§ VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Notice on the Paper—
§
To call the attention of the Food Controller to the speech delivered by Mr. Clynes at a special conference held in the Central Hall, Westminster, on December 29 last, and reported in The Times on December 31, in which the following statement occurs—
The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that,
276
speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country, Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer'";
and to ask the Food Controller the following questions: (1) Is the statement attributed by Mr. Clynes to the Controller substantially accurate? and (2) To whom and to what class of person or persons was the Controller referring when he used the expression "I don't care a hang who suffers," and what was the industry or the interests he had in his mind when he expressed his complete indifference as to those "whose interests go under" provided he could make this job of his Ministry a success for the consumer; and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for the Questions which I have put on the Paper, because the statements referred to that have induced me to ask these Questions appear to me to be so unusual in character as to justify me in asking for some explanation in regard to them. Neither, my Lords, will it be necessary for me to detain you except for a very few moments upon this occasion. The statements referred to were made at a special conference held in Westminster Hall on December 29 and reported in The Times of December 31. I did not see them myself, nor was I aware of them until some time afterwards when my attention was called to them. Having seen them, I thought it right to put these Questions upon the Paper, and they have been on the Paper now for some considerable time. I have done this in order to ascertain precisely at whom the expressions of opinion on the part of the Food Controller were directed.
§ Your Lordships will remember that earlier in the session we had two or three different debates all of them upon the question of the policy with regard to meat. That was explained to us on the first meeting that we had by the Food Controller. His main object at that time—and I apprehend it to remain his main object—was considerably to reduce the prices of meat, and the general opinion, I think, of this House was that if that policy was pursued it would have a very deleterious effect upon the production of food, especially at this particular time when an enormous increase of food, if it be possible to bring it about in this country, 277 is a matter of the very highest and greatest importance. I share this opinion myself very strongly, and it is this which makes me all the more anxious to know, beyond all doubt, at whom these expressions of opinion were levelled, and exactly at what class and at what interest or industry the expressions to which I have referred were aimed.
§ But before I ask the two Questions on the Paper, I am going to put a third to the representative of the Board of Agriculture whom I see sitting opposite to me. I do this because, on more than one occasion when Questions have been asked as to the relations between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the noble Lord who is the Food Controller and his Department, differences of opinion have been expressed, and not only with regard to the Food Controller's Department, but also in relation, on one occasion which I remember, to the War Office. We were told one day in regard to one matter that the President of the Board of Agriculture was not only entirely in concurrence with what was being done, but that it had been done at his request. This was afterwards contradicted most emphatically, and your Lordships who were present will remember that the Secretary of State for War had to come down in what he called a "white sheet," acknowledge his mistake, and express penitence for the statement which he had made. Had it not been for that I might have had some hesitation in asking these questions. I do think that it is very desirable that any idea of want of harmony between the two Departments should be cleared up most positively in connection with a subject which at the present moment is of the first and utmost importance. What I want to ask of the noble Duke whom I see opposite is this, "what is the position now as between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Controller of Food, and does the President admit the Food Controller's versions of his relations with the President which have been given on more than one occasion, and which apparently are intended to hold good up to the present time?
§
The statement attributed to the noble Lord opposite was made by Mr. Clynes, who said—
The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that, speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country—
278
I am rather interested in that. I should very much like to know who they were—
Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer.'
I am anxious to know precisely at whom these observations were levelled. It is not necessary for me to say anything further, at all events at present, except to ask the Questions which I have put on the Paper. I beg to move.
§ THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA)My Lords, I make no criticism at all on the propriety of the noble Viscount's asking me this question at the present time. I will endeavour to do my best to allay his anxiety. I may not be able quite to satisfy him, but I think I shall be able to assure him that I had not any particular industry or any particular section of the community in mind in the observations I made on the occasion to which he refers. I should like to make this clear. At the commencement of his remarks he referred to a statment—not my statement, but the statement made on December 29 at the Central Hall by the Parliamentary Secretary—
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINOn your behalf, he said.
§ LORD RHONDDANot on my behalf exactly, but the statement made on that public occasion. The words used by me were not used on a public occasion at all. I desire to be very careful and precise in my interpretation of the remarks made, and quoted by Mr. Clynes, and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will adhere very closely to my notes. I cannot charge my memory with the precise words used on the occasion, but from what I am about to say the noble Viscount will be able to decide for himself to what extent the quotation was substantially accurate, I have repeatedly stated in public that I conceive it to be my primary duty to protect the interests of the consumer, and especially the poorer class of consumer, whatever obstacles or difficulties may stand in the way, and to this opinion I adhere. In saying that no vested interests must be allowed to stand in the way of securing fair treatment to the consumer, I have no particular industry in mind. My statement applies equally to all. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that I had not the agricultural industry in mind, which evidently he had when he spoke.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINYou were not referring to the agricultural industry?
§ LORD RHONDDAI was not referring to any industry. My statement applied equally to all industries and to all sections of the community.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThen the agricultural interest was included?
§ LORD RHONDDAIt was included. If their interests stand in the way of the national interests at the present time, then my remarks would apply to them; but I do not admit—I do not think the noble Viscount would admit—that they do stand in the way.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI do not.
