HC Deb 17 December 1942 vol 385 cc2168-91
Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, Eastern)

I would like to turn the attention of the House to another question, dealing with the distribution of fish. On 9th December, a week last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food said, in reply to a Question of mine on the fish zoning scheme, that he would welcome an opportunity, if the House so desired, to make, a statement on the sub-jest. There was very little doubt at that time, and after yesterday's barrage of Questions there can be no doubt at all, that the House does desire such a state- ment. I wish to afford my hon. Friend the desired opportunity before we rise for the Christmas Recess.

If I judge the feeling of the House correctly, the fuller the statement he makes the better. What we want to know is not only the purpose and plan of this fish zoning scheme, though there is great need for information on both these points; but equally in what respects and to what extent the scheme has failed, what measures have been taken to meet the faults, and what further measures are contemplated. My hon. Friend has already admitted in the House on several occasions that miscalculations and mistakes have been made in the case of supplies of fish allocated to Southampton, Bristol, Shrewsbury and a good many other places. He must know that these are but a fraction of the complaints reaching hon. Members from all parts of the country at the present time. Therefore I hope he will not, and I am sure he will not, attempt to burke the issue but will face the facts squarely, even though they reflect upon his own Department. For let him be assured, what applies to the sinner who repenteth will apply equally to him. The House respects a Minister who admits a mistake but has very little patience with one who tries to bluff it off. I do not think he will attempt to do that. In this case the errors are too numerous, as has been proved by Questions in the House, and they affect too seriously the millions of consumers we are here representing to be ignored. I hope too that my hon. Friend will not make over-much of the cases where selected communities are better off now under this scheme than they were before. We all know of places which have been allocated more fish to-day than previously. It has been said in the House, and I have heard that used as an argument to support the scheme. [Interruption.] One hon. Member thinks that a good argument. It is said by those people that this place X being better off than before, this is a fair scheme. Surely that is a most fallacious argument. The fact that a few places are better supplied than before—and some of them are infinitely better off and are getting more fish than ever before; I am giving the House information that reaches us—means that the distribution is unequal, and that other places do suffer.

Indeed it is with this feature of the scheme—its patent inequality as it affects consumers—that the House is most seriously concerned. We all recognise the importance of economising inland transport. That is one of the most urgent and anxious of all the domestic problems facing the country to-day and nobody would do anything to prevent its solution. On the contrary, many of us think that the Government might go a great deal further in restricting unnecessary travel and transportation than they are now doing. But I think I have the House with me when I say that the condition precedent of Parliamentary and public support for all such economies is that the hardships that follow shall fall fairly upon all citizens.

The rationing of food has been accepted almost without a murmur. Why? Because everybody is treated alike. In that case, the consumers have first consideration and have been given a fair and square deal, in a carefully-worked out policy. I constantly ask myself why, after that experience, the Minister of Food appears to display so little concern for the interests of the general public in other schemes for which he is responsible. Why, for example, does he allow the present milk zoning plan to operate, when he must know the cruel inequalities and the frequent absurdities of the scheme as it applies to humble families, frequently with young children, in cities like Dundee? Why, again, despite overwhelming evidence, does the Minister of Food insist upon imposing harsh and unjustifiable sacrifices upon some communities, while others—the majority, I believe—enjoy much easier conditions, in the retail deliveries scheme? Why, in these cases, does he tell me, as he did in the latter instance, that local town councils, which in Scotland are the traditional, and indeed the only, representatives of consumers in matters of this kind, have no standing in the matter, and are therefore denied the right to help their people?

Why, in this fish zoning scheme, has he paid so little attention to the needs of the already distracted housewife? Does he think it right to confine his negotiations to the trade, and to ignore the public and the local authorities who represent them? Does he think that because only a few town councils and other authorities have risen up to seek justice for their people, he can go on imposing these inequalities without limit? I cannot speak for England, but I warn the Minister of Food that if he maintains his present stubborn attitude on this matter, he is running right into trouble in Scotland; and I am sure my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will support me on that point. Our people in Scotland, and it is my duty to speak for some of them, are willing to draw in their belts to the last hole, and beyond, for the national cause: they do not need to be lectured on patriotism. But they must be allowed to judge of the cause and the occasion; they must be convinced that the particular sacrifices they are asked to bear arise out of sound and well-considered schemes; above all, they must be satisfied that all shall bear them equally.

The fish zoning scheme satisfies none of these conditions. I am not speaking for the trade to-day; I am speaking for the consumer. It is the public principally who suffer from this scheme, and they have never been properly consulted about it. The House has never had a chance to examine it, with all the facts set out. My hon. Friend is prepared to make a statement to-day; it is a pity that that statement was not made two months ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)

The House had an opportunity to devote a whole day to such a Debate, and nobody chose to speak upon it.

