WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE (Hansard, 14 July 1948)

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

We have had many apologies for speeches at a late hour tonight, and I will not make another for dealing with a subject which I want to raise after having been lucky enough, to be successful in the ballot. At the outset I want to say that I am sorry the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Summerskill) has been inconvenienced by having to attend the Debate at this hour. I did convey to the Foreign Secretary, who would, I thought, be slightly interested in the subject which I have chosen, my intention to call attention to the warning given by Sir John Boyd Orr on the world food shortage, and the appeal he broadcast recently on his retirement. I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explaining that this 1364 was really a question for the Ministry of Food. Apparently food is not a subject of very great interest to their excellencies at the Foreign Office, but I should have thought that the wider implications would have been apparent even in those celestial regions, and that they would not have sent a lady to occupy the firing line. I assure the hon. Lady that any criticisms I have to make are not directed against her. I wish profoundly that she was the Foreign Secretary. She would have made a better job of it. I have more confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, after the opinions she expressed in the Debate this week, than I have in the Foreign Secretary, the Under-Secretary, and the Minister of State who speaks for the Foreign Office, all rolled into one.

This is a serious subject, and I entirely agree with the tributes paid to Sir John Boyd Orr from all sections of the House in the Debate on food earlier in the week. I agree with the hon. Lady's opinion that Sir John Boyd Orr is not only a great scientist and a great humanitarian, but has been one of our finest ambassadors. It is said that posterity remembers those who benefit posterity. If that is so, Sir John Boyd Orr will never be forgotten."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1948; Vol. 543, c. 965.] I should not like it to be thought that the appeal made by a distinguished Scotsman, born in the county I represent in this House, would pass without a word of support, and some response, even at this late hour. Sir John Boyd Orr served this country and civilisation in his capacity as Director of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. On his retirement he issued a statement to the Press which must have been alarming and caused great concern to people who look ahead to the future of the world. He said, according to the "Daily Herald": The world cannot have a third world war and avert approaching catastrophe, too. The whole race is rumbling to destruction. There is only a fifty-fifty chance of getting over the food problem. … The nations of the world are insane, applying their energies to building up a war machine instead of applying their steel and industrial products to conserve the resources of the land. Only diversion of machinery to food production can avert chaos within the next 40 to 50 years. That is a warning that this Government and others should take seriously when it comes from a distinguished publicist like Sir John Boyd Orr, who has become an international figure and occupies a unique position in international affairs, something 1365 approaching to that of Dr. Nansen after the first world war. It is all very well to pay tributes to Sir John Boyd Orr. I remember that Chesterton once said about Dickens that Dickens would have preferred us to carry on his struggle rather than to celebrate his triumph, especially when that triumph had not yet been achieved. I do not believe that Sir John Boyd Orr will be content to retire into seclusion. Even if he has not won the ears of the Government, and if his words do not influence the Government, widespread public opinion outside is that this man is talking common sense at a time when there is precious little common sense being spoken by our diplomats and statesmen.

He has warned the nations that they are spending too much on armed forces in time of peace. Judging from the figures given us by the Minister of Defence, certainly that criticism applies to this nation and to this Government. Last week we were told that the number of men and women in the Armed Forces of this country now amounts to 931,000; that there is a civilian army of 235,000 engaged in the work of supplying them; and that 1,166,000 men and women are now engaged either in uniform or in supplying the materials of the Armed Forces. At a time when we are warned that we need every available man and woman either in productive industry or in agriculture, these figures are very alarming indeed, from the point of view of the people who look ahead to the economy of this country in the future. This criticism applies to the other nations as well.

