Lords Sitting of 18 February 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

FOOD SUPPLIES.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government if they are satisfied as to the prospective availability during the current year of all essential foods in sufficient quantity to provide adequate maintenance rations for our civilian population, and Fighting Forces and our (indispensable) farm animals; whether there are any, and if any, what, particular foodstuffs of which increased production in this country is both desirable and practicable: and whether in the event of their output being increased their producers can rest satisfied that there will be a market for them; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset that in putting down this Motion I desire to be in no sense a hostile critic of my noble friend Lord Woolton, for whose ability, courage, and industry I have personally a profound admiration. But I make no apology for initiating this debate in your Lordships' House because, having helped to form the original Ministry of Food, having served in it during the most critical period of the last war, and having been a commercial farmer for over forty years, I cannot pretend to be wholly ignorant of the serious problems which now confront us in face of a growing submarine menace and in view of the need of ever-increasing shipping space for war materials and of the fact which is sometimes overlooked that four-fifths of our normal breadstuffs—I emphasize the word "normal"—come from overseas as well as nearly one-half of our total meat supplies. Situated as we are, it is evident that the somewhat impoverished land of this country, whether in occupation of the farmers, smallholders, allotment holders, or, very particularly, gardeners, large and small, or of the Crown or local authorities, must be made to yield the maximum supplies of those more essential foods which can no longer
346
be obtained from overseas. Perhaps I ought to say that if those particular commodities are not obtainable, we ought to raise to the best of our power the nearest nutritive equivalents. Of these nutritive equivalents I submit that the potato stands first as the chief substitute for wheat, and milk, cheese, and eggs as the chief substitutes for meat.
I am going to venture to say something further in regard to the attitude of the British public towards these questions of food supply. Such is the mentality of the British race that if they are to pull their full weight they like to be told the plain unvarnished truth. I submit that it would pay the Government to tell both the potential producers and the consumers what they are expected to produce, or what sacrifices they may have to face before the end of this current year, in the light of enemy activity by sea. What I want to ask particularly of the noble Lord is what exactly does the Government expect the land of this country to produce, of what description is that produce to be, and what quantities and in what respective areas? I suggest to him that it would be wise on the part of the Government to make it clear to all concerned—when I say all concerned, I mean producers and consumers—what foods are essential either for adequate nutrition on the one hand or for health on the other.
I venture to put the two alternatives because nowadays we hear so much about vitamins, and I suggest that by what I may call vitaminous foods you do not necessarily ward off starvation if you are faced with it, although they may contribute to an optimum condition of health. We ought to be told, all of us, what foods are essential either for adequate nutrition or for optimum health, and whether and to what extent supplies of them are, through enemy action, likely to be unobtainable from other countries. During the last war when I was serving at the Ministry of Food we had what I think is a very good motto, which was: "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst." That motto does not breathe the spirit of pessimism and still less of panic, but rather of common prudence. Having calculated the amount of these foods, whether protein or starchy foods, raisable from the soil of Great Britain that will be

347
required from the country as a whole, first for basic nutrition and secondly for optimum health, I would ask the Government if they can state clearly what each county can, in the light of climate, soil and past experience, raise, and may reasonably be expected to raise, to make good the anticipated deficit in overseas supplies.
Again, I would remind your Lordships that if four-fifths of our total breadstuffs now come from overseas, we are bound to emphasize the importance of growing potatoes on every scrap of available land as the nearest possible equivalent to wheat. In that connection I would like to remind the noble Lord that of eighty-four geographical counties in Great Britain a very few only, and most of them on the East Coast or towards the East Coast, provide the bulk of the total British wheat crop, and of the fifty-two counties of England and Wales, six only produce no less than 40 per cent, of the nation's wheat output—namely, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. What I would contend is that if you want a largely increased output of wheat you must look preponderantly to those counties where the conditions are known to be most favourable to the production of that essential food to produce additional quantities, rather than look to what I may call the grass counties of the West of England and Wales where wheat production is not familiar to a large number of the occupiers if the food of this character is going to be largely augmented.
Turning to potatoes, it is equally interesting to note that twelve counties, three of them in Scotland, produce half and three only—namely, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—produce one-third of the total crop of potatoes in Great Britain. Incidentally potato growing, unlike wheat growing, is carried on over the greater part of the kingdom, therefore it is not unreasonable to ask people who are relatively unacquainted with farm processes in every part of the United Kingdom to do their bit in raising potatoes for the sustenance of the nation. I mention those figures only because I want strongly to urge that any allocation of similar percentages of production to different parts of the country will not produce the optimum result, but that it is
348
safer to look to those counties which are more suited, and have been found in the past most capable of producing either wheat on the one hand or potatoes on the other, to be responsible for the augmented supply which is now required. If potatoes are to constitute the nation's main starchy or carbohydrate food it is vitally important that the task be not left to farmers, but that a definite proportion, say one-fourth or one-fifth, be looked for from the private gardens and allotments throughout the country, and that strenuous and systematic organisation be conducted without delay with this object, and with a greater measure of emphatic insistence, if not actually of compulsion, on the part of those who are deemed to be responsible for this work.
I want particularly to stress the gardens, which are, to a large extent, being neglected to-day, either through lack of means on the part of their owners or owing to the absence of their owners or cultivators on active service. There is a large area of normally intensively cultivated land which, I am perfectly certain, could produce a very much larger output of nutritious food than it is doing at present. In that connection I do want to ask that in issuing notes and words of advice to lecturers who are employed on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture in different parts of the country, they should be warned not to discourage smallholders, allotment holders and gardeners to grow both for their own requirements and if necessary for the trade. As it is these notes have been issued advising lecturers on these subjects to discourage potential producers from growing vegetable crops for the market. After all, in a period of crisis such as this, if gardens and allotments can produce more than the needs of their owners require, it is in the national interest that the surplus should be put on the market and rendered available for the public. Of course, there is supposed to be a prejudice—I hope and believe it is not very widespread—on the part of the farming community against the raising of potatoes and other essential food by small-scale food producers. There is supposed to be this prejudice based on the fear of competition in the market. I do not believe that that prejudice is far spread to-day, and I hope nothing will be done by the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Agriculture to put a premium on that prejudice.
In regard to potatoes, may I urge the Government to consider how the potato crop this year is going to be lifted? Unfortunately, last autumn, when some of us began to employ schoolboys in lifting potatoes, we were told that they could not obtain release from various places of education in order to carry out this task. May I venture to suggest that it would be in the national interest this autumn so to alter the school term and the school holidays as to render at any rate senior boys available for the lifting of the potato crop? Quite a considerable proportion of the potato crop last autumn was wasted and actually rotted in the ground because there was not the available labour to lift it. If the potato can be treated as it is in Central Europe so as to produce a fine flour of which bread comparable to our wheaten loaf can be made, it would be a very great national advantage under existing conditions. I remember that during the last war, when we put forward a proposition from the Ministry of Food that farina mills should be established in this country, the only argument urged against it was that it was an uneconomic proposition. Almost everything we are doing during the present war is an uneconomic proposition and I venture to hope that that argument will not obtain if there is a possibility of establishing during this war farina mills for the conversion of potatoes into good flour for human consumption.
It is true that an effort is being made to establish certain factories, I think through the medium of the Farmers Marketing and Supply Company—six of them I am told are already in operation or being erected—for processing potatoes to render them more suitable as an animal food. I do not quite know why they should require all this processing. For my part I have fed my cattle upon potatoes when there has been a glut without the potatoes being even boiled or steamed, and there is no better food for pigs—I do not know if we are going to have any pigs left in this country—than potatoes if they are either boiled or steamed. However that may be, if there are these processing factories, I should like to knew exactly what is the function they are supposed to perform, and whether the output of the factories will be available h different parts of the country
350
for those who want to feed their livestock on the product.
If pigs and poultry, both of which appear to be somewhat at a discount in the mind of the Food Minister to-day, can no longer be fed on sea-borne foods to any appreciable extent, why not compel—not merely encourage but compel—all urban authorities as well as training camps to collect, boil and render available swill from waste foods rather than deprive the nation of its eggs and bacon? There are a certain number of farmers who are obtaining swill from the camps for their pigs but, on the other hand, I am afraid there is considerable waste food in some of the military camps which is not being so utilised and is in some cases, to my knowledge, being buried. Surely some strenuous effort ought to be made to prevent anything of that sort happening if that food is really fit either for human consumption or for animal feeding stuff.
There is a danger which has operated as a deterrent in the south of England, and that is the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease through the medium of camp swill. I remember that some years ago I was sent on a Government Mission to the South American Republics in consequence of the discovery by our research workers that foot-and-mouth disease can be carried in the bone marrow of chilled carcasses to this country. I am afraid that what has happened is that somehow or other through the medium of imported meat swill has contained the germs of that disease and it has been disseminated through the pigs in several areas. If that is so, some action should be taken by the Government to ensure that by boiling or otherwise, there is no danger of the transmission of this very infectious disease through the medium of swill on to the farms of the country.
I venture to suggest, and I hope my noble friend Viscount Dawson of Penn will agree with the view, that potatoes are chemically and dietetically the only producible food equivalent to wheat. I suggest that by proper organisation we can easily grow the additional quantity necessitated by the reduction in sea-borne wheat. A large proportion of those potatoes can be, and ought to be, grown in private gardens and allotments. There is, I am afraid, a lack of drive in this matter on the part of the county war

351
agricultural committees in several counties, no doubt through a fear of offending the farmers and also because, as I understand, they do not regard it in many cases as part of their legitimate function to deal with producers other than farmers. This matter of surplus garden produce has been a good deal in my mind and on my mind, and to-day I should very much like an assurance from the Government that if these smaller producers do produce more nutritious foodstuffs and vegetables than they can consume themselves, there will be an effort made to find a market for them. From many districts during the last few months there have come complaints that those who have grown potatoes and, having found themselves with a surplus, have attempted to put that surplus on the market, have been wholly unable to dispose of it. I myself have had numerous letters on the subject and I have been assured by the potato supervisory body, which has its headquarters at St. John's College, Oxford, that this sort of thing is not likely to obtain in the future. I should like to know the means by which it is going to be prevented. It looks to me as though it is going to be a very difficult problem with which to deal.
Meat has been very scarce in many districts during the last few weeks, owing, I believe, more to transport difficulties than to anything else, but to some extent also to the needs of our troops overseas. Now the chief substitute for meat is cheese, and cheese has been to a large extent, I understand, unobtainable during the last few weeks in many parts of England, indeed in most parts of England. Hard-working employees on the farms and in the mines must have their meat or cheese in order to maintain their physical strength and efficiency. To my knowledge during the last few weeks, men on the farms, and I am sorry to say on my own estate, have been making their midday meal off white bread and jam because cheese is not obtainable. By contrast men in training in the camps are getting a ration of at least 50 per cent, more than the civilian population of various nutritious foods while doing no more strenuous work—in many cases less strenuous work—than the workers on our farms are expected to do. In some camps
352
the waste is considerable and this waste, I am told, is to some extent due to inefficiency on the part of the Army cooks. I do not know to what extent culinary knowledge can be imparted in the field kitchens of this country, but if that is the reason, then in the national interest it is advisable to impart the necessary culinary knowledge to those who cater for our soldiers under training.
The best use of surplus food is not being made in many districts at the present time. I call to mind that in 1917, when I represented the Ministry of Food in the House of Commons, I was requested to go as a deputation to my noble friend Lord Derby, then Minister of War, and that very remarkable Quartermaster-General Sir John Cowans. I asked them whether it was their wish and intention that soldiers should receive much larger rations than the civilian population. They both said emphatically ''No'' and ''We mean to take steps to see that there shall be no waste and no largely-increased proportion of the available food per head to be consumed by the military population as compared with those in the civil population who are engaged in strenuous work." They took a strong line and a new policy was initiated, with the result that more food was made available for workers on farms and in factories and less food was wasted.
I want to ask whether, in order to save our pigs and poultry, but particularly our poultry because I cannot visualise the Britisher doing without his eggs even if he is prepared to do without his bacon, there cannot be an organised collection of waste food in all towns and cities, and whether the time has not come to exercise some measure of compulsion in assuring that all waste food shall be rendered available for feeding our farm stock. In Tottenham and other large cities, largely as the result of enterprise on the part of some leading inhabitant, or perhaps of some Member of Parliament like Mr. Morrison, the Member for Tottenham, a large quantity of waste food has been collected, has been rendered innocuous by boiling or other means, and has been made available for the feeding of pigs. Can that not be done to a larger extent, if necessary by exercising compulsion, to see that not only in one, two or even three large cities, but in every city and town of the country,

