Lords Sitting of 22 April 1941

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WAR VICTIMS: TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD STAMP.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, since the House last met we have lost by enemy action three of our members, all of whom have fallen victims to air raids. Lord Auckland and Lord Kimberley were not often seen in your Lordships' House and took no part in our debates, but Lord Kimberley, who served in the last war with distinction, was a well known figure in the world of sport. In his early days he sat with many of us in another place for several years and was Assistant Private Secretary to the present Prime Minister when he was at the Colonial Office and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Besides the loss of these noble Lords we have to mourn that of Lord Stamp, a figure not only of national but of worldwide reputation and achievement. His death must leave many gaps, because his activities were so varied and so far-reaching. Lord Stamp came to the House of Lords with a long record of devotion to the public service in various capacities—first as a civil servant for nearly a quarter of a century, and then
2
successively as the presiding genius over the fortunes of two great industrial concerns of national importance; but his devotion to the general good over and above that which he owed to any particular interest was lifelong and continuous, so that when he left the Civil Service he was always ready to lend his great powers to the State to serve as Chairman or member of many important Government Committees and Commissions. I was first brought into contact with his dynamic abilities nearly twenty years ago when I was financial secretary to the Treasury and I remember how much weight the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, always attached to Lord Stamp's counsel, though he had some years before left Downing Street. Just before the outbreak of war he undertook a new task at the invitation of Mr. Chamberlain, that of Chief Economic Adviser. Lord Stamp showed himself not only a master of the theory of economics but also of its practice which, as noble Lords will recognise, is by no means always the case. The pace and sureness at which his intellect worked were prodigious.
If one looks at any book of reference one cannot fail to marvel at the manysidedness of his activities—business, philanthropic and academic—in the widest sense. With these wonderful endowments Lord Stamp combined a rare simplicity with kindliness and personal charm. His thoughts were so clear that he expressed them without effort in such a way that all could understand. He has been taken in the fulness of his powers at a time when we are

3
faced by economic issues of unparalleled complexity, and when we can least spare the experience and wisdom which he was applying to our everyday problems and which he would have brought to the problems of reconstruction. His end was shared by his devoted wife and eldest son, and I am sure I am voicing the feeling of the whole House in tendering to his stricken family, and to the families of the other noble Lords I have mentioned, our deepest and most heartfelt sympathy.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I want in a few sentences to associate myself and those for whom I speak with everything that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said. It was not my opportunity in life to be acquainted personally with the two noble Lords first mentioned, Lord Auckland and the Earl of Kimberley, but I did know personally the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, for a great many years. Like the noble Lord the Leader of the House I had the pleasure of working with him on many occasions. I have never known one who was more truly a many-sided man; and he had that singular distinction of many-sided men, so far as I have known them, that his knowledge on any one subject was not scrappy and superficial, but profound. He had a marvellous memory and a wonderful capacity for associating facts and distinguishing the important from the unimportant.
I do not think it is as well-known as it ought to be that during the last war, in the crisis of our shipping losses, we owed a great deal to a memorandum circulated by Lord Stamp, then at the Inland Revenue, in which he demonstrated what results he thought would attend a convoy system. The convoy system was under discussion during the time of our heavy shipping losses in 1917 and Lord Stamp's memorandum on that subject, I think I might almost say, had a deciding influence—at any rate a considerable influence—in favour of the establishment of convoys. That was only one of many instances of which I have had experience at first hand of Lord Stamp's singularly helpful ability. He combined with that, as all who knew him will agree, an entire friendliness and unassuming charm which made him beloved as well as revered by those who knew him.
4
At the present time when we have before us all the problems that the war presents one feels particularly the loss that we are likely to suffer from his death in view of the fact that the problems which are called the problems of reconstruction will be of bewildering complexity. It is a great loss to the nation that we should be deprived of his assistance at this time. Perhaps it is true to say that he will be remembered as a man who died in the fulness of his activities, and that we shall feel more acutely the loss that we have suffered because of his having been so suddenly taken from us. I should like to associate myself most sincerely with the noble Lord the Leader of the House in the expression of the sympathy we wish to tender to the friends of Lord Stamp and of the other two noble Lords mentioned.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, of all the tragic losses we have suffered lately that caused by the death of the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, is undoubtedly one of the greatest. I knew Lord Stamp as far back as his Civil Service days and ever since, and I well remember his doubt as to whether he could venture to give up his assured career in the Civil Service to accept the offers he had received from the world of industry. He did accept and we all know how greatly British industry has gained from his services. We know also what the nation has gained from the help he has given in so many ways to the Government of the day. He was a man of remarkably varied talent. I came across him also on the governing body of the London School of Economics, of which he was Chairman for several years, as well as in other capacities. He had a first-class brain, combined with a simple goodness of character. He was a lover of mankind, full of public spirit, devoted to many great causes, and whatever task came to his hand he did it with all his might. We deeply grieve for his loss.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I would ask to be allowed to add two or three words about the heavy loss which the country has suffered through the death of Lord Stamp. The speeches already made give, I think, a very accurate account or his qualities. He was a man of the most remarkable versatility and energy of mind. I do not think he ever tackled any subject half-heartedly or, multifarious as