Mr. Stewart

My hon. Friend is unfair to the House. It is impossible to argue about something of which we do not know the details. It is impossible to discuss a scheme until we have seen it working. We were led to believe that here was a perfect scheme. It has turned out differently. The scheme is already demonstrably ill-considered, and it may turn out to be unsound. That is not surprising; it would be a miracle were it otherwise. We are dealing here with perhaps the most complex and delicately-organised industry in the country, an industry concerned with the most perishable of all foodstuffs, an industry based primarily on the initiative of thousands of small men, from whom no national statistics can normally be provided, from whom you cannot normally get the range of facts that we get from other trades. Surely in such circumstances this was the very last industry upon which to impose a revolutionary change in the system of distribution without the most careful examination and consideration. I am making no criticism of Mr. Adamson and his staff—he has won the admiration of all who come into contact with him—when I call this scheme ill-considered, but I ask why it was launched with such defective examination beforehand. There are in this House men to whom my hon. Friend could have turned for advice. There is the Minister of Supply, who was commissioned by the Government to undertake a great inquiry into the trade, and whose report on the subject is still the first document of its kind in our possession. There is the hon. Member for Cathcart, who served on this Commission. And there is the hon. Member for Streatham who has an almost unrivalled knowledge of the trade. Were these experts consulted? If not, why not? I am satisfied that if they had been consulted, the mistakes which are admitted by hon. Friends in all parts of the country would not have taken place. This scheme fails in its second condition in that it was launched upon the country without proper consideration. And lastly, it fails because its effect falls with glaring inequality upon consumers in different parts of the country. It is for these reasons, I am sure, that the House has shown so much persistent criticism in recent days. I invite my hon. Friend to answer that criticism now. He is too skilled a politician to ignore the public will.

Mr. Robertson (Streatham)

I am sure that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) for initiating this Debate. It must be obvious to all hon. Members, as it is to the whole country, that this scheme is not succeeding in the way that its promoters hoped and that many complaints have been received. There are, however, fundamental difficulties in regard to this scheme or any other scheme. The first difficulty is that there is only a quarter of the pre-war catch. Trawlers that were available to catch fish before the war are now doing more important work in mine sweeping and fighting the enemy on the seas, wherever he can be found. In addition to that there is an infinitely greater demand than existed before the war. There is only a quarter of the supply, and a demand 10 or 20 times greater. It is difficult for any scheme to overcome these facts. The next difficulty is that the entire pre-war chain of distribution still exists. It is a very natural thing for that to happen. It would be very unnatural for a fish salesman, a coastal merchant, inland merchant, or a fishmonger or fish fryer, voluntarily to close down his business before he is compelled to do so. There is not enough fish to go round all these people, but the Ministry have made a praiseworthy attempt to make it go round, and, in my opinion, it is impossible to satisfy everyone or to give everyone an equal share.

Another difficulty is that nowadays, again because of the war situation, the industry is mainly concentrated on the West coast whereas in the days of peace it was mainly concentrated on the Humber. The Humber represented more than half of the entire production of the fish industry and now the Humber is almost without fish and the only East coast port of any importance is Aberdeen. The industry is concentrated at Fleet-wood mainly, and Milford Haven secondly. Zoning is overdue. It is absolutely essential to save transport and to improve distribution. The scheme eliminates long distance hauls, and the taking of fish from Aberdeen to Southampton or Portsmouth, which was quite usual before zoning was introduced, is no longer possible. Instead of that, ports, and retailers and wholesalers are definitely allocated to the various zones with the exception of London. A London merchant or retailer is entitled to buy fish from wholesalers at any port within the limit of his allocation. All purchases of fish, either by wholesale or retail, have had an allocation based on purchases which they made during the datum period of three months in 1041. In some fashion the resulting figures have been married to populations on a per capita basis. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain how this is done. The scheme has many weaknesses. What it does not provide is an equal share for all consumers. It is left to the retailer and I am satisfied that the majority of retailers are generally doing their best to see that everyone of their customers gets a fair crack of the whip. Their task is a difficult one too.

The trade, in my view, are not justified in opposing the scheme. I was employed in the industry for many years. I regard it with very great affection, and if I thought that it had a good case I would fight with the trade to the last ditch. I have gone into this thing very fully. I have met representatives here and listened attentively to their genuine complaints, all of which can be put right without wrecking the scheme, but for three-and-a-quarter years, during which period the fish trade have not attempted to put forward any scheme which might be acceptable to the Ministry, they have enjoyed a freedom which no other food trade or any other trade has enjoyed. They have enjoyed profits out of all comparison with those they enjoyed in pre-war times. With one-quarter of the supply they have been able to make a profit sufficient to cover their expenses and leave something over. I understand that the recent investigation of retailers' books carried out over a large area of the country indicated that with one-third of the weight and quantity of the pre-war trade, the net profits were three times those of pre-war. So the trade cannot come to us now and say, "We have had a bad deal." They have had a very good deal economically, but the consumers have had a thoroughly bad deal. For that reason this scheme or some other scheme must be introduced.