353
this waste food shall be collected and rendered available for animal food?
There is another subject I wish to mention, and as it has been already discussed in this House, I will say but two or three words upon it. That subject is the provision of sufficient labour on the farms of this country to compensate for the existing paucity in many areas, and the prospect of their losing a considerable number of their younger men for military or other defence services. I think one has to admit that there are physical limitations upon the capacity of women for heavy farm work, save, of course, in exceptional cases. I want to ask whether we cannot make more use of the wives of our agricultural workers in this connection, appealing to their patriotism to lend a hand outside their homes in the country's need. I suggest that it could be arranged for one of them in each farm in a bothy, a barn or other place provided by the farmer, to provide the meals for all the farm workers, thereby enabling a large number of other women workers to devote their energies to work on the land. I have referred to the boys and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that boys, without too much insistence on their educational needs, shall, as far as possible, be rendered available this autumn, not only for harvesting the wheat but particularly for getting in the potato crop.
If the farm workers are to pull their full weight in providing the nation's food it is essential that they should be adequately fed and in this connection cheese for their midday dinner is a sine qua non. I do not know why my noble friend the Minister of Food has thought it desirable to switch over to the liquid milk market the small amount of milk: which has been supplied to the small number of cheese dairies or cheese factories for the purpose of winter cheese-making. I happen myself to run a small estate cheese dairy which, by the way, for twenty-five years has supplied cheese to the House of Commons, as the late Chairman of the Kitchen Committee of that House will know. The sole reason why that particular cheese dairy, like many other small cheese dairies, is run during the winter is to provide some employment for a good dairymaid who has no other home to which to go and nothing else to which to turn her hand. It is an uneconomic proposition at the
354
best; but, if it is to be made still more uneconomic by switching over the whole of the small supply of milk required to the liquid milk market, not only does it reduce the amount of cheese available during the early spring but it makes it almost impossible to carry on a small-scale cheese dairy or factory.
No canned fruit, so my noble friend the Minister of Food tells me, is to be imported into this country during the current year, and only a very small amount of fresh fruit, chiefly oranges. What about bananas? I mention the banana in particular because it is the one little luxury that so many of the poorest inhabitants of our towns enjoy, and I think that the moral effect of discontinuing entirely the importation of bananas into this country may be quite serious. If it is at all possible to find a little shipping space for bananas, which are eaten to such a large extent by the poor in East and South-East London and elsewhere. I hope that the shipping authorities and the Minister of Food will see whether some small concession cannot be made in that connection. If all the fruit which normally comes to this country is not available this year, we ought to make a very special appeal to our home fruit-growers to do all in their power to safeguard their fruit crops, as, for instance, by winter spraying, which it is still possible to do, as the pests in our orchards and fruit gardens are very serious. Principally, however, we should safeguard our home fruit crop against waste. I do not think that it would be an exaggeration to say that something like 35 per cent, of the whole of the fruit which is not eaten fresh from the trees is wasted through not being properly stored. If we are not going to have much butter, I am certain that we shall want all the jam which can be made available to spread upon our bread; and, that being the case, and for other reasons, particularly so far as the supply of essential vitamins is concerned, we ought to make a very special effort to preserve all the fruit that we grow in this country, so that it will be available during the autumn and winter.
I should like to say something about the comparative rations issued to agricultural workers, miners and other civilian workers on the one hand and to military camps on the other. In making this comparison, your Lordships should bear in

355
mind especially the agricultural workers. The men in the military camps are receiving nearly four times as much bacon and ham as do civilians, and three-and-a-half times as much butcher's meat. As regards butcher's meat, I am regarding Is. 2d. as representing I lb. of meat. I am told that it goes down to about 1od. and up to about Is. 4d. My noble friend the Minister of Food tells me that the average is I6½ ounces, which may be taken as roughly a pound. The men in the camps are receiving two-and-a-half times as much butter and margarine as civilians, more than twice as much sugar—I7½ ounces as against eight—and 30 per cent, more tea. Service men on leave, who naturally mix with their civilian relations, are receiving twice as much bacon and ham, two-and-a-half times as much butcher's meat, the same amount of butter and margarine, and 50 per cent, more sugar. A rather remarkable case is that of the coastal seamen. I quite agree that they have strenuous work to perform, but the difference in their rations as compared with those of agricultural workers is remarkable; they receive twice as much bacon and ham, seven times as much butcher's meat, more than twice as much butter and margarine, 50 per cent, more sugar and twice as much tea. We shall propably all agree that these privileged workers ought to receive more than the average civilian, and particularly the civilian leading a physically inactive life, but if there is any waste going on I think it will be agreed that these differences are unduly large, if we are going to get full value from the labour of our civilian population.
I should next like to say a word about fertilisers. If the fertility of the land of Britain is largely exhausted, as I think we have reluctantly to admit that it is, and corn crops are being fed to a large extent, temporarily at any rate—the process cannot possibly long continue—on the manurial value of ploughed-in turf, it is quite obvious that we ought to use as much artificial fertilisers as are available in order to maintain the fertility of the land. The two fertilisers which are most likely not to be available are potash, which comes mainly from Germany and Alsace-Lorraine, and phosphates. That very eminent chemist the late Professor Henry Armstrong, who
356
died two years ago, said that the one thing which he dreaded, so far as the future food production of England was concerned, was phosphate starvation, and that that process was, in his opinion, already in operation. Phosphates are very difficult to obtain to-day, the only two forms being basic slag on the one hand and superphosphate on the other. Basic slag is very difficult to obtain, although I am told that it is still being turned out of steel works operating the Bessemer process and the open-hearth system, but, owing to lack of transport, it cannot be brought from those works to the farms of the country. Superphosphate has been obtained of recent years largely from North African phosphate rock and also from Nauru—which, by the way, has lately been bombarded by the enemy. The phosphate rock which is turned into superphosphate by treatment with hydrochloric acid is, I understand, not now obtainable from North Africa. In those circumstances, how are we going to obtain the necessary phosphates to feed our essential farm crops? I do not know that there is an answer to that question, but, if there is, I venture to hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to give it.
I know that a noble Lord opposite is likely to refer to poultry. In that connection, I should like to say that the question is being asked throughout the country, and even by experts, whether, as regards priority in the matter of seaborne feeding-stuffs, poultry ought not to take precedence over fatting bullocks. As your Lordships probably know, the first priority is given to dairy cattle and I think we should all agree that that is right. Next come feeding bullocks, and then, a very poor third and fourth, come pigs and poultry. It is very hard to my mind to justify the feeding of imported feeding-stuffs to fatting steers and bullocks in preference to the birds that produce our eggs.
I am going to move for a return showing approximately (I) the required output this year from the land of Great Britain of (a) potatoes, (b) wheat, oats and other cereals, and (c) milk and cheese, first for the whole country and secondly, for each individual county; (2) the number of dairy cattle in milk now, compared with the number a vear ago; (3) the estimated percentage difference between the average marketed fruit supplies available from all

357
sources in a normal pre-war year and (prospectively) in the current year; and (4) the present percentage differences between the total meat ration (including both butcher's meat and pig meat), the cheese ration, the butter and margarine ration, and the sugar ration in the case of the agricultural worker, the miner and the munition worker on the one hand, and the soldier under training in the camps of Great Britain on the other.
May I, before sitting down, offer a warm welcome to the Front Government Bench to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as representing the Ministry of Agriculture in this House? He has led many of as into this House on introduction or advancement, and I am quite sure he will show equal skill in leading us in the matter of home food production. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Viscount for bringing before us other aspects of the food question, some of which were discussed in this House a week ago. I am very glad that he has called attention to certain leading matters because we have with us the Minister of Food. I have never been satisfied that the Minister has been well advised in respect of certain policies which he has adopted, and I think that the misgivings which many of us have entertained all along have been very forcibly indicated by the noble Viscount. I will mention only one or two. Take, for instance, poultry. The food value of the egg is unquestionable, and I have never been able to find the explanation of the policy the Minister has adopted, because he has sought to cut down—for that is what it is—our capacity for egg production by limiting the food supplies. Millions of people are keeping a few chickens, and I imagine that this was never suspected by those who advised the noble Lord. It was known to most of us who have spent our lives in the country, but it has certainty not been revealed in any return.
The policy which the Minister has been adopting is going to make it exceedingly difficult for large numbers of these people who keep chickens to renew their stock this spring and to produce anything like as many eggs from the same number of birds as they did before. What will happen will be that they will not be able TO keep as many birds, and also, owing
358
to the diminished value of the ration, they will not get as many eggs from the same number of birds. Thus the poultry industry is being hit in two ways, and in my opinion it is a mistake from the point of view of the food policy of the country. The small egg producers who keep chickens in their backyards provide one of the most available and economic methods of supplementing family food supplies, and it is being cut off. I do entreat the Minister—I put it as high as that—to think again over the policy that is being pursued in this matter.
May I refer to one other group of subjects which the noble Viscount mentioned, that is, the production of potatoes and horticultural products? The big difficulty, I think, is the marketing of them when you have produced them. Of course, people grow in their own gardens enough for their own consumption, but most people who have a garden, however small, grow many things more than the family requires. But we have been recommended—and I am speaking now as a member of an agricultural war executive committee—to encourage the use of large gardens: a very good thing too, because they have very good soil, which has been attended to for many years and should give a large amount of produce. But the "trouble, both here and with many allotments, is that when the man has worked hard and produced the goods, he cannot sell them at a profit; he cannot sell them to get a living out of them. I know of my own knowledge a case where a man had a large garden belonging to a mansion which had been let to him—an excellent garden, about three acres in extent. He had it rent free, but he has had to give it up, because he cannot market the produce in an advantageous way. That is only one case. You could find hundreds of a similar kind where the man cannot make a living.
What I would suggest to the Minister is that he should organise the marketing of that horticultural produce better than it is now organised. We all know—many of us made ever so many speeches about it in years past—that the present chaotic system of marketing vegetable produce is really a discredit to the community. If we are going to get the produce that we might out of the larger gardens and allotments there must be an organised and rational system of enabling the people

359
to market their surplus products. I think it is absolutely essential, and it is because we have not got it that this side of our food production capacity is not being as energetically attended to as it ought to be.
I am so glad that the noble Viscount called attention to the strange differences in the standards of rations. We all know that when a woman has her husband coming home from the Army for two or three days, the family, apart from being so delighted at seeing father back again, know very well that his meat rations will keep them supplied for the week, although he is only there for a day or two. That is literally true; I am not exaggerating it at all. We do want a little more light on this subject. We all want to feed the soldier generously; of course he ought to be fed generously, and I am glad that the coastal sailor gets a bit extra; but the rations now in some cases—taking the figures given by the noble Viscount, which I am sure are correct—are excessive, and the matter does want combing out. What applies to that certainly applies to waste, and I am very glad that the noble Viscount called attention to it. The Ministry, very naturally, is apt to fall back upon the ready method of issuing circulars, especially to local authorities.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): —to add to the waste.
LORD ADDISON: Yes, I am afraid that a big lot of it gets into the dustbins It is all very well to issue circulars, but we do not get much further. The noble Lord's Department, if it is his Department—I am not quite clear whose job it is—should organise the collection and utilisation of waste in a proper manner. At the present time the method is far too happy-go-lucky. The reason is partly that people do not quite know what to do. They do not know what to do or how to do it, though it is not as if there is any particular mystery about it. It is being done quite successfully in some places. I remember that in the last war I myself appointed Sir Alexander Walker to be collector of scrap for the Ministry of Munitions, and we called him our "rag and bone merchant." He soon gave up issuing circulars. We gave him power to do the job, and he did it splendidly. I suggest that the Ministry of Food will
360
have to do something more than issue circulars. They will have to undertake to set up an organisation to see that this business is properly done.
LORD WOOLTON: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, the Ministry of Supply is responsible for this.
LORD ADDISON: That makes it worse. I am not in any way reflecting on the Ministry of Supply, but this is a food question. It is with animal food that it mostly has to do. At all events, those whose business it is should undertake the organisation and direction of it in a rational way and not leave it to chance. I am quite content that the noble Lord's Department or the Ministry of Supply should do it so long as it is done. I am sure they are both quite capable. The present opportunity, in one other respect which the noble Viscount mentioned, gives us a chance of doing something which I hope will not be lost sight of, and that is of producing a closer association between our agricultural policy and our food policy. It is true that in some districts you can get more easily increased cereal production or potato production as the case may be, but the difficulty in every district now is to get experienced labour, particularly for things like potatoes, and to bring into the scheme the willing co-operation of those who know how to do the business. We can only do that by building up a scheme gradually, with the association of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, which will increasingly encourage the production of certain foods in certain districts which are particularly suitable for their production on the lines the noble Viscount has mentioned. That means that we should have an agricultural policy associated with the food needs of the people. It can only be gradually developed, but I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will be willing to tell us that he will not lose sight of the opportunities which our present necessities present of getting some move forward in that direction.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, may I first refer to a point raised by both the noble Viscount who moved and my noble friend Lord Addison, and that is the disproportion between the rations allotted to civilians and those