§ LORD RHONDDAI certainly do not, and I have never said so. My view is that vested interests in the way of profit-making must give way to the national welfare. It is in the interest of the consumer that I have endeavoured to prevent prices from rising, and to lower them when they had risen unduly. We shall discuss that on another occasion; I think the noble Viscount is going to raise the matter next Wednesday. But I claim that my efforts in this direction have met with success in the case of those articles over which I have been able to exercise control.
The interests of consumer and producer are not necessarily in conflict, and I recognise that it is of the utmost importance that prices should be so fixed as not to restrict supplies. For this purpose it has been my policy to base prices on the cost of production and allow a fair rate of profit. I realise, I hope, as fully as the noble Viscount that the producer is entitled to a fair remuneration for his labour. I have endeavoured to be just without being over-generous, and to stimulate production without subordinating public necessities to private gain.
With regard to the third Question, I do not know whether the noble Duke is going to reply to that; but I can only say, what I have said elsewhere on a number of occasions, that the relations between the Board of Agriculture and my Department, and between Mr. Prothero and myself, are excellent and of the best.
§ LORD PARKERMy Lords I think that if the Food Controller could see his way to give the House some information as to how far he has succeeded, so far as the producers are concerned, or how far, on the other hand, his Orders have checked production, the House and the country would be more at ease on the matter. I think most of us who live in the country have very nearly come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Whereas in times past people who kept pigs and poultry used their potatoes when they could not sell them (which is generally the case, as they have a surplus in the country) for feeding their pigs, now they are prohibited, and pigs have ceased to he kept. On most farms, I am told by people concerned, cattle are ceasing to be kept. I am told that now an Order is about to go forth that no poultry should be kept. The country eggs are about the only things the poor people can get now from their chickens. They cannot get meat, and they cannot get a great many other things which are almost necessities of life, and it is all put down currently and popularly—I cannot say whether it is right or not—to Orders made by the Food Controller without consulting the interests of the producer.
Let me give one other instance. In my own parts of Sussex, which are seventeen, eighteen, or twenty miles perhaps from a market town, the ordinary practice of recent years has been for a farmer to sell to a local butcher direct. I understand that this has been rendered impossible. The farmer has to send seventeen miles to a market town. He may be eight or nine miles from a station. The railroads are congested, they have not the traffic sufficient for carriage, and it may take two or three days on the railway to get to the market town. At any rate, you want labour to drive the beasts to the railway station and possibly you have to drive them all the way to the market—for you cannot get railway accommodation. The local butcher has to go out to get his meat those seventeen miles, and he is in the position of having no conveyance, and he does not go. The result is that the parochial people do not get their meat. That is the result, as far as I can see, of an Order made by the Controller.
It may be that these are individual instances, and that the total operation of the Order is beneficial to the consumer. That I am not prepared to say. But I assure the Food Controller that it would 281 give great satisfaction if he could truly say that his Orders in regard to food have not checked production. So far as these Orders regulate prices they are, of course, for the benefit of the consumer; but if, at the same time, they check production so that the consumer cannot get the food at the price fixed, that cannot be of benefit. That is the bind of uneasiness which is prevailing, at any rate in my part of the country.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I have listened with very great attention to what the Food Controller has said, and I think he will accept this summary of his statement—that in making use of the words quoted by Mr. Clynes he had not any particular industry, or set of persons, in his mind, but all who might be concerned with the production and distribution of food.
§ LORD RHONDDAAny interests.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEAgriculturists wore not specifically aimed at, but were included in the general scope of the observations. Secondly, he said that, in his judgment, the primary duty was to do the best he could for the consumers, especially for the poorer consumers; subject to this, that he desired to stimulate production, and to try to base his prices on the cost of production. None of us will take any exception to that statement of objects. None of us wishes to see profiteering by agriculture, or by any other industry connected with the production or the distribution of food.
We heartily welcome the statement of the Food Controller that it is his duty not only to regulate prices but to stimulate production; because it is evident that he cannot really serve the interests of the consumer if ho does not stimulate production; and he cannot stimulate production unless he is very careful not to fix prices below the cost of production. In my judgment—and, I think, in the judgment of many others in your Lordships' House—although his intentions have been exactly what he has stated them to be, the Food Controller leas on more than one occasion fixed prices below the cost of production, the result being to diminish instead of to stimulate the production of food in this country. I will not go into the details with regard to the matter of beef, which we discussed in this House some months ago. But I do not think that I am exaggerating when I 282 say that the forebodings we then expressed have verified themselves in fact; that the shortage of meat from which we are suffering at the present moment was foretold by us; and that this was caused by a mistake of the Food Controller in the rates he fixed at one particular period.
There is another thing besides care not to fix prices below the cost of production, and that is, not to use words which frighten those who are concerned with production. What I complain about in regard to the words quoted by Mr. Clynes is that this kind of language—although not so intended—does frighten ignorant men. After all, the great majority of farmers are small men, and that kind of language frightens them. They become Less enterprising, they curtail their commitments, and the result is increased shortage.