5
were his duties and the tasks which he undertook, did anything without complete efficiency and thoroughness. I well remember what has been referred to by the Leader of the House, the time when Lord Stamp was appointed to be Principal Economic Adviser to the Government before the war, and when he became Chairman of a small body of economists who were given the task not only of dealing with some specific question referred to them but of maintaining a constant survey of all the economic policies and arrangements of the country. They did that both before the war, and for some months after the war broke out.
I recall how, at the time, some critics, perhaps nor completely acquainted with Lord Stamp's qualities, expressed doubt as to whether it could be wise to entrust to him the chief part in that all-important work while he was in a position where he had to give a portion of his time to non-Government work. I freely confess that I doubt if there was anybody else of his period who could have done it, but having had the duty of seeing constantly what he was doing and of listening to what he had to report, I feel convinced that whatever else may be said about him the country got from him, at that time, as complete and absolute service as could have been rendered by anybody even if it had been his single and undivided duty. I say that from personal knowledge. Lord Stamp was a man who worked without haste and without rest. Somebody, I see, observed in a contribution in The Times this morning that he was like a motor car that could always start at top speed. That exactly describes what, in my experience, was the special quality of his mind when he moved from one subject to another. He gave to this country the full service of his capacious mind in a way that we must always be glad to remember. His death is a very great loss to the country at this time.
I would like to add one or two observations, not about his intellectual qualities, which were most remarkable, but about the nature of his character which, I think, had a great deal to do with the value of the contribution he could make as an adviser and counsellor. In my experience of him—and I saw him sometimes in very difficult and troublous times—he was a man who maintained complete equanimity of mind and temper. Not only did I never
6
see him angry, but I never saw him seriously put out. That loss of power which comes from these human qualities, was, so far as I could see, entirely avoided in his case. I am very glad that the Leader of the House and others have spoken of his genuine kindliness and strong human sympathies. He was a man who was the best of colleagues and nobody could be more simple or more genuinely unaffected. The country has lost the services of an eminent economist, but it has also lost a good man.

INDIA: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE) rose to move, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 29th November, 1939. The noble Duke also had other Motions on the Paper relating to other Provinces of British India. The noble Duke said: My Lords, on April 18 of last year Parliament approved by Resolutions the continuance in force in the seven Provinces of Madras, Bombay, United Provinces, Central Provinces, North-West Frontier Province, Bihar and Orissa of the Proclamations issued by their respective Governors at the end of October, 1939, by which they assumed powers to administer these Provinces without the advice of Ministers and without a Legislature. The Proclamations were issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act and their continuance in force now requires further Parliamentary approval. Section 93 of the Government of India Act provides that the Governor of a Province, if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which Parliamentary Government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Act, can assume all or any of the powers vested in the Provincial bodies and authorities. This situation arose in the seven Provinces in October, 1939, when the Congress Party's High Command, as it is called, ordered all the Congress Ministers to resign, and, unhappily, that situation still continues to-day.
I would, however, remind your Lordships that these Resolutions are concerned

7
with seven only out of the eleven Provinces of British India. In the four Provinces of Bengal, Assam, Sind and the Punjab, covering an area of some 300,000 square miles and with a population of some 100,000,000—one third of the whole population of British India—provincial self-government has continued to work uninterruptedly under Moslem-Hindu Coalition Governments. We ought not to underestimate the importance of the fact that for four years these 100,000,000 of Indians have been enjoying the advantages of democratic self-government, and that both Ministers and Legislatures have continued to gain experience and are making their contribution—and it is an effective contribution—not only to the welfare of their constituents but to India's general war effort. Of the value and importance of that war effort I need not remind your Lordships. Indian Troops have played a valuable and heroic part in many battlefields over wide areas of North and East Africa, and they are performing vitally important garrison duties over still wider areas. The expansion of the Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force is proceeding apace, and India is taking an ever-increasing part in the vital business of the supply and production of war material. From every part of India, from Princes and people alike, there have come most generous gifts in money and in kind towards the furtherance of the war effort.
It remains a matter of deep regret that the 200,000,000 inhabitants of the seven Provinces with which I am dealing now have, by the action of the Congress Party, been deprived of the opportunity of continuing to build up the practice and tradition of self-government. Their Governments too had made a satisfactory beginning and it is deplorable that so promising and remarkable an advance in self-government should have been arrested. But I do not want to harrow your Lordships unnecessarily; so far as the electorates in these seven Provinces are concerned, they have nowhere showed any signs of distress at the suspension of Parliamentary government. The change to direct personal government by the Governors and permanent officials met with general acquiescence and, indeed, good will, and government has proceeded smoothly and harmoniously ever since. The situation has not changed substantially
8
since my noble friend Lord Zetland moved these Resolutions a year ago, and I do not propose to keep your Lordships more than a moment longer, but your Lordships need have no fear that the continuance of direct government in these seven Provinces for another twelve months will add to the difficulties of the political situation in India, or will in any way impede India's war effort. There are political difficulties in India, but they are not, so far as I have been able to judge, due in any way to the suspension of Parliamentary government in these seven Provinces. The war effort of the Provinces in which direct government is going on is impeded in no way, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Resolutions. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will put the seven Resolutions together.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on October 30, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on November 29, 1939.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bombay on November 4, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on November 29, 1939.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on November 3, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 1, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar on November 10, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation

9
issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bihar on November 3, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 3. 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province on November 10, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Orissa on November 6, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2. 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will concur in the Resolutions which have been placed before us, but at the same time it can hardly pass in complete silence so grave a matter as the continued suspension of Provincial Constitutions in India. It is very satisfactory, as the noble Duke has said, that India is now making so large a contribution in military forces towards the prosecution of the war. Both the Princes and the Provinces have come forward, and, under a system of free enlistment, recruiting is widespread throughout India. Some months ago it was publicly stated that 60,000 Indian troops were serving overseas, and the invaluable services that they have rendered at Sidi Barani, at Keren and in other fields is known to the whole Empire and to the world. But, after all, what is 60,000 from a population of 340,000,000? We are glad to know—and this again has been publicly stated—that before long there will be from India, or in India, half a million men fully trained and—what is not less important—fully equipped. In addition to this, India has been providing munitions and supplies on a large scale.
The fact remains, however, that, as is evidenced by the Resolutions now before
10
us, political discord still unhappily prevails in India, and at the present time a large number of the most distinguished political leaders in the country, many of them men of the finest character, are suffering detention. We have little information in these days about the situation in India. The Press gives us few reports, and there have been no recent debates in Parliament. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is proposing to make any statement at an early date. That His Majesty's Government have made grave mistakes in India is a view held by many of us. I have spoken on this subject before in your Lordships' House, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat what was said then; but I hold the view strongly—and in saying this I feel sure that I shall be speaking for the whole House—that it is most lamentable that, whatever mistakes have been made on this side, the leaders of Congress in India should have seized upon them, should have emphasized difficulties and differences, and should have embarked upon a great political campaign which cannot fail to embarrass in some degree the Government, and which impairs in a measure the moral position of this country and of the Empire in the face of the world.
Proposals for a settlement were recently made by one of the most distinguished figures in Indian public life, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, whom I have the privilege of knowing well; I was his guest for a week in Allahabad not long before the war broke out. I feel sure that there could be no better intermediary if one were needed—and definitely one has been needed—between the contending parties. Again, we have very little information as to the effect on Indian opinion of the proposals which he made last December, and certainly no overt result is apparent from those suggestions. The first of his concrete suggestions—he made a long and a very elaborate statement—was that "the Mahatma, in whom all the powers and functions of the Congress are at present centred, and Mr. Jinnah,"—who, as your Lordships are aware, is President of the Moslem League—"should meet, and meet promptly, and discuss things in a free, open and large-hearted manner, with the fixed determination that they must come to some sort of settlement." Of that, of course, nothing effective has come. If in

11
any negotiation the two parties are resolved to come to a settlement, then a settlement can always be reached, no matter what the difficulties are; but if the parties in a negotiation do not mind whether a settlement is arrived at or not, or if one or both of them enter a negotiation only on the basis that their full demands should be conceded by the other side, then no negotiation can ever reach a satisfactory result.
At the present time it is difficult to see any indication that either Congress or the Moslem League are really much concerned whether they arrive at a settlement of their grievances or not. That is the essential difficulty of the whole situation. It is lamentable that neither party appears to realise the extreme gravity of the world position. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, towards the beginning of the war, that the launching of a civil disobedience campaign at a time when Britain is engaged in a life-and-death struggle would be an act derogatory to India's honour. Nevertheless something in the nature of a civil disobedience campaign, though not fully developed, is in fact taking place. Although it should be apparent that this country and its Allies are fighting for the defence of India as well as for the defence of the rest of the world—and even now with the Japanese appearing round the corner—the Indian contending parties do not appear to realise the seriousness of the situation. Mr. Gandhi undoubtedly is one of the great men of our time, but it must be said that in this matter he has not risen to match the greatness of this hour, nor indeed has India as a whole.
Even the biggest Empire may be parochial-minded. There is now something greater at stake even than India, even than Britain, even than the British Empire—the issue whether the mental and spiritual atmosphere in which mankind are to live in future on this planet is to be one of freedom and peace or one of domination maintained by violence. One-sixth part of the whole human race lives in India, and while very many there realise the nature of the present situation, unhappily it is apparent that very many do not. If they did, they would desire to settle their grievances and their troubles with the Imperial Government and, having
12
settled these grievances, they would wish to engage in a massive, whole-hearted effort to stem the Nazi tide. If there were such a will, I feel convinced the way would be found, and measures such as these which we reluctantly endorse to-day would no longer be necessary.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