361
allotted to the soldiers? I suggest that we have to remember that this is the first war of its kind. It is a totalitarian war, and the civilians contribute in larger measure to the fighting than they have done on previous occasions. They contribute more hard work, and therefore there should be a closer equation between the food granted to the Forces and the food granted to the civilians. It is quite true that you must provide ample and, perhaps, a surplus of food for the Army, partly because cooking in camps is difficult, and meat plays a larger part under such conditions; but: in the light of the evidence, which is overwhelming, that there is waste of the surplus food in the Army, a case is made out under the conditions of totalitarian war for a review of the Army rations from that point of view.
The Ministry of Food has a difficult task. If we recall that in peace-time one-half of the surplus wheat of the world comes to this country, the greater part of the surplus meat, and a large proportion of the dairy produce, and that, on the other hand under present war conditions, sea-borne trade has to be greatly reduced, and further that two nearby dairy countries, which were of great service to us in peace-time, are now off the map, we can realise the difficulties the Ministry of Food has to face. It can be said that, viewing the matter broadly, the nation so far has suffered precious little dislocation of its life under the system of rationing. No doubt it will have to suffer more, but I am sure it will be ready to do so provided it: is well led, as it has been led up to now, and provided the reason for everything that is done is placed clearly before the people. Up till now it can be said that there is no evidence of resulting malnutrition from rationing. On the contrary, the young, who matter most, are well. They are in good health and colour, and, if one watches the children rushing out from school, they are just as alive with energy and laughter as in times of peace. On the other hand, it has to be noted that "here is in certain parts of the adult population a reduction in weight. I do not think that this is of any moment just now, but it is an indication that should be noted, because it is important to watch our nutrition, bearing in mind that we have to stay the course and prepare for another winter.
362
May I consider for a moment the problem of meat? This generation inherits a strong habit of meat-eating. Our Edwardian and Victorian forbears gave meat too prominent a place in their beliefs and in their stomachs, and our farmers are to-day still staunch believers in the roast beef of old England. That, I suggest, is the reason why beef is put second in importance to the milch cow, not on its merits, but because we have to bow the knee—very properly no doubt—to those who feed us. It is true that meat is a valuable source of food, firstly, because it is a source of first-class protein, and, further than that, it is appetising, stimulating, and satisfying, and complies with the carnivorous side of our human nature. But I suggest that these virtues of meat can be supplied by smaller portions and smaller amounts than our previous habits have hitherto demanded. Indeed this fact has been gradually growing on the public mind, and is evidenced by the increasing purchase during the last twenty-five years of 50 per cent, more milk, 64 per cent, more vegetables and 88 per cent, more fruit. Therefore, there is an immense civilian population which recognises that less meat is needed than it has been the custom to think was necessary. I think that the Ministry of Food will, by their rationing, confer a "benefit on the habits of the people of this country when the war is over.
When the Minister curtails our meat he does us no harm, provided we have access to certain essential foods. Among these I put wholemeal bread, milk, cheese, potatoes, carrots, leaf vegetables and fruit. Here I would like to say that cheese and meat are to a large extent interchangeable. They both contain first-class protein, in fact cheese has certain advantages in the way of vitamins and minerals which meat does not possess. After all, it may be said that the labourer in the old days was very near the truth when he sat under a hedge for his lunch and with his pocket knife in his hand ate a meal of brown bread, fat bacon, cheese and onion. It really is interesting to think how truths grow up unconsciously through the ages and only become rationalised by the scientists at a later period. Perhaps I ought to make reference to some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I cannot help thinking that deep down inside him he has a grudge against

363
vitamins. I say this because of the way in which he referred to food and its nutrition value. Let me assure him that basic nutritional value is impossible without an adequate supply of vitamins. We know from the records before us in this country of rickets, beriberi and scurvy, that the risk of these diseases has been removed by almost imponderable quantities of those great activators of nutrition called vitamins. That is one of many reasons why to my mind we must give milk pride of place. It is the complete food for it contains not only fats and protein and carbohydrate in assimilable quantities, but vitamins—those essential activators of nutrition—and equally essential minerals like iron, calcium and phosphorus. In short, milk and its products spell health and security—for children essential and for people of all ages invaluable.
I think it would be worth while, and it would be germane at this point, if I refer to the history of the Oslo breakfast. When I was in Stockholm in the summer of 1939 I took the occasion of studying the education, health and housing of the population of Stockholm where a progressive policy prevails. While I was being taken round the schools, I noted the ample provision there was for providing hot meat and pudding for the daily meal of the children. My Swedish colleague, as he was taking me around, said, "We do not use those kitchens now; we give all our children every day the Oslo breakfast." This consists, as your Lordships well know, of wholemeal bread, milk, butter or margarine (the margarine being vitaminised), cheese, salad or fruit. They give that cold meal every day to these children. I said to him," Don't the children get weary of it?" "Not in the least," he replied. "They love it and they become lions in the process." We have had the same experience in England in the several experiments that have been made in various parts of the country, and to my mind these experiments provide eloquent evidence establishing the large part these ingredients play and that if we could have these essential foods we might say all other things would be added unto us.
The distinguished Norwegian professor who conceived this idea argued that it is not much use making the school meal an imitation of the home meals. His experi-
364
ence was that it was better to let the school meals secure to the children the essential foods with their vitamins and minerals, and in the result he found that with the school meal secure it mattered little if the children were fed defectively at home. After this most striking evidence, one cannot help asking why was not the Ministry of Agriculture alive to this new knowledge ages ago? If it had only maintained the smallest relationship with the Ministry of Health and through that Ministry with the medical profession, the Ministry of Agriculture would have known about this new learning, and we should not have been so laggard as we have been in deciding upon a proper agricultural policy.
Farmers no doubt find it easier and more profitable to produce meat than milk, but I would say that as a public-spirited body of men they would produce more milk if only the urgency of the need was made perfectly clear to them. Then the Ministry of Agriculture has the further lever of financially aiding milk production, even, if necessary, over and above beef production. It has been stated that farmers have been tempted to kill even some of their milch cows for beef which must mean that doing so brought advantage to themselves. On the other hand, I would point out that milk production has a great economic advantage over beef production. If, for example, you take one ton of food and give it for the purpose of producing milk, you will get more than twice the amount of food values for human consumption than you would get if a like quantity of food were used to produce beef.
If I may, I will pass to a few suggestions. One is that in addition to the Ministry of Agriculture insisting on the importance of more milk being produced, steps should be taken, while thousands of acres are being ploughed, to avoid our incomparable pasture lands being extensively ploughed to the detriment of our dairy herds. It must be borne in mind that you can grow wheat in a very much shorter time than you can make good pasture. Our position at the present time is this. On the one hand we are advocating the increased consumption of milk everywhere and that increased consumption is taking place. Yet on the other hand there is no increased production of milk to meet the increased consumption

365
which is advocated. To encourage and persuade the farmers therefore to set to work and increase their dairy farming to the utmost limits is surely our prime duty, but we must recognise that it is a long-term policy and that we need milk now. That leads me to suggest to the noble Lord the Minister of Food the importance of importing powdered whole milk and powdered skim milk to our full capacity. Powdered milk, whether skim milk or whole milk, both contains and retains the qualities of liquid milk for an indefinite period. It can be obtained in foreign countries, from parts of the Empire and from the United States, and there is this to be said for it that it is economical of shipping space. Probably it could not be made here so easily as it can be imported, under war conditions.
Another suggestion correlated to the last is to urge the Minister to consider the wisdom of securing the importation of vegetable protein in the form of powder. Again, this powder would be economical of shipping space, it can be preserved a long time, and it would be surely a wise thing to build up a reserve of vegetable protein which, although it is not equal in value to flesh protein, is capable of being an adjunct which the Minister might find of great value in the months to come if, by force of circumstances, he were compelled to reduce our flesh food. For instance, if you have a dish, say, of spaghetti, it would be quite easy to put a few spoonfuls of vegetable protein upon it which, though not equal of course to a mutton chop, would serve a useful purpose when mutton chops were scarce. Now I want to say a word about cheese. I agree that cheese is an invaluable food. It is not only rich in protein and fat but in the necessary vitamins and in minerals. Cheese is not a bulky food, a fact which again is of considerable importance when the matter of importation is being considered. Undoubtedly its present absence from our dietary is a serious loss, and if it can possibly be avoided I think people should not be deprived both of meat and cheese at the same time.
May I offer my congratulations on the approaching accouchement of the standard wholemeal loaf? The fact that its birth has been delayed may not be altogether a disadvantage. It may be that letting the idea of wholemeal bread sink into the minds of the people has
366
been a wise and far-seeing policy. Offering them the alternative of white flour with added concentrates of vitamins I think has had the effect of encouraging the people to turn towards wholemeal bread. They may have said to themselves: "We don't want these nasty things put into our white bread," and so they have decided to face up to the value of wholemeal bread. One important point is to see that wholemeal flour is properly milled so that there is not too much roughage in it. That was not always the case in earlier times. The grain must be milled in such a way as to avoid too much roughage—that can be done now by some of the newer methods—and then you have a valuable food. Let people have bread and milk, potatoes, green vegetables and a moderate amount of protein food, and I am sure all will go well.
I agree with what has been said by previous speakers about the failure of the supply of fruit, and I think that specially applies to oranges, which are not only a useful food but have about them a cheerfulness which should not be lightly turned aside. I would also like to endorse the importance of having a large amount of fruit at moderate prices put into storage in the anxious year to come. One of the most interesting village industries that has grown up in recent times is the canning of fruit. I believe that the problem of saving the dreadful wastage that has sometimes gone on in the past would be solved to a large extent if the canning industry in the villages were extended.
Next, I must say a word in support of my two noble friends on the subject of eggs. Eggs are rich in essential nutritive substances, rich in vitamins and minerals. Their usefulness is very great in contributing to many digestible and tasty dishes. Eggs are specially valuable not so much for the country workers as for the sedentary workers in the cities and for the tired and the dyspeptics who are prone to rise up in increasing numbers in these days. We are quite right with regard to food in placing caloric value first, but there is another factor about food of great importance and that is its digestibility. We have to remember that it is not the food we eat but the food we digest that nourishes our bodies. In fact, if we eat too much we may do our

367
bodies a disservice. There is, therefore, I a strong case for eggs, not only because they are digestible, but also because they contribute to making many light dishes J which are suitable for and attractive to town workers and tired people. We must admit that egg production makes a big demand on imported grain, but if the collection and treatment of waste were properly organised, as it should be locally, and if that waste were rendered harmless by a central authority, which can best do that, we should have a large source of food which, with only a relatively small addition of cereals, I am told, would be enough to ensure the keeping of a large number of poultry. I must remind the House once more, my farmer friends included, that the efficiency of the hen based on calories is above that of the bullock. How are the mighty fallen!
Lastly I would suggest one other matter. The task of feeding the people would be facilitated if there were a greater knowledge amongst housewives of how to choose and cook food, and to this end I venture to repeat a suggestion which I made on a previous occasion, and which was well received in your Lordships' House. That is that steps should be taken, when the longer days come, to institute demonstrations of how to choose and cook food. The B.B.C. does a great deal this way, but what is wanted is a number of people who can actually demonstrate the cooking and choosing of food in local areas. If we are to get the full value out of this extended use of potatoes we shall have to teach them how to utilise them in a variety of culinary ways. It is possible and it is a work which in the last war was done by Sir Edmund Spriggs. There is a great variety of ways in which potatoes and potato flour can be cooked into pleasant and tasteful dishes. If these demonstrations were followed up by displays on the lines of local flower shows. I believe that would be a great stimulus to the use of important foods by the poorer classes—and we all know that feeding and good cooking make for contentment of mind—and without additional cost.
In these matters, and in many others which appertain to the health of the people, I suggest that great advantages would follow if there were closer contact
368
between the advisers of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Health. In conclusion I would like to say that the noble Lord the Minister of Food has, by his resourcefulness and his persuasive leadership of the food front, made, and is making, no mean contribution to our final victory.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I am more than usually reluctant to occupy your attention this afternoon; especially because I do not wish to detain on the Front Bench longer than may be necessary my noble friend the Food Controller. As we all know he is, at the present time, perhaps, the hardest worked man, other than the Prime Minister, in any of the Departments of State. I am, myself, very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe for raising these issues this afternoon. They may be regarded as ranking only next in importance to matters relating to the offensive and defensive forces of the Crown. The question of food production is of enormous importance and it is of very particular importance during these few weeks and months. I know that my noble friend the Minister of Food is earnestly interested in the whole of this question and not least in that part which concerns the smaller cultivations in relation to the production of food. I hope that he will have a statement to make when he rises in his place that will fully meet and answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and other noble Lords. I trust, too, that his answer and his statement will not only be circulated in the records of this House and for one day, perhaps, in abbreviated form, in the newspapers, but that it will be widely and repeatedly advertised during the coming planting and growing weeks.
I listened with very particular interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn, and, if I may say so, there was only one part of it which did not satisfy my eager anticipation. I had hoped that he would have dwelt on the question of bread from two points of view. We are grateful, as he has said, to the Food Controller and Minister of Food for at last instituting a wholemeal loaf. It should have been done by the Government ages ago. But what I would like to ask my noble friend is why does he maintain two different kinds of bread for our consumption? The first is the