The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Parker) has asked some very pertinent questions about the possible effect on production of certain Orders which have been made. I will take another Order. As it does not affect agriculturists in any way, and is very striking as an exemplification, I make no apology for taking it. I refer to the case of the wild rabbit. Now, if there is one thing more harmful to agriculture or to forestry it is the rabbit. The rabbit is the curse of those industries. One of the things from which both forestry and agriculture are suffering at the present moment is the increase of rabbits, because those whose business it was to keep the rabbits down have gone to the war. There is not one keeper looking after the rabbits on the land now for, I should think, three, or perhaps half a dozen, who were doing so before the war. Every landowner, or farmer, with whom I have discussed this matter has confessed that it has been a difficulty and an anxiety with him to keep down the rabbits. Just at the moment when that anxiety was getting most acute, the price of rabbits went up to 3s. That offered a very remarkable inducement to every kind of person—including anybody who could poach—to get rabbits; and I think it was of the greatest possible advantage to the poorer consumers that those rabbits should be obtained. It is not possible to control rabbits in the way in which the production of butter or of beef can be controlled. The Food Controller fixed the price of rabbits, with the result that the rabbit disappeared altogether from the market, 283 because the inducement which was stimulating people to catch rabbits had disappeared. That is the kind of thing which mill happen unless the utmost care is taken. I think that it is not in the interests of the poorer consumers, or of stimulating production, to make Orders which have that effect.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken quoted a very pertinent instance of the evil effect of fixing prices. He restricted his remarks, however, to the case of rabbits. I would take the case much further. I believe that this fixing of prices has been operating adversely in every direction. I know that the Food Controller is dealing with a problem of extraordinary difficulty, and one which is unprecedented in the history of this country. But it seems to me (and I say it with all humility) that the strenuous energy which Lord Rhondda has put into his task has been directed on wrong lines.
The Preamble to the Act instituting his office says, "The purpose of the office is to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such a manner as is thought best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best to encourage the production of food." There is not a word in that Preamble about fixing prices. I remember reading a speech delivered by the noble Lord in the country in which he took credit to himself that most of his work had been in respect of fixing prices. In doing that I think that the Food Controller has sacrificed economics to politics. My own opinion, perhaps, would be worth nothing, but every agriculturist (including the Scots, who are a fairly hard-headed people), and those engaged in commerce, and also some of those who are purchasing food on behalf of the Government, have told me that they agree with the contention that the fixing of prices has retarded production and prevented importation of foodstuffs.
I will not weary the House with the many instances which I could give in this connection; but I will quote one gentleman whom I met two days ago, and who is largely responsible for making purchases on behalf of the Government. He told me that it was necessary to buy now three cattle where only two would have been sufficient before, in consequence, of course, of the decline in their condition. Therefore the result has been that at the present time 284 there are less sources of food in the country than there would have been if the Government had taken what seem to be the natural steps to take when there is a shortage of food, and that is to prevent waste and also restrict consumption by the individual and leave prices alone. Had the noble Lord directed his attention to preventing waste and to seeing that there was equal, fair distribution of food to every individual in the country, and left prices alone, it is my firm conviction that to-day the position would have been far better than it is.
In one of his speeches I remember he denied altogether that profiteering had been largely instrumental in the raising of prices. As some one tersely put it, in times of national crisis like we are going through now you must have high prices or else, no food. The way to stimulate production is to allow market prices to rise. There are plenty of powers in the hands of the Government to prevent profiteering, cornering, or anything directly against the public interest. Therefore it is in my view quite a wrong line of conduct which has been taken by the Government in trying to give a greater supply of food to the people of this country. I will not put the Question† which stands in my name on the Paper unless the noble Lord would like me to do so. I have nothing much to say about it. There have, naturally, been so many mistakes made by his Department in regard to Regulations that at the present time I believe those who are most desirous of complying with every edict of the Government with regard to the consumption of food are really very much mystified. As I say, mistakes have been made, and therefore I would ask whether the country should not be enlightened before a complete series of Regulations, which I hope will be short and simple, is put before them, and Parliament should have the opportunity of considering whether they are those most likely to fulfil the purpose we have in view.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERIf the question which stands in the name of the noble
§ † The Question standing in the name of Lord LAMINGTON was as follows: To ask whether, in view of the Food Controller's statement that a system of compulsory rationing will be almost certainly introduced, His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament the proposed scheme in accordance with the statement made on November 20 of last year by the Food Controller that he would see whether this House could he given the opportunity of considering the scheme before it became operative.
285§ Lord, Lord Lamington, is to be regarded now as open to the consideration of the House, there are one or two words I should like to say upon it. In the first place I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda, that I have no desire to criticise or embarrass him. I know quite well that those phrases often preface some very embarrassing remarks, but they are none the less quite sincerely meant. I am quite satisfied that no man could possibly undertake the difficult and thankless office that he has undertaken unless he were inspired and supported by the strongest possible patriotic motives. Speaking for myself, I think that the noble Lord has discharged his singularly thankless duties with great courage and with some small modicum of success, but of course he must have been well aware from the very first that the work he had undertaken never admitted of any great public successful issue.