I want to say some quite blunt words to my friends in the industry. I feel that the Fish Industry Joint Council, which they set up under the chairmanship of an eminent lawyer, have fought a successful delaying action with the Ministry of Food for the past 18 months, but that has to come to an end. They cannot carry that any further by coming to this House and asking for our support. If any substantial proportion of the trade continue to obstruct this scheme, the Ministry of Food can do without them.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

Can the hon. Gentleman say what form this obstruction takes? We hear a great many charges of sabotage and of obstruction against the trade. Can he give definite facts to show how they have been obstructing or what form the obstruction takes?

Mr. Robertson: It is not for me to give those facts. Possibly if the hon. Gentleman appeals to the Paliamentary Secretary he may give him some evidence of it. I have stated that for 18 months the Fish Industry Joint Council have successfully fought a delaying action against the scheme. They have already had every opportunity to put up a scheme of their own, and even now it must be apparent to hon. Members from their mail, attempts are still being made to obstruct this scheme.

Mr. Lipson indicated dissent.

Mr. Robertson

With good will the inequalities and difficulties that have arisen can be put right. I earnestly hope that my friends in the industry will throw in their lot with the Minister and the Department and do all they can to work this very difficult scheme. I would go further and say, "Well, if you do not work it, the Ministry have at hand a ready-made machine in the inland markets and the wholesale meat depots and retail butchers, none of which are fully employed, and all of which would welcome some additional turnover to meet additional expense. They could undertake this job with only a fifth of the pre-war supply and give the public at least as good a distribution as they get to-day." I hope it will not come to that. That will entirely depend on the Minister and the good will of the trade, which I feel certain will be forthcoming.

There is another difficulty and a very serious one, namely, the attitude adopted by the Icelandic trawler owners. They have enjoyed an El Dorado at our expense since the war broke out. They have taken millions of pounds out of this country and have given us much needed fish in exchange and I do not complain. I think it is a reasonable turn of fortune's wheel that they should benefit from the fish caught near their own doors because our vessels in the past have reaped harvests for years by fishing in waters adjacent to Iceland. These trawlers gave us one half of the total catch we have enjoyed. Because of the concentration of war industry in the Bristol Channel, Merseyside and the Clyde areas and the tremendous increase in inland transportation it was essential that the Ministry of War Transport should ask these owners that instead of making all their voyages to Fleetwood they should make one to Fleetwood, one to Grimsby and one to Hull. That was a very reasonable request because the railways of the west coast have not been designed for this transport to the same extent as east coast railways, and the Humber has the proper plants and skilled staffs standing idle. I regard it as a national necessity that the trade or some part of it should be taken from the severely harassed west coast.

The Icelandic owners refused to do so and tied up their boats. A few moments ago I was asked whether I had any evidence of sabotage. I cannot give any definite evidence, but I have it reported to me that Icelandic trawler agents in Fleetwood have sent cablegrams recently to the Icelandic owners telling them to continue to tie up their boats, and that if they do so they will win, with the result that they will be able to go back and land fish at Fleetwood. If that is true—and I have it on what I regard as very good authority—then it is a most wrongful act by those men. It is an act which, I believe, could be punished and which, I hope, will be punished because no British national is expected at this time to encourage food producers, when our people are hungry, to say, "We shall sit where we are and we shall win the day." We shall be forced to add to the congestion on Merseyside and the railways there by agreeing to the unreasonable demands of these trawler owners and fishermen in Iceland, who can only afford to lay up their boats because of the generosity of this country during the last few years. After all, they only fish by the grace and protection of the British Navy and I hope the Ministry of Food will stand fast and resist these demands. I hope, too, that the country and hon. Members will stand behind the Ministry. If we can do without this food in mid-winter we can do without it for all time. If the Icelandic owners will see reason and accept the very reasonable demands of the Ministry of War Transport and work with a good will they will continue to enjoy the friendship of this country and the market which we have so generously given.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) must be a very happy man indeed and must feel as grateful as I do at the opportunity which has been provided us to-day by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) for having this Debate. I have no doubt that when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply he will, as we say in the industrial north, "put his cards on the table, face upwards." The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) asked for evidence of sabotage. Well, let us be quite frank about it, there are saboteurs. The propaganda has attempted to sabotage this scheme from the beginning. When I first came into the House, it was some weeks before I made my maiden speech, and in that speech I referred to fish supplies in connection with hotels and restaurants. Everybody knows that hotels and restaurants found that fish was the most profitable commodity they could offer to their customers. The Minister of Food knew that he would have to tackle that problem sooner or later, but it took months and months for him to pluck up the courage to organise a scheme. The trade refused to help him. The hon. Member for Streatham knows that there is no greater body of social anarchists in this country than the federation which has been directing this propaganda against the Minister of Food. For nearly 18 months they have refused to co-operate. They were happy to draw extra sums of money, through back-door methods, for fish that was controlled, from hotels and restaurants, and they were quite content to see the mass of the consumers go short of fish.

Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern)

Will the hon. Member make it plain that his remarks apply to white fish and not to herring?

Mr. Walkden

Where fish has been in supply, the only fish in generous supply has been herring, and I am glad to say that they have had to eat herring at the Ritz this last week.

Mr. Lipson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the consumers are getting much less fish now than they got this time last year?

Mr. Walkden

If I am allowed to do my own batting, I shall get along all right. I assure the House that the consumers in many areas are receiving much more fish at the present time than they have received during the past two years.

Mr. Lipson

In what areas?

Mr. Walken

I have visited several industrial canteens during the last few days, and the caterers have said to me, "One thing about this fish scheme is that we shall be able to get some fish; in fact, we have got fish already." The industrial workers in my Division are having fish on their menu for the first time for a long while. At whose expense? At the expense of some of those people who have plenty of time on their hands and who can afford meals in the hotels where at the moment the Minister of Food has decided that the controlled amount shall be two pounds for 50 main meals. In another area that I visited last week, I found that for the first time certain hospitals where there have been great difficulties in obtaining supplies of fish have been able to get fish for the patients because of the redistribution under the zoning scheme. The next example I want to give is of an Army camp. At the camp which I visited, the quartermaster said, "I have 20 stone of fish this week, and I am grateful for that supply. I do not know much about Parliament or zoning schemes, but I know this means fish for our breakfasts, and we are grateful to the Minister of Food for generous supplies."

I suggested to the hon. Gentleman a few days ago that he had had a bad Press and that he had not told the people the naked truth. If they had not been told before, the hon. Member for Streatham has told them to-day. Everyone knows what the shortage means. Everyone knows who has been getting the fish. It has been in the shops, but it has not been sold from the front of the shop. It has been sold from the back doors on many occasions. But we congratulate the Food Minister, and I am exceedingly happy that he has taken his, courage in both hands and challenged these social anarchists for endeavouring to sabotage the scheme, I hope he will take note of the words of congratulation and of some of the complaints that have been uttered in this Debate and go through them with a fine tooth comb, because there is a considerable amount of misrepresentation on the subject. I am exceedingly happy to know that in one fish shop, at least, in an area which I visited last week-end, there has been at least 20 per cent. more fish in the last fortnight than they have been able to get on the average in the last four months.

I would appeal to the Minister on one important issue. In many little villages in the industrial North, mining villages in particular, we have not any British Restaurants nor hotels. We have not any of those places where you can buy even a 5s. meal. The only place we can visit, when we want a little extra to our ration, is the fried fish shop. I do not mind confessing that I have been in the queue within the last fortnight, and I have discussed the fish fryers' problem with them, and I have tried to make representations to the hon. Gentleman and his Noble Friend that, just as he has encouraged them by allowing them extra cooking oil and suggesting that they should use more potatoes, he should see to it that they get extra supplies of fish, particularly in those, areas. These British Restaurants are very costly to the local authorities. Many of them cost up to £1,000, and the local authorities do not like spending such a lot of money. The only people who can supply us with meals in the evening are the fish fryers.

I, therefore, appeal to the hon. Gentleman to ask his Noble Friend to review the difficult problem and the difficult position of the fish fryers and the important contribution they are making in the war effort. In one area that I have in mind the fish fryers are actually providing more suppers for munition workers than the canteens or the British Restaurants. If you have to take into account the needs of hotels and restaurants, and the kind of criticism that is being churned out from the various propaganda factories, represented by the Fishmongers Federation, will you take into account the whole question of feeding our people on an equal footing and seeing to it that we get improved supplies? That is not criticism of the zoning scheme. There may be difficulties, but 99 per cent. of the scheme is sound. It can be adjusted, and it can be subjected to reallocations in certain neighbourhoods. The Noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has courage, and he should take his courage in both hands and respond to representations made for reasonable amendments, but there is one thing he must never do. He must never give way to those false doctrines set out lay persons of social anarchist mentality who are concerned because of vested interests to destroy the scheme.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth (Shrewsbury)

The Minister, I am sure, will be grateful for the support he has received from the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. I take a rather more moderate view. I can find no evidence that leads me to take such an optimistic view of the situation with regard to the fish zoning scheme. I agree with the hon. Member that this House should give no encouragement to any section of the trade or to any interests who are attempting to sabotage the scheme as a whole. It may be true that there are some interested parties who wish to see the scheme completely broken up and withdrawn, but I am convinced that that is not true of the trade as a whole. I should like to make it perfectly plain that so far as the trade interests, for whom I speak in my constituency, are concerned, they make no demand of that kind. They accept the fact that there must be some degree of curtailment of their business. But this scheme has now been running two months. That surely is a reasonable time in which we might expect initial difficulties and dislocations to be smoothed out and overcome. Yet, whatever has been said so far by the Minister in reply to Parliamentary Questions, the fact remains that the scheme as a whole is not yet working satisfactorily.