369
one to which we have been only too long accustomed—that preparation of devitalised starch which is the daily Dread 0f most of the people of this country I would very much have welcomed Lord Dawson's opinion of that bread. It is almost the only bread obtainable in the bakers' shops to-day. My noble friend is giving us—I have not seen a specimen of it yet—a wholemeal loaf. Meanwhile, he is to maintain the other loaf, constructed, as I say, of devitalised flour, and it is to be reinforced scientifically by artificially produced Vitamin Bi—I think that is the name. I would very much like to hear the candid and full opinion of my noble friend Lord Dawson in regard to the bread of this country so concocted.
The fantastic circle is completed in the case of our daily bread. We allow the extraction of the essential elements of the wheat grain, and then we proceed, laboriously, to pump them back into the starch Hour. It is not a matter for full discussion to-day, but I think that we should insist upon a pure, natural basis for our daily bread. I believe that that would be the greatest of all health reforms, and worth all the others; that could be instituted in this country put together. I should like to put this question to my noble friend the Minister of Food. He may find it advisable later on to dilute the flour with which our bread is made with a number of different ingredients, as was the case in the last war. I wonder whether his scientifically-produced vitamins will serve their purpose in the case of a diluted loaf of that kind.
There is one small matter connected with the distribution of food which I should like to raise. It is a question which has not been referred to in the debate to-day. I refer to the suppression or disuse all over the country of the smaller flour mills. I know that my noble friend is interested in this matter, and I shall be grateful to him if he can give us an assurance that they are being revived. It is well known to your Lordships that not only have great numbers of these mills fallen into disuse because of the difficulty of competition with four mills elsewhere, but quite considerable numbers have been deliberately suppressed. There could be no more valuable agency for the distribution of food in a rural district than the small flour mill, and there cannot be a
370
more dangerous location for the hour mills of this country than our great sea ports.
I hope that some of the policies which are now being pursued will be continued not merely during this time of anxiety and crisis but in the piping times of peace which we may trust will follow. I should like to think that my noble friend the Minister of Food will continue in that office long after the war, so that, having begun so finely, he may end more finely still by giving us the daily bread intended for us by Divine Providence. I hope that he will continue his beneficent activities long enough to establish a permanent national policy of food production. It is not only in time of war that we ought to turn our attention to one of the most vital elements in the defence of our country. I hope that the result of this war—I had hoped that it would be the result of the last war—will be that: we shall have a food-production policy in this country ranking as an essential national service alongside the Navy, the Army and the Air Force.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation at this hour to intervene in this debate, but it was suggested to me by the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion that I should say a few words on behalf of that Cinderella of the agricultural industry, the poultry industry, of which I have spoken before in this House. Before I do so, however, I should like to differ, if I may, from the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, on the subject of white bread. I am afraid that I share the prejudice of 90 per cent, of the population of this country in favour of white bread. I certainly prefer it, and, if it can be supplied with the necessary vitamins, I shall like it much better than wholemeal bread. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that in making white bread there are byproducts which are themselves valuable feeding-stuffs for animals and which, of course, would not be available in the case of wholemeal bread. I ask this question for information, and in the hope that my bad taste—bad taste which, as I have said, is shared by the vast majority of my fellow-countrymen—may receive some support.
It would seem during the course of this war that not only is the poultry industry

371
the Cinderella of the agricultural industry, but that it is a Cinderella on whom her stepmother, if I may so describe the Minister of Food, has a particular "down," a Cinderella who is not to be allowed to go to the Court ball, even if a fairy godmother will arrive to take her there, a Cinderella whom he intends to inter secretly and rather painfully, probably still half alive, under the flagstones of his cellar; because the policy pursued by the Ministry has seemed to poultry-breeders and egg-producers to indicate so little understanding of their position and so little appreciation of their produce that they have been led to conclude that the Ministry really would prefer that they should no longer exist. I suggest to the Minister that if it is really his view that we should do without the poultry industry and its produce entirely, he should tell us so at once, because a great number of those engaged in this industry have hung on in the hope of making ends meet, or in the hope that something better will turn up, or because they have no alternative; and, if it is the policy of the Ministry to abolish poultry-keeping in this country for the duration of the war, it is better that those concerned, instead of going bankrupt, should be allowed to realise what assets they have and perhaps invest them in war savings.
I hope that the attitude of the Ministry is not quite so ferocious as I have suggested, but I know that it has seemed to be so to poultry-keepers all over the country. I suspect that the attitude of the Ministry is based upon the calculations of that well-known dietitian Sir John Orr. I am second to no one in my admiration for Sir John, and I should be prepared to accept without cavil his word on his own subject; but there has been, as your Lordships are probably aware, a considerable correspondence in the Press lately with regard to Sir John's attitude to the value of the hen as a converter. I am not myself competent to express an opinion on this matter, and I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, would say a word on that aspect of the subject. It seemed to me, however, and I suspect that it may have seemed to some of your Lordships, that the honours were not entirely with the Ministry's adviser; and, while some of those on the other side may have claimed too much, it would
372
seem that he equally may have had too severe a "down" on the hen as a producer of food and as a converter of raw material.
When I last spoke on this subject, I mentioned the question of public taste, and to some extent I think that I was supported to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn. It is a fact that our people like to eat eggs and, in the words of the old song, "A little of what you fancy does you good." Scientists nowadays tell us, I believe, that what our palates enjoy does us more good when it reaches our digestive organs. The egg is certainly something that our palates enjoy and, according to the recent figures of the Ministry of Labour, before the war an average of fourteen eggs a week was eaten in a labouring household, which, taking what I believe is the standard household of 3¾ persons, works out at about 200 eggs per year per person. That is a very large number and, as the vast majority of people in this country are only too bitterly aware, it is a very much larger number than they have been able to obtain in the past year.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, also mentioned a point which I wished to emphasize, that the egg is not merely valuable when eaten by itself but is invaluable in the kitchen for compounds. The Minister has stressed the need for teaching the people to use unfamiliar foods, and in this respect the egg is invaluable and essential in the kitchen; it is used in compounds of every conceivable kind and nearly all the foods which we have to learn to eat can be made more palatable and more interesting by the addition of eggs. Therefore I suggest that the egg has quite a separate value even from its nutritive value, because it enables you to use up other material.
I should like when speaking of waste to reinforce the arguments of the noble Viscount and of Lord Addison about the collection of waste. The collection of waste in country districts is probably impossible, but waste can be and should be collected in towns. I believe that the Government have offered to bear a proportion, if not the whole, of the cost of such installations as are required for the treatment of waste. I hope that the Government will bring pressure to bear on

373
municipal authorities to force them to take advantage of the offer which they have made. As for waste in the country, may I suggest that the hen here has an additional importance? Country waste can be collected and is collected by farmers and it can be fed to pigs or poultry. But it is far easier for the small man to keep poultry than to keep pigs. A hen is a very much easier creature to look after for people who have no experience and who have very little supplies. Therefore I suggest again that the hen is of great value as a consumer and converter of waste which otherwise would not be converted at all.
The truth is that at the moment without a patriotic motive or a steadily dwindling hope it is impossible to expect people to continue to keep hens. The poultry keeper to-day is not making a profit. He just is not—I can assure your Lordships from personal experience. I myself, for example—and I hope my poultry farm is run on modern methods, as it is supposed to be—am making just about enough to cover the price of food and labour, but I am not covering any overheads. And when I say I am covering labour I may add I am not covering my own labour which I have to employ to take the place of my manager, who is serving. If he were there I should be making a very heavy loss. I speak therefore from experience, and I do not think I am a particularly inefficient producer; I hope not. I believe that that is the position of most of the poultry keepers throughout the country. If you keep the prices of eggs so fixed that a profit cannot be made you are not going to persuade people to keep hens, and you are therefore not going to make use of this waste material which ought to be used, and which it is the policy of the Government to use.
It is not my object or intention to urge the Government to raise the price of eggs. I am going to criticise the movements of the prices of eggs, but I am not going to suggest that the price of eggs should be raised, because I do not wish that eggs should be put out of the reach of the poor consumer. It has been the policy of the Government since the outbreak of war—and I believe a perfectly correct policy—to subsidise food prices in such a way as to keep them down, but in the case of eggs it does seem that the
374
Government have kept the price down, not by subsidy but by forcing the poultry-keeper to bear the loss. The result has been that during the past winter you have had an egg famine, and the result will be that you will not get a large production of eggs and, above all, you will not get any eggs next winter. That is important to remember, because even if you get an increase of small keepers of poultry, that will not give you winter eggs, and I do suggest that in the distribution of feeding-stuffs some account should be had of the efficiency of the unit which is receiving the ration. Also I think perhaps some account should be had of the intensive plants which produce our winter eggs.
I believe that the Ministry is likely to reply that in fact what I am saying about the hardships of the poultry keepers cannot be true because in fact there has been no reduction in the number of poultry kept in this country. That, of course, is entirely fallacious, and for a variety of reasons. The first is that the vast majority of poultry keepers in this country never made the correct census returns which should have been made in, I think it was, June of 1939. They were quite wrong, of course. An enormous percentage have never made those returns. I have figures from various counties, and they vary from 1,500 to 2,000 farmers who have made no returns. It is only now that you have returns of the number of birds from these men; in addition to that the smaller people have made no returns at all. There has been an increase in the number of poultry kept by small people, but that is also to some extent misleading now that they have registered for rationing, for I am afraid it is true that a considerable number, in order to make sure of obtaining a sufficient amount of food for their poultry, have returned a larger number of hens than they in fact have. I am sorry to make this reflection upon my smaller colleagues in the business, but I have come across cases. I have a suspicion that it may not have been as unusual as it should have been, and it is obviously quite impossible to check.
There is another utility of the hen which seems to be lost sight of. During the last war an enormous amount of food was produced by smallholders. The smallholder depends for his manure very

375
largely on poultry. If you do not make it remunerative for him to keep poultry he will not get his necessary manure, and you will not have the produce from smallholdings that you ought to have. As I have said, my suggestion is not that you should increase the price of eggs but that you should subsidise the foodstuffs. The price of eggs has risen in no proportion to the price of food, and I would like, if I may, just to criticise that. One minor point is the price of eggs themselves—I mean not the height of the price, but the basis on which it has been computed. It has been based, I understand, on an average of the three pre-war years 1937, 1938 and 1939. In those years the industry was suffering, and the prices were forced down, at a time when we in this country were only too little aware of the importance of our home agriculture, by imports of foreign eggs from a variety of sources. At that time, therefore, the figures are no guide as to a remunerative price to the producer of eggs.
I think most producers arc probably glad of the Ministry's policy of flattening out the curve, but most of them equally, and particularly some who are in an admirable position to judge, are not satisfied with the Ministry's figures when enforcing this curve. I have a very large number of figures here with which I do not, propose to weary your Lordships. But I will read a passage from a letter I have received from one of the largest packing stations in England, and one which I believe has received the highest commendation of the Ministry. The writer does not know what grade of egg the Ministry's figures were based on, but he takes it that the figures for 1937, 1938 and 1939 arc for the standard egg. He gives a table of the rise and fall of the net prices of producers, covering the same dates as the Ministry's dates. He then says:
"You will sec from this that from October 5 to the peak point there were five increases in our case and four in theirs.
"We have a total average increase of 4s. 3.67d. while they show a total increase of 4s. 2d. All the following weeks except one for the Ministry show decreases, the total in our case being 5s. 3⅓d. and in theirs 7s.; but taking the figures over the whole period the Ministry figures show a total average drop of 2s. 4d. while ours show a drop of only is. It would make a tremendous difference whether their figures or ours were taken to warrant when the drop should have come this season. The drop of December 30 was not
376
warranted, and you will agree that this idea of allowing prices to stand up longer was to counteract us not being allowed to take a peak price."
That is, as I say, from one of the very largest packing stations, and it does seem to suggest that in their experience—I understand they collect from something like eight hundred farms—the Ministry's figures have not been just even on the basis they themselves have stated to be their policy.
I should like to ask whether the Minister of Food does, in fact, consult his Egg Advisory Committee. I believe such a Committee exists, but we in the poultry industry have the impression that the views of this body, if it has been consulted, have not carried any weight at all. I hope the Minister will be able to say something consoling to me to-day. I hope he will be able to say that he will, at any rate, consider the subsidising of poultry food. You have subsidised other commodities before they get to the market so as to keep prices down. My suggestion is that, to keep the price of eggs down, you should subsidise poultry food which is, of course, three-quarters of our expense or more. Incidentally, when talking of subsidies, might I suggest that something should be done about fixing the price of small parcels of poultry food? I know that the price of food is fixed for large quantities, but when distributing food in small quantities to small producers the retailer is allowed to add certain charges. These charges vary very much all over the country, and in the view of myself and other people amount to abnormal and unjustifiable sums I urge upon the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to fix the price of small quantities of poultry foodstuffs in the interest of the small poultry farmers. I am afraid I have spoken longer than I had intended, but the matter seemed to me to be one of urgent importance, and I hope your Lordships will excuse me.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, you will join me in thanking the noble Viscount for having at this stage of the war drawn our attention to problems which, although they are domestic, are none the less fundamental to victory. He has spoken with great knowledge and from a vast experience, and he will, I hope, permit me to say that on this occasion, as on all occasions, I have found his criticism not