DISTRIBUTION OF COMMODITIES.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether since certain unrationed commodities in general demand are still being distributed on the basis of prewar population statistics, they will now take steps to ensure a fairer distribution, more in accord with the present distribution of population; and move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in drawing your attention to the distribution of unrationed commodities, I need not detain your Lordships over-long. My object is less to present details of a picture with whose general characteristics your Lordships must already be more or less familiar than to give the Minister himself an opportunity of stating his intentions with regard to a system, or lack of system, which does seem hitherto to have been unrational and haphazard, and which has certainly occasioned a considerable perplexity in the mind of the general public.
With the symptoms I am sure your Lordships are all familiar. There is no complaint whatever about the distribution of rationed goods. Indeed, each successive extension of the system of rationing has usually, as your Lordships may have noticed, been welcomed by the general public very largely on the ground that such extension automatically put an end to the inequities of the unrationed system. The complaint is rather that the distribution of unrationed goods of all kinds—and I am not speaking merely of food—is apparently based upon a distribution of population which is at least nine months out of date, with the result that goods which may be virtually impossible to obtain in overcrowded reception areas can be found in comparative abundance not only in an industrial area but in a half-deserted seaside resort.
I very well remember how, a few weeks ago, I happened to be bringing up to London by road a. harassed housewife who had had to provide for a number both of Government evacuees and voluntary refugees in her own crowded reception area. More or less fortuitously, we found ourselves halting outside a small grocer's in one of the outer suburbs and, on going in, it became obvious at once that my travelling companion scarcely knew whether she was standing on her head or her heels. Timidly inquiring whether she could purchase one packet of cereals or half a pound of biscuits, she was astonished to find she could purchase as much as she pleased of either. Indeed, the salesman—this was a week or two ago, before the extension of rationing to jam and cheese—actually pressed on her slabs of chocolate, tins of golden syrup, and a lordly cheese. She left the store with a large box of groceries and a sense of elation, tempered only by an uneasy sense that she was hardly entitled to this advantage in the replenishment of her household stores over neighbours in her reception area who could not enjoy the same opportunities.
Of course, that trivial incident could be duplicated time and time again out of the experience of almost every one of us. Such incidents do not concern food only. In a reception area you might purchase three boxes of matches at a time if you were fortunate and prudent enough to be on good terms with your tobacconist. In an evacuation area, on The other hand, you might sometimes purchase: two or three packets, each containing a dozen boxes, from a salesman who was a complete stranger to you without his apparently turning a hair. Last winter, when the nocturnal activities of the Home Guard, besides making warm beverages more welcome than usual, were causing unexpected casualties among vacuum flasks, I made a tour of practically all the chemists in the reception area I know best, without seeing a sign or vestige of a single flask. A day or two later, happening to be in a famous London store, I inquired whether they had any flasks in stock, and, being told they had, I asked timidly whether it would be fair to purchase two. The salesman flung open a large cupboard displaying serried ranks of hundreds of flasks, and informed me I could purchase as many as I pleased. I do not want to weary your Lordships with
14
these more or less random examples. I only wish to establish the general principle, which can hardly be disputed, that there have been signal inequalities in the distribution of unrationed commodities.
The reason is very simple. The diminished war-time flow of these commodities is still going out proportionately on the basis on which it was being issued month by month during the twelve months that ended in August, 1939. Since then the population has been redistributed, and indeed has redistributed itself, to a wholly unparalleled degree. In spite of this, if this system still remains in force, it must be supposed that next August some half-deserted seaside resort, which may be a mere wilderness of barbed wire and empty boarding houses, will continue to receive its proportion of whatever is available on the basis of what was going to it on the day when its shores were black with holiday humanity in the last summer of peace, in August, 1939. Consider, my Lords, if you would just for a moment, what that means to a typical reception area. I speak of the area which I know best. The pre-war population of that town was 98,000, and it appears that, for His Majesty's Government, it still remains a town of 98,000. The municipal authorities tell me they continue to receive circulars specially appropriate, specially designed for towns with a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, although a quite different variety is in fact issued to towns with a population of over 100,000. The present population of this town is 114,000.
But that is by no means all. It serves, of course, as a shopping area for districts far beyond its own boundaries, as is shown by the fact that the number of its registered consumers of bacon and ham is no less than 130,000. Moreover, with its famous buildings and a large and popular theatre, it serves as a magnet for visiting purposes over a range of thirty, fifty and indeed a hundred miles. It is still a centre of annual conferences of the learned, and, indeed, of the unlearned, and all this must considerably increase the strain on its shopping resources. It is reasonable, I think, to assume that its present shopping population is somewhere between 130,000 and 140,000—that is to say, distinctly more than 33⅓ per cent. above the population which resided in it before the war, which, it would seem, His