§ LORD RHONDDAHear, hear.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERHe must have known that some things were certain to go wrong and that he would consequently be abused whenever they did go wrong, and that if things went right it would be accepted as the normal administration of affairs and he would get very little credit for it. What I want to point out to him, and I trust he will accept it from me rather by way of suggestion than criticism, is that it is of the utmost consequence that every exhortation and instruction given to the public should be couched in the simplest, plainest and the fewest words. There were some instructions issued the other day which I was informed had become the subject of consideration by two eminent Judges, who professed themselves quite unable to understand what they meant. It is possible that with a little more labour they could have given a judicial interpretation which probably would not have carried out the meaning which the circular was intended to convey, but it is quite certain that if two men trained in the interpretation of documents found it difficult to follow the meaning of a circular like that, simple people who are not always familiar with printed documents will find themselves in grave difficulties and confusion when they attempt to carry them out.
I think it may be that the necessary length, it may even be the necessary difficulty, connected with these documents is part of the reason why the voluntary 286 scheme has so far broken down. I do not myself think that that is in any way the fault of the noble Lord, but I do think that it is the fault of certain members of the War Cabinet. The voluntary system, if it could have succeeded, would obviously have been the best and fairest method of distributing food in this country. It would have saved all the friction and the resistance which will certainly be caused if compulsory rationing is introduced, and I do not think the voluntary system need have failed. Considerable effort was being made by people in different localities to make it effectual, and of some of these I can speak from my own knowledge. But people are always anxious and willing to believe the thing they want to believe, and if you once relieve them from the anxiety and the urgent necessity for difficult privation and economy they will readily take advantage of the opportunity that is offered and consume more food than they should. Now that is exactly the result that followed from the speech that was made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, when he said that he no longer had any fear of the submarine menace.
§ Several NOBLE LORDS : Hear, hear.
§ LORD BUCKMASTEROf course it is not the fault of the noble Earl who is Leader of this House, and, if I may say so, still less of the noble Lord. It merely embarrassed him and made his position more difficult than before. I do think it is a lamentable thing that for the purpose of gaining a brief Parliamentary triumph in an afternoon a great responsible Minister like the Prime Minister should have been so unguarded in his utterances and so careless of the consequences that might follow from what he said. That is one of the difficulties that I think has stood in the way of the voluntary scheme, and I think there are others, too. It is quite true that the food that is consumed at great restaurants makes but little difference in the total consumption of the nation. I dare say if you let them go on entirely unchecked, without restriction or limit at all, it would not make the least measurable of appreciable difference in the rations you are going to distribute among all the people. I quite agree with that. But if you are going to ask people to subject themselves to hardship, either voluntarily or under compulsion, it is of the utmost importance that every 287 example should be set in order to show that the nation is determined as a whole that there shall be no extravagance, not merely in the actual question of the rations but in every department they control.
It is therefore unfortunate that restaurants should have gone on until recently with slight limit upon their expenditure, because the advertisement and object lesson that was afforded by those places to people in the street who do not know what takes place inside are thoroughly misunderstood. People in the street are firmly convinced that they are places where luxurious and extravagant living is permitted, and it has an extremely bad influence on the public. It is to be found in numberless instances of action of a similar kind. At this moment what is needed is that every step that can be taken should be taken to brace and tighten the moral tension of this country, and if that is not done grave disaster may ensue; but the things that are done instead of bracing and tightening the moral tension of the country frequently tend to loosen and slacken it.
I will give another illustration of what I mean. When petrol was stopped motor cars proceeded to use gas. It was pointed out in the newspapers that the use of gas involved the abstraction of sail cloth from purposes for which it was required in connection with aeroplanes. Either that was true or it was false. If it was false it should have been contradicted at once, for the mischief of allowing a statement of that kind to go by without contradiction is immeasurable. If it were true, the Government should never have permitted a single car to have a gas bag on its roof. The matter stands in the same position to-day. Of two things, one. Either this does not matter and anybody can do it, or it does matter and nobody should be allowed to do it. This is merely an illustration of exactly what takes place with regard to all these matters. The Government really must remember that the people of this country are apt to be misled by example to a far greater extent than is generally believed. They misunderstand frequently and are possibly ready to be misled, but when they suffer hardships, as many have recently done in their attempt to get food, their minds are restless and uneasy, and they become an easy prey to discontent and ill-intentioned advice.
