraid we shall have to ask her to give us a good many more details. I do not in the least complain that she has not done so in her opening speech because to tell us the whole story would take many hours. If she reserves the answers to the questions we have to ask until a later period in the Debate we make no complaint about that. I think she has realised that to ask for another £50 million, almost all of it on additional food subsidies, is a very serious matter. It is not only the amount of the sum involved which causes concern, but the percentage increase. The hon. Lady said that the total expenditure on food was only four per cent. up. What we are interested in is the rise in the percentage of the subsidy. The subsidy now turns out to be 20 per cent higher than was originally anticipated. That is a very large rise. It must be due to something wholly unexpected 14 months ago. The hon. Lady says, quite truly, that the original figures had to be adjusted at the end of 1945 but, no doubt, they were adjusted to take into account all the likely trends which then appeared probable to the Ministry's advisers, and any likely rise in prices at that time was fully allowed for.

We are faced with the fact that the advisers of the Ministry were 20 per cent. out in the estimate of the subsidy required. That must be due to some unexpected deterioration in the food position since that time. Therefore one must go into this matter in some considerable detail to see where the truth lies. We have had a good deal of difficulty in the past in extracting information from the Ministry. Accordingly, my remarks may have to proceed somewhat more on surmise and inference than on ascertained fact. I have tried to draw all the inferences which properly can be drawn from the published facts. Part of my duty will be to ask the hon. Lady whether the inferences which I have drawn are correct, or whether I have left something out of account. If they are correct inferences, the position is extremely serious. I am sure the hon. Lady does not really want to hide anything. No doubt we shall be given full details on the points which I must raise.

The hon. Lady told us that the £48,500,000 additional subsidy, which is disclosed in this document, is accounted for, with regard to £18,500,000, by increased costs of goods and, with regard to £30,000,000, by diminished returns. We know that with a very few exceptions prices have not gone down. We know that a good many prices have gone up—for example, dried eggs. Therefore, it is quite clear that when the receipts from sales fall very substantially that involves an even more substantial fall in the amount of food available to the people of this country. It means that during the last year the people have had far less food than the Ministry, at the end of 1945, expected and intended them to have. That is a very serious matter.

I am confirmed in that view by a statement which was made in the Press yesterday which, no doubt, has been drawn to the attention of the hon. Lady. Dr. Fitzgerald, the Secretary-General of the International Emergency Food Council, in Washington, said that the British ration was now 200 calories less than last winter. That is a very serious statement, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile that with some of the answers which have been given by the hon. Lady and her chief within the last few months. I hope she will take this opportunity of accepting or denying Dr. Fitzgerald's figure. Only yesterday a written answer by the hon. Lady appeared in HANSARD in response to a promise given, I think, on 12th February, to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out that ration and points goods amounted to only 1,600 calories and asked for an explanation of the gap between 1,600 calories and a figure of 2,900 claimed by the Ministry.

I was rather disappointed by the way in which that question was dealt with in the written answer yesterday. I had expected that we should find a list explaining how the other 1,300 calories were accounted for—so much for fish, potatoes, and so on. Far from that, all we got was the general statement, "But if you add up all the other foods that are available to these people and divide it by the number of mouths, you will get 1,300 calories." Sooner or later the hon. Lady must go into more detail than that. Obviously, Dr. Fitzgerald in Washington does not believe that figure of 1,300 calories. Nobody suggested that a year ago the people of this country were getting 3,100 calories. Nobody has ever said that. Accordingly, I hope the hon. Lady will tell us why there is this discrepancy between her figures and those of the world authorities in Washington. I doubt that the attention of the Minister in this matter—

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now discussing a question of policy.

May I put my point in this way to you, Major Milner? It would be bad enough to have to pay £50 million more if we were getting more food. It would not be so bad if we were getting the same amount of food, but what I am complaining about is that we have to pay more money for less food. I am trying to establish that complaint by showing that, in fact, we have had less, and we are faced in this document with a request for more money. I would submit, with great deference, that in considering whether to vote this money, we are entitled to see what value we have had for it. It is in order to discover that that I am asking the hon. Lady these questions. I do not believe that we have had as much value for it as previous answers from her Department would lead us to believe. I do not want to press the matter but I think it is relevant. I think I put the points to the hon. Lady and I hope she will be able to answer later. I gave her notice of this on the last occasion upon which I made a speech in this House on food. I then drew attention to the fact that, according to a document issued about Christmas time, the views of Washington apparently were different from those of the Ministry's experts. Therefore, she has had plenty of notice to enable her to clear up this matter. I hope it will be cleared up finally this afternoon.

Before I leave the general question of the totals involved, perhaps I might ask one question. How much of this additional subsidy goes to home producers and how much to foreign sellers? I rather think the hon. Lady answered that question. However, I am not quite sure and I would like her confirmation. I do not complain that she dealt with this matter shortly. If I understood her correctly, only £12 million of the £48 million went to home producers, and £36 million went to foreign sellers. I may have misunderstood her remarks and if I am wrong, perhaps she will correct me. It is rather remarkable, if that is so, because, as far as I can understand the figures, much more than half of this total figure of £1,200 million goes to the home producer. The total amount of food imported, according to the returns for 1946, if we take out tobacco, only came to £573 million, and the figures we have had from the Ministry show that much more than half of the gross purchases with which we are concerned in this account must have been from the home producer, and yet he is only getting £12 million, if I am right, of the increase, although he was producing more than half, while the foreigner got £36 million, although he produced less than half the amount. Is that inference right or wrong? It would be interesting to have an answer.

11.30 a.m.

I pass on now to the particular items dealt with in the Estimate. I take first bacon and ham. I do not want to go into these matters in too great detail, because some of my hon. Friends, who have more specific knowledge of these questions than I have, will, no doubt, contribute more specific criticism, but I think it is worth while to put to the hon. Lady the published figures, because I find great difficulty in reconciling them with the growth of this subsidy. I find, for example, that it one looks again at the Trade and Navigation Returns for 1945, there were five million hundredweights imported at a cost of £29 million, and, in 1946, three and a half million, at a cost of £23 million. Therefore, we have apparently saved some £6 million—it is nothing to be proud of, because we have only saved it because we did not get the bacon—we have saved this £6 million on what we pay to the foreign pig producer, and yet we are asked to pay £6 million more by way of subsidy now. I find it very difficult to reconcile those figures.

The hon. Lady told us that, when the original Estimate was made, it was anticipated that we would continue the four ounce ration, but it has since then come down materially. I was not expecting that that would have produced an additional loss, and I find it very difficult to see where an additional loss, only incurred from 1st January, comes in. The Trade and Navigation Returns do not cover that period, and perhaps the hon. Lady will explain these two figures, show how they are to be reconciled, and how much of this additional £6 million goes to the home producer of pigs and how much to the foreign and Dominion producer.

I do not stop to say anything about cereals, except to ask one question. There is an overall saving on cereals and cereal feedingstuffs. Does that mean that there has been a saving on both cereals and cereal feedingstuffs, because, if that is what it means, I need not discuss it? It would mean only that we have imported much less, and, therefore, the subsidy is less, but if, by any chance, the two figures break up to show a saving in the one case and an excess in the other, the other case would be subject to discussion. The same applies to eggs and egg products, where there has been a saving of £6 million. Is that a saving on both eggs and egg products, or is it, perhaps, that there has been a large saving on eggs, because there have not been any eggs, and that egg products have cost more? It rather looks like that when we see the rise in the price of dried egs which is going on just now. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us what is the position.

Now, I pass to what I think the Parliamentary Secretary recognises is the biggest matter of all—the loss of an additional £32 million on meat. The sum of £32 million has had to be spent—more than was anticipated 14 months ago. We are told that £9 million was due to differences in stocks, and I can follow that, although it is an uncommon form of accounting. It is a rather old-fashioned way of keeping a trading account, but, as long as we understand it, it is all right. That really reduces the deficit from £32 million to £23 million. How is that £23 million accounted for? The hon. Lady appeared to attribute it very largely to an unfavourable contract with the Argentine, and, if that is so, perhaps she will explain how it comes about that our contract with the Argentine was so much more unfavourable than had been anticipated by her advisers when this Estimate was made 14 months ago. I should have thought that we were in a very strong position with the Argentine so far as meat is concerned. Who else has got the refrigerated ships to bring the meat away from the Argentine? What other effective buyers are there, except ourselves? Yet we seem to have lost millions of pounds in that bargain which had not been anticipated by the Ministry when making the Estimate. I think we are entitled to some explanation, particularly from those who believe in bulk buying, as to how it is that bulk buying has gone so far wrong on this occasion. I think it would be well to await further particulars from the Parliamentary Secretary before pursuing the matter of the loss on meat any further. It may be, of course, that part of the £23 million went to the home producer, and if so, perhaps the hon. Lady will let us know how much it was.

We now come to milk, where there is a loss of £14 million, £10 million having gone to the producer in this country. I do not know whether the Minister anticipated that the price would go up when the Estimate was made, or whether the rules of estimating prevented that being taken into account. I do not wish to criticise that point, but I would ask if it was not expected that the National Milk Scheme would cost another £4 million? It seems strange that a figure of £4 million comes in wholly unexpectedly. It may be a justifiable expense; I do not know, but it is a little startling. Then, there is £5 million on milk products. We are dealing with such very large sums here that one is almost tempted to say "Why trouble about a few millions more?"—a very different atmosphere to that of the days when money was regarded as a matter of primary importance by those who directed our destinies.

I pass, then, to potatoes, and, so far as I can gather, there is a quite reasonable explanation, and next to sugar, where I have not the knowledge to disagree with what seems to be a reasonable enough explanation on the surface. But tea is a very different story. The hon. Lady seems to think she was doing rather well because she had converted a profit of £3½ million into an actual loss of £100,000. If that is one of the bright spots, I do not know what the others are to be called. Here we are dealing with a commodity which comes from only a few places with which we are in close touch, and yet we have lost nearly £4 million—a 10 per cent. increase in price, since the account was made up. Is this accounted for by the story of the export duty being put on by the producing countries? If I understand the matter aright, the Ministry were so foolish as to enter into contracts with those countries which did not provide that any export duty to be imposed was to be paid by the seller—a direct invitation to impose such duties. Is any part of the result of that foolishness reflected in this figure, or has the cost of that still to come? If that does not account for the £4 million, what does? Is it, again, adherence to bulk purchase against the wishes of the producing country?