377
only friendly but stimulating. I have indeed but one complaint to make against the noble Viscount, and it is a complaint which the rest of the House will share with me. My complaint is that when the terms of his Motion were put down they led to some reasonable doubt as to whether he was going to talk mainly about agriculture or mainly about food. It was decided that on the whole it seemed as though the Motion concerned food rather more than it concerned agriculture, and on that account your Lordships have been deprived of the opportunity which you ought reasonably to have had in view of the way the discussion has gone, of hearing the noble and gallant Duke (the Duke of Norfolk) who has just joined the Front Bench making his first speech to the House from that position. I wish the precision of Lord Bledisloe's language had been such that the noble Duke and not I were addressing your Lordships now.
Lord Bledisloe has drawn our attention to the dangers of submarine attack on our importing capacity. There are few hours in the day when those dangers are not present to my mind. The Prime Minister has already appointed an Import Executive Committee charged with the handling of this problem of securing that we get and maintain the maximum possible import of goods into this country, and that in so doing we get the right goods, the goods that are most essential for the pursuit of our war effort. In the past we have fed on our imports and we have lived on our exports, and that fact leaves us in greater difficulty than if we had been accustomed to living on our own land. But the country is prepared to face difficulties so long as the people know what they are and so long as they have the conviction that the problems of food supplies are being handled impartially with courage and with foresight.
We have lost ships; we shall lose more ships. Food supplies that we have brought into this country are not all immune from the danger of air attack and therefore our import facilities which have already been reduced will be reduced still further But we: have not lost command of the sea. We shall still import. Our merchant seamen have lost neither their courage nor their skill and enterprise, and they will still bring ships to these
378
shores. I believe that the dock labourers and the shipyard workers of this country will spare themselves no effort to see that these ships when they do come in are unloaded quickly in the ports and speedily repaired in the shipyards, in order that once again they may go across the high seas to bring the food that we need.
There is the first of our problems. We have grown accustomed to living on imports. We have grown luxurious in our standards. It is impossible for us or for any other nation to wage a war and live at the standards to which we have grown accustomed. We must be ready for much, greater restriction than we have yet experienced. I chanced to overhear a few-days ago a number of people who had met on a social occasion and who began to talk about food. They were deploring the difficulties of getting this and getting that which they had been accustomed to enjoy, and they were making themselves so unnecessarily unhappy in their search and in their failure. Their difficulties can be resolved so simply if they will just make up their minds that it is no use looking any longer and that they are not any longer going to continue to have ail those things to which they have grown accustomed, those luxuries that came to all classes of the community so cheaply from the vast orchards of the southern hemisphere. We shall have to go back to the days of simpler living when we depended upon our own land, and when, indeed, we grew the very healthy race that has made our modern world to-day and has peopled our Dominions. We shall be no less healthy either in body or in mind for a greater dependence upon the thiings that we can grow on our own land.
The noble Viscount asked me, in effect, if we have told the farmers what we want. The answer is "Yes." Our home grown foods and our imported foods together make up a total whole on which we have to depend. Our plans for home production and importation are carefully correlated and married. Not only the food policy of this country but the agricultural policy of the country must be governed, and is in fact governed, by our importing capacity. The agricultural policy has been worked out into a plan. The agricultural war executive committees of the country have been told just what we

379
want. And the evidence that we obtained last year has demonstrated quite clearly that when the farmers of this country are told of the nation's need they will leave nothing that is within their capacity undone to meet it.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I now dealt with a few of the principal items in our food supply and told your Lordships of our position. I did on a previous occasion in a Committee room speak without the presence of the Press and put before your Lordships a considerable number of facts and figures which I do not think it is wise that I should disclose to the House to-day. First let me come to the bread position. The first thing any Minister of Food must look to is the bread supplies of the nation. They are ample, they are cheap, and the price is substantially unchanged from what it was before the war. I have been fortified in the matter of bread supplies with much scientific advice. Like advice of all kinds, that advice would have been much easier for me to follow if it had been unanimous. It would indeed have been easier to follow if it had not been contradictory. However I am slowly learning the ways of a politician; and, if I may say so, I have backed both horses.
I have secured that there shall be an adequate supply of white bread for those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Harms-worth, says, are ill-advised in desiring it. The supply of that will be ample in the months to come, but not until the spring will it be fortified with those things which the scientists, and very eminent scientists, assure me are necessary if bread is to do all it might do for us in the war effort. We shall in that respect be following the American people who are already engaged in the fortification of bread. But there will be many people who say that this is quite the wrong thing to do and for them there will be wholemeal bread of 85 per cent, extraction supplied in just those quantities that will meet their needs. I cannot do more than that. I cannot tell people to put wholemeal bread in their shops and have it wasted. What I can do is to secure that the supply will equal the demand. If any people cannot get it, then I shall indeed be glad to hear from them. I think, therefore, I may say without undue optimism that the bread position is strong.
380
Now let me turn to our greatest weakness, and that is the animal protein group of foods—bacon, eggs, cheese, meat. These are not the things of which the greater part has been grown or made in this country in the past. In the last war we had considerable supplies of those foods from the Low Countries that are not available to us in this war. It would be wrong if I did not disclose to the House that I am greatly concerned about the shortage of some of these commodities and particularly of cheese. Our meat position is that we have gone through the war until the last few months eating a great deal more meat than was necessary, and probably a great deal more than was good for us. We were consuming meat right up to the normal amounts, although I think there was a slight difference in the distribution of it. When the meat ration was 2s. 2d. the consumption was only 1s. 9d., so really there was more available than was required to satisfy ration requirements. Then as a Government we had to face an issue which I submit to your Lordships was a comparatively simple issue. Ships were required of a certain size and of a certain speed in order to take troops to the Mediterranean. Those ships to a considerable extent were ships that had been accustomed to bring meat to this country, and we had to face the question whether in war we would pursue the military effort and have a little less meat. The Government decided that they would take the ships, and it was because they took those ships that we have had those grand victories. When I told an audience that at one time we had the choice of beef or Bardia, they thought I was joking, but I was telling the quite simple truth, and I think the choice that was made was the correct choice. So long as that Mediterranean campaign goes on, I see no possibility of our getting those ships back, and I see no possibility of our increasing the meat ration from its present position of 1s. 2d. I am very greatly fortified by the views concerning meat that the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, has given to us to-day.
But meat is not the only thing. There are potatoes and vegetables and oils, and in this connection I may say that we had so much prevision in getting oils into this country that we can go on for a long time. Then we have milk, and with these

381
things surely we can get all the energy and all the food and all the health that we need. But we have struggled too long in this country to keep our old habits going. We shall not be able to maintain our present output of food from pigs and poultry, cattle and sheep—these things that depend upon import of feeding stuffs. May I impress upon all those who have spoken in this debate and whom I may not be able to answer fully that my problem all the time is the problem of ships: and, in particular, of ships to import feeding stuffs for animals? When we are discussing whether there is enough food for the hens or enough for the pigs or enough for the bullocks, the amount that is involved is an amount very greatly reduced from pre-war practice. It is an amount which will be still further reduced as our shipping facilities grow worse and if we give more to the hens—I am indeed moved by the hen stories I have heard to-day—then we shall be taking it from the cattle. But we shall not, whilst I have any voice in this matter, take it away from the dairy herd.
We must maintain our dairy herds—I think we must maintain them at almost any cost—because surely in milk we have a food that is the most essential of all the foods in the country if we are not only to keep alive ourselves but if we are to secure that the next generation is not too badly damaged as a result of having gone through this war. There has been nothing which has given me personally greater gratification that the fact that we have introduced a national milk scheme which is a security that milk in such amount as we have will go to the people whose need is the greatest. We have asked farmers to produce those crops which will make our dairy herds and our cattle as little dependent on imported foods as possible—beans and peas, kale and other dual purpose crops. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will think that is a sufficient answer to the question he put to me as to whether we have given directions.
Now may I talk about vegetables? I think the noble Viscount must be a very happy man in finding that the views he has expressed for so long and the guidance he has given the nation on the subject of potatoes from his vast experience, are indeed being accepted to the full by the Ministry that I represent. We have
382
had surpluses of potatoes, I have been asked whether there is not a danger of a wastage because we have a surplus of potatoes. There is no danger of wastage. Surpluses, whether of potatoes or any form of food, are things that I welcome with a very full heart. But we have to teach the public a little more about potatoes. If any of your Lordships are good enough to look at the advertisements that from time to time I put in the papers on the subject of food facts, you will see that at the present time we are doing our level best to secure that the public shall know all we can tell them about the various ways in which they can use potatoes. I wish I could make restaurateurs in this country more fully realise the value of potatoes. They are always so liberal with their bread, with the extra rolls that they will give you, but I always find they are rather mean with their potatoes. I am quite sure they would be doing us a good service and their clients some good—certainly no harm—if they gave us a little less bread and a few more potatoes. I noted, and I will see that it is passed on to the proper quarter, what my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe said about lifting crops. I had previously not been sufficiently aware of the importance of the farina flour that he spoke about and I am grateful to him for directing my attention to that matter.
So much for potatoes; now for carrots. Carrots have become a part of the national diet, and that in a very few weeks. They are of such importance because it is quite clear that our supplies of fruit, either home grown or imported from other countries, will not be much more than 50 per cent, of what they have been in the past. Therefore the importance of the carrot is very clear to those who consider the problem of vitamins in the national diet. It is on that account that I have asked the Minister of Agriculture to arrange for 30,000 acres of carrots to be planted this year. We have told those whom we are asking to plant the carrots that we will secure that they do not lose by doing so—that is to say, we will either buy their crop or we will buy their surplus, so that they shall have no financial risk. The next thing about which we have given specific directions is onions. Onions—I do not know whether they are part of the national diet or not—have,

383
by their scarcity, become at any rate a national joke. I have asked for 14,000 acres of onions to be planted, at a price of £25 a ton. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, will think that if I were as generous to the egg producers as to the onion growers he would have a rather different story to tell.
Regarding milk we have told the dairy farmers just what we want. We have laid down their prices for twelve months ahead find we have made those prices, I think, generous, because we realised that unless those prices were generous we might find that there was a shortage of milk next year. Then I come to my worst problem, and that is the problem of cheese. We have always been very largely dependent on our imports for cheese. We are indeed so short of it that if I were to ration it I think we should have a cube of one inch per person per week. But many of us do not need even that amount. I am trying to work out some plan which will secure that that cheese goes to those particular people who really need it on account of their work; but you will understand that the moment yen start to get out a preferential list of people who want food it is amazing how that list grows.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me, he entreated me, to look at the problem of poultry and eggs. I am frankly confused by the amount of expert advice I receive on this subject. I am told by some that poultry are very bad converters of feeding-stuffs, and that to arrange for the issue of rations to hens or to pigs is to waste this very precious stuff that we are only able to get in such comparatively small quantities. I am told that it is better agricultural policy to secure that we have, first, supplies of milk, and secondly, that we keep up, not to a high grade finish but in quantity, our supplies of beef. We should be able to grow again pigs and hens very quickly when the war is over, but if we destroy our herds that will take many years. It is in connection with that, problem that I find it difficult, having listened to the debate to-day, to know whether I have been wise or not to follow the advice which I have taken. But this is clear. The amount of feeding-stuffs that we shall be able to import into this country during the rest of this year will not be sufficient to maintain our
384
existing stocks of pigs and poultry and cattle. Constantly I am told how important it is that we should have a reserve on the hoof. It is only important to have a reserve on the hoof if that is a reserve which will supply us with meat. A reserve of skin and bone is of no use to anyone, and it is very important that we should not attempt to maintain more cattle in this country than we can successfully feed and from which we can, in the end, obtain food.
While I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with what is in the main, I agree, agricultural policy, there are still several questions to which I must reply. I am asked whether we have arranged for a sufficient supply of fertilisers to come into this country. My reply is that we have indeed tried to arrange that there should be a sufficiency. We have made provision, but whether those supplies will, in fact, arrive or not depends upon forces which we are finding it a little difficult completely to control Lord Biedisloe asked me whether it was of importance to bring in bananas. My Lords, the ships have gone. Bananas came here in refrigerated ships, and those vessels have been converted for military purposes. Until these ships come back there is nothing which it lies in my power to do on the subject of bananas. I am extremely grateful to Lord Dawson of Penn for having given me great encouragement and support. I think he will like to know that months ago I arranged for the importation of all the powdered milk and all the skimmed milk that we could get from overseas. We are holding in this country stocks of powdered milk so that in the event of an emergency—and indeed we may probably have to face one—we shall still be able to secure that the public, and particularly children and those in hospitals, are fed with milk. I have not done anything with regard to vegetable proteins and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn my attention to it. We have decided that it is a bad thing to have a number of different kinds of fruit brought into this country, each in necessarily small quantities. The control of them, with regard to prices and supply, would be a matter of great difficulty. So we have concentrated upon oranges and we shall bring them in to the greatest possible extent.