I trust that if these rationing orders become vital—and I understand they have 288 become vital—every step will be taken to make them as simple and plain as possible. Secondly, I hope that it will not be found necessary to flood this country with an endless band of inspectors and officials: that as far as possible voluntary and local work will be called in aid, in order to assist in the carrying out of the necessary schemes. Those local bodies will be able to do what is necessary, and that is to get into personal touch with the people to whom the rations will have to be distributed. They will know from their own personal knowledge what each person requires. It is my firm belief that it would be far better in certain cases, if an administration which is not too rigid be adopted, that some people should get more than they are accustomed to or ought to have rather than that you should cause, what I think will certainly arise, ill-feeling and discontent consequent upon having some of the simplest domestic details of life under the control of a vast number of officials, who cannot by any possibility whatever have had any experience of the work which they are called upon to perform.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDMy Lords, I should like to say a very few words upon the important question before us this evening, more especially with reference to obtaining the greatest production of food from the country. I quite agree with what has fallen from Lord Selborne and the noble and learned Lord with reference to the fear that the present conditions do not favour the greatest production from the land. Why? I am afraid that there is a want of confidence among the farmers as to what may be the order or the policy of the Government from day to day. They have great difficulty in looking ahead. Now, in any trading concern it is necessary to look ahead, and in the case of the farmers they are always liable to get a fresh Order with fresh prices named for them. Let me take the case particularly of milk. It is a commodity that we cannot obtain from abroad. It is entirely a home product. The Government have recently issued prices for the next few months, beginning April 1, and they have not included April as a winter month. Any practical farmer knows very well that April is one of the most difficult months for a farmer with a milking herd, and they ought to expect the Government to allow them for April the price that they have had during the winter months. We are now on January 31, and 289 they have that uncertainty before them that there is no Order yet as to their obtaining a fair and remunerative price for April next. The obvious danger is that those who are not satisfied with the prospect before them may sell their cows and give up rearing. You cannot replace these. COWS or their produce—at least it would take a long time—and therefore in the milk trade especially it is most important that the farmers should have some assurance that for some time to come they will get fair and remunerative prices for their milk. Otherwise they are certain to adopt other methods of farming. Milk is a case by itself. In the case of cereals, no doubt the prices will satisfy.
The Prime Minister last October paid a very generous tribute to the action of the farmers, and he told them they were doing everything they could in the most patriotic way for the good of the country. He alluded especially to two troubles which they had to face. One was the labour question, and the other was the weather, but I think he omitted a third and very important one, which is Government interference with their prices. I am far from suggesting for a moment that there should be no fixed prices. I quite agree it is a necessity, but I do think that in the interests of the nation, in order to obtain the highest possible produce from the land, it is important that the authorities in charge of this question should be a little more liberal in the prices that they fix. I have been at farmers' meetings, and I know there is a feeling of want of confidence and insecurity among farmers which does not tend to the greatest production possible, but on the contrary checks production, and so the nation will suffer.
I was glad. to hear that the relations between the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture were very amicable. At the same time I cannot but suspect that the Food Controller in this case is the predominant partner. Be that as it may, I am sure the Food Controller will agree with me that if you are to secure the greatest output possible you must be able to show to the producer that he will secure a fair margin of profit between the cost of production and the price that he realises for his produce, and also that he has fair security that it will continue for a reasonable length of time. The noble Lord the Food Controller will correct me if I am wrong in saving that these two conditions are applicable to all 290 trading, and where you get the greatest output it is because there is a fair margin between the cost of production and the price realised, and a fair prospect of that condition being maintained. What the farmers want are a little more certainty and a little more security, and (if I may say so)—with the object which we all have in view of obtaining the greatest production possible—a little more liberality in the prices they are allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, the various speeches that were made have covered so much of the ground that I have no desire to add to them. The noble Lord opposite has been asked a great number of questions, or at any rate a great many points have been put to him on which he may desire to say something further. My only object in rising was to make myself quite clear as to the Question which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Lamington. I understood him to say that he did not desire to press for a reply if the noble Lord was not desirous of giving one at this moment
§ LORD LAMINGTONThat was only as to when I should rise to speak.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy only object was to ask whether, owing to the course the debate has taken, the noble Lord opposite will be able to give some answer to the Question put by my noble friend as to how far he will find it possible to inform Parliament beforehand of the details of the scheme of compulsory rationing and—what I think would be particularly desirable for Parliament and the public to know—precisely to what articles it is intended to apply the scheme. Rationing is sometimes spoken of as though it must necessarily be applicable, or could hardly be otherwise than applicable, to articles of consumption of all kinds, whereas we know it may be limited to two or three of the more important; and if the noble Lord is able—I do not not say now, but at some period, a considerable interval, before the system is introduced—to explain to what articles it is to be applied, and any details that he may be able to produce, I think it would be a great service, not merely to your Lordships' House and to Parliament but to the public generally who are, of course, exceedingly interested.
I merely desire before I sit down to associate myself with much that has been 291 said on the subject of fixing prices. I am willing to admit, like my noble friend who spoke last, that there may be occasions when the popular demand and the popular alarm at the sudden rise of prices may make it hardly possible for a Government to resist the fixing of prices, but I also agree with the noble Lord who spoke before that any such fixing of prices is in itself a misfortune, and that where the ordinary action of the market can have play—every precaution, of course, being taken to make it impossible for any one of the individuals through whose hands the article passes to make an undue profit upon it—it is greatly to the public advantage. From the two instances that have been mentioned—that of the fixing of the prices of beef and mutton, and the later one of the fixing of the price of rabbits—I do not think the noble Lord can congratulate himself on the results which have been obtained so far as the encouragement of production is concerned. I fear that the actual effect produced in both these cases has been directly the opposite, and for that reason I trust that for any subjects of consumption of which the prices still remain unfixed the noble Lord will be very tender in fixing them.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINMy Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply on the debate which we have had, certainly not at too great length, upon this very important subject. The first thing I may ask is this. The noble Lord says that from lack of memory he cannot say how far the language quoted in my Question as used by Mr. Clynes was accurate. Would it be impossible to ascertain from Mr. Clynes whether his memory is any better, and whether he adheres to the statement which he made. I think we have every right to ask that question and every right to be told, seeing that the noble Lord says he cannot charge his memory with the language that was used. The noble Lord says that he made it known immediately after he was appointed that all interests and all industries were included when he said he did not care what interests went under—that is to say, if they interfered in any way with the object he had in view of reducing prices. He told us that agriculture was certainly included, and immediately afterwards he denounced profiteering, in which I entirely agree with him.