Then we come to the question of transport. Here the Committee will observe that the cost of transport, warehousing and ancillary services is no less than 28 per cent. higher than had been anticipated a year ago, if my figure is right, but it is certainly over 25 per cent. To what does the hon. Lady attribute an unexpected rise of over 25 per cent. in the cost of transport and warehousing? Is that just the general inflationary tendency going on in this country today? Is that a normal figure suffered by all businesses? I hardly think it is as high as that. I have no expert knowledge on that but, if it is, it is extremely serious. If, on the other hand it is not quite as high as that, then why has the Ministry suffered a loss of over 25 per cent. if other people have not? I hope the hon. Lady can give us some information about that. It cannot be attributed to having carried a bigger volume of food. I will not go back to what I said a little time ago but, whatever else is the explanation, that is apparently not it.

Then I come to the item "Miscellaneous"—not a very informative heading. There the cost is up by no less than 40 per cent. What does it include? I assume it includes things like copra and other constituents of margarine, and so on. If so, there are a number of matters to be explored there. Does it include the Ministry's incursion into the wine market? If so, perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us how much unexpected loss was incurred there.

Vin ordinaire.

Does it include the astonishing entries in the trade and navigation accounts about grapes and peaches? We must ask for information about that because, turning to the trade and navigation accounts, we spent last year £5·8 million on grapes, and the price was 500 per cent. above prewar. Is that a Ministry transaction, or a private enterprise transaction? One of the few things that private enterprise is allowed to do is to take up the excess purchasing power going about this country. If that is so, one can understand the rise of 500 per cent. Similarly with peaches at £2,500,000–400 per cent. per cwt. above prewar—another equally astonishing figure. Are they included in "Miscellaneous"?

11.45 a.m.

I do not want to weary the Committee, so I will say only a few words about the other items in this paper. With regard to item "A," it would seem that these additional 5,000 people were not only employed for a few weeks or months; the sums involved indicate that they have been employed for a considerable part of the year. Does the Parliamentary Secretary really say that it was necessary to employ for a large part of the year another 5,000 people in respect of bread rationing? If that is so, it is one of the additional disadvantages, but if it is not that, what loss was unanticipated when the original Estimate was drawn up? Then we have travelling expenses for the purpose of investigation. How did it come about that an unexpectedly large amount of "snooping" had to be done? I shall not enter into the rights and wrongs of the policy but, according to the hon. Lady, a great deal more of this type of investigation had to be done during this year than she ever thought likely. It would be interesting to know the cause of that before we pass this Vote. One small matter which she did not mention, but a new one, was the capital cost of factories. Perhaps, therefore, we could be told what the policy is that is involved here. It may be a good policy. I do not know, but we ought to be told as it is a new move.

Finally, with regard to groundnuts, I realise the importance of this new departure. I am in no position personally to express any useful view about it, but I have read the Blue Book that was produced, and I found some considerable difficulty in discovering how much this will add to the fat ration of this country. I do not think the figures are made very plain, but no doubt the hon. Lady has them somewhere and, if she could explain by how much our annual intake for the fat ration of this country will be increased by this scheme, if it goes according to plan, it would certainly make the advantages of the scheme clearer to me and, I have no doubt, to many other people. However I do not wish to say anything for or against the scheme until I know a little more about it.

I have asked the hon. Lady a multitude of questions but I do not see how one can conduct these Debates in any other way. I hope I have not asked questions to which I could find an answer in some published source of information; if I have, I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Committee. If, however, all the questions I have asked can only be answered by the Minister and have not yet been answered, I would ask the hon. Lady to consider whether, during the coming months, she could provide rather more information than has been the habit of the Ministry in the past so that, on the next occasion when we have to discuss her Estimates, it will not be necessary to be quite so interrogatory.

First of all, as is customary in this House and Committee, I wish to declare my interest in the matter under discussion. I am chairman of a wholesale grocery company, but may I hasten to say to the Committee that I do not claim to be an expert on the matter at all, but I must disclose that interest. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions on the statement that was made to us. First of all, on bacon, and the increased prices we were told had to be paid to Canada and Denmark, I should like to ask, has the same increase been given to the Danish suppliers as to the Canadian suppliers? What quantities are expected to come to this country from both those sources of supply as a result of these increases? The hon. Lady also said that home grown food took £12 million of the additional amount that we are voting. I want to know how that compares, commodity by commodity, with the increases that have been granted to the foreign suppliers. Are we giving greater additional increases to the foreigners than we are to those at home?

The hon. Lady said that the local offices she had visited were not grossly over staffed. I think that is fairly accurate. Those of us who have some knowledge of the trade know the enormous amount of petty detailed work that has to be done in the local offices. But is it not possible to abolish some of these restrictions, some of the minor controls, and so release the people in the food offices from the burden of work they are having to carry out? The only other point I wish to ask the hon. Lady about, that arises from her statement, is this. She said tea was not a black spot, and that it appeared to her that the turn from an expected profit of £3,600,000 to a loss of £100,000 really did not matter at all. I should like to assure her that, in private trading, we should regard that as a very black spot, indeed. It makes me wonder whether the hon. Lady has not wandered into the realms of one of her colleagues, who said that pounds, shillings and pence are meaningless symbols.

The criticisms I want to level at the Supplementary Estimate are not made in any carping spirit, for I believe that the Ministry of Food is the one great development that has come out of the war that has come to stay. I think we are all agreed that the Ministry of Food is necessary. It is the only way to get fair shares all round whilst food is in short supply; and as far as one can see the world is going to be faced for the next ten years with a shortage of food. But while we agree in principle with the Ministry of Food that a great deal of control is necessary, we are entitled to ask whether we are getting value for our money, and some of us feel that we are getting very poor value for our money from this Ministry.

Under Sub-head H, "Trading services," we are asked to grant an extra £48,500,000. I feel that we are getting nothing like the efficiency we ought to have, and that that loss is much greater than it need be. I would remind the hon. Lady and the Committee, that during the war Lord Woolton had a committee of eight experts who met regularly, and helped him very considerably with his day to day transactions. I believe that most of those people have gone back to private trade. They complain that under the present set-up the civil servants who have taken their place do not seek their advice. Consequently, although the civil servants are honest and hard working, and although they do their best, they have not the technical knowledge or background necessary, and they make blunders that experts in the trade would not make. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is not possible to get back that liaison with the trade that existed during the war—to rebuild, in some form, the Wool-ton team which, if it had been in existence today, I believe would have saved us some of this loss that we are having to make up.

Would the hon. Member please explain? Is he charging the Ministry with changing all the officials that worked under Lord Woolton, and not replacing them with people of equal experience?

I am merely stating the fact.

It is not the fact.

With great respect, I am stating the fact.

If we can produce evidence to show that, in 77 per cent. of the departments concerned in the Ministry of Food, the representatives of the trade are still there, will it be the fact?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I bow to his expert knowledge in these matters.

It is not expert.

But the fact of the matter is that the top men, the really highest executives, in the majority of cases have come out of their jobs. I am not blaming the Government for it. But they are not there any longer, and it is the top men who count. What they complain about is, not that the change over is made, and that they have gone back to their own business interests, because that was inevitable, but that the advice they are still willing to give to the Ministry is not sought and is not welcome, and that, consequently, the policy that would have been possible with Lord Woolton's team is no longer carried out, because we have civil servants instead, backed by Socialist ideas. The complaint is that the Ministry says, "We do not want you to help." Consequently, this Vote is heavier than it need be. We have lost more money, and paid more money for our food, than we need have done, because the men in charge do not know their job, and the present Minister is nothing like as accessible as was Lord Woolton during his term of office. The advice he got is not now being received by the Department. I want to ask the hon. Lady if it is not possible to rebuild that team at the top—I am not talking about petty officials—and so reduce this heavy loss we are making, and so make it unnecessary for us to vote so much money as we are having to vote today.

The Ministry's policy, as during the war, is based upon bulk buying. We have purchased during the year £1,267,000,000 worth of food supplies, which has shown this enormous loss. I want to point this out. In the case of Denmark, in the buying of bacon, I believe it is true that our bulk buyer, because of his great buying power, forced a price upon the Danes that would have involved them in a loss of something like £7,000,000. The hon. Lady will correct me if I am wrong. In most of these bulk purchase contracts, there is an escape clause, and the suppliers have the right not to deliver. I want to ask the hon. Lady how much of that original Danish bacon contract was delivered; because our bulk buyer had forced the price too low, and the Danes did not send the stuff, and, consequently, we have not the bacon. Subsequently—I believe this is true—a second contract had to be entered into, and we had to pay a considerably higher price. I want to know from the hon. Lady what was the difference between the first contract and the second contract with Denmark with regard to prices, and how much difference it has made to the supplies we have received.

I turn now to the question of milk. We are asked to vote an extra £14 million in respect of the milk subsidy, making a total of £58,500,000. We are not against this policy, and we want the children, especially the poorer children in the industrial districts, to get cheap milk, but I should like to make this clear. Milk at 2½d. per half pint involves a subsidy of £58,500,000.

A jolly good investment.

It is a very fine investment, but the working man ought to realise that Guinness at 1s. 1d. is not nearly such a good "buy." The point I wish to drive home is that when we are spending all this money on cheap food, the people who are benefiting ought to know what is being done for them. I would ask the Minister to go in for some publicity in this regard.

I wish now to turn to the question of potatoes. In this case, there is an increase from £8,600,000 to £11,800,000. I should like to ask whether there is any fear of potato rationing in the near future, or whether supplies are sufficient to meet demand. When we are being asked to vote money in this regard, surely, I am entitled to ask whether the supplies of potatoes are adequate? I would remind the Committee that a year ago, when bread rationing was first mentioned in this House, the Minister had to apologise later on, and I want to know whether the hon. Lady will one day have to say that she is sorry for something someone has said which has turned out to be wrong. Are we to have supplies of potatoes from America, and if so, in what quantities? Can she tell us what is the price, and how that compares?

The hon. Member is not putting his question in the proper form. He is asking in regard to the future. If he asked whether this increase was due to the fact that potatoes had been brought from America, that would be a different matter.

Surely this is a Supplementary Estimate to the end of the financial year, and covers, therefore, what the Ministry is to buy between now and the end of the financial year. Therefore, in my submission, my hon. Friend is quite right.