With the prospect of a world food shortage imminent within the next decade or so, all the nations are spending their substance in preparing for another war. The advice given by Sir John Boyd Orr to this country applies to other countries—to the United States, to the U.S.S.R. There is no doubt that when a world food shortage looms ahead every possible step should be taken by the nations to come to some agreement by which the productive labour of men and women should be devoted to ensuring the food supplies of the world. I know that we shall be told that we need at present to spend a vast amount of money on the Forces, and to employ this huge army of men and women, because of the danger of war.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that Sir John Boyd Orr urged the Government 1366 to take certain action which he believes may avert the catastrophe of a third world war. We are in danger of war with Russia, and Sir John Boyd Orr has asked us to face it. He has appealed to the Government to make a new approach to Russia, an economic approach apart from the diplomatic approach, to see whether the nations can come to some agreement which would result in a measure of agreement, and in disarmament, which would enable the nations to work together to avert a world famine. Sir John Boyd Orr has told us that unfortunately Russia is not with the F.A.O. He said: Some say she never will. Have our Government and other Governments done all they can to get her to co-operate? Through trade agreements Russia is sending grain to Egypt and to some European countries, including our own. Eastern European countries, said to be controlled by Russia, are co-operating with the F.A.O. Suppose we try a new approach. There are those who argue it is no use talking to Russia—that Mr. Molotov always says "No." I have even seen comments in the British Press to the effect that Mr. Molotov is something of a mule. That may be so, but we too have our mules. I have heard it said of the British people that they are lions led by asses, but at the present time it seems to me that the peoples of the world, including ourselves, are lions led by mules. I want an end to the mulishness of our diplomats and statesmen. I want Mr. Molotov and the Foreign Secretary to realise that we want them to say "Yes," and that their foreign policy has led us to this impasse. The peoples of the world are really wanting a settlement of international affairs, and whatever the statesmen may do, the last thing the people, whether they live in Russia, America or on the Continent of Europe, want is war. Sir John Boyd On has suggested that we make an approach to Russia, and he talks in a conciliatory way to Russia. He has said: Let us give Russia credit for the vast plans she is carrying out to double and redouble agricultural and industrial production, and credit for the great social and welfare schemes she is carrying out. Let us pay tribute to her agricultural scientists who are making the desert flourish and the land within the Arctic Circle grow food. Amid all the hate and suspicion, this great international figure says: Let us forget, for the time being at least, the things on which we disagree and give Russia 1367 a cordial invitation to join us and other nations to make the great contribution she can make to a world food plan and put an end to hunger and poverty. He concludes, In my opinion, Russia would probably respond to such an invitation if it were made in all sincerity and good will. It is well worth trying. I believe that from this House of Commons there should be at least one voice to endorse that point of view. If Russia responded, the whole political atmosphere of the world would be changed, and the world food policy would be the beginning of a world peace policy. I put this question to the Foreign Secretary, and I received the usual evasive diplomatic reply. It was suggested that Russia could solve the whole problem if she went to the telephone and said she was prepared to join the F.A.O. I am not arguing for one moment that Russia is not equally to blame for not being in the F.A.O. I think that she would be co-operating with the rest of the world, but this is not the time for diplomatic niceties, when the whole future of the world may be at stake, and as a result of this tension we may ultimately drift into a terrible war. I was criticised in the "Daily Herald" for suggesting that we should make the approach to Russia. The leading article stated that I had asked the Foreign Secretary whether he would consider giving Russia an invitation to join with us and other nations to contribute to a world food plan to put an end to hunger and poverty. These were not just my words. They were the words of Sir John Boyd Orr. The "Daily Herald" commented: It was a well-intentioned question, posed in misleading terms. It proceeded, of course, to give the official praise to the Secretary of State and said that the Secretary of State pointed out these facts in reply to the Member for South Ayrshire, that Russia could become a member of F.A.O. simply by picking up the telephone. The conscience of the editor began to trouble him and he went on to think. He added: However, we cannot help wondering, since Russia has persistently refused to pick up that telephone, whether it might not be worth F.A.O.'s while to give her a ring. I suggest it would, and that we should be prepared to take the initiative. We should be prepared to ignore the diplo- 1368 matic techniques, not to worry whether we upset the conservatively-minded people at the Foreign Office, but be prepared to take this initiative on the lines Sir John Boyd Orr suggested. The "Daily Herald" went on to say that perhaps it would be a good thing if the F.A.O. were to send this invitation to the U.S.S.R. and suggested that if all the nations would combine it would be a good thing. Now, there are 56 nations in the F.A.O. Are we to wait for every one of these small nations to come to an agreement that this course is desirable before this Government takes action. Have we to wait for Portugal, Paraguay and Peru? Is there to be a veto of small countries as well as great Powers?

I make bold to make this statement, with the hope it will be conveyed to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, that it would be a good thing if Sir John Boyd Orr were sent on a special mission to Moscow, to see whether Russia could be persuaded to come back to F.A.O. with the purpose of co-operating in the world food plan that Sir John Boyd Orr suggests. I wish to point out that at moments of crisis we have ignored the diplomatic technique. There are cases when we did not send the conventional ambassadors to other nations. There was the case during the war when we sent Sir Stafford Cripps to Moscow. There was the case when we sent Sir Samuel Hoare to be our ambassador in Spain. And I believe that these diplomatic actions were justified.

I believe if we were to do that at this time and were prepared to say we are desperately anxious that the tension between ourselves and Russia should end; if we were prepared to make the economic approach to Russia, then this action would he justified. I appeal to the Minister to present this point of view to the Government. I only wish, in conclusion, to make this final quotation from a lecture that Sir John Boyd Orr gave to the University of London—the Sanderson-Wells Lecture: The only hope of avoiding war is to get the two great modern Powers to agree to co-operate on something. To co-operate on a world food plan to which both can contribute so much offers the best chance of establishing contact and joint action. Is there no way that the British Commonwealth might be the means of getting agreement on a world food plan and by doing so supply the moral leadership which a frightened and bewildered world so urgently needs. 1369 I believe that in this House of Commons there should be a voice arguing that this Socialist Government should take the lead to get an international policy. I urge that there should be another attempt made to approach the Soviet Union. We should say to the Soviet Union: "We want you to co-operate with us in a world food plan." If we do that, we can yet save civilisation from the frightful possibility of the catastrophe which would inevitably come to civilisation in the event of another war.