§ LORD RHONDDAAnything that stands in the way of the national interests.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI am not defending profiteering; nor have I had any experience of it myself. What I do know is this, that both the Food Controller and the Prime Minister—the latter in particular in a speech the other day in the House of Commons (the speech that has already been referred to)—did resent most vehemently the attacks that have been made on farmers in that respect. The Prime Minister said they were utterly undeserving of them, and that he resented them entirely himself. Unless my memory fails me, I think I could find in a very short time observations not very dissimilar with regard to farmers by the noble Lord himself.
§ LORD RHONDDACertainly.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI am delighted to have that admission from him. The noble Lord went on to say that it was of the utmost importance not to restrict the supply of food. Has he succeeded in doing that? Why, good heavens! if that was his object a more dismal failure has never attended any policy in the world. I do not know whether he is aware of it but I do not know myself at the present moment, having made careful inquiry, of a single butcher's shop anywhere in the West-end where I could go and buy a mutton chop to-day. I happen to live in a house where there are a series of changes. It is an establishment very well kept and managed by people who have to look after it. I sent for the manager to-day. He said "We have not had a piece of meat, or been able to get a piece of meat, for the last week or ten days"; although he had been dealing for themselves and their customers with a first-class butcher in the West-end who had supplied him for years. That does not sound as if the supply was unrestricted. I mention this because the noble Lord himself announced that it was part of his policy not to restrict in any way the supply.
I am going to ask another question, if I may. Under what conditions has it been that the noble Lord has pursued the policy he has ? Was he not warned by scores of deputations from England, Scotland, and Ireland, composed of men of long experience and knowledge of agriculture in every part of the country. Ah, my Lords, those Scottish farmers were indeed able and hardheaded men. I have known many of them for years, and I had the opportunity, by the 293 courtesy and kindness of the noble Lord, to attend the Scottish deputation which waited upon him, and I was able to be present all the time. I have received hundreds of deputations myself in my time, and I have attended a vast number of others, but never do I remember any deputation where the case of the farmers was so admirably stated, where the arguments used were so conclusive, and where the reply, if I may say so with all respect, was absolutely of the other description. But that is only one instance out of hundreds of others. The noble Lord was told, over and over again, by practical agriculturists, by men representing all the great agricultural associations in England, beginning with the Royal Society and going through all the other grades and societies existing on behalf of agriculture, by men versed in every detail of the breeding, the purchase, the feeding, and the sale of cattle, told also the same thing in this House on two or three different occasions, that if he pursued the policy which he had announced there would be a famine before the New Year. As a matter of fact, it came before Christmas.
Are we to suppose that all these men were talking of what they did not understand, that they were doing this for a joke and were not serious? Never were men more serious, because they knew perfectly well what would happen and the misery of it all. I will tell you later a little bit about the misery of it. Who were right, the men who told all this or the noble Lord, who persisted in turning a deaf ear to every remonstrance that was made to him and who insisted upon pursuing his policy despite everything that practical agriculturists could tell him? And what has been the result of his attempt to fix prices? It is a positive fact that the moment he has fixed the price of any particular article—and God knows there are many of them—the article in question has immediately become more or less scarce. At one time there was a complaint of the enormous number of rabbits. Prices were fixed, and who hears complaints about rabbits now? They have disappeared, and that is the case with almost every other article upon which he has placed prices. It is not in the least surprising; it is only the natural result of a policy which was, sooner or later, to follow.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, spoke just now of the rationing 294 orders. I agree very much with what he said. I think it is a matter of supreme difficulty, and, for the life of me. I do not see how it is to be carried out. Rationing orders have not come into effect yet, but the people in London, I do not care of what rank they are, have enormous difficulty in finding meat of any kind whatever. The noble and learned Lord mentioned some orders; I am going to mention others. My noble friend Lord Lichfield said there was a general feeling of want of confidence and security amongst the farmers. I have had that complaint from hundreds of farmers; every day from all parts of the country. It is absolutely true, and I will give another reason why it could not be otherwise. How many orders has the noble Lord issued from his Department in the last two or three months? The figures were given to me the other day—my memory is not so good as it was—and I have left them behind me, because I intended making only a short speech this afternoon. I am only led into making these remarks because I feel bound to reply to the statements of the noble Lord.