We have only a fortnight to go before the end of the financial year.

Sometimes one buys at very short notice, and that is what the Minister of Food is doing in America.

I am very sorry if I have transgressed. [Interruption] The policy of the Communist Party is not to know the Rules but to keep blundering on. I want to know what price we are to pay, and if we are to pay a higher price for potatoes in America than the prices paid to our farmers? To pay a higher price abroad than we pay at home for supplies, is wrong and unjustifiable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Suppose we have no choice?"] Had we had better men at the top we should have had a choice, and we should not have been in this present position. I want to deal now with bacon and hogs. The Government hoped to make a profit of nearly £1 million, and they are making a loss of over £5 million. To what extent is that loss due to the Danish contract? Two ounces a week of bacon is very little for a working man, and to pay all this money for such a poor result does not suggest good judgment or sound business. I understand that the number of hogs we are getting from Canada has dropped tremendously over the last three years. I believe we had 4,669,000 in 1943, whereas the figure was only 2,415,000 last year. Are we getting fewer hogs from Canada, because there are fewer hogs in Canada, or because we are not getting our fair share? [An HON. MEMBER: Hogsnorton."] I did not ask the hon. Member to grunt.

The hon. Member prefaced his speech by saying that he was a business man, and declared his interest. Has his experience not told him that the hog population of the world has never been lower than today, and we must, therefore, expect to receive less? Do his experts never give him any information before he comes here?

I accept the expert advice of the hon. Member, but our imports from Canada over the last three years are down by 50 per cent., and if the world hog population is down by 25 per cent., why should we suffer a reduction of 50 per cent.? Why is it that the English consumer always has to be the last in the queue? Why should we always be sacrificing our rations to other people? It is high time someone stood up for the English people in this House. Is it a fact, as has been suggested, that we are not getting as many hogs from Canada because they are not there, or is it because we are not getting as fair a share as we used to have? During the war our position was materially helped by the pig clubs, especially in the country districts. Is the hon. Lady's Department doing all it can to encourage the collection of swill for these pig clubs, or is not there the same interest in this as there was during the war?

I do not think the question of pig clubs comes under this Supplementary Estimate.

I am learning more and more. I will turn now to transport, warehousing and ancillary services. There is an increase here of more than £5 million, making a total of £22,800,000. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), who is such an expert—

I am not an expert. The hon. Member is a business man.

It is obvious that the hon. Member is not a business man. Since quite a number of buffer food depots have been closed down, why is it that the cost has increased? How many of the buffer depots have been closed? If quite a number have been closed, surely, it is reasonable to expect that the charge should be lower, not greater. I would like the hon. Lady to clear up a point which was raised in a Question on 5th February last, when she said that prices were fixed largely by the cost of living policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is true. Therefore, all that the Ministry can do, and rightly, to keep down prices, is being done. One of the things they are doing successfully is to keep down the profit margin of traders. Obviously, if larger profit margins were allowed the loss involved would be increased. On 5th February, the hon. Lady was asked a Question about the amount of profit in the £400 million annual subsidy for food, and it was later alleged that the gross profit was something approaching 33⅓ per cent. of the prewar basis, when it should be only 12 to 15 per cent. I feel that it is only fair to those working hard and honestly in trade to point out that the average gross profit in the wholesale grocery trade is 7 to 7½ per cent., which, so far as my experience goes with other Government Departments, is the lowest that any Government Department allows to a trade. That is a gross percentage from which expenses have to be paid. During the last two year—

The hon. Member is now making points which are not strictly relevant to the Estimate.

According to Item A of the Vote the salaries for a further 5,000 additional workers, mostly clerks, amount to £660,000. If they worked a full year their average wage would be about 52s. a week. That is a miserable wage. There are many people in ordinary private enterprise who would not pay that to their clerks.

It might also mean that there were a number of part-time clerical workers.

If they were all full-time workers their average wage would be 52s. a week, a miserable wage to pay. I hope the Government will look into that, and will also tell me whether all these people are compelled to join a trade union and, if so, which?

The hon. Member is again out of Order.

I beg the Committee's pardon for being so long, but we are entitled to know that this money is being properly and well spent. I feel that there is not the efficiency in this Ministry that there was during the war, and that if our people are to be as fed as well as they could be fed, even though there are shortages, things must be different in future from what they are to-day.

After the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) and my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) a great deal of what I hoped to develop in this Debate has gone by the wayside, but there are one or two points on which I would like a little more enlightenment. According to Item A, we have an additional staff of 5,000 typists, etc. The actual wording is "Additional clerical, typing, etc., staff." That 5,000 additional people represents an increase of over 25 per cent. in the staffs of local food offices. The number employed, according to the original Estimate, was 19,000. Although the hon. Lady has given us an explanation, or part explanation. that these additional employees were wanted in connection with bread rationing, I do not feel that she has covered the whole picture, and I would like to know whether the word, "etc.," covers other categories of workers. For instance, there are enforcement inspectors and rodent officers who are employed by the Ministry. I would like to know whether the additional staff is entirely clerical. If so, is it really necessary, when we have less food coming through, that we should employ 25 per cent. more people than we did in the past? In connection with meat, which comes under Item H, I did not quite follow the hon. Lady's explanation as to why we had a deficit of £33 million on our original Estimate. At a time when our consumption has exceeded our supply by 65,000 tons, and our stocks are low—we have just had a cut in sausage meat—it is most extraordinary that we should require this large additional Vote. I hope we shall have more clarification on this point.

Further, I do not think it is fair to ask the Committee to pass an additional Vote of £6½ million for what is referred to as "Miscellaneous" in the trading services. It is suggested that part of it may be due to the Government's extravagance in importing wine, and we ought to hear something about the main items which are responsible for this additional sum. Looking at the whole Vote, I cannot help feeling that it paints a rather sorry picture in that bulk purchase now means worse living for longer.

It is obvious that, although the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) declared his interest, he certainly has not been keeping up to date with what is happening in the provisions world. I do not question his financial interest, but I was alarmed by his lack of knowledge on the subject. I cannot help feeling that I would not have troubled to air my interest if my knowledge on the subject was so vague. I am not an expert myself, but I always feel alarmed when businessmen claim that they are experts and can advise the Minister, and then show that they cannot give any advice at all.

At least, we are honest on this side of the Committee, and declare our interests, as it is honest to do.

The alarming part of the situation is that people who speculate in food claim to be businessmen and claim that we need to have experts to tell us how to run things, whereas we know that, after the last war, the people who gambled in the food of the nation made enormous profits, and we are seeing to it that they do not do that any more.

What does the hon. Member mean by "last war"?

I mean the first World War. I wish to direct attention to the note which declares that the Supplementary Estimate is concerned with the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies. No one can possibly argue—whether we subsidise wheat shipments, or subsidise the loaf—that subsidies are necessary. The subsidisation of fats, maintaining the proper balance, pegging down the prices of meat, and so forth, are issues that we cannot argue about, because they have such a important bearing on the pay packet, inflation, and all the other matters which affect not only the people represented by hon. Members on this side, but the business interests and the investments of the people represented on the Benches opposite. I want, however, to make it clear that I am not altogether satisfied about the continuation of some subsidies which were created in wartime. I believe we deceive ourselves if we believe it is necessary to maintain every wartime subsidy as an absolute necessity and to take out of Treasury funds millions of pounds in respect of certain commodities which play no part in pegging down the cost of living or balancing anything in relation to the pay packet. I cannot understand why we should pay £4,750,000—I believe that is the figure that was given to me by the Minister about a fortnight ago—on currants, raisins, sultanas and certain dried fruits purchased from Greece. If this affected the cost of living, or in some way protected the average housewife, I would support it to the hilt, but I do not think it does any such thing.

I say this all the more when I think of all the other tasty fruits which the housewife wishes to purchase, but finds that, due to the operations of speculators, the prices have skyrocketed enormously. I hope the Minister will examine this matter, particularly because, in the matter of points goods, we have had considerable pleasure during the last few months from cheap tinned fruits and canned goods of various kinds. These things were not subsidised in any shape or form, and the housewife purchased them at the proper commercial price. I cannot understand why, when this evening I help to spend the points in my homestead, if I choose currants I receive a subsidy, whereas if I choose tinned fruit I do not receive a subsidy, although both those commodities may be attractive either to me this week or to somebody else next week. I would like the Minister to examine that matter.

The next question I would like the Minister to consider is one that I raised a fortnight ago concerning sugar and certain materials which, I imagine, are included under the miscellaneous heading or under the sugar group. The ice-cream manufacturers, the soft drink industries, and the confectioners, have done rather well in recent months as a result of allocations from the Ministry of Food. It occurs to me that, in that group alone, the sugar manufacturers, the soft drink manufacturers, the ice-cream makers and the confectioners benefit to the extent of nearly £2 million a year, for what reason I do not know. I have never been able to understand why we should give a subsidy to these people to ensure that we get at a price of 6d. a cornet the cost of which was 2d. before the war. That is what it amounts to.

Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to relate his points to items in the Supplementary Estimate. There is a tendency to make general statements. Those statements, particularly on Supplementary Estimates, should be related to particular items.

I can certainly succeed in doing that, as far as the relationship of sugar for manufacturing is concerned, by explaining that the Supplementary Estimate is considerably increased, and there is no doubt that it means more sugar and more subsidy, and it means that somebody is benefiting who ought never to take a share out of the subsidy which we are voting today. I pass now to the contention that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). I believe we ought, on the whole, to be very careful about these subsidies. We ought to review them immediately. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to tell the Minister of Food that certain of these subsidies are playing no part in the average family life and have not done so for months. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead wanted to know how much was going to the home producer and how much was going on food purchased from abroad. I would rather subsidise cauliflowers, cabbages and swedes, which are very expensive today; I would rather subsidise British farmers than I would Greek currant growers. It is much more important to do so. I come now to the question of peaches, pineapples and all the other costly commodities which appear in the shop windows today.

Pomegranates.