It is evident that retail traders in particular still have legitimate grievances which in spite of assurances given up to date have not been met. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) put the case of the consuming public with great fairness, and I do not wish to add anything to what he has said. So far as my constituents are concerned, I do not claim that the total supplies are inadequate or that they are deficient in quality. I think my constituency is receiving a fair share of the total fish available. What I do ask is that in the matter of allocation of supplies there should be some measure of justice as between one retail trader and another. I have irrefutable evidence, although I do not wish to occupy time by producing it, that up to date the scheme has given rise to very great inequalities and injustice. So far, in spite of the protests made to the fish distribution officer, no steps have been taken to rectify the situation. The facts really are not in dispute. The Minister has admitted the situation that exists when replying to Questions. It has been laid down that supplies each week should be proportionate to the quantities received during the datum period. The volume of trade done during these months is well known. During the two months that this scheme has been in operation the volume of trade which has been done between the various retail traders has led to a complete unbalance of the total of the whole fish trade. The amount of business they have done has been dictated by the disproportionate quantities they have received. There is one firm with widespread ramifications which has constantly received supplies in excess of the quantities received by other traders. I ask that the Minister should not be merely content, as he has been up to date, to repeat the general defence that he has made of the scheme. We should all, I think, be prepared to support the scheme as a whole, but we do ask that he will insist on the machinery of the scheme being carefully reviewed and insist, if necessary, upon substantial modifications being introduced to meet the fair criticisms that have been made and the legitimate grievances that undoubtedly exist in the retail trade.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)

I am glad to have this opportunity of saying something about the fish zoning scheme. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) urged that I should not burke the issue. He asked me to face facts squarely. I can ask nothing better than that the House of Commons should be prepared to face the facts squarely on-this issue. It has been very evident in this short Debate that the House is satisfied that this scheme is worth supporting. It is anxious that the scheme should be made perfect as rapidly as possible, and I can say in general terms that that is the desire of the Minister of Food. At the outset I want to remind the House that since the outbreak of the war fish has been continuously, is still, and is likely to continue in short supply. The reasons are well known. Many fishing boats are engaged in fishing for more dangerous catches provided for them by the enemy. The fishing grounds to the East of this island are no longer so accessible. The man power of the fishing fleet is to no small degree engaged in more urgent tasks in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine. If the House or the country expects the Minister of Food to provide by any scheme that all shall have as much fish as they would like or even a considerable proportion of what they would like, they are bound to be disappointed. What is more, I must give the warning that the lack of man-power and shipping is likely to be such that the future prospects for the fish supply will be not better but worse.

I want to relate some history, particularly in view of something said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife, who, I think, in certain respects overstated his case. Fish has been one of the most difficult problems before the Ministry since the war began. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power will bear that out. I am certain that fish is engraven on their memories. For some time it was subject to no control as to price or distribution. No more fish was landed then than now. In general the result was that fish went in excessive quantities to those who were best able to pay. The House rightly pressed for price control. Price control of fish is far more difficult than price control of many other commodities. A system of price control was devised and instituted. It worked reasonably well, but it did not secure equal distribution. Fish was distributed not according to need, but—and of this I suppose I ought to make no complaint—according to the best advantage of the seller. My Department endeavoured to secure more equal distribution of supplies by equalising the freight charges, so that it was no longer an advantage for the coastal merchant to send fish to the nearest point, but it was evident that the very nature of the scheme meant that certain parts of the country were inadequately supplied, and that there could be no defence to the charge that fish was not being distributed in accordance with the weight of population. Further, there were loopholes for the very limited number of people who desired to engage in malpractices.

It appeared to my Noble Friend that in these circumstances it was his duty to effect, so far as possible, an equitable distribution of the limited supplies available, and with that object in view the Department some long time ago was con- sidering schemes for securing this equal distribution—surely, the House will agree, a laudable objective. But while those plans were being considered, another and urgent and vital problem came along from the Ministry of War Transport. The burden upon inland transport, to which my hon. Friend referred, was so great that economy was necessary. Fish was making some fantastic journeys. Those journeys were to an extent the result of the maintenance of pre-war practices in distribution, and were to an extent also the result of what an hon. Member behind me referred to, the fact that the landings had been transferred from the East Coast over to the West, so that a port which had been relatively unimportant reached the position when it was landing getting on for half the fish of the country.