385
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, would be cheered if he were to come and see some of the demonstrations that we are running all over this country. Ever since I came into office we have had people visiting towns and villages, sometimes going round in vans and sometimes speaking at halls, to teach people how to cook in war time. This has been no reflection on the housewife's capacity. The provisions on which she has had to rely have been such that she finds herself in a frame of mind in which she is willing and anxious to listen to the advice offered. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, said, but he must not accuse me of weakness in having two sorts of bread, because I think it is clear from the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Faringdon) that if I did not have two sorts of bread I should at any rate be in some danger. I have already taken up the question of the suppression of the smaller mills. We are naturally worse off because those mills have gone out of existence.
I regret that I have, apparently, failed entirely to satisfy the egg producers of this county and I have tried so hard to be fair to them. I had a very limited ration and I have given them prices which, on the advice I had and on all knowledge of past figures, seemed to indicate that they were going to be quite well off. The noble Lord dissents, but this is my difficulty. You tell me that my figures are wrong, and also that the statistics farmers have sent in regarding the numbers of their birds are wrong. You tell me they have sent in false returns when they asked for feeding-stuffs. But the figures about their losses—those figures alone, you tell me, are right. I find the position more than a little difficult. I have done my best to treat the poultry keepers quite well commercially. I have an Advisory Committee which consists of people who really know the position. It is true that I do not always take their advice, because I have no intention of putting the Ministry of Food into commission; but I have listened to their advice, and I have persistently failed to satisfy them on price. The noble Lord advises me, therefore, to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask that some of the country's money be given to egg producers by way of subsidy. That is a claim about which I am not convinced.
386
I should like to say a final word in reply to those of your Lordships who have raised the question of military rations. I think that your Lordships would like to know that I asked my colleagues who are in charge of the Fighting Forces to meet me last week. I told them that I was, so to speak, their wholesale agent, being responsible for providing them with their food in bulk. I told them of the state of our imports; I told them about our food position, and I asked them whether they would arrange to make less demand on the food supplies of this country. In particular, I asked them that those who were in uniform but were engaged in sedentary occupations should be treated on the same level as the civilian population. I met with a most cordial response from my colleagues, and I hope that it will not be long before something is done in that direction which will meet the criticism which has been so fairly made in your Lordships' House. I regret, my Lords, that I have detained you so long.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in view of the illuminating and to some extent reassuring statement to which we have just listened from the Minister of Food, I do not propose to press my Motion. I would venture to say to the Minister, however, that in regard to the hen and its products, and to other questions upon which the scientists are more or less equally divided, I hope that he will use his own good judgment and thereby receive a large measure of popular support. I meant to have said before, and I should like to say now, how grateful some of us are to the noble Lord for allowing us to meet him some two months ago for a private and informal talk about factors in the food position which could not be made public; and I suggest that, if it is agreeable to him, he might allow us to meet him at no distant date in this very critical year for a similar talk.
In the light of the reference, by the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, to preserved vegetable concentrates, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will take steps to prevent tinned vegetables being put on the market in large quantities in the summer months. Last summer this led to a great deal of waste of perishable vegetable produce and, of course, the tinned vegetables would be far more valuable during the winter

387
months, when the more perishable produce is not available. I should like to assure the Minister that, as far as I know, no one in this House or on the farms questions the priority given in regard to the provision of imported concentrated food for dairy cattle; we all agree that they must be put first, in the interests of the children in particular. We are grateful for the excellent advice and guidance in regard to the utilisation of potatoes which the noble Lord is circulating through the Press, and particularly through the provincial Press. The most welcome statement, in my judgment, which he has made to-day is with regard to the 30,000 acres of that very valuable crop, carrots. I venture to say that in certain areas the whole of the carrot crop in some years is entirely devastated by the ravages of the leather-jacket grub. That being so, and knowing how very valuable carrots are going to be, I hope that the noble Lord will make public the advisability of destroying every daddy-long-legs that can be seen on the panes of our windows, because they eventually produce the leather-jackets which are a perfect curse to carrots.
With regard to onions, I know that normally onion seed comes entirely from overseas, and I believe that it is now being obtained from sources from which we have not obtained it in the past, because the sources from which we formerly obtained it are in territory occupied by the enemy or in North Africa. That being so, I would urge that every care be taken to see that all the seed which we obtain is of good quality and of high germinating capacity; otherwise I am afraid there will be serious disappointment among those who purchase it. Incidentally, there is this to be said for onions, that the most valuable fertiliser for onions is known to be poultry manure. I am sure that this debate has been both interesting and informative. We can all express our full confidence in the Minister of Food for the very able way in which he is conducting a very difficult task. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ROBERT VANSITTARTS BROADCASTS.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that the broadcasts of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government now published in pamphlet form must help to unite the German people and strengthen their determination to prolong the war so as to avoid the dismemberment of their country by a dictated peace, stricter supervision may henceforth be exercised over all official broadcasts which do not reflect the considered policy of His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Motion on the Paper because I think that at the present juncture anything which tends to strengthen the enemy is a matter of very grave importance. I should like to say what I have said before in your Lordships' House, that no one detests more than I do the Nazi system of government. I have met no one who has denounced it more strongly than I have except, perhaps, some Germans whom I knew before the war, who were suffering under it and who particularly resented, as they all do, the activities of the Gestapo and the tight grip which it had on their private lives. I am calling attention, not to some speech or broadcast by an unknown individual, but to the broadcasts made and the pamphlet written by a very prominent official. My criticism is not directed against the Foreign Office—and as I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, is to reply, I want to make that quite clear—nor is it particularly directed against Sir Robert Vansittart, because no one wants to interfere with his holding what views he likes. My criticism is directed against the Government for the system which allows high officials to declare extreme views which, so far as I can understand, are not in harmony with the considered policy of His Majesty's Government. Sir Robert Vansittart is a high official. He is Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government, a post which I have criticised in your Lordships' House before now, and a post created for him. He is also a distinguished literary light, and he has had a long and excellent diplomatic career. For those very reasons what he says is of

389
importance; for those very reasons he obtains a publicity which no one who was unknown could obtain. That is why one ought to look at what Sir Robert says rather carefully and understand how it may be used against us.
I rather suspect that the particular line of argument adopted by Sir Robert in his broadcasts and in his pamphlet was more or less started or instigated by Mr. Duff Cooper, now Minister of Information. When he was deputising for the First Lord of the Admiralty in April, 1940, Mr. Duff Cooper, not yet Minister of Information, took the same line which is taken in this pamphlet, when he talked about the crimes of the whole nation—of all Germans—and declared that the indictment would be much heavier against them when the next treaty came to be written. Subsequently, since he has been placed in the position of Minister of Information, I think he has used rather more guarded language.
But to come to this document—which is very nicely printed and got up, and considering Sir Robert Vansittart's high office one almost expected to see the Royal Arms on it, but it is only the Swastika—Sir Robert seems to adopt Hitler's theory of the completeness and continuity of all Germans, racially speaking. I always thought that was nonsense, and I still think so. He refers to that, and he says you must always speak of Germans in the plural. He calls them the Brazen Horde "who have" remained savages at heart," "a breed which from the dawn of history has been predatory and bellicose," "cold-blooded barbarians, congenially incapable of peace," and "moved by snarling and bloodthirsty resentment." Well now, that is Sir Robert's opinion of all Germans. It seems to be a little bit unfortunate, and, if I may say so, foolish, to indict a whole nation, and support the indictment by selected passages. He says nothing in commendation of any German who has ever lived; he says that would be quite irrelevant.
The book is written with a sort of superior erudition, some humour, and just the right dash of religion. He quotes Tacitus who, your Lordships' remember, died in the year 120, and talks about Tacitus's description of the numberless tribes which existed in Germany at that time, though Tacitus's remarks apply just
390
as much to the Batavi who were the ancestors of the Dutch and to the Angles and the Jutes and Saxons who came over here. But that is not far enough back for him. He goes back to a man called Hermann. I am sorry I did not know who Hermann was, so I looked him up and found he was a leader of a German tribe and he was known as Arminius; but he was brought in in order that a joke could be made about Hermann Goering being a descendant of his. I wonder that he did not go further back. Why did not he go back to the Heidelberg man? Your Lordships will remember that the Heidelberg man lived 300,000 years ago, and Sir Robert would certainly have classed him as a German, because he was found at Heidelberg. And he was hardly human. He was an awful brute; he would have been a very good starting point for this indictment.
But just fancy if anybody were to use as an argument the hideous massacre of the Danes in 1002—that is comparatively recently—by Ethelred the Unready as a proof that we were brutal, savage barbarians still ! There is an element of ridicule in this thing which makes me perfectly sure that before long Dr. Goebbels will be translating it. Sir Robert Vansittart gives a sort of impression by these quotations from Tacitus, and of course Gibbon, that he is omniscient. In fact, on page 49 he tells us:
"When I was a child of four I remember saying to an inconveniently questioning visitor: 'I know everything in the world '."
But he adds that alter that he remarked: "Please don't tell my governess." Well, I do not say Sir Robert knows everything in the world, and I am going to tell his governess, who is represented by the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, here to-day. Frederick the Great of course is brought in. Your Lordships will remember that in 1756 we had a treaty of alliance with Frederick the Great. The brutal partitions of Poland are brought in. Well, over the 150 years that those partitions lasted we never made any protest against the elimination of Poland as a kingdom from Europe. Then there are smaller mistranslations like "Deutschland über Alles," which does not mean 'Germany over everywhere" and "Weltmacht," which he translates as "world dominion." It does not mean anything of the sort; it means a

391
world Power, that is to say, one of the great Powers. And of course there is not a word about Germany having helped us to defeat Napoleon.
I think this indictment of a whole nation without any exception for hundreds of years past is hardly complimentary to the Hanoverian dynasty who have been ruling over this country for the last 200 years, and I do not think it is complimentary to the numberless citizens of German origin in the United States, including our very popular visitor recently, Mr. Wendell Willkie. But this sort of foolish indictment of a whole nation, supported by the flimsiest and most inaccurate arguments, weakens our case against the Nazis, and at the same time unites the Germans in thinking that if that is what we believe and what the Government believe, the fate that is in store for them if we are victorious will be something which, as Mr. Duff Cooper said originally, will be very much more severe than the Treaty of Versailles, because if we have got this horde of incorrigible barbarians to deal with it must not only involve their defeat in the field in the military sense, but if must involve unilateral disarmament; and, as no Government can be formed that can be trusted if it is formed with Germans then there must be an alien Government set up and the establishment of an army of occupation for years to come.
If the matter were not so dangerous because of Sir Robert Vansittart's position, it would be simply ludicrous and might be dismissed. A question was asked recently in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister at the end of his reply said that this production "does not express any opinion except that of the very able public servant who was responsible for it." It is quite certain it does not express the considered opinion of the Government. When the Prime Minister says it does not express any opinion, I wish I could think that was trae. I have come across some people who really do envisage the occupation of Germany by our forces for years to come if not, I have heard them say, for a whole century, in order to keep these barbarians in order. That sort of foolish talk, which seems to sensible people absolutely ridiculous, has this dangerous element about it that the Germans hear of it, will be told of it, and seeing what is in store for them will rally again to the
392
Leader who has had this unfortunate influence over them. I myself do not believe in that sort of doctrine, and I do no think there are many people who do, but in the pamphlet there is a sort of indication of what it is to be, although he is careful not to lay down anything precise in the way of war aims. He says that this unbroken record of evil-doing must go through a spiritual cure, and that such an achievement is not inconceivable, but it will at the very best be extremely difficult. Curing 80,000,000 criminals will certainly be a very difficult war aim, and it can only be done or attempted by the maddest possible ideas—well, it is inconceivable.
This whole doctrine of the ruin of one nation leading to the prosperity of other nations has, I really think, disappeared from men's minds. Nations nowadays are so closely knit together that the ruin or destruction of one affects all other nations, and the only way to get the world straight again is to get some possible method of co-operation and reconstruction. I am not one who believes that Europe is a sort of jigsaw puzzle which has been disturbed and that all we have to do at the end of the war is to put the little pieces back in their places and then they will all be tidy again, leaving for Sir Robert Vansittart a blank where Germany is, or pounding that piece up in order that it cannot exist again as a nation. The future that lies before us is a most terribly serious one, with gigantic problems such as have never confronted statesmen before in the history of the world. I cannot help agreeing with a learned philosopher who has written a remarkable book when he says, "It almost seems as if our earth had during the last fifty years passed through a zone of cosmic disturbance "—the dislocation not of frontiers, the conflicts not of armies, but the waves of new, disturbing, upsetting, and, in some cases, horrifying ideas that possess men's minds. These days present to the world and to the statesmen a task in future in which we all want to help and not to hinder them.
These people who produce this sort of cheap stuff, who seem to be trying to imitate Goebbels and stir up more hatred so as to make the task of those who have to tackle post-war problems beyond human capacity to deal with, ought to be restrained. It can easily be done. The