They are fantastic things, and anybody who buys them is crazy anyhow. It is a fact that the average citizen believes that all these tasty bits of lovely fruit appearing in the shop windows are bought by the Ministry of Food and controlled by them, although I should certainly think that nobody believes they are subsidised by the Ministry; but what I want to have from the Minister is a clear statement of who is buying them. Is it the speculators and gangsters—because there are gangsters in the business world today who have gone abroad and are working a racket with Covent Garden Market? [An HON. MEMBER" Socalist planning."] They are not members of the Socialist Party; they are certainly not on our side. Are any of these fancy fruits at fantastic prices being purchased by the Ministry of Food, or is this due only to the fact that we have given free play to speculators, those people who regard themselves as business men and as people who can do the job better than the Ministry of Food? I am anxious about this situation, because the people are asking questions, and hon. Members opposite are asking questions, although they never ask questions of their friends who could give them the right answers. I hope that the Minister will, this morning, give the proper answer to the question that has been put.

12.30 p.m.

My final point has reference to the Vote relating to eggs and egg products, to which reference was made earlier. I think it was appalling bad form on the part of the Ministry of Food last week-end to put over to the British people the simple statement that dried eggs were going up from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 6d. without informing them why it was happening. It was actually known months ago to this crowd at the Ministry of Food—[Laughter.] I say it deliberately, because I know it is true in the Public Relations Department. I believe the village grocer at Slocum-on-Slush could do a better job of public relations than the whole set-up at the Ministry of Food. [An HON. MEMBER: "Socialist planning."] Of course it has nothing to do with the displaced persons from the gang brought in by Woolton during the war.

One service the Parliamentary Secretary can do in replying this morning is to tell the British people that the real reason for the increase in the cost of dried eggs is that the Chancellor has taken away £25 million, which the nation is saving—as is advocated by the Tory Party—and has put the price of dried eggs on a commercial basis. Everybody will, I think, be satisfied if only they get an honest explanation of that kind. I beg the Minister to examine the points I have raised and give us two clear statements on these issues, fruit and dried eggs. If we get the facts we shall be more satisfied than we are at present with the Supplementary Estimate we are now asked to vote.

I had not intended to intervene, but I would like to call attention to the speech we have just heard. I think it could be described as one which essentially made "confusion worse confounded." I propose to address my remarks solely to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. If I may say so with respect, I think it was doubtfully related to the Supplementary Estimate, but let us consider the contention of the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks as if he had great knowledge and authority. Unlike the profiteers on this side of the House, he comes here purely to do his duty by the House, and adopts an attitude of superiority which is really rather ludicrous.

What is his argument? He began by saying how different things were from the days when, presumably, the wicked Tories were in power some 25 years ago, when there was huge speculation in food and high prices. That is not true. In fact after the last war there was a great slump in prices which did great injury to agriculture within two or three years. He went on to say how far superior was the system of the present Government, as represented by this Supplementary Estimate. To what was the next part of his speech devoted? To attacking one item after another in the hon. Lady's speech, and saying how inefficient she was and how incompetent her office was, how they were buying fruits from Greece which nobody wanted, and so on. He began, from the profundity of his knowledge and the greatness of his position in this House, by praising the whole system, and then proceeded to attack the policy he began by praising and then tore the hon. Lady and the unfortunate Minister of Food, limb from limb. Everything was most unsatisfactory and that was not the way he would run it. It does not make sense.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to know whether any money was provided in this item for purchasing certain fruits. I cannot see it in the item, but that is what he spoke of, and then he made a most astonishing statement. Incidentally, most of this fruit comes from the Dominion of South Africa—all the soft fruit, the peaches and pears, which I think are very cheap, come from our fellow-citizen farmers in South Africa, and I do not think they are going to profiteer. Then, using the usual Socialist approach to these matters, he made the astonishing statement that some person had actually purchased these fruits abroad and had made a profit on them and, said the hon. Gentleman, speaking with all the indignation of which he is capable, they were gangsters; they had actually made a profit. All I can say about that is that they may have made a profit, but they have hot made such a hopeless muddle of the business of buying food as has the Minister of Food.

This has indeed been a treat. When the noble Lord comes down to the House we can never be quite sure what he is going to say, and I doubt whether he knows himself before he starts, but he usually manages to work himself up into a state of moral indignation to amuse us all, I am sure we have all been delighted by that pre-lunch cocktail.

I wanted to raise the question of Subhead J, which relates to the production of groundnuts in East and Central Africa, an item of the utmost importance to this country. The item includes the cost of capital equipment, including railway construction and clearing operations. What degree of priority is being given to the railway construction work which is to be undertaken there? What trucks are being sent abroad, what locomotives? This places us at home here in a dilemma. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is your responsibility."] We are quite happy to accept it. When I was in Africa recently I was told that unless they got locomotives, trucks and spare parts we should not get the groundnuts, which means that we should not get the fat ration, and should not get margarine. But we in this country need every railway truck, every wagon, every sleeper and every locomotive we can get. Someone has to make the choice at some time, whether we are to have fewer groundnuts and a smaller fat ration, or more railway trucks at home to carry our goods. Are we sending sufficient trucks and locomotives abroad to ensure that we can get ahead with this vast job in the Colonies?

It does place the Government in a dilemma, and how that dilemma can be resolved without a central decision on the question of how many trucks are to be sent abroad and how many to be retained at home I do not know. That, presumably, is where we should part company with hon. Members opposite, because we think that foresight in such a matter is better than blind instinct. That choice has to be made, and I ask the Minister how the choice is being made, and what degree of priority is being afforded to this essential work overseas.

The next question I should like to ask is whether the Minister's hope is being fulfilled and groundnuts are being planted there this year. I notice that a part of the expenditure is for that particular item. I understand that the planting season is in the early part of the year; will there be a sufficient area cleared to enable any groundnuts to be planted this year? If so, will it be sufficient to enable our fat ration to be improved this year? Those are important items. I would hazard the view that the area cleared will not be sufficient to make any vital difference. but I think the Committee would like to know.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a friendly interruption, the season does not commence, I believe, until next October.

I differ from the right hon. Gentleman; I understood the planting season was early in the year and the cropping season about the end.

Yes, about the end.

That is a point on which, no doubt, the Minister can advise us. My next question is, shall we in fact get as many groundnuts this year as we got last year, or, because the African is eating more and has a rather higher standard of life, shall we get less?

I turn now to another point, concerning the agency fee which is being paid to the United Africa Company. The explanatory note here refers to the White Paper Cmd. 7030, but that White Paper does not give us any indication as to the basis upon which the agency is being run. A part of the expenditure is for central administration, £250,000, which is being paid presumably to the United Africa Company. Can the Minister tell us on what basis they are drawing their fee, what control there is over their operations, and other matters of that sort which I think the Committee ought to know when we are paying away a large sum of money like this? I am not opposed to this Vote at all. I think it is a method of self-help, that it will assist this country and will assist in the development of the Colonies. It is a venture that. might have been undertaken many years ago. However, we had the honour of starting it, and of that I am particularly glad.

My only other general observation is on the question of the food subsidies included in subhead H. At present I think they are inevitable. They are assisting us to keep down the cost of living by a material amount. But I agree entirely with the hon. Member who said that the full extent of the Exchequer's contribution to the cost of living should be brought home to the British people. It is most important that the average man and his wife should realise that their cost of living is being subsidised to this extent. Of course they are paying it out of one pocket and getting it back in another. I hold the view that it is rather better and perhaps rather cheaper to do it that way, by bringing in taxation and spending it on subsidies, than to have a comparatively uncontrolled rise in the price of food. I think it is better, but the fact is not at present fully appreciated in the country. We are being asked to devote additional money to this expenditure, and I think we ought to do so at the present time, for I can imagine nothing more catastrophic than the removal of the food subsidies and the consequential demands that would be made for increased wages if the price of food went up to a substantial extent. I urge the Minister to bring this point home fully to the public, so that they may understand what the real position is, and realise that they are, in many cases, getting their food as cheaply now as at any time during the last 20 years because of the policy we are adopting, and not because of world prices of food.

The concluding remarks of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) struck me as very pertinent, and to a considerable extent I am in agreement with them. There must be no question now of an uncontrolled rise in the price of foodstuffs. also agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) that the Chancellor and the Minister should look into the whole question of the policy of subsidies in the future. I particularly agree with the hon. Member for South Cardiff in connection with public expenditure. I look at it in this way. Spread on average over the whole of the people of this country of working age, each person of working age is being taxed to the extent of £16 or £17 in order that the Labour Government can indulge in bulk buying, often very unsuccessfully. We are now asked in this Supplementary Estimate to provide approximately another £3 per head on behalf of each of our constituents between the ages of 18 and 60.

I ask the Minister two simple questions: Under the heading "Bulk purchase of food", the loss is, as one hon. Member said, terrific. I fully accept that when bulk purchase is going on abroad, the Minister and his advisers may want to maintain a certain amount of secrecy. What I cannot accept, as a representative of the taxpayers, is that, when such transactions have been finished for a long time, the facts should not be made known to the House of Commons and the public. We have to ask questions on the Supplementary Estimates which would be unnecessary, if the Minister would take the public into his confidence. He must be more frank. When a transaction is finished, I suggest that the Minister should say, "We have had an exceptionally good deal here," or "We have been unsuccessful in this particular transaction." Why should we vote additional taxation without being told the facts?

Under the heading of "Miscellaneous," may we know how much of that sum of over £6 million is involved in buying fruit, vegetables and nuts? I believe that the cost per ton of imports has gone up since 1938 from £870 per ton to £3,270. That is an increase of nearly 400 per cent., and my statement is borne out by the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) who said that grapes had gone up by 500 per cent. I think that this question of buying fruit, vegetables and nuts from abroad is a very serious matter. Wages and costs have not gone up to that extent abroad. If we are to spend a great deal more money for a great deal less food, it is high time we seriously reconsidered our policy to see if we cannot increase our horticultural produce, instead of having to import so much from Holland and France. Could the hon. Lady tell me how much of that miscellaneous loss is on account of fruit, vegetables and nuts? In 1938, we spent £37 million on 42,000 tons of fruit, vegetables and nuts purchased abroad. In 1947. we spent £52 million on only 16,000 tons. I do not believe that we are spending too much money in the Empire and Colonies, but I do believe that we are spending a great deal too much in some of the European countries, and that the prices are too high. I challenge the Government to prove that I am wrong.