I think I am right in saying that the orders issued number something like 200 in the last few months. Just think of what that means to the farmers? They have no time to read orders. The only spare day they have, as a rule, is the market-day, when they meet together at the "ordinary" after the market. This long rigmarole of orders, if they had time to read them, probably half of them would not understand. Orders are issued one day and withdrawn the next, or shortly after, and sometimes orders are changed. I have received complaints, over and over again, that these orders should be issued at all and go forth without the sanction of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The one thing that is important at the present time is the production, and the greatly increased production, of food, and everything that has been done in my humble judgment and opinion by the Controller tends in exactly the opposite direction. That is one of the great reasons why you sec this shortage at the present time.
Let me say one word on another subject. I am going to give you a concrete instance of the enormous wastage of actual meat that has been caused by the policy of the Controller. On one occasion in these debates—I recollect it perfectly well—I 295 elicited in reply from the noble Lord that 250,000 immature animals were going to be slaughtered before they were fit for the butcher. I took the liberty of pointing out that I thought that a most dangerous and injurious proposal. First of all because we should lose an enormous quantity of manure at a time when it was specially wanted to increase the corn crops, and secondly because there would be an enormous wastage of meat. I took the opportunity of getting information as to the actual waste of beef that would otherwise have been placed upon the carcases of these immature animals if they had been allowed to get fit for the butcher, and had been fed in the ordinary way. There may have been some reason that I am not aware of for this very unusual and extraordinary policy. I can hardly think of any that would account for it, or that would justify it.
What was the result? I went for information to one of the biggest feeders in England, a man who feeds 1,000 cattle every year. His name is Overman, and he is widely known in all agricultural circles. I said to him "What I want you to get for me is this. What was the actual wastage of beef that would have been put on to the carcases of these animals if they had been allowed the ordinary opportunities of feeding?" What was so shocking to me was that there has never been so much grass in this country for years. It was extraordinarily fruitful and prevalent owing to the seasons, and to there having been plenty of wet during the summer. An enormous amount of this grass was waiting to be converted into beef, and a great deal of it has been wasted, and that at a time when there is exceptional difficulty in getting artificial feeding. I am told that there is a good deal of difficulty about getting the feeding stuffs. The man to whom I put the question got hold of the farmers who were in the Scottish deputation. He went down to Edinburgh, and saw them, and I got a letter from him in these words—
We spent hours to-day in working this out. We have got every detail of the figures at every stage of feeding. And what is the result? In my opinion it is an under estimate, but I am sure that our figures cannot be impugned by any one. What is more, they are going first of all to the Royal Agricultural Society. What do you think the result was? 27,400 tons of beef thrown away which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been added to the carcases of 250,000 immature cattle.296 I am aware that since then the Food Controller has found that it was impossible that 250,000 could have been slaughtered, but I believe that I am right in saying that something like 160,000 of 170,000 were slaughtered.
§ LORD RHONDDAAbout 70,000 or 73,000, I think it is.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI believe that the noble Lord will find that there were a great many more than that, and if he will inquire at the Board of Agriculture and get their returns I think that he will find that I am right. But supposing the original policy had been carried out? I asked some Army authorities what it would mean. They said "If you put it at ¾ lb. of meat per man for the whole of the Army we have in France, it would feed that Army for something like one month." For how long would it feed the city of London, which is now wanting meat so badly, at the rations which the Controller proposes? It would feed them for months. I can give all the facts and figures or procure them at any time, and I am ready to challenge contradiction upon it. I know the man well whose figures I have given. He got them from the Scotch farmers who are the longest headed and cleverest men I have ever met in the farming world, and you may depend upon it that the conclusions which they came to are well worthy of the consideration of the Controller and of the Cabinet in particular.
My Lords, I feel bound to offer an apology for speaking so much longer than I had intended to do. I hope that I have not been, as I certainly did not intend to be, offensive to the Controller of Food, but I thought it my duty to say plainly and honestly what I think of his policy, and I am sorry to say that the longer it is continued, in my opinion, the worse will the position become.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, I do not mean to make a speech, but I do not quite know, after the closing remarks of the noble Viscount, whether we are to have anything more from the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda.
§ LORD RHONDDAVery little. I shall not attempt to reply to all the criticisms.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEI was only going to ask one question. I think the 297 noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, referred to certain warnings which deputations to the noble Lord some months ago had given as to what was likely to take place. That I do not want, to go back on. But he also alluded to the same sort of counsel which was given in this House at the time of the fixing of the meat prices. I think that we had a one or two nights' debate, and the noble Lord was most good-natured in listening to everything that we stated, but he did not seem to me to be impressed by any of the points that we tried to make, or by the advice which we gave. He went on with his own policy, and his own policy has had certain results which have been brought out this evening. I think that we are entitled—the noble Lord himself would say so if sitting in his study—to the dismal satisfaction that a prophet, we will not say of a catastrophe but of trouble, is entitled to. I should like to ask him whether he is at all shaken by the results of that policy. I admire him for carrying out his policy, but does he think that it was right?