393
Foreign Office cannot restrain them. The Foreign Office has no sort of responsibility in this matter. It is a matter for the Government, it is a matter for the Cabinet, it is a matter for the Prime Minister. I am asking that the Government should sternly prevent these purveyors of balderdash from approaching the microphone, and I would add that they should be no longer retained in high offices where wisdom, foresight and caution are necessary. I would not have taken up your Lordships' time with a question of this character had it not been that I found there was much indignation, especially on the part of scholars and historians, that this should go out as any semblance of what the official view was. I felt it was a danger that ought to be countered. Our war aims must remain, as the Prime Minister has said, undeclared until he considers the moment appropriate. I am not here to demand anything beyond what he says, but I am here to ask that, pending the official pronouncement of the Prime Minister, the pitch should not be queered by foolish exhibitions of opinion held by very few people as exemplified in the broadcast and the pamphlet issued by Sir Robert Vansittart.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us, as always, a very thoughtful speech, but I cannot help feeling he got off the track by mixing up opinion and policy. I see nothing to justify this pamphlet; which is a collection of the broadcasts of Sir Robert Vansittart, being described as a statement of policy. It is a collection of facts with regard to Germany, very well put together, I venture to think, and a very useful contribution. What is Sir Robert's aim? On page 15 he says this:
"At all costs the world must never again be dragged by Germany into a, war—merely because it fails to undertand how Germany has behaved in the past and how it will behave again in the future, unless the German people undergo a deep, spiritual regeneration."
That seems to me a very proper thing to do, and I am bound to say that this pamphlet, containing so many facts which are apt to be forgotten, taken in conjunction with another pamphlet published by my noble friend Lord Maugham, in which he has taken the trouble to collect Hitler's lies, seems to me to constitute what night be called a very useful Ruff's Guide and a good collection of
394
form which, I think my noble friend will agree, we have neglected in the past when we have dealt with Germany.
I cannot make out why the noble Lord and others who think with him are so ready to forget the undeniable barbarities of the Germans, and when the noble Lord expressed some indignation at the idea that our present enemies are being held out as a horde of incorrigible barbarians, I cannot help asking, what else are they What other opinion would their actions in Poland, in Belgium, in Holland, in Czecho-Slovakia, and here if they dared and could come to this countiy, create? What other opinion can one hold of these people, and what other expression could rightly describe them? So far from this pamphlet doing a disservice to peace, or indeed from its achieving the result—this is a point which the noble Lord did not elaborate—suggested by him, of helping to unite the German people and strengthening their determination to prolong the war so as to avoid the dismemberment of their country by a dictated peace, I think it will have the opposite effect. I honestly cannot see how the noble Lord can have read that result into this pamphlet.
He rightly said that, much as he detests Nazism and everything connected with the Nazi policy, there are people who hate it more, and those are the Germans who are opposed to it. But the unfortunate thing is that though those Germans undoubtedly exist they have never been in sufficient strength or in sufficient numbers to hold their own, and we all of, us know, or have known before the war, men who loathed and detested the whole Nazi policy as much as we possibly could have done. This pamphlet, I think, will be welcomed by them. I venture to take the opposite view to that of my noble friend, because the pamphlet will, I believe, lead them to hope that the true character of their enemies and ours, the Nazis who are at present disgracing the German name, will be realised and appreciated by us, and that the Nazis and their principles will not be allowed to be held up as representing the real views of our friends.
But, as to strengthening the enemy, in what way can this pamphlet strengthen the enemy? It is not written for the enemy; it is written for us, and I venture to suggest that it will bring home to a great many people very many things they

395
did not know, which are facts and which they ought to know and which ought to influence us in our determination to avoid a premature peace. Nobody wants to prolong the war. Nobody could agree more completely than I do in that, but surely a premature peace—a peace which undoubtedly the Nazis will endeavour to get directly things begin to go badly with them, as they will—is the one thing that has to be avoided so that we do not have to start all over again, as we have had to do, because we have not defeated them properly. Is not the whole problem very much simpler? Is peace really going to depend on anything which any of us say or any of us write? It is going to depend, surely, on the time arriving when the Nazis find that they are beaten. There was a phrase in that perfectly delightful second article in The Times by General Wavell which I think puts the whole thing in a nutshell. Your Lordships will forgive me for reminding you of it. It was this:
"A man does not flee because he is fighting in an unrighteous cause, he does not attack because his cause is just; he flees because he is the weaker, he conquers because he is the stronger, or because his leader has made him feel the stronger."
The Nazis are beginning for the first time, to have a taste of our being the stronger. They are finding themselves up against people from whom they have fled for the one reason why anybody flees, because we are the stronger.
This pamphlet is not going to have any effect at all, so far as the Germans are concerned, except delight those Germans who hate Nazidom as much as we do. To think otherwise I believe to be very far from the mark. If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, I do not think that he made that point good or justified that section of his Motion. I think that it is going to be an extremely useful thing for our own people in this country. The noble Lord did not controvert one single item, so far as I recollect, that appears in this very brightly written pamphlet. It starts off with an extraordinarily good analogy. The pamphlet starts by a story about the butcher-bird—the butcher-bird sitting in the rigging of a boat crossing the Black Sea, picking off one by one the other birds that were sitting beside him. Is that not exactly what the Germans have done, and is that not exactly what
396
they will continue to do so long as they have the power to do it?
One final word. I remember this kind of controversy well before the last war, and I am rather surprised at my noble friend adopting the attitude he does, because I think we must have both been in the diplomatic service at the same time at the beginning of this century. In the early years of this century, I remember well, all over the world, German diplomatists made no secret of the fact that just as the nineteenth century had been the British century, the twentieth century was to be German. Great Britain had extended and created a marvellous Empire such as had never been seen before, yet in the process of doing so the British, said the Germans, had got fat and idle and lazy and careless, they had no discipline and so forth and were becoming degenerate. Just as the nineteenth century was the British century, so, they said, was the twentieth century to be the German century. I heard that story myself in Egypt from a German diplomatist about 1902. At the same time a colleague heard that story almost in the same words from a German diplomatist in Tokyo. It was common form and that was the idea with which the war was started by the Germans in 1914. It was the toast that everybody toasted all through Germany.
When anybody came back to this country—and I happened to be a member of the other place at the time—from Germany in October, 1913, and mentioned this fact, he was laughed and jeered at as somebody who was afraid of his own shadow and who did not realise what splendid people the Germans really are. I venture to suggest that this pamphlet, which I hope will be very, very widely read, is a corrective to that kind of dangerous view. The Germans do feel, and have felt for a very long time, that they are a Herrenvolk, and that it is their right to dominate the world. If the world is to be fit to live in then that idea must be defeated. I venture to think that this pamphlet is likely to help in that very desirable thing. Though it is unusual for a civil servant to launch out into this kind of controversy, I am very glad to think that we have got one able enough and courageous enough to do it and that the Government have had the good sense to approve of it.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, whatever differences of opinion there may be about this question which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has raised, I think it will be agreed that it does bring up a problem of great constitutional importance and I want to emphasize that a little more. The noble Lord and my noble friend Viscount Stonehaven—I am sorry to find myself not in agreement with him to-day because I have often found myself in agreement with him on matters of foreign affairs—say it is unusual for a civil servant to publish a pamphlet of this kind. I should have thought it was almost unknown. I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, whether there is any precedent for a pamphlet of this kind being published by a civil servant. Again and again we have been told in your Lordships' House and in another place that we must not criticise civil servants. We have been told that to do that in Parliament is unfair because if a civil servant is attacked he cannot defend himself. We all know the doctrine. Thus it is for the Government—in this case it is the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, who has this task placed upon him—to do what can be done in the difficult position which has arisen.
Either the noble Lord must defend Sir Robert Vansittart, and as what he has said is in conflict in certain respects with Government policy he can hardly be defended, or Sir Robert Vansittart can be disavowed—the Government practically never do that in the case of a high civil servant—or the noble Lord can fall back as the Prime Minister did, on what, if I may say so, is the extremely feeble position that Sir Robert Vansittart was speaking for himself, that is to say, that he was speaking in his private capacity. I must say I think that is very thin. Altogether this is an extraordinary state of things and quite untenable. Will the people of Germany think that when the Chief Diplomatic Adviser made these statements he was speaking for himself? Will the people of France think he was speaking for himself? Will the people of England think he was speaking for himself? With all respect to Sir Robert Vansittart I do not think people arc particularly interested in what he thinks in his private capacity. No, things cannot both be and not be at the same time. I submit that the Chief Diplomatic Adviser
398
to the British Government cannot go to the microphone and speak as a private individual.
At any rate if that is the position which the Government take up—and I admit it is all they can do in the circumstances—I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, a question, so that the position may be made clear. Did Sir Robert Vansittart when he began these broadcast talks state definitely that he was speaking for himself? That is very important. We know that in your Lordships' House or in another place if a member of a Party is uttering views which are not those held by his Party as a whole he always makes it quite clear that he is speaking for himself. Did Sir Robert Vansittart do that? This pamphlet with which the Motion deals reproduces statements which are not the only public utterances at the micro phone of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser. Still more recently—after the broadcast talks now reproduced in this pamphlet—he made a broadcast to the French people which contained various statements which were open to much argument, not to say criticism, and one of which was historically incorrect. I do not think I am putting it too strongly when I say that this broadcast to the French Nation contained words and phrases of envenomed abuse which ought not to have received public utterance from a man in the position of Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government.
Language was used which showed, in my view, a complete lack of dignity, not to say lack of restraint. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has quoted certain phrases from the pamphlet now published incorporating the broadcasts to the German people. Let me quote to your Lordships some sentences from the broadcast to the French nation. In his broadcast to the French nation, near the beginning. Sir Robert Vansittart said: "The German lies as he always does." As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby points out that is a general statement. It appears to be a general statement applying to all Germans, not to Hitler or Goebbels or Goering, not to the Nazi leaders, but to all Germans. Another phrase used is "professional robbers and murderers." Then there is the phrase which the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, quoted, and such words as "criminals" and then, near the end,

399
Herr Abetz, the German representative in Paris, is called "an arch liar." Whatever justification there may or may not be for language of this kind, can your Lordships imagine the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax—who apparently gave permission for these German broadcasts—using language like that? He gets his effect much more surely with a very different kind of language. I think we may assume that no one in Great Britain holds a brief for Hitler or for the Nazi régime, but that does not mean that we need use such coarse language as that of the Chief Diplomatic Adviser of the British Government—I call that coarse language, to use no stronger adjective.
Moreover, as was the case with the German broadcasts, there are parts of the broadcast to the French nation which are at variance with the policy of the Government. If, as Sir Robert Vansittart implies, the Germans are all liars and if the statements which he made about them in his German broadcast, as quoted by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, are true of them all, both Nazis and anti-Nazis, what has been the object of the Government in trying to divide the German people and in appealing to the anti-Nazi element? If the whole German nation is as Sir Robert Vansittart describes it, what is the good of ever trying to make peace with any German Government at any time? If Germans are all liars, and if through centuries they always have been as Sir Robert Vansittart said, with whom are the Government going to make peace? Sir Robert Vansittart says:
"No peace, no understanding, no arrangement with Germany is possible until she has been decisively beaten."
That is what was said in the last war. That was the reason for the policy of the knock-out blow which was finally achieved at the sacrifice of so much blood and treasure. Germany was decisively beaten. She was completely beaten. And what happened? Did the knock-out blow settle the German problem, and were the Germans taught such a lesson that the idea of another war was driven out of their minds? Did the knock-out blow—to take a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven—bring about that spiritual regeneration of which he spoke? Not at all. A little over twenty years have passed and we are engaged in a bigger war than ever.
400
So much for history. I mean true history, not the history of Sir Robert Vansittart. In his broadcast to the French nation Sir Robert Vansittart described the French as the most intelligent nation in the world. For my part I do not agree with that. I think the British people are the most intelligent people in the world; but let that pass. If the Chief Diplomatic Adviser is right, and the French are the most intelligent nation in the world, they need something better to convince them than the kind of things said by Sir Robert Vansittart. After all, those 80,000,000 Germans are there in the centre of Europe. God made them and there they will remain. Somehow or other we shall have to live with them just as we have to live with other nations. It is no good trying to drive some of us, like my noble friend and myself, into a corner and to suggest that we, in any way, approve of the cruelties and barbarities of the Nazi régime. Nothing could be more untrue; the whole thing is horrible beyond words, and no language which can describe it can overstate it. But it is much better when this is done by people in high and responsible positions if they measure their words and do not indulge in these—if I may so describe them—coarse crudities. We are not going to exterminate people by using violent, abusive and incontinent language. As was said in a recent leading article in the Manchester Guardian, the practical difficulties of treating Germany as though she were composed of 80,000,000 malefactors are enough to make it impossible.
One final point. If broadcasts of this kind are to be given, could not they be given by somebody else and not by the Chief Diplomatic Adviser? There are plenty of prominent people—people even more notable than Sir Robert Vansittart—who are available to do this kind of thing, and they are people who are not civil servants. If we are to have this kind of thing again should it not be done by somebody else, and not by someone in the very heart and centre of the Foreign Office? It really is a profound mistake, I hope that in the reply the noble Lord will not seek to belittle this matter, which is a very serious matter, and that he will indicate that broadcasts of this kind by civil servants are to cease.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Cecil will reply to this debate and I should like to take this, the first opportunity I have had, of congratulating him on sitting in this House. Arrivals of this description are, in usual circumstances, accompanied by a sense of loss, but I am glad to think that there is no sense of that sort now, nor I hope will there be any for years to come, so we can welcome the noble Lord with complete satisfaction. This debate, in my judgment, was certain to arise. There has been a question already in the House of Commons, and it was very probable and natural that the question should be raised in your Lordships' House. The speeches which we have heard from noble Lords opposite are speeches which, if I may say so, should really have been made in the future—I hope in a comparatively short time in the future. But the speech which really touches the matter that is in our minds at the present moment has been delivered by my noble friend who sits beside me (Lord Stonehaven). That is really the spirit which actuates the people of this country and the people of this Empire.
Sir Robert Vansittart is an old personal friend of mine, and it is not likely that I should make any attack on him, either from the personal or from the public point of view. fully concur in what is the spirit of the address which he has delivered though I certainly disagree on many of the points to which he has alluded. We all desire to condemn the Nazi doctrine, all it stands for, and all it has been allowed to develop. But I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says, that the historical appreciation to which Sir Robert Vansittart has given utterance is correct.
I have said that this is a matter which we will be dealing with, I hope, in a few-months, but certainly not at the present moment. It seems to me that there are really two points which we should consider and to which the noble Lord will undoubtedly address himself. One is whether it is proper and right that a civil servant should come out into the open and express opinions which, one must admit, have an atmosphere of controversy about them. There is a long-established custom—I think it is a custom not a rule—that a civil servant remains in the background, that he is immune
402
from attack, that his name cannot be mentioned in either House of Parliament, and that anyone is infringing the proper rules of procedure who ventures to attack a civil servant. Attacks are concentrated on the chiefs, who answer for the policies of their Departments even though, perhaps, the civil servant may have been the moving spirit in the promotion of those policies. It does seem to me that there really is a grave infringement of what we look upon as a very proper and time-honoured tradition, that a civil servant should remain in the background as long as he is a civil servant and not come out into the open either by way of broadcasting or of publishing his views on political matters which can come, in certain circumstances, in the realm of controversy.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will tell us that our opinions are so properly fixed at this moment that there really is no controversy over what Sir Robert Vansittart has said, but I still think, on the question of principle, that the element of controversy which does exist seems to preclude a civil servant from giving utterance to opinions such as Sir Robert Vansittart has expressed. As Sir Robert Vansittart has come out into the open and has uttered these broadcasts, I would venture to ask a question as to whether he is actually the right man to do so. We are privileged to listen from time to time to the finest broadcasts which any of us have ever heard, from the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister expresses in remarkable phraseology exactly what is in the mind of this nation and of this Empire, and in the most measured and, I would say, the most temperate sentences deals with the great problems with which we are confronted and with the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Churchill has been consistent from the beginning. If we read his speeches, as we are privileged to be able to do, we see that he has followed a consistent line from the very beginning. He made up his mind that this war was inevitable, that sooner or later this terrible war would come about. We can congratulate ourselves that at this time we have at the head of affairs the man who can best lead us all by virtue of his training, of his convictions, and of his courage, which has always been his foremost characteristic. I had hoped to achieve the same end as the victory which I trust we shall