I should like some further information about foodstuffs, and I ask the Minister to tell us what c.i.f. price was paid for the 30,000 tons of potatoes purchased from Canada which were brought to British ports, and also the c.i.f. price of the Danish potatoes which have recently been bought. Will she also give us some information about the general policy concerning dried egg, in view of the fact that it has been so very expensive, and, in some ways, unsatisfactory in the past? Several of us on this side of the House have been urging for a long time the importation of grain so that eggs may be produced here at a very much lower cost than the equivalent which has to be paid for the purchase of dried egg abroad. I know that there, have been difficulties in getting grain, but I cannot think it has been entirely impossible to get it, and I believe that it will be easier in future to buy grain from abroad and to bring it here for the production of eggs. It is essential for the pig and poultry breeders in this country, who have done so well in the past, that foodstuffs should be increased as quickly as possible. Some increase in foodstuffs was announced the other day, but it was only a very small amount. I hope the Minister will consider this matter carefully, and try to do something worthy of these two great industries.

On the question of African groundnuts, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), I read the White Paper with great interest. It seems to be the beginning of an important new policy, which I welcome. It shows great vision and imagination. In fact, one might almost suspect that this great scheme has been in a pigeon-hole and has at last found the light of day. Whether or not that is the case, it is a most interesting scheme and one which should be encouraged.

Reading the White Paper is rather like reading a company prospectus. I had some misgivings about it when I had finished it. While I am entirely in favour of the scheme as a whole, and wish it success in every way, I am not happy about some of the figures given in the White Paper. The general scheme is to develop about three million acres at a cost of £24 million. The plots of land will be developed in 107 different pieces of 30,000 acres each. Grass and other crops may be planted in rotation to maintain fertility but undoubtedly from the point of view of this country, the important crop is groundnuts of which they expect to get some 600,000 tons a year. I was sorry to see that there were not far more detailed Estimates in the White Paper. It is interesting reading, but it is far too general and vague and only summaries are given. We are told that the capital cost of equipment and preparation will be about £7 10s. an acre. We are told that in a short time there will probably be 1,250 Europeans employed, and the optimum number of natives, about 57,000. We are, however, given practically no detailed information.

I have no experience of tropical or subtropical agriculture in Africa, but I have considerable experience of that type of work in other parts of the world. One naturally wonders, for example, what buildings such as stores, factories, houses, hospitals and schools will be required. We have no detailed information of that kind. There is no indication of the type of houses for the Europeans, nor the cost, and we do not know the type of houses for the natives and whether they will live on the estates or in some cases come in from the native villages. We do not know the mileage or cost of roads required. In these units of 30,000 acres each, roads are obviously most important, especially in Central Africa where the climate varies so much at different times of the year. We are told that 35 miles of railway will be required in one place and over too miles in another, but there is no indication of the cost of constructing the railway and of the rolling stock and engines. That is very elementary information. The White Paper even goes so far as to point out the neces- sity for building new ports. That is most important but as I say we are given no details.

I hope I am not talking wide of this Estimate. I do not think so, because part of this scheme is supposed to be in operation by the end of March of this year. The expenditure to the end of March, 1947, is rather over £1 million, and that is of course included in the £24 million for the general development about which I am talking. This scheme will also require in connection with the ports, certain small ships, or junks, as they may be called locally—

The hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the Estimate in dealing with railway stock, ports, ships, etc. This Estimate deals with railway construction, clearing operations and agricultural operations. The hon. Gentleman is going into particulars which will be dealt with on future Estimates and cannot be covered on this Supplementary Estimate.

With great respect, Major Milner, this is a new service and this is the first money the Committee has been asked to vote for this great scheme. Surely the whole policy is open for discussion, because obviously it would not be any sense to start the railway construction and agricultural operations unless this House agreed?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably right in saying that this is the first money the Committee is being asked to Vote for this scheme, but it is a very small proportion of the whole amount which will be required and there is to be an opportunity at no distant date for discussing the whole matter. We cannot go into it now.

If we pass this Supplementary Estimate, it means that the Committee has accepted the scheme in principle. Therefore the large expenditure which will come into the course of payment later on will have been, to that extent, prejudged by the decision today.

May I point out that the White Paper definitely states that there is £1 million of capital costs, including the railway construction and the clearing operations, and the second item is the cost of agricultural operations, including central administration? Therefore to bring in the building of a port is obviously outside the scope of today's consideration.

Naturally, Major Milner, I will abide by your observations, but this is the initial expenditure. of £1 million which is being discussed today and having spent that, we are committed to another £23 million or £50 million as the case may be. However, I will try to keep within the limits. As to the question of equipment, we are told that tremendous bulldozers of 120 horsepower are to be employed to knock down the trees and to clear and, in some cases presumably, to flatten the land and prepare it for cultivation, but we are not given any idea of how many bulldozers are required. We gather that one type of tractor will be required for preparing the land, and another smaller type for cultivating the land when it is flattened, and there are no obstacles of any sort. I should like considerable information on how many of the large tractors and how many of the small tractors are required, either for the whole project or for each of the 30,000 acre plots.

We are told that this capital equipment will be depreciated over a period of five years. From my experience of this type of machinery, especially in the hands of native labour, I do not for a moment think that it will last for an average of five years. That is entirely too optimistic. Practically no mention is made of the implements which will be required either for the preparatory capital work or for the subsequent cultivations when the project is a going concern, nor are we told the rates of pay of the local labour, both skilled mechanical labour and less skilled labour, which is of vast importance. In a venture of this kind, which is entirely new, many unknown things will crop up. We know for certain that there will be a considerable amount of disease, both for the crops and for the population. Various diseases are mentioned with which I am not familiar, but the tsetse fly is mentioned—

The hon. Gentleman is really going too far in mentioning such matters, which do not arise on this Estimate. May I point out that such particulars can be dealt with later, when there will be further opportunities for the whole question to be discussed? I cannot allow these details to be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate, notwithstanding the fact that this is the beginning of a new service. I cannot allow the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate to resolve itself into one on the whole of a scheme which will involve a much larger sum, and deal with a future period and not the short period involved here.

I will try to keep within narrower limits. In passing, it has been mentioned that dairy and beef cattle may be produced as a by-product. Could any indication be given of the type and cost of these cattle and where they will come from? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will try to emphasise the importance of an undertaking of this kind. We have been told by the hon. Member for South Cardiff that it is vital to get tractors and equipment out there to Tanganyika. Do the people of this country realise that their fat rations for the next two or three years largely depend on equipment of this kind being got to Tanganyika at an early date? I will not go further into this most complicated but interesting subject. I do hope that the Minister will make available a considerably more detailed estimate of this work, because the full estimates of the work are not given in this White Paper. There has been no similar project like it as far as I know in this part of the world. There are many factors about soil fertility, shortage of labour, disease, and so forth, about which very little is known. We are committed to large expenditure, and I, for one, support the project wholeheartedly.

I should like to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir John Barlow) in his remarks on this Estimate for the production of groundnuts in Africa. I think when the hon. Lady referred to that item she rather glossed over it, and did not make any great attempt to give us information on the subject. When this project was originally introduced into this House, it was welcomed from, all sides. We still have no objection to it, but when an item like this appears in Supplementary Estimates, we do expect to have some information. Several questions have been asked on the subject and what I am going to ask is this: Is it not a fact that the scheme with regard to Tanganyika instead of being a development scheme for the southern Provinces has now been switched to the central Provinces? I hope that is so, because under the original scheme transport difficulties will be enormous. The Southern Provinces are 150 miles from the nearest port, necessitating the building of a railway which has not yet been sited. Obviously if we have to wait for that, before we get our groundnuts and groundnut oil, it will be a great many years before the scheme comes into operation. I should like to know if it is true that there has been a change in the original scheme from the Southern Provinces of Tanganyika to the central Provinces, because if so, it will ease the transport problem as that area has a railway.

A question was asked regarding tractors and so forth being sent to East Africa. I am told that there is abundance of these vehicles in Kenya. I am sure that there is a disposals board there and I hope the department responsible for this project will not allow these vehicles to be sent out of the country, particularly those which could be used in this project. One hon. Member I thought was too optimistic when he said that he expected to get the first crop in the winter of 1947–8. As this scheme has not vet been started, I wonder how that is going to come about. Even if development were started now, groundnuts can only be planted in the autumn, which would give only a limited yield next year, and we would only be getting groundnut oil by the end of 1948. I wonder if that estimate is true and if not exactly what do we expect to get out of the scheme for which we are asked to pay £1,250,000. I am sure all of us on this side of the Committee wish the Government the best of luck with this great project, but in view of the shortage of these commodities throughout the world, particularly oil, it is essential that we should reap some benefit in the near future and that we should make use of all the facilities available in Africa at present. I am informed that there is an abundance of army equipment of all Finds there, including bulldozers and tractors, and that these are about to be disposed of. It is rumoured that some may be sent to the Middle East and perhaps disposed of there. I hope those responsible for this scheme will not lose the opportunity of availing themselves of some of these vehicles.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food can answer these questions because, as I say, we have no information whatever on this expenditure of £1,250,000. I should like to know for instance if it covers compensation for displacements. Obviously, if large tracts of land are to be cleared, villages will be displaced and a great many people will have to find new homes. In this sum of £1,250,000 is there any compensation for those who will be displaced and will lose their homes? Amongst the questions which have been flung at the hon. Lady this morning, I hope she will find time to answer the two that I have indicated.

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the Committee. The hon. Lady was here until nearly one o'clock this morning, and I am sure she is rather tired answering questions. I want to raise the question of the prices paid to farmers, included in the increased Estimate under Subhead H. I hope she will make it quite clear that the subsidy paid to farmers is a subsidy paid to the consumer. I would follow up what the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) said, that the people do not realise that the so-called subsidy to the farmer is, in fact, a subsidy to the consumer. I hope that the hon. Lady will make that quite clear. Another point is the question of taking off some of the controls. I agree that the taking off of all controls at once is a fantastic proposal, but I do think that some controlled rise in the prices of food is advisable and that the sooner prices find their true level, the better it will be for the whole country.

I should like to mention the question of cereal feedingstuffs. Here, again, I would ask the Ministry to do all in their power to see what can be done in scouring the markets of the world for these feeding-stuffs. If they are not getting a fair allocation through the International Emergency Food Council, I think they should scrap that scheme, and send out their own buyers. We are spending something like £70 million on eggs and poultry per annum which we could produce in this country by the purchase of £30,000,000 worth of feedingstuffs and there would be a valuable saving to the Treasury in exchange which we have not got at present. On the question of the purchases of pine apples, peaches, etc., I think the foreign exchange used for these purchases would be better spent on feedingstuffs. The housewife would prefer to spend the money on beef steak and shell eggs. Under the item for warehousing, I want to ask the Minister why there should be such an increase. Less food is handled in the warehouses and there is not a need for a lot of warehousing being done at present. There are warehouses in which food is still stored and which should be derequistioned. I think this item could be looked at to see whether retailers could not themselves warehouse a lot of the stuff which is taken backwards and forwards and stored unnecessarily. I think we should go back to the prewar principle, where the retailer housed a lot of his stuff. In that way the country could be saved a good deal.