Transport had to be saved. Let me emphasise with all the power I can that the Ministry of Food has not devised this scheme to provide an interesting exercise for overworked officials but in order to make a loyal response to the urgent demands of the Ministry of War Transport which it felt it was its duty to make. To meet this need the zoning scheme was devised. The purpose is to limit the transport used in the distribution of fish by confining its journeys to geographical zones in which the population is roughly proportionate to the average landings at the ports. The scheme was discussed in its earlier stages with representatives of the trade. There was no violent reaction. Finally, it was presented to the trade and then there was a violent reaction. The trade declared its ability and willingness to prepare a scheme which was more convenient to itself and would save no less transport. It was given an opportunity to do so. The scheme was submitted to the Ministry of Transport, and the reply was that it did not in the least secure the necessary economy. The trade asked for another hearing. It was given another hearing. On 14th August a meeting was held and the scheme was again fully examined, and the Ministry of War Transport reluctantly had to come to the conclusion that it by no means did the job. I say "reluctantly," for clearly we would much rather have had a scheme that would at one and the same time have produced the economy in transportation and would have been worked by the trade itself.

In default, the zoning scheme produced by the Department had to go forward. I perhaps ought to sketch very generally some of the principles of the scheme. Fish landed at the ports is allocated to coastal wholesalers at the ports by allocation committees. The allocations are based on the quantities of fish handled by each wholesaler during the datum period. The coastal wholesalers have the duty of despatching the fish in pre-determined proportions to their customers. Those customers may be inland wholesalers, fishmongers, or friers, and to a small degree hospitals, institutions and catering establishments. The customers' lists were compiled with reference to the recorded sales of fish to these customers by the coastal wholesalers during the datum period. Then the inland merchants had the duty of despatching the fish to their customers, again with reference to sales during the datum period.

Now the compilation of lists, and of accurate lists, was a task of the greatest possible magnitude, and it was not made easier by the fact that, as is generally admitted, the fish trade has not in the past been over much given to the keeping of books and records. It was inevitable that there should be mistakes, but evidently those mistakes could be revealed only in practice. It was clear that the greatest amount of good will and co-operation would be necessary to rectify those mistakes as quickly as possible. There was good machinery to rectify them. We wanted good will and good machinery and there was the good machinery. At the ports there were distribution committees composed of the trade, with an independent chairman, to hear complaints. At the inland markets there were distribution committees with independent chairmen to hear complaints. The Ministry have their own area fish officers charged with the duty of adjusting difficulties in those parts of his area which do not come under the inland distribution committee.

I must make it plain, and this is very important in view of what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said, that the basis of distribution was not solely the performance during the datum period. The hon. Gentleman complained that some parts of the country were getting more fish than they were getting a year ago and he asked for equality. It was necessary that that should be so if there was to be equality.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

How is that?

Mr. Mabane

Let me go on and I will show why. If distribution had been oh the basis of previous performance, the result would have been, that deficiencies in various parts of the country would have been perpetuated. Therefore, an adjustment was made to provide those areas which had been seriously under-supplied in relation to their population with a higher and more equitable proportion, at the expense of areas that, having regard to the limited supply, had been proportionately over-supplied. I am confident that the House will approve of that purpose. It seems strange to me to hear the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway arguing on the one hand for equality of distribution and on the other hand complaining of the very measures taken by the Department to secure that equality of distribution. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not equal now."] It is far more equal than it ever has been.

In a matter of this kind, when vitally necessary supplies are at stake, the Department and the country are entitled to ask not only for an adequate trial of the scheme, but for a trial in which everybody is determined to do his best for success. I ask the House to consider whether such a trial has been given. The trade predicted failure before the scheme was introduced. Within a few weeks, resolutions were being passed announcing failure. I myself, at Question Time in his House, did my best, as I hope I always do, to give accurate replies, yet from time to time even the accuracy of my replies was challenged outside. We admitted that there were mistakes, but emphasis was laid on the mistakes. The hon. Member said that it was a good thing for a Department to say when it was wrong. We said that there had been a mistake here in Portsmouth, there in Southampton and there in Norwich, and we at once set about rectifying those mistakes. It would have been better if not so much emphasis had been placed outside upon those mistakes.

There are certain unchallengeable facts. It is a fact that the fish landed since the zoning scheme began was greater in quantity, indeed considerably greater, than in the same period last year. That is an unchallengeable fact, but it is due to no merit in my Department. It is an accident but it is a fact, and I cannot say that it will continue. I do not think it will. The period of storms is upon us. December may be very bad. For example, this morning we got only one, or at the most two, boats to port, and there were only about 170 tons of fish for the whole country, whereas yesterday 206 tons went to Billingsgate alone. That equally is not the fault of my Department. I do ask, Would it not have been better for the trade and those concerned to face the difficulties squarely in order to make the best effort to overcome them? As I said from the start, there are difficulties and imperfections. I know most of them and I want to indicate some of them to the House.