403
achieve in a comparatively short space of time, but by other methods; I believed that by the reduction and limitation of armaments we could have controlled and restricted the warlike activities of Germany. That, however, is of the past, and I do not propose to dwell upon it.
What I do say is this. As Sir Robert Vansittart has come out into the open and has thought fit to give us his views on the situation, I would say that in my opinion he is not the person who should have taken this rôle upon himself; nor do I think that the Government were well advised in suggesting that he should do so, if they did suggest it, or in allowing him to do so, if he made the request himself. Sir Robert Vansittart has been an official of the Foreign Office for the last ten years. He has been a civil servant, and naturally he has not been the dominating or controlling influence. I was associated with the Foreign Office until 1935, when the Germans were comparatively weak. We were well aware of their preparations, which began on a war basis in 1933 and which went on continuously until 1939, when war was declared; but it does seem to me very surprising that, although the Germans were weak in 1935, notwithstanding the policy of the Government and of the Foreign Office, of which Sir Robert Vansittart was a leading member (it is true as a civil servant), in 1939 the Germans should be in a position to challenge the world and to give effect to those doctrines of which Sir Robert Vansittart tells us he knew a long time ago, but which I presume he was unable by his policy to prevent the Germans carrying into effect. My first point is that Sir Robert Vansittart, as a civil servant, should not have come out into the open and expressed his opinions, and my second point is that, as he has done so, there are innumerable questions which could be asked of him, but which I think it would be unfortunate and unwise to put at this present moment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL)(Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, before I come to the subject of this debate. I should like to say a word of very warm thanks, to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, for the kindly welcome which he gave to me in arriving at this
404
House. I need not say how very greatly I appreciated it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has raised in his Motion the question of the broadcasts which Sir Robert Vansittart has been delivering in the Overseas Programme of the B.B.C., broadcasts which were later put together in a pamphlet under the title of Black Record. As your Lordships will be aware, this question has already been raised in another place, and you will have seen the answer which was given there by the Prime Minister. I must confess that, after listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, I am still a little uncertain what are the main grounds of their objection to these broadcasts. There are, as I see it, two possible main grounds; one is as to their content and tone, and the other is to the fact that they were given by Sir Robert Vansittart, who occupied at the time an official position.
I had the impression—it may have been an erroneous one—that both noble Lords were principally concerned with the substance of the broadcasts. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised this subject was that he felt himself in violent disagreement with, and, from what he said this afternoon, had a strong aversion from, the sentiments expressed by Sir Robert. I formed the faint impression, which perhaps he will forgive me for expressing, that if Sir Robert Vansittart had rather unexpectedly expressed quite different views and had said, for instance, that it was about time this war came to an end, that it was not worth while going on with it, and that the misery it caused was too great, then, although Sir Robert would still not have been in complete harmony with the policy of His Majesty's Government, the noble Lord would not have put down his Motion but, on the contrary, would have considered the broadcasts rather constructive and broadminded contributions to modern thought. I had the same impression from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. What they were really concerned about was that they did not much like what Sir Robert Vansittart said, they did not like the way in which he said it, and they thought, therefore, that he should not have been allowed to speak.
Now I to-day, as representing His Majesty's Government, am not concerned

405
with the views which Sir Robert has expressed as a private individual in his broadcasts I hope to deal with that point in a moment. I am concerned, however, with whether he should have been allowed to express those views. It is, of course, almost certain that there must have been numbers of people—perhaps large numbers of people—who did not and do not agree with what Sir Robert said. He has, as we all know, a very strong personality, and he expresses himself in a very trenchant manner. I submit, however, that that would not justify us in debarring him, as an individual representative Englishman, from giving his considered views; for that would be the wrong way of dealing with his views, even if we did not agree wish them. Our remedy would be to reply to them, and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has done to-day, and has done very persuasively and skilfully. I am sure that it would be wrong to do what the noble Lord suggested should be done, as I understand it, with all views of this kind. He suggested that such views were in his opinion dangerous, and that therefore those who held them should not be allowed to speak at all. Now what under those conditions becomes of our much-vaunted liberty of speech? It ceases to exist altogether. Sir Robert Vansittart is not a unique case on the B.B.C.: there are many other broadcasters, whom we could all name, who have also aroused a certain amount of irritation among their hearers. Would it be suggested that they should all be gagged for that reason?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not think the noble Lord has got my contention quite correctly. I do not want anybody to be gagged; I am all for their expressing their opinions as much as they wish, but I do not like them to be representing the Government when they express opinions which are not in harmony with the Government's policy.
LORD CECIL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I misrepresented him, but I understood him to say that people who spoke balderdash of this kind, as he called it, should be restrained because it did not make for an improvement of relations between countries or for bringing the end of the war nearer. Lord Ponsonby holds—and this I quite appreciate—that the only effect of these broadcasts will be to unite
406
the German people and strengthen their determination to prolong the war. Sir Robert, on the other hand, takes the view that the German people are already united behind Hitler as they have been behind similar leaders in the past. It seems to me that those are both defensible views, and I certainly think it is arguable, and in my view right, that it should be possible for the view which Sir Robert has taken to be put before the English-speaking people. Indeed, I really think the issue is—and here probably the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, are at one with me—not whether the broadcasts should have been made at all but whether they should have been made by Sir Robert, holding the position he did.
This, I agree, is a much more difficult problem. It is not a new problem. It is a problem that is constantly arising, as the noble Lords will know, in our ordinary national life and in the national life of all countries. How far can a public man speak in any private capacity? How far can he divest himself of his official status and speak as man to man? As I understood the speeches of Lord Ponsonby and Lord Arnold, they did not think he could do such a thing; they thought it was quite impossible. I should not be prepared, and the Government would not be prepared, to agree that you can draw any so definite a line as that. I think you have to judge in particular cases. Clearly, Sir Robert regarded himself as representing only his own views. He made that abundantly clear. If noble Lords read the preface of this pamphlet, Black Record, which I have no doubt most of them have already read, they will see that Sir Robert describes himself as "A diplomat with his coat off," and that of course means his official coat off. And this view was accepted, not only by him but by the B.B.C., by Lord Halifax at the time when he was Foreign Secretary, and by the Prime Minister himself.
LORD ARNOLD: Was there any such qualification in the broadcast which Sir Robert Vansittart made to the French nation? Was it then announced that he was speaking in his private capacity?
LORD CECIL: It was assumed that he was speaking in his private capacity. And I would challenge the noble Lord to suggest a single thing that has been said

407
by Sir Robert Vansittart which gives the impression that he was speaking for anyone but himself. There was nothing in any of these broadcasts which could give that impression, and I frankly do not believe that either Lord Ponsonby or Lord Arnold in his heart of hearts believes that he was speaking for the Government; they know quite well that he was speaking his own views, which are perfectly well known.
LORD ARNOLD: I distinctly said he was not speaking for the Government. The point was whether the people to whom he was speaking understood that.
LORD CECIL: I am coming to that point. It is connected to a certain extent with the manner of the broadcasts and the general tone of them. I do not believe in any case—and I think probably we are all agreed about this—that any criticism can properly be levelled against Sir Robert himself. He has behaved with complete propriety throughout. Nor do I think that criticism in this matter can be fairly levelled against the Government. I do not believe anyone in this House seriously suggests that those broadcasts to which reference has been made constitute a pronouncement of Government policy. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would not suggest such a thing himself. We all know the pronouncements of Government policy. They are made by the responsible Minister and in the proper place. And indeed, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven has already pointed out, there are in these particular broadcasts no questions of policy mentioned at all. They are entirely factual in nature. Nor are these broadcasts in the least official in character. Lord Ponsonby said in his speech that he was a little surprised not to find on the outside of the pamphlet the Royal Arms. The reason of course is that the broadcasts were not official—which should have proved to him that our contention is correct.
Nor is the manner or the tone of these broadcasts in the least like those of an official document or a pronouncement by His Majesty's Government. They are very individual, they are entirely in Sir Robert's own style; and I should have thought that by suggesting anything else the noble Lords are really misrepresenting
408
the position. They know in their heart of hearts he was only speaking for himself, and by making this sort of point in the House to-day they are only liable to mislead people who would otherwise never have conceived that he was speaking for anyone but himself. He did not speak as Diplomatic Adviser. He spoke, as has already been made clear by the Prime Minister, merely as Sir Robert Vansittart. He spoke as a man who has spent his life in international politics, who has had a considerable and intimate experience of affairs and who wished to give the benefit of his conclusions to his fellow-men. It is true that the fact that it was he gave the broadcasts a certain publicity, but it was not because he was Diplomatic Adviser to the Government, but because he was well-known as as experienced diplomat himself, and if any contrary suggestion were to be made now I think that would do a great deal of harm.
I agree with noble Lords that this is a difficult matter. It is always hard to draw a quite definite line between what is permissible and what is not permissible in these matters; it would be foolish to say that it was not difficult. But at the same time in the view of the Government on this particular occasion that line has not been transgressed, and in our view there is therefore no need for the additional machinery for which the Motion asks.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Before the noble Lord sits down may I ask about the point I raised concerning the Civil Service? Is it a custom or habit or rule that members of the Civil Service are not supposed to come out in the open? The noble Lord has not addressed himself to that.
LORD CECIL: Certainly. I addressed myself to that when I said I did not think an absolutely definite line could be drawn, but it has certainly of course been a general custom that the Civil Service does not express a strong view, and that general custom will no doubt remain. But the noble Lord would not say that because a thing has never been done before it never can be done; and in this particular case Sir Robert Vansittart discussed his broadcasts with Lord Halifax, he consulted him, and Lord Halifax approved that they should be given—sub-

409
ject of course to the proviso that they represented entirely Sir Robert's own opinions.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Is not the noble Lord laying down an entirely new doctrine? We have had no notice that such a change has come about. It is a brand new doctrine so far as I know that civil servants should come out and make a pronouncement; and if you read the pamphlet you will see there is no suggestion that Sir Robert Vansittart is Chief Diplomatic Adviser of the Government. If my noble friend writes a book he will describe himself as Secretary of State for the Dominions.
LORD CECIL: I would remind my noble friend, when he says this is a completey new principle, that it is not entirety new. I would remind him of the book written by Sir Nevile Henderson dealing with recent history in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson was still a diplomat.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: He was not a civil servant.
LORD CECIL: He was still in Government service.
LORD NEWTON: But not Chief Diplomatic Adviser.
LORD CECIL: I think the case is exceedingly similar. There was a man who was representing His Majesty's Government at the time when the things of which he wrote occurred, and he remained a diplomat in the service of His Majesty's Government up to the moment the book was published. I think my noble friend will find there is an analogy.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I suggest that this debate can be summed up in a single sentence. Sir Robert Vansittart, with whose abilities I am well acquainted—I have worked with him myself—has been speaking really not as a representative of the Government, but as a kind of temporary expert in vituperation who has been employed on a particular occasion. I do not think there is anything more useful to be said.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cecil, for the full way he has dealt with my question. I do not think it is quite so simple as he makes out. He was in a slightly difficult position in defending this practice of this newly-created post of Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government being converted into that of Chief Broadcaster, because that is what it is becoming. Therefore, not in my eyes, because I know the facts, but in the eyes of those who listen to Sir Robert Vansittart and those who read this pamphlet, his views are looked upon as Government policy because, after all, the whole of his career has been spent in Government service and all his knowledge is acquired from his official position. The noble Lord said if the broadcast had been written otherwise I should have taken a different line. I should like to broadcast very much. I have been an habitual broadcaster since the earliest days, but the Minister of Information has forbidden me to broadcast. There is a ban laid upon me because I am what he terms an enemy of my country. I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
House adjourned.