On the African groundnuts question, there is £1 million for capital equipment and clearing operations. One thing which should be considered is the housing of the labourers. I hope the Ministry of Food will build places for the African natives on the job. If we are to get the best out of them, we have to get away from the old idea of engaging men in the reserves and bringing them away from their wives and families to work on the farms. I hope that plans will be made to build villages in which they can have schools and hospitals on the plantations, instead of continuing the system whereby they are taken away from their families, with all the vices that follow. I hope that in starting the scheme from the ground floor, the Ministry will plan and see that native labourers are housed properly, in good villages, in which schools and hospitals are provided.

I am sorry to have to revert to the milk welfare schemes, but I think this is one of the most important items in the whole Supplementary Estimate. We are very much indebted to farmers, who have done a magnificent job in milk production, and we do not grudge any money that has been spent on it. There is a difference between the original and the revised Estimate of £14. million, and some of that is concerned with the milk welfare scheme for schools, Is the hon. Lady satisfied that there is no great wastage of milk in this scheme? I have endeavoured to raise this matter before, because I have evidence that under this priority scheme there is an immense wastage going on in the schools of England and Wales. I am told that milk is delivered on the Saturday to some of the schools, although they are closed, and it is unfit for consumption on the Monday. I am also told that there is a wastage because quite a number of children do not take the milk at all.

1.15 p.m.

There is an over delivery of milk to many of the schools, and some of it is wasted. This is a matter into which the Ministry should make very stringent and strict inquiry. Close inquiry should be made of local education authorities and at milk depots and offices, because while we hear, on the one hand, of wastage of milk in schools, we know that in large towns there are literally hundreds of thousands of single people and married couples, depending on two pints a week, which is a grossly inadequate allowance. Some small families hardly see a milk pudding, and have the greatest difficulty in getting adequate nourishment from their weekly rations. The hon. Lady cannot challenge that, and I do not suppose she wishes to do so, for she will appreciate that what I am saying is fact. There is clear evidence that it is difficult for people to get sufficient milk. We should see that the proportion of milk now wasted in the milk for schools scheme, is saved in order to give an additional allocation to a lot of old people who find their rations inadequate. Representations have been made to me about very hard cases. After the first two days of the week, these old people have to live on a very monotonous diet, and many of them would welcome more milk. They apply to the food offices, but cannot get more. They are honest people, and do not wish to try to get priority certificates from medical men, because they have no specific ailment or disease under which certificates can be obtained. But they do deserve more milk.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) has said about the ration for old people. I confirm that that is definitely so, especially where they have no opportunity of getting a little extra at a local restaurant, or where they are so frail that they do not like going out of doors very often.

I would like to explore a little more the increase in the revised Estimate for meat and livestock. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said when he referred to feedingstuffs purchased at home. I think that is a very important point. I would like to deal now with the question of the meat which we have obtained from overseas. I ask the hon. Lady whether she can tell us what proportion has been expended in dollars and what has been spent in other currency. No doubt she will remember that on 12th February I asked her a Question about the issue of low grade meat. She replied then that there were second quality bullock and heifer beef, and the better qualities of cow beef, and that they came from the Southern Dominions, Canada, Rhodesia, and the United States. On the same day I also asked a Question on the subject of canned meat from Australia. The hon. Lady told us that the intention of the Government was to try to get more frozen meat rather than canned meat, and I appreciate that point. On several occasions we have had information from her Ministry, sometimes from the Minister of Food himself, to the effect that there has been a considerable increase in the actual consumption of tinned meats but, in fact, there has been a very great fall in the consumption of fresh meat. I hope the hon. Lady will be able to divide this figure and inform the Committee what proportion is being spent on each of these qualities.

I endorse what has been said by many other hon. Members in regard to giving information to the public about low-grade meats which formerly went to manufacturers for various purposes. I asked a Question in the House why it was necessary to put this on the consumer market under instructions marked, "Not for publication." The hon. Lady could not answer that Question and, therefore, I put a similar one the following week to the Minister of Food. He replied that, far from it not being for publication, he issued a Press statement about it. It is perhaps going too far to accuse him of dishonesty, but I submit that the Minister of Food definitely misled. Whether he did that intentionally or unintentionally, I am not prepared to say. The Minister of Food definitely misled the House on that occasion, for in the papers referring to this, which he said he would send me, the first one was headed, "Not for publication." I read these things very care- fully and, in my opinion, this was the only paper which really gave the full reasons for placing this low-grade beef on the market for human consumption.

The hon. Lady is making a very big mistake if she imagines that people feel more confident in merely seeing what the food is like—perhaps objecting a little sometimes to their butcher—rather than being told quite openly exactly what the difficulties are which must be overcome and why these unfortunate things must happen. As it was, the Press statement simply contained the details of the amounts that were to be allowed. That is not enough. If an assurance could be given that the issue would stop as soon as an alternative could be arranged, I think that would be better. The British public like to know exactly what are the facts so far as they can be given. This business of sending things out marked "Not for publication when they are matters which concern every household in the country, is very much to be deplored. I do not believe the hon. Lady would deliberately mislead the public. I am sure she is not trying to do that; but the British people are entitled to be told as much as she and her Ministry know about the food with which they are supplied.

I hope the hon. Lady will reply to these points and give us an assurance that if there is, as many people think there is, to use a slang expression, any "tinkering about" with food, the full reasons will be given to the public. It should not be left to the unfortunate distributors to try to explain to the consumer, when it is the responsibility of the Ministry for having allocated certain qualities of consumer goods to the retailer. It is unfair to put the duty of explaining on the shoulders of the butchers. I know that is what has happened.

There is only one small point upon which I should like information. I refer to the question of potatoes. The point has been raised already by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) about the potatoes which have been purchased from Canada. I would like a little more information on this matter. It appears to me to be a very strange policy to carry potatoes, which contain such a large percentage of water, over this large expanse of water to a country which has more water already than is welcome. In my constituency we grow the best potatoes in the world, and it rankles a little to think that it should be necessary to import potatoes from Canada. I maintain that in Scotland today people are eating more potatoes because oatmeal has been put on points. I should prefer the Ministry to import more corn from Canada instead of potatoes. I would like the Minister to inform us whether that point has been considered.

As a comparatively new Member, I am always surprised to see, when I read a Supplementary Estimate, how little information is given and how little the Minister tells us when he or she comes to explain what the Estimate means. The hon. Lady today did go to greater lengths than some of her colleagues. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation came here a few weeks ago and told his story in about three or four minutes. The hon. Lady did better than that. But I think that even she skated over some of these millions in pretty fast style. The first item under Sub-head A shows that an additional sum of £700,000 is required for salaries. The hon. Lady said that, owing to bread rationing extra staff had been required. I should have thought that this team, built up over a period of seven and a half years, would gradually have, become more efficient, so that we could get along with a smaller staff. Perhaps if we had not cut down, we could at least have retained an even number throughout this year instead of increasing the size of the staff.

Nevertheless, I accept the explanation given by the hon. Lady that the bulk of the 5,000 are occupied in dealing with the rationing of bread. I would like an assurance that when bread rationing ceases, which we hope will be soon, we shall get a corresponding reduction in the staff and that these people will not come into the Department and remain there for an indefinite period. I would like to inquire whether sufficient use has been made of the local food executive committees. I have a feeling that more use could be made of these committees. I have had considerable correspondence with the hon. Lady, over a period of about 16 months, in regard to a young man at Congleton who wanted to open a business. The case was recommended very strongly by the local food executive committee but his application was turned down by her Department. One of the two must be right. In this case, I investigated the details very carefully, and I am prepared to believe that the local food executive committee knew more about the circumstances than the officials of the Ministry. I hope that, when considering the numbers of the staff, these local committees will be given greater responsibilities.

1.30 p.m.

On the question of Sub-head B—travel and incidental expenses—I think we are entitled to know a little more about this and how the money is being spent. Is the Ministry buying more motorcars, with more chauffeurs to drive and clean them, like other Ministries, and are their journeys really necessary? I ask for more information about that. Then, in regard to Sub-head H, trading services regarding purchases, I think the hon. Lady and her colleagues must have known that there was going to be a steady increase of price levels. It was going on all over the world, and, as was stated earlier, the United States price ceiling came off, and that was one of the factors which brought about an increase in the Estimates. We all know that the Americans do not have an Administration like ours. They believe in freedom and free enterprise, so that they were bound to take off their price ceilings sooner or later, and I should have thought that that would have been expected.

I want to make one remark about Denmark. We have been told for the last 12 months that prices in Denmark were going up, and that the Danes were finding it very difficult to produce food at the prices which we were offering them, because of the increased prices of feeding stuffs. There again, I should have thought that we would have known that the Danes wanted more money, because my information is that the actual State is having to subsidise a great many commodities, such as butter, which they send over here. An hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but I have it in writing from butter producers in Jutland and I am prepared to back their opinion in this instance.

I would also ask the hon. Lady to give us some further information regarding the item of miscellaneous items, where the figure has increased by £7½ million. That is an enormous difference, and I think the Committee is entitled to know how these figures are arrived at. After all, as Members of this House, we are responsible to our constituents. We are all shareholders in this matter, and I think we are entitled to a full explanation.

I think the Committee will agree that the Debate has ranged very widely, and that I have been asked to provide the answers to the most detailed questions and to give the prices of commodities. I want to assure every hon. Member who puts those questions that I will, to the best of my ability, if I cannot give the answer now, let them have the answers they require as far as they concern the prices of different commodities. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) asked me a number of questions. With regard to tea, when I said that it might not, perhaps, be regarded as one of the black spots, perhaps it was due to an association of ideas, because the reason for the tea position is that we have not run down our stocks as we estimated we might do. I think the Committee will agree that, as far as that is concerned, it is something we might be thankful for.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me for some figures which I shall be very glad to give him. He asked what was the subsidy which the home producer received, compared with the producer abroad. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the figures, he will see that the £48½ million includes trading services and that not only includes the subsidy to the producer, but freight, transport and so on; the amount of the trading loss is £33·6 million and £16·8 to the imported produce.