15
Majesty's Government still assume that it possesses. No wonder that during the last fortnight there have been deputations and signed protests from many hundreds of harassed housewives in the town of which I am speaking, who present themselves to the local Food Control Committee and protest against what seems to them to be inequity in distribution.
Now if the Minister will say that this has all been deliberate policy, that His Majesty's Government feel that the heavily bombed areas should enjoy this relative advantage of prior access to all classes of commodities, then, although it could hardly be said to apply to the half-derelict seaside resorts of which I have also been speaking, I should myself warmly endorse the Minister's view, as would, I have no doubt, your Lordships, and I am sure that there would be no serious complaints from any of the relatively unscathed reception areas; but if the present system, if I may so call it, is deliberate, if it is a deliberate act of policy rather than a prolonged process of inadvertence, then surely the Minister will tell the public so, for the public has never yet, I think, shown itself backward in accepting inconveniences always provided that it is clearly assured that they are necessary and that they are part of a national design and not merely the product of inadvertence or accident.
At present, so far as I have been able to discover, it is generally believed by the public that these inequities which have, I think, been prevalent up to date, at any rate have not been part of a design, but that they have been merely due to the reluctance of the manufacturer and the wholesaler to lose the good will of customers among merchants in the evacuation areas, as he might do if he were to cut down his supplies to them to the proportion to which they are now strictly entitled according to the present distribution of population. It is believed that the system which has obtained up to date has on the whole been wasteful, since it has happened that commodities which have been sought in vain in many areas have been lying unbought in others, perhaps eventually to be destroyed by enemy action. There is a further inequity, I think, in the system in that the large chain store can carry out a sort of private redistribution of the unrationed commodities
16
by transferring its ration of them from some branch in a relatively well-supplied evacuation area to a branch in a relatively ill-supplied reception area, an advantage which, needless to say, is viewed with some slight resentment by competitors in the reception area who do not enjoy the advantage of possessing branches from which they can transfer goods.
I think it possible that the Minister will say, not that this is a matter of design and that it ought to continue, or that it is' the intention to use his powers to bring it to an end, but rather that he has every hope that without compulsion the manufacturers and wholesalers may be induced to make the necessary changes which, during the months since somewhere about last June, I suppose, they have so far, if one must say so, signally failed to bring about. In a communication which was received by the municipal authorities of the town I have been speaking of last January, the Board of Trade, for example, referred to the fact that it had invited the co-operation of the wholesalers, and the Ministry of Food in February informed the town in question that a scheme has been organised for providing manufacturers and wholesalers with statistics of population movements which it is hoped will enable them to adjust their distribution of unrationed foodstuffs on a more equitable basis. Well, that may serve. It is, of course, the voluntary method, which, I must confess, seems to me a peace-time method, in time of war. We advise, we suggest, we invite to co-operate.
It may be that the Minister has convincing evidence not yet available to the public that already the mere provision of statistics to the manufacturer is having the desired result and is producing a more rational distribution. If he has not already got such convincing evidence, I must admit I shall remain personally suspicious that most manufacturers will be reluctant to comply with the Minister's suggestions for fear, the natural fear, of losing trade to competitors who do not comply; and I shall expect, I must admit, that once again, in a day or two, the Government will find themselves driven, as they have been driven in other fields, from the voluntary to the compulsory. In the letter which I have just cited from the Ministry of Food it is suggested that it is

17
not possible at present to include within the framework of the normal rationing machinery such foodstuffs as cheese, yet within a week or two cheese had been rationed, and I must say I suspect—
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): No, no. Cheese was going to be rationed.
LORD ELTON: I meant to say that within a few weeks after the issue of that letter, cheese was in fact rationed, so that the statement that it was not possible to ration cheese was fairly shortly afterwards proved incorrect by the event. My point was merely that there was another minor instance of passing from the voluntary to the compulsory. I must say, in default of further evidence which no doubt the Minister may be able to give us, that I should suspect that here, too, the invitation to the manufacturer to comply will sooner or later have to give way to the compulsory. But it is not my business to advise the Minister, who is performing a very difficult task to the general admiration and, I think, gratitude of the public. All I wish to say in conclusion is that I trust that in the statement which I hope I may have called forth from him he will be prepared at any rate to say (and if he is prepared to say it, I am sure we shall gladly accept it from him) that he does recognise that there have been inequalities and that he is pursuing some policy which he is confident will put an end to them. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I want to intervene for just a few minutes purely with regard to food commodities, or more or less food commodities. I know nothing of the other outside subjects to which the noble Lord referred, and it will be very interesting to hear what the Minister of Food has to tell us with regard to the distribution of unrationed foods. I can imagine few things more difficult to handle than those, and I feel comforted that I have not the responsibilities that the Minister has with respect to these multitudinous types of food which are not rationed and which it would be exceedingly difficult to ration. I myself think that the sound policy is to confine rationing as far as possible to the main foods that the people must have and to see that those are made available in sufficient quantities at a controlled price to the people. That is the sound basis of policy.
18
I rather suspect that the more the Minister departs from that the more he will pile up difficulties for himself.
But it is worth while exploring the explanation of the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord has, very properly, called attention. I cannot think that the right way is to ration everything, because it would be so exceedingly difficult; and for another reason—that the administrative burden upon the local food officers is already, I think, as big as they can bear in a good many places. Of course, it is very easy for an outsider to make suggestions, but the thing which has struck me has been that it would be well that the Minister could ask someone on his behalf, if he has not already done so, to give close attention to the efficiency of the local food officers. I have heard many complaints about the delays in getting visitors' ration tickets, or emergency ration tickets—I do not know the technical description—and obtaining the renewal of ration tickets of people who have moved from one place to another, owing, no doubt, to the necessity of the food office to confirm the previous address and various clerical matters of that sort. But in a very large number of cases, I believe, considerable hardship has been caused by this difficulty of getting the renewal of the necessary kind of paper through the local food office. I am not blaming the food office. I hope the Minister understands that. I rather suspect the machinery has been a bit too elaborate, that it might probably be simplified. At all events I am quite sure that it would be well if the Minister would, if he has not already done so, turn his mind, or get someone else on his behalf to turn his mind, to the simplification of the procedure of the local food offices.
So far as what I may call the scramble—because in some cases it is a scramble—for unrationed foods is concerned, I am inclined to think that the Minister might do well if he would consider a certain amount of extension of price control rather than attempt detailed rationing. The outstanding case, which I am sure is a grievance everywhere, is the high price of fish. In many districts the prices have been so astronomical—that is the only word one can use, I think—that people of ordinary means simply could not think of buying fish. There seemed to be plenty of fish on the counter but the price