Before I do so, let me say that there can be no doubt that the results, so far as the first and major object of the scheme is concerned, are undoubtedly satisfactory, and I am wholly justified in saying so. The economy in transport has been such as to draw a letter from the Ministry of War Transport, from which perhaps I may quote these words: The scheme has already effected substantial economies in transport, and from the transport point of view has certainly been well worth while. From the inception of the scheme up to the 14th November about 6,000 train miles a week have been saved and the indications are that this figure will increase. This means that locomotives and their crews which are sorely needed at the present time have been made available for other urgent traffic. More fish has been distributed and at so much less cost in transport. That is on the transport side.

The difficulties and unsatisfactory features have been of a different character. I was going to deal at some length with the Icelandic boats to which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has referred. Much has been said about the damage to supplies owing to the folly, it is said, of the direction given by the Ministry of War Transport to certain boats to land their catches at Eastern ports. It was not at first made plain—these were not boats flying the British flag—I am sorry to have to refer to this matter, because the House will appreciate that certain elements of security are involved, but as public reference has been made to the matter it is only fair that I should say something. To ease transport and equalise landings, Icelandic boats were asked to land their catches twice out of three times on the East coast. The additional journey is not very much greater; there is some additional element of danger, but not much. The Icelandic fishermen have done well out of this country. We asked for this return. The Icelandic authorities agreed to this course, but nevertheless the boats were laid up, and the owners did not comply. They laid up, incidentally, at a time when fishing in any case is very restricted. We have not given way to the Icelandic owners. I am informed by cable that the crews are ready to sail. I was delighted to hear hon Members say they would support the Minister in not giving way to the owners.

There are complaints of quality. In peace-time fishermen catch the fish in demand, but in war-time for perfectly proper and understandable reasons all is fish that comes to the net, and consequently there is a much smaller proportion of prime fish. It was clearly desirable, with this difference in quality, that wholesalers should distribute their fish in such a way that their customers got a reasonable allocation of all kinds. They are not bound by law to do so. Allocations are by weight and undoubtedly some have been getting an undue proportion of prime fish and others of inferior fish. The best and easiest way to overcome this is by spontaneous action by the wholesale distributors themselves. To make a Regulation requiring this even distribution by quality, as the House will see, would involve enormous administrative difficulties. We want it distributed in this fair way and we are watching it very closely.

Mr. Robertson

Is there not one inherent weakness in the scheme, in that the coastal wholesaler gets so much more for supplying his retail customer and so much less for supplying his inland wholesale customer that he studies his more profitable customer by giving him the best varieties and gives the unfortunate inland wholesaler far too great a proportion of inferior or unwanted kinds? One unfortunate wholesaler in London recently got 100 boxes of nurses which have never been used for food in my lifetime but for bait. The wholesaler did not want the nurses any more than the supplier's direct retail customers. He has to sell to re- tailers who require saleable fish just as the retailers buying direct. I do feel this is an inherent weakness in the scheme and I hope my hon. Friend will go into it.

Mr. Mabane

My hon. Friend speaks with expert knowledge, and he has certainly touched upon a very important point, which is receiving very careful attention. We shall have to consider what action can be taken if there is not this evenness in distribution. I shall be glad to have the hon. Member's help and advice on the matter. It is also very important that the allocation for a whole week or for a fortnight should not be sent on one day. It should be spaced evenly over the period. There is some evidence of people getting all their fish for one week on one day. That is a difficulty we are watching. It is desirable, and here I think I come to a point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), that when the supplies reach the fishmonger they should be offered openly. Under-the-counter sales are undesirable in every way, yet there is some evidence that the display of a notice "No fish to-day" does not in the least mean that no fish has arrived. It might be desirable to require fishmongers, after having met their hospital and other such entitlements, to display their fish on the slab. The House will understand the difficulty of enforcing such a provision, but I do not think it should be ruled out. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) referred to supplies which went to hotels and restaurants. An Order has been made restricting those supplies. From that Order we have excluded the fish friers, so they are in an advantageous position. I know the hon. Member's interest in the fish friers, and in the work they are doing.