I was also asked how I could account for the discrepancies in the figures given by Mr. Fitzgerald and those given by the statisticians and those who are concerned with examining the nutritional standards of the people in this country. Frankly, it is difficult to account for it, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that even all experts do not agree. It may be that we have more information than they have in the United States, but not for one moment would I try to decry anything that Mr. Fitzgerald had said. The only way in which we can arrive at current consumption is to take the country as a whole, and to calculate the calorie average, after taking into consideration the amount of rationed and pointed foods and all those foods which are not on either rations or points. Having taken that into account, the average is 2,900 calories.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me whether the savings on cereals and cereal products and eggs and egg products were savings on both. That is so. In regard to transport, I apologise to the Committee if I did not make the position quite clear. We gave the Ministry of Transport £4 million which we owed to them.

Is that something that was not owed before?

No. I think it was recognised that we owed it, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows quite a lot about Government Departments and will realise that these differences are not always settled at the time.

Many hon. Members asked me about "miscellaneous provisions", and I agree that is a rather ambiguous term. These miscellaneous provisions cover animal feedingstuffs, oils, fats, coffee, cocoa and canned fish, and the explanation is an over-estimate of the run-down of the various stocks. The over-estimate was £10·2 million, which, less receipts from surplus stores, make the figure £6·5 million.

Excluding cereal feeding-stuffs?

Yes, that is right. I was asked why there was a shortage of food, and why we could not get sufficient hogs from Canada, and an hon. Member was inclined to blame the Minister for what is, after all, a world shortage. The reason why there are not more hogs to import is because the hog population in Canada has dropped. Though, perhaps, not to the same proportion as in Europe, it has dropped considerably from what it was in the pre-war days. We, of course, would be willing to import more bacon if the bacon was there.

Are we getting the same proportion of the supply today as we were getting in prewa days?

I could not give the hop. Gentleman exact figures, but Canada has treated us very fairly. May I thank the hon. Gentleman for paying a tribute to the Ministry of Food? I think it is the first time I have heard an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches express a certain amount of satisfaction that the Ministry was to be a permanent Ministry, but then, having expressed his satisfaction, he deplored the fact that we had got the wrong men in the Ministry. The hon. Gentleman asked me why the staff was so inferior to that employed in the days of the predecessors of my right hon. Friend. Those hon. Members opposite who have come in contact with officials of the Ministry of Food, and I think there are a number, must have realised that many of the men there today are the same businessmen who served the Ministry during the days of the war. I do not want to mention names, but a number are abroad now trying to negotiate contracts and serving us, strange as it may seem to hon. Members opposite, as faithfully as they did our predecessors.

It is not strange; that is not fair.

Well, I only repeat what hon. Members have told me, that we are not being served as they would like us to be served. I am only saying that in my experience—and some of us are quite capable of summing up businessmen—I know that their enthusiasm has not waxed—[Laughter.] I mean, has not waned; indeed, perhaps, it may in some cases have waxed. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) asked about our buffer depots. Many of these have been closed and, of course, in this Vote there is no increase for warehousing. He asked why the average salary in the country of the people employed in food offices was £2 12s.

The hon. Lady said there has been no increase for warehousing but the subhead says, "Transport, Warehousing and Ancillary Services." If there is no extra for warehousing, why is it mentioned?

These things are often bracketed together under a heading, and the hon. Gentleman will see from the Estimate that it is customary to use this heading. I have made inquiries, however, and I find that it does not include any additional sum for warehousing. I would not like it to go out to the public that we pay the employees in our Food Offices at such a low wage as the hon. Gentleman suggested. He must take into account that we employ very many married women. I think I gave the figure for Liverpool the other day—there are about 40 per cent. married women there—and throughout the country many of these workers are part time and we are very glad to have their services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) asked a question he has raised before—Why do we give subsidies to certain commodities and are reluctant to give them to others? We have to take all sorts of factors into consideration. We subsidise dried fruit because it is used in cakes and buns and makes a useful contribution to our dietary. For the same reason we subsidise the milk, sugar, and so on used by manufacturers, and all sorts of things which I think the hon. Gentleman characterised as "tasty bits" because we feel that a tasty bit now and then is welcome. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) devoted himself in the main to milk. He asked me whether I knew that milk is wasted in schools. Occasionally, we receive letters at the Ministry telling us that in a certain place milk is being wasted, but invariably those letters are anonymous. We have asked time and time again for specific evidence of this, but it has never been forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman is a medical man himself and therefore knows from the public health statistics that we have evidence that the health of the children has improved, and that must, to a great extent, be attributed to the increased milk consumption in our schools.

I would not like it to go out that I do not approve in every way of the milk for children in schools, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be wasted at the expense of other people who need it.

I endorse everything the hon. Gentleman says, and my right hon. Friend would be only too happy to increase the allocation to the old people of the country, but at the moment supplies are limited and we have to allocate them as fairly and equitably as we can under the circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked me about the treatment of the butchers, and whether I was satisfied that the people of the country were not deceived over the quality of the food. I can assure him that we give the most careful attention to such matters. Under no circumstances would we allow food to be distributed in this country which could be regarded as suspect, and without qualification I can assure him that we shall continue to follow that policy.

I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood my point. I was not complaining that we had not been given the information that a certain policy was being followed, but that people have not been given the reasons why meat has had to be of a lower quality than it was before.

if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will sometimes read "Food Facts" I think he will find that we have never tried to deceive the housewife. Even all the constituents of sausages are revealed, and we have never made any effort to deceive the people. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. McLeod) asked why we were bringing potatoes from Canada. Unfortunately, the consumption of potatoes has increased here since bread rationing. It has increased by 20 per cent. Canada, our great friend, who has always tried to help us, has offered us some potatoes. In answering a Question in the House the other day, I said that there was only one "snag"—that some had Colorado beetle. However, the Canadian Government are undertaking to see that the potatoes are washed and brushed before export.

The point I was trying to make was that, since oatmeal was put on points, people, certainly in Scotland, have been eating very many more potatoes.

I think the hon. Gentleman will recall that we have discussed this question of oatmeal on many occasions, and I understand that there is a Prayer on it next week, so once more the Scottish Members can sit up into the early hours of morning and discuss this problem. Of course the Scottish people have eaten more potatoes, because as I have said time after time, oatmeal is an alternative to flour and therefore, if they want to economise on their oatmeal, they will eat potatoes instead.

Now I want to deal with the groundnuts scheme because many hon. Members have referred to this. The reason why I did not elaborate the scheme was, because it was only fairly recently that my right hon. Friend made a statement in the House, which was received very favourably, and the White Paper that was issued did go into a considerable amount of detail. But I want to remind the Committee that the world is suffering from a critical shortage of oils and fats, and that there is a shortage in this country of 1,500,000 tons a year. Therefore, we felt that this project was a matter of some urgency, and that only by the most highly mechanised form of agricultural development could it go forward. Member after Member has asked me why we have not gone into more detail. So far as the broad lines of the scheme are concerned I think we have told hon. Members what we propose to do.

We propose to have 107 units in Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, and Kenya; and each unit will cover 30,000 acres. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) asked how many schools we proposed to put in each unit. It is quite obvious that these details cannot be decided at this stage. The scheme must be flexible. Later on, when a report is made—and there will be six-monthly reports made—all these details, of course, will be disclosed. I was asked what the crop in 1948 was estimated to be. I understand that we propose to sow in the autumn and harvest in the spring. The first harvest will be in 1948, and the crop is estimated to be 50,000 tons. In 195o to 1951 we hope to get 600,000 tons, and later 800,000 tons. So far as the cost of production is concerned, it will cost £14 5s. 6d. per ton, while today's price is £32; and this margin of approximately £17, applied to 600,000 tons, will mean a saving to this country of £10 million. One can at this stage give only the broad estimates to the House. Later on, perhaps, on another occasion my right hon. Friend or I will be able to come to give further details. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) asked a specific question about rolling stock. He asked whether there were railway facilities. We are beginning in the central Provinces, where railway facilities exist—

That was not the question that was put at all. What he asked was whether arrangements of priorities were being worked out as between the requirements of this country and requirements overseas for that scheme. It was a question echoed elsewhere, whether, while the scheme might be all right, anything was being done to see that the machinery was produced in good time.

I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I was just coming to that point. We are considering these priorities while negotiations are going on; and I am told we are importing rolling stock from Iraq where there is a surplus at present. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) asked me about staffing, and whether, if bread rationing ended, we would still keep what, I think, he described as our "inflated staff." We do review our staff very frequently, and, in view of the shortage of manpower and womanpower today, we should not keep staff if they were redundant.

So far as travelling is concerned, I forgot to say to the Committee that we send representatives overseas continually. In Europe, in every small Balkan country, we have a representative of the Ministry of Food, in order that no food surplus should be overlooked. I shall be only too happy to let hon. Members have the details as soon as possible that I have not been able to give now. I hope I have been sable to convince the Committee that this money is being spent economically, and that they will grant this Supplementary Estimate.

There are one or two points which I do not think are entirely cleared up. I do not blame the hon. Lady, for she had to cover a great deal of ground. First of all, with regard to the difference of opinion with Mr. FitzGerald. It really will be most unfortunate if we are to go on having different stories coming out of the Ministry of Food in this country and the international world organisation in Washington. Surely, it would not be too difficult for the hon. Lady to see that some skilled person knowing her side of the story goes to see the office in Washington to try to clear up this discrepancy. I do not know who is right. Apparently, she does not know who is right, or how Mr. Fitz-Gerald reached his estimate. Would it not be worth while to try to see that these two authorities in future speak with the same voice?

Meat is most important. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary told us, with regard to quite a number of items, that the apparent losses were really caused by her having in stock a greater quantity at the end of the year than she had anticipated. But she did not say that with regard to meat. She did not explain at all, so far as I could discover, why we have lost £23 million more on meat than had been anticipated. She did explain about £9,000,000 in her opening remarks, but she did not explain the other £23 million. Any information I have is to the effect that consumption has been rather ahead of the accumulation of stocks, and that, accordingly, there has not been any mounting up of stocks. What is really the cause of this £23 million loss, which is the largest single item in the whole of this Supplementary Estimate? I think that does deserve a little more explanation.