19
was most exorbitant. Although I believe he is doing something already (I am not sure what) this is a case in which I would suggest to the Minister that control of the price, which of course would have to come from the port, should be taken in hand rather than make any attempt at rationing.
So far as the unequal supplies to areas, like seaside areas, is concerned, I really wonder if the explanation suggested by the noble Lord is the right one. I should have thought that the distributive trade was more responsible for demands than he suggests. I hope that the noble Lord will not interfere too much. The area in which I live, possibly in common with the one in which the noble Lord lives (I do not know), has nearly doubled its population, or perhaps more. I should have thought that, apart from the distribution of the strictly rationed foods, we ought to rely upon the sensitiveness of the distributive trade itself to become cognisant of the much bigger demands that have to be met in one area and the much less demands that there are in another. I cannot think that those responsible would go on for long sending big supplies to an area where there was a diminished population and depriving another area of supplies where there was an enlarged population. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will not interfere too much in these matters. I am not quite sure that he has not interfered a bit too much sometimes.
I would only summarise again these main points; that I hope the noble Lord will decide strictly to distribute and ration in quantity and price all the essential and necessary foods to see that all get their share without difficulty, that he will simplify as far as possible the procedure of his food offices, and improve it—because I am sure it wants improving—and in the case of commodities, like fish particularly, where prices have soared to an entirely unjustifiable level, he will take steps to control this exaltation of price.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I intervene for one second about a matter just referred to by my noble friend opposite of which I have some personal knowledge? That is the question of fish. The summer herring fishery is soon beginning. The herring shoals are now approaching the Pentland Firth and will be all down
20
the north-east side of Scotland and England. I come from the district of Great Yarmouth, where we know a great deal about the herring fishery. I do not suppose you will get many herrings, on account of war conditions, on the east coast; but in the north-west and on the extreme north there will be plenty. Herring is sometimes almost unobtainable in times of peace in the inland towns of Britain. I have been living in the country and have found great difficulty in getting herring, though I do not mind the price I pay. The same thing applies to mackerel which are now coming in. The summer plankton and the algæ are on the surface of the sea and besides the herring the mackerel are coming along. Both herring and mackerel contain nourishment, weight for weight, as good as beef. People like them, but they cannot get them in the smaller inland towns.
The point I want to make—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will probably bear me out in this—is that the difficulty is one of transport. The trouble is to get this valuable and desirable food into the shops in the inland towns. I would suggest that the noble Lord should take such steps as he can in the north and west of England, and perhaps in the northern ports of Scotland, to get full distribution by road, if not by rail, and should ask the British Broadcasting Corporation—I am coming from the general to the particular—to announce some day beforehand that herring will be available in certain inland districts, more especially in the south and the central parts of the country. I hope your Lordships will think I am right in drawing attention to the fact that the difficulty is not so much about price—who cares whether the price is 4d. or 6d. when it is a meal?—but lies in transport.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised this subject, and for having raised it in the very pleasant way in which he has done, in spite of the fact that obviously his seat of learning is a little deprived of some of the luxuries of life. I would emphasize, if I may, that it is only about the luxuries—I might go further and say it is only about the non-essentials of life—that he has complained. I do not appeal for the sympathy of the House, because I believe I have it. Anyone who attempts to control people's food is bound

21
to give universal dissatisfaction. I have done my best to minimise that dissatisfaction by restricting it. I have, as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has indicated, adopted a line of policy which has been quite clear and definite even though it has none of the excitement of being dramatic.
I have picked out those things which I thought and which I was advised by competent scientific and medical people were the essential things to maintain the life of this county. I have picked those out, and with the exception of bread, where I am grateful to say no necessity has arisen, I have rationed them on a basis of equality. His Majesty's Government have maintained a low price for these commodities at a cost which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned in another place may rise to the neighbourhood of £100,000,000. We have endeavoured to keep down the cost of living in those essential things. In the case of other things that are not rationed, I entered on a most dangerous path of trying to control prices. On that issue I will speak at greater length later, if I may.
The third line of policy I adopted—with no desire just to be pleasant to people in the trade—was to go to a trade and say: "This is the line of policy which in the interests of the country it seems to me advisable to pursue. If the trade interests will adopt that line of policy so that rationing is unnecessary, and the very large amount of machinery, the great use of man-and woman-power, and the great expense involved in rationing are unnecessary, then I shall be glad to leave it to the trade to carry out distribution. If they find that they cannot adopt that policy voluntarily, then I will apply compulsion." And let it be remembered that I am very frequently urged by trades to apply compulsion to all sorts of things because tradesmen no longer want to have the embarrassment of explaining to customers why they are not able to supply them with this, that or the other. Finally, as a matter of policy, I have endeavoured—as from my work you would expect me to endeavour—to get the simplest and the most economic methods of distribution so that we do not burden the country with undue costs. There I have taken the opportunity of confessing to you the faith that is in me and the line of policy I have been trying to adopt.
22
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was perhaps a little less than just in his reference to the food traders of this country when he said that there was an irrational, haphazard, unequal system of distribution. These trades have served us very well in the past. Their system may seem, as most commercial systems may from the point of view of one who looks at them philosophically, irrational and somewhat crude, but at any rate, to use the vernacular appropriate to the occasion, they have delivered the goods to us in the past. All I ask the trade to do now is to continue to deliver the goods. If they are able to do that I am not very concerned as to whether they are doing it in an irrational manner or not so long as people arc fed. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, really is not right as far as food is concerned if he thinks that we are still living in the peaceful summer of 1939 and assuming that the populations are just where they were at that date. Whenever you start to build a new structure—and control of food supplies was new—you have to take a basis, and the basis taken for the earlier part of food distribution was that pre-war period. But, as your Lordships know, we have the whole population of this country registered for food supplies. The Ministry of Food know—and I think in fact they are the only body who do know—where people are, because people hasten to let us know where they are in order that they may be able to draw their rations.
We not only use those statistics in our own interests, but we supply them to the Board of Trade in order that they may have the use of them for the distribution of things other than food in which they are concerned, and we supply them confidentially to the traders of this country in order that they may know how population has moved. My Lords, do realise how population does move. I went to another seat of learning a few weeks ago in order to inspect a small food office. I found the clerks, late on Saturday afternoon, all very busily at work. Three thousand people had decided that they would go into that area, without giving any notice of their intention to move into it, and those people all expected that they would find there all the food that was necessary for them. This movement of population at the present