§ LORD RHONDDAI was among the prophets.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEWell, if the noble Lord was among the prophets I do not know whether I can apply a suitable biblical analogy to meet the situation. The noble Lord certainly paid little attention to the prophets, of whom he says that he was one. What I want to ask now is whether he considers that the prophets, among whom he numbers himself, were wrong? Is he going to change his policy? We have an admitted shortage of the raw material of food, and we have also a very considerable relaxation of motive all over the country through the course which has been taken. These are two very serious points. If the noble Lend still thinks that he was right in the line that he has taken in fixing prices, and intends to adhere to the line upon which he has fixed prices, it seems to me that the shortage and the relaxation of motive will continue. I should like him to say, "I am sorry this has taken place. Perhaps I should have been wiser to have listened to other people." If farmers think that this is going to continue I really believe that the agricultural conditions of the country, and the conditions of the consuming interest of the country, will get into a very serious position.
§ LORD RHONDDAMy Lords, the discussion has taken a course which was quite unanticipated by myself, and I do 298 not propose to attempt to reply to the criticisms that have been levelled against the Food Controller. I should be quite prepared to justify nay action—to defend, at any rate, and I hope to justify it—though I dare say I shall be in a minority as to whether I have succeeded in doing so. The noble Lord had on the Paper a Motion raising the whole general question of my policy. I presume that he will still raise the general question of policy, and when he does so I shill be prepared to give a considered and reasoned reply.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI was led into making a longer reply than I thought of making, but I intend to go on with the other Motion standing in my name for next week. Of course, if I had been going on with it to-day I should have given the noble Lord notice. I will take care that he has full notice at any time.
§ LORD RHONDDAI hope the noble Viscount will go on with that Motion, and give me an opportunity of a detailed reply to his criticism. If I replied now, it would be merely repetition when he brings on his Motion raising the whole question of policy. I am quite prepared to defend my policy then. I am a new member of the House and I am not conversant with the Rules, but it does appear to me, after my experience in another House for twenty-three years, that the arguments used in the whole course of this debate are to a large extent irrelevant, and the discussion has not strictly arisen either from the Questions put by time noble Viscount or in any way from the reply I made. I shall at the proper time be prepared to defend my action in fixing prices. Frankly, I in no way regret that I have done so. Obviously the tendency of the fixing of maximum prices and of the reduction of prices must be towards a restriction in the supply and an increase in the demand. There is no getting over that fact.
But I maintain— and I hope I shall be able to satisfy at any rate some members of the House—that in fixing the prices as I have done I have had regard to a fair remuneration being left to farmers, and that I have fixed prices at such a figure as has not led to any substantial reduction in the supply. But I, Saul, was among the prophets, for I predicted last autumn, when the discussion took place in this House, that there would be a very grave shortage of meats after Christmas. It was inevitable in consequence of the fact that, whereas 299 hitherto in normal times the civilian population is dependent for its requirements to the extent of very nearly one half—over 40 per cent.—on imports, only the lessened imports that are now coming in are available for consumption. Consequently, there must inevitably have been a shortage. I maintain that that shortage may be due to a small extent to the increased slaughtering that took place in the autumn; it is due to a very small extent to that factor.
With regard to Lord Lamington's Question and to the remarks about it, Lord Buckmaster has asked that when any exhortation is made to the public it should be couched in simpler language. The noble and learned Lord will understand that I am not a lawyer; I have had no experience in the law, and I must be necessarily dependent on the Legal Department of my Ministry.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy humble suggestion is that you should abandon all legal phraseology and legal advice, and state in plain language what is wanted.
§ LORD RHONDDABut the Orders that are issued have the force of law, and must be made as far as possible watertight. That is the difficulty. They have to be brought out quickly, and they must be precise in order to have legal effect. We do endeavour to carry out the arrangement suggested, because, on the issue of an Order, whenever we have time, we issue at the same time an explanation in popular phraseology of the meaning and extent of the Order.
With regard to the question of rations and the position of the Government at the moment, the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) is no doubt aware that local schemes of rationing are now being introduced in very many districts, under an Order made at the end of last month; indeed, I hope that early in March practically the whole country will be covered by local rationing schemes dealing with fats and in many cases also with meat, with power to extend to other articles. One unit will be London and the surrounding districts, including altogether 10,000,000 of population, or practically a fourth of the whole population of the country. There is another local scheme for Birmingham and the surrounding districts. We hope there will be one scheme for Scotland, another for South 300 Wales; and practically the whole country will be covered by these local rationing schemes by early in March. By this means we are gaining valuable experience which should save us from many of the dangers and difficulties hitherto inseparable from compulsory rationing.
§ LORD BURNHAMWill the schemes be uniform?
§ LORD RHONDDAWe wish to make them as uniform as possible. That is very desirable indeed, and we issued a Model Scheme with the object of getting the local authorities throughout the country to arrange for uniformity. It has been decided by His Majesty's Government that at an early date these local schemes wilt be combined into one national scheme. I shall be quite prepared, if your Lordships so desire, to make a statement on the subject before the scheme is brought into operation. This will be done in as simple and clear language as possible. I shall be prepared, if your Lordships desire, to make a statement on the subject in the House before the scheme comes into operation. And I shall be prepared also to discuss with the noble Lord and any others who are interested in the matter any points which they may wish to raise as to rationing generally.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORDoes the noble Viscount desire to press his Motion for Papers?
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINNo. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.