With regard to bacon, I did not hear, I think, anything from the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why we have had an extra £7,000,000 loss, although we had imported £6,000,000 worth less bacon. How did that happen? Perhaps, the hon. Lady could explain that in a word.

I explained that quite carefully in my opening remarks. It was the price of meat and bacon, which has risen substantially. I made it quite clear.

I do not quite follow that. Looking at the only thing by which we can check these statements, the Trade and Navigation Returns, it appears that there was no apparent rise in 1946 of the overall cost per hundredweight of bacon, or practically none. Has this all arisen since the end of 1946? It would be a good thing if that could be cleared up, because I cannot reconcile these two sets of figures. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to tell us she would inform hon. Members by answers to their points. But if they are points of general interest, and most of them are, I do suggest, by adding a sentence to what I said at an earlier stage, that all this information might be incorporated in some additional publicity which, I think, is overdue. I think if we had some factual statements they would be helpful, either in the form of White Papers, or from some of the many Press and publicity officers at the Ministry. There seem to be a good many of them. I am not quite sure what they all do, looking at the very small amount of really interesting material that is handed out. I hope that the hon. Lady will see that a good deal more information about this is made public, so that we do not have to ask a lot of individual questions as time goes on. There is a small item under Subhead I in respect of capital costs of factory equipment. There may be nothing in this, but on the other hand, it may be a new departure in policy.

I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having overlooked that. It is a small matter, and includes factories for dehydrated commodities. They are now being restored.

There is nothing new about it?

No.

The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to tell us the new groundnut scheme was expected to produce 800,000 tons of nuts. None of us who have no technical knowledge can turn that into the quantity of saleable fats. I am sure the public are interested in how much this will add to the fat ration. I do not suppose the hon. Lady has the information now, but if she could give it at a fairly early date, I am sure it would help this scheme. It would not be a very difficult arithmetical task, once one knows the background to arrive at the figure.

I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the Debate. I heard the hon. Lady state, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), that she was doing all she could to cut down staff. Is she aware that the food officer in Blackpool has put forward a scheme, in- volving a number of extra members of his staff going round to boarding houses and hotels as inspectors, to see that these people who are skilled, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. in their business—

This has nothing whatever to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

With great respect, Subhead A, refers to "additional clerical, typing, et cetera staff." I am dealing with this under "et cetera."

The hon. and gallant Member is dealing with the future. and we are dealing with the present.

This will come into force before the end of the financial year.

I am not aware of that, but if the hon. and gallant Member is confident that it will, that is quite another matter. Unless it comes within this financial year, it is not permitted to discuss it.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us. I am told the scheme was to be got ready for Easter. As Easter is on 5th April, and they will have to get ready before then, it will have to be done before 31st March.

It is not for the hon. and gallant Member and myself to enter into any argument to prove that it is within the financial year. Unless it is within the financial year, it is out of Order.

I am unable to assert that, and I will not therefore, pursue the matter any further. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make known to her food officers all over the country that it is her policy not to expand staff unless it is absolutely necessary.

I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. I have not been here during the whole of the discussion, and if it should be that the point has already been dealt with, I will resume my seat at once. In regard to Subhead G, concerning wartime meals, there is an anticipated saving of—

The hon. Member cannot discuss savings on the Supplementary Estimate.

Perhaps we can get this meat position cleared up a little more. The Parliamentary Secretary has really not dealt with the questions which have been put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). As he said, it is extraordinarily difficult to know what the situation is. From the Trade and Navigation Returns, she will find, on the issue of bacon and ham which we have been discussing, that the difference between 1945 and 1946 is very considerable. In 1945, the import value ran to £29 million, and in 1946, it was down to £23 million. Since then, of course, there has been the cut in the ration to 2 ozs., and there is no possibility of it being raised again. These being the only facts which, statistically, are available, it is most difficult to understand the revised estimate, changing the original credit of nearly £1 million into a debit of over £5 million. The same is true of meat. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary said that one of the reasons for the change in the position was due to changes in the stock position. I see that she is trying to get the answer. Would she like me to talk about something else for the time being?

Providing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in Order.

It is very awkward for the hon. Lady, and I sympathise with her very much. It was, of course, obvious from the start that the meat position would be one of the most important questions raised, and for that reason we have done our best to give her an opportunity to make the right answer. Is it all right now? I see that the value of the imports has gone down in 1946, as compared with 1945, and so the ration has been cut, and there is no likelihood of it being increased. There is no reason to see why this figure is very much larger than the Estimate, unless prices have gone tremendously against the Minister in the last week or so.

On the question of meat, the difficulties are very serious indeed. As revealed in the Estimates, and from such answers as have been given, it appears that our stocks are running down very badly. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to say anything about that. In recent weeks consumption has outrun supplies very considerably. From deductions which have been made, it seems that in the last four months, from October to January, consumption exceeded supplies by 85,000 tons. Since the position appears to be rapidly deteriorating, I do not know whether the Minister can take the opportunity to reassure us on the general meat situation. Two weeks ago it certainly looked as if we might have had to have another cut in the ration, and this is probably the explanation for all this talk in the Press about buying turkeys. I do not know whether turkeys are to be much more expensive than meat. If she can tell us something about that it would be helpful. I am sorry to press her about the meat and bacon position, particularly as she has had such a tiring morning and has been so good in answering the many questions, but if she can help us on these points we should be grateful.

I suppose that even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, did not carry every figure in his head.

No.

In view of the number of points which have been put to me today, I am sure that Members of the Committee will not mind if, occasionally, I have to seek expert advice in case I give a wrong figure, and be charged with doing so for a long time to come. May I give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) an interesting figure which has just been given to me? He asked me about the groundnut scheme, how much fat each individual in this country would receive when the scheme came to fruition. I am told that from an annual crop of 600,000 tons each person would get three ounces of fat per week. With regard to the other figures for which he asked, we paid the Argentine Government £7 million to cover certain sums which we felt we owed to them in view of the cost of production. There was a £9 million increase in stocks—

Does the hon. Lady mean an ex gratia payment of £7 million?

No, the Argentine Government explained to us that for a long time meat had cost them a little more, and we revised our agreement and paid them that £7 million. Home producers and others were to get, £16 million more—

If we are to pay the Argentine that very large sum out of our pockets do they pay us when they make a profit of 100 per cent. on linseed or meat by charging us twice as much as they pay to their primary producers? Was the profit there taken into account when we made this gift to them?

I do not think it is necessary to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that today we have a sellers' market.

I do not understand this transaction. I am sorry to press the hon. Lady, but could she explain about the Argentine Government?

There is nothing more to be said.

But did not we have a contract with somebody?

Yes, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that contracts are sometimes revised.

On what grounds was the contract revised?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not repeat this time after time. The Argentine Government satisfied us that perhaps the contract which we made with them was not as liberal as it might have been, and we gave them this extra £7 million.

On what grounds? I gather that His Majesty's Government were satisfied, or they would not have paid the money. This is a loose way of dealing with 7 million of the taxpayers' money, and I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have been able to tell us why the Government were satisfied. Cannot she tell us?

There is nothing more to be said.

There is a great deal more to be said. There was a contract about a bulk purchase agreement. Then the Argentine Government came along and satisfied this Government about something or other, as the result of which this Government paid out £7 million more of the taxpayers' money than they intended to do, or had intended to do under the contract. Is that right? What were the grounds on which this Government were satisfied that that was necessary? This is a large sum and, surely, even to this Government £7 million is something.

We must have an explanation of this matter. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs that the hon. Lady is not prepared to explain the circumstances in which the Argentine Government are making a handsome profit, and yet are asking for something back into the bargain. I think it would be appropriate, if the hon. Lady is unable to offer an explanation, to move to report Progress, in order that some explanation should be obtained. I do not think that this Supplementary Estimate ought to be passed without that explanation. If the hon. Lady will not offer it I would ask leave to move to report Progress.

I cannot accept the Motion.

Then 1 must press the hon. Lady further for an answer. This is a most extraordinary situation. We all know that the Argentine Government are making a large profit as a result of this transaction. They have been paying, to their primary producers, far less than they have received from the British Government, yet, for some reason, they have considered it proper to come to this Government and ask for more favourable terms than were originally agreed. We are entitled, as guardians of the taxpayers' money, to have an explanation from the hon. Lady. I very much regret that you will not see fit to accept my Motion to report Progress, Mr. Beaumont, because, in my humble submission, I should have thought that this was an occasion when it was appropriate to do so—

The hon. Member cannot argue about my Ruling.

I was only making a respectful and humble submission that—

If that is not argument, what is?

It is frequently the custom in Committee, and in the House, to male a respectful submission to the Chair about a Ruling that has been given.

I have not only given my Ruling, but I reaffirm it.

I have explained, and I think it is clear, that this was a trading agreement, and I have no intention of prejudicing our relations with the Argentine Government, at this stage, by commenting on their action.

I was asking about the attitude of the British Government. The hon. Lady said that it was unnecessary to go into the question of what the Argentine Government had done, for which I know she is not in any way responsible.

We must take this matter a little further. It has been extremely difficult to drag anything out about this business, and when that happens it is bound to leave suspicion in the minds of the Committee that the Government have something to hide, or wish to gloss over. I understand that £7 million has been paid to the Argentine Government in excess of the contract price. The hon. Lady said that that was so, that the Argentine Government came to us with a request for an increase, and that was agreed. From the point of view of inquiring into the attitude of the British Government, and not the Argentine, all we are asking is that she should say on what grounds this extra sum was demanded. The Committee is entitled to know, and I hope the hon. Lady will get up and answer that simple question.

I have already said that I do not like to make comments on the action of a friendly Government without giving very careful consideration to the matter. I assure hon. Members that I am only too anxious to provide any information that I think the Committee should have. There will be an opportunity on the Report stage, and I shall see to it that the information is given to the Committee.

I quite recognise that it is difficult to make statements which might be misinterpreted in a foreign country. I appreciate that, but I think it very strange that there was disguised in these accounts so large a sum which the Minister did not mention, and which has only appeared at the end of several hours of Debate. However, on the assurance that the hon. Lady will make a full and frank statement on the Report stage, we agree not to press the matter any further this afternoon, but, of course, the hon. Lady knows that we will hold her to that, and I hope she will be able to reassure us on the Report stage on a matter which at the present moment makes us exceedingly anxious.