Let me refer to a special difficulty in the Fleetwood zone, which is at the root of a lot of the complaints made in this House. I have been interested to observe the geographical distribution of the complaints made by hon. Members, and they are mainly from the Fleetwood zone. Some time ago, when fish supplies were diverted, merchants went from the east coast to Fleetwood. They were accommodated in Fleetwood, but an arrangement was made with the Fleetwood merchants whereby these "comers-in," if I may use a Yorkshire term, were required to confine their activities to particular kinds of fish, mainly Icelandic. The result is that landings at Fleetwood have hot been treated as a whole and allocated to the merchants as a whole, and two buyers in the same town attached to two different wholesalers—I think that constituents of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth) are sufferers—one of them dealing in English white fish and the other dealing in Icelandic white fish, might find their supplies very different if the landings were unequal. I hope that we shall be able to overcome this. Just before I came to the House I received a telegram from Fleetwood, saying: New allocation lists now being prepared. Will advise you immediately new scheme can be put into operation. I am sincerely hoping that this major difficulty will be overcome.

Finally, let me say that the Department has admitted to certain miscalculations, which have caused difficulties in some half-dozen towns or cities. These are in process of rectification, and they are not inherent in the scheme. Quite apart from these matters, the Department would not yet claim that the lists upon which allocations are made are in all cases accurate. In so far as they are not accurate, the reason is to be found in the main in the inadequacy of the figures which the Department was able to obtain. It is the duty of the various distribution committees and of our Area Officers to repair any inadequacies. That is being done daily. In some cases the lists do not give satisfaction because during the datum period it appears, certainly in the case of some fish friers, that they were buying through improper channels. I have a letter from the Secretary of the National Federation of Fish Friers frankly stating the fact. Clearly fish so bought cannot now be offered as part of the purchases during the datum period. As the House will realise, that is a difficult problem.

This is a scheme of great magnitude. It covers a trade whose methods in the past have not been so precise as those adopted in other trades. The scheme is in its initial stages; and there have been, and must continue to be, difficulties where the supply never meets the demand.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked me yesterday to state the districts in which the scheme was working satisfactorily. I had puzzled over the question, as to what he meant by districts. So far as transport is concerned, the scheme is working satisfactorily everywhere. So far as distribution is concerned, let me frankly state that I studied his question with care and was unable to satisfy myself as to what he meant by district. If the hon. Member by districts meant zones—and if he did not mean zones, heaven knows what he did mean—I am entitled to say, in general terms, that it is working satisfactorily in the Scottish zone, in the South West zone, and, having regard to the shortage of supplies, in the two Eastern zones; but I cannot say that it is working satisfactorily in the Fleetwood zone. It is untrue to say that trouble even in that zone is general. If he did not mean zones, I do not know what he did mean.

Consider what is here at stake. On the one hand you have a great national interest which must be served if the war is to be won at the earliest moment, and on the other hand the established practice of a trade. That is the conflict of interest which this House must resolve. Is it possible to doubt what the choice must be? It is dangerous to the trade in its own interest to suggest, either directly or by implication, that, if there was no scheme, there would be more fish. It is not true. Have any Members in this House seen many kippers lately or many herring? They are not in the scheme. They are not subject to the zoning scheme, and there is no abundance of this fish because there is a scarcity of that category too.

This is not the only scheme made necessary by the war which upsets old established trade practices. I said a short time ago that the whole of the rationing structure of the Ministry of Food upsets trade practices and could not continue for a day unless the public and the trade were ready to co-operate. Rationing, we are told, gives general satisfaction because the public and the trade are determined to make it work. They make it their own and without that it could not work. Let me give an example of it. Last year the distribution of tomatoes, a somewhat difficult problem, was generally acclaimed a model of distribution. The Department produced a scheme with virtually no Orders behind it at all. The whole of the credit for making that scheme work so smoothly must go to the growers and distributors who co-operated so loyally and with such a high sense of public duty. With similar co-operation, which I hope we shall now receive, this scheme will work too.

What are the alternatives? The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was, I thought, a little too violent when he said that the scheme must go.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I did not say that.

Mr. Mabane

I am glad to have that withdrawal from the hon. Member. What are the alternatives? Would the House prefer to go back to the period of no control of prices or distribution with unequal quantities going here and there? I think not. The inland transport position would preclude that. Here is an important foodstuff even if in short supply, and it is the duty of my noble Friend to get it to the public in as equal quantities as he can. The House will require him to do that. What then can we think of? The alternative is not to go back but to go forward by some form of rationing. It is not easy to ration a perishable commodity in any case, but it is much more difficult when it is in short supply. The fundamental principle of rationing is that it must be met, and it fails in Germany because that fact is ignored. If rationing in some form is a solution which the House says should be considered, I do not think the Ministry of Food will be lacking in courage to have a shot at it. But would rationing ease the burden of the trade? I think not. The trade would be far better served if loyal efforts were made now, bearing always in mind the national interest, to make the scheme work in the way in which it was intended. I am deeply grateful for the support the House has given to-day, both by the speeches that have been made and by the way the speeches have been received, to the efforts of the Department to make this scheme in every way a success. The Department is anxious and willing to strain every nerve to make that co-operation effective. Let us hope that that may be so.