23
time is something which we cannot control. We do not know anything about it until the new population has arrived in an area, and when it has arrived our business is to try to handle it. I am not being complacent, but I am surprised that my staff have been able to secure that the rationed food shall always be there to meet this very rapid movement of population. I give them credit and praise for that; and if it is true, as Lord Elton says, that unrationed foods are not moving equally quickly, that I regret. I will alter it in so far as I am capable of altering it.
I cannot believe—and I am sure that other noble Lords in this House who have experience of trade will agree with me—that the food traders of this country are willingly sending large quantities of food to deserted areas in order that they may stay in their shops there and not be used, and that they are, at the same time, saying "We will keep these other places short of food." Obviously, the shopkeepers do not want to buy more food than they will be able to sell, and the wholesale houses are most anxious to secure that their goods shall go to the places which have the most rapid turnover, so that they will come back to them again and again, and their trade will increase. We must not, during a war-time period, when there are so many difficulties, assume that we can do without the capacity and energy of the traders of this country. They have done the job before, and it appears to me that they are more likely to be able to do it again than are Government Departments. I am most anxious not to overburden the Ministry of Food by encouraging them to take on more jobs than they can do. They have, indeed, very much to do. They have not only to feed the people in this country on rationed foods but also to feed all the people who are in shelters, and to run an emergency organisation to feed people who have been bombed out of their homes. Whilst the staff of the Ministry is undoubtedly large, and is also competent, it is for the most part untrained in the habits of commerce, and I therefore approach every new proposition of rationing with a query in my mind as to whether we can do the job effectually.
May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it is difficult to increase the extent of rationing because you can
24
only ration goods that will go round. I give you an example from recent experience. The very circumstance that the noble Lord referred to arose in respect of the subject of jams. There was no doubt about it: a lot of people, with plenty of time on their hands and not much to do, were going round from place to place collecting marmalade and jams of various sorts, while other people had less than the amount that they required. But when I looked at the problem of rationing marmalade, it was clear that the amount available would not enable it to go round so as to give people any appreciable amount. The same applied to jam, so I put the whole lot together and created "spreads," "sweet spreads," and we are now trying a system of rationing "sweet spreads," so that if you cannot get jam you have marmalade, and if you cannot get marmalade or jam, you have syrup. At any rate, you have something that will spread. That is a departure from the old system of rationing; the bringing of a whole group of things together. If this system is successful, I am going to try to think out how I shall be able to get an accumulation of other sorts of commodities of similar use or taste and form them into a group and so secure this equality of distribution for that group.
I hope I am satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I am trying to extend the field in which we can get equal distribution of an increased range of commodities, and that he is not right in saying that we are working on the basis of 1939, although some Government Departments may still be sending out circulars assuming that the population of Oxford is only 98,000, and that I am not adopting the line of saying that I will not ration. There are interests in this country who are very anxious to persuade me to ration everything. My reply to that is that I will only ration those things in regard to which I can secure that there will be a distribution of them equally all over the country, and that whatever we ration we are giving to the person who draws the ration coupon an undertaking that that coupon will be honoured. Circumstances of a military nature with which your Lordships are familiar, caused us to fail to honour that coupon, for a period, in regard to meat. That is the only circumstance in which we have failed to honour it. I am very

25
anxious to preserve that sense of security which the people get that if an article is rationed it will be there for them whenever they go to the shops, and that they will not fall under the necessity of going early and standing in a queue in order to be sure that they get their supplies.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, to whom I am indebted, as I always am, for his advice, and in this case for his encouragement, has talked about price control. When we introduce price control, of course, we are bringing into existence an entirely new economic system in this country. In the past, goods have flowed to various parts of the country according to price demand. The moment we say that the price shall be the same everywhere, the trader tends to sell his goods at the place where he will make the most profit. If he lands his fish at Fleetwood, it is no advantage to him to pay for the transport of that fish to Birmingham if he can sell it all in Manchester; and so, immediately price control comes in, we find it being said that the goods-go off the market. It is not true that they go off the market, but they do go to the nearest market; and we get, as a result of price control, inequality of distribution all over the country. It is for that reason that I have recently found it necessary to adopt the principle of making purchases, so that the goods become the property of the Ministry, and therefore, since they are the property of the Ministry, can be directed to the places to which we want them to go.
LORD MANCROFT: Have you any difficulties of transport?
LORD WOOLTON: I think that there are always difficulties of transport, but I should hesitate on the evidence which has been given to me—and I have been studying fish rather intimately on paper; I regret to say entirely on paper lately!—to say that it was difficulties of transport that were causing the present maldistribution of fish. The truth is that we are getting very little fish into the country, and it is going to a very restricted area. I have pointed that out to those who trade in fish, and I have asked them whether they can solve the problem. They have assured me that they think that they can. I am co-operating with them, and am doing so on the quite clear basis that the public of this country are very willing indeed
26
to pay to the fishermen who go out on these dangerous waters most reasonable rates, and that they recognise the risks that the dealers in fish run, and always have run, of their fish going bad. But, having recognised both those things, the public do expect that the fish trade will cater for them and will secure on some basis a reasonable distribution at a reasonable price, and that, if the fish trade finds itself incapable of doing this, it will be necessary for the Minister of Food to use the powers that he has and to endeavour to secure what the public require. I should very much prefer that the trade, competent as it is, and public-spirited as are those who take part in it, should undertake this work itself. Those concerned are very well acquainted with my views, and they have expressed their intention of carrying them out.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended on this somewhat diverse and varied subject, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having given me the opportunity. I am sure that he knew of the difficulties with which I am faced. I hope that I have assured him, by what I have said, that I am not indifferent to the problems that he has indicated, and that I am doing my best to solve them. Not for one moment, however, do I stand before your Lordships and say that I have solved all the problems of food control and all the problems of the distribution of food. They vary every day. Whilst the Battle of the Atlantic goes on, I am faced day by day with new problems, and almost always with problems along the same line; hardly ever with the problem of what to do with a surplus. I hope that, as a result of the activities of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, we shall have some surpluses in home-grown products this year.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very kind and full reply. I hope that your Lordships will think that my Motion was to some extent justified in having provoked that very interesting reply. If I may say so, the lucid and unruffled nature of the reply is characteristic of what one has heard of Lord Woolton's administration. There are two points which I should like to make a little clearer, because I think that I may have misled the noble Lord by what I have said. I never in-

27
tended to suggest for a moment that the Ministry of Food were conducting any of their activities on the basis of pre-war distribution of population. I had been led to believe, by persons in very high places, that manufacturers and wholesalers were conducting some of their distribution upon those out-of-date statistics, and I was encouraged to believe that by the fact that a communication from the Ministry of Food as recently as the end of last February referred to a scheme for providing the manufacturers with statistics, as if they had not yet received them.
The only other comment that I wish to make is that I was very interested to see that not only the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who has been such such a leading figure in private enterprise, but also that doughty collectivist and Socialist, the Leader of the Opposition, expressed themselves as expecting the mere play of free enterprise to place the goods in the right spot. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, said he would imagine that the wholesaler would send his goods where they would be sold. I speak with all diffidence before such experts, but, as I see the problem, the goods will be bought wherever they are sent; the difference is that if the old distribution of population statistics are used, and too much is sent to an evacuation area, each householder there will obtain two bottles of fruit—I use purely imaginary figures—whereas in a reception area perhaps only one household in ten will secure a bottle. In both cases all the stocks will be purchased; it is merely a question of equity. I should like to conclude by saying that I gather from the noble Lord's reply that he is satisfied that the methods at present in use are the most likely to ensure the end which we all have in view. I think that his administration has gained such prestige now in the country that, if Lord Woolton thinks that, we are all willing to accept that view from him. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR TRAINING CORPS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg leave to postpone the first question standing in my name, regarding the private funds alleged to have been deposited outside Germany by leading members of the
28
Nationalist Socialist Party, but will ask the second.
The question was as follows:
[To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended that all recruits in the Air Training Corps will be provided with educational facilities enabling them to attain the requisite educational standard in higher mathematics and cognate subjects to qualify for flying duties.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the cadets of the Air Training Corps receive training in order to fit them for service as air crews or for technical duties. Cadets who are below the educational standard required for air crew training, but who are otherwise suitable, are provided with educational facilities to bring them up to the required standard.

NETTING OF SALMON AND TROUT.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the third question in my name.
The question was as follows:
[To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the urgent necessity of increasing the national food supply by every available means, they will consider the desirability of issuing an Order under the Defence Regulations authorising the suspension of existing restrictions upon the netting of salmon in non-tidal waters and of trout of more than a specified weight.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, this question has been considered by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries from time to time since the war began. As my noble friend is no doubt aware, the existing restrictions on the netting of salmon and trout and more particularly as they apply to non-tidal waters, are imposed for the purpose of preserving the breeding stock of these fish. Any suspension of those restrictions would undoubtedly be attended with grave risk of injury to that stock, whilst the addition to the food supply likely to result would amount to a relatively inconsiderable quantity only. My right honourable friend does not consider that the general situation at the present time is such as to justify any drastic alteration of existing regulations.
House adjourned.