HL Deb 23 May 1944 vol 131 cc883-94

THE EARL OF DARNLEY had given Notice that he would call attention to the fact that no mention was made by the Minister of Economic Warfare, in the debate in the House of Lords on May 9, of the question of relief to starving mothers and children in occupied Europe, and suggest that recent development of thought in America exemplified by the unanimous Resolutions of both Houses, and the recommendation of the International Labour Office at Philadelphia, together with opinion in this country, show increasing world support for a limited scheme of relief such as the Kershner plan, and enhance the chances of success; ask His Majesty's Government whether they can reconsider the granting of the necessary facilities; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Paper in order that I might briefly—very briefly, as the hour is late—but at the same time most respectfully, call attention to the fact that in the debate on May 9 last the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made no allusion to any further feeding of starving children in the occupied areas of Europe. In fact, the feeding of those children was not mentioned in the debate at all, except in a few words in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in introducing the subject, when he said: The famished people of Europe must now look not to a Kershner scheme; they must look to the onward sweep of our advancing Armies coming as liberators and bringing bread in their train. With due deference to Lord Nathan. I do not think that one of those famished mites would get much consolation out of that statement if he could read it. I used to live on the moors in Devonshire, and there there was a superstition about snakebite. If anybody was bitten by an adder people did not bother about the victim at all; they spent all day hunting for the snake, because they believed that if the snake was killed the victim would recover. I think there is perhaps a certain analogy between that superstition and the present case.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will perhaps think that I have not properly read or digested his speech in the debate on March 15 last, but I assure him that I have. I have studied every word of his long and complete reply, and also of the fervent plea of the most reverent Primate who initiated the debate to those noble Lords—amongst whom was the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood—who followed him. I think that perhaps I have also understood all the difficulties which such a process involves. I noted with satisfaction the apparently satisfactory mortality figures given by the noble Earl. But, whoever is to blame for the state of affairs which prevails, and whatever the difficulties are which are concerned with present military operations, and whatever the even greater difficulty concerned with even greater military operations to come, these children still go on starving and crying and aching every day.

If the ghastly scenes which I have seen photographically portrayed in Greece in the past are in fact taking place in North-West Europe to-day, surely the relieving of them has become a first priority charge on the general humanity of the whole of mankind, entirely independent of every other human action and ambition; and so I have brought this Motion to your Lordships' notice, not because I do not credit the words used by the noble Earl on March 15, but because world opinion seems to be becoming more convinced daily that some kind of modified scheme of feeding has become more practicable. It is therefore all the more incumbent on those who have full powers, and perhaps more incumbent still on those who have full stomachs, to take some action. America has perhaps led the way in this new trend of thought. That is evidenced, I think, by the unanimous Resolutions of both Houses of Congress, and by the still more recent recommendation of the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia. It seems to me improbable that bodies such as these could be so grossly misinformed as to state something which was entirely impossible, and I believe that opinion in this country and in many other countries is taking more and more the attitude that this horror could be and should be abated.

I have quoted public opinion as a help, not as a lever. In particular the scheme referred to by Lord Nathan, the Kershner scheme, has taken prominence. Mr. Kershner claims that help can be given entirely independently of any pending or present military action. The noble Earl did not mention this scheme by name, though no doubt he spoke generally of it. It provides for limited help in the way of food and medical supplies for 10,000,000 children and mothers in Holland, Belgium, Norway and France, and though I will not bother your Lordships at this late hour with strings of figures, Dr. Kershner believes that what is proposed to be sent, plus what the children already have, would keep them in a fair degree of health. In a recent broadcast he dealt with the popular objections to this scheme which, with your Lordships' permission, I propose briefly to read. I think if his words are true then his project would appear to have at least the possibility of a safe achievement.

The first objection is that the Germans would take the food—that is the most generally believed of all. He says in answer: From four years' experience directing relief work in Europe, I am glad to report that the Nazis have never taken a mouthful of our food. Our own State Department is authority for the fact that the Germans do not take any of the 19,000 tons of food going to Greece each month, that the operation is of no benefit to Axis economy and that it does save the Greeks. I received the same assurance from the Ministry of Economic Warfare in London last winter. Since the Germans do not take the food going to Greece, and since they did not take our food in France, it is reasonable to assume that they would not take food which we might now send to Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. But assume the worst, suppose they did take it, what would be the result? As only small amounts would be sent at one time, they could not seize more than enough for one meal for the civilian population of Germany. This, of course, would immediately bring the operation to a close. The small gain accruing to Germany would be far outweighed by the psychological advantage on our side. Over the short wave radio we would tell our friends in Europe that we were anxious to feed their children, but that the Germans had taken the food, and the operation must therefore be stopped. We would have given them moral encouragement, we would continue to enjoy their affection and friendship, and we would have given the lie to the Nazi propaganda that these people are starving because of our blockade. Thus, the very worst thing that could happen would be to our advantage. But experience indicates that the Germans would not take the food and that the children would be saved.

The second objection is that the Germans might not take the food which we send, but would take an equivalent amount of local food out of the country. His answer is: If the operation were properly controlled, they could not do it. Let me explain. Every child helped should be required to exhaust its own ration card before being given a supplement of imported food. If the child eats all of the local foods to which it is entitled—its full share—just as if no foreign relief were available, it is obvious that there is no equivalent left over as a result of the operation by which the Nazis could profit. True enough, the Germans take food from all these countries, but the point is that they did not take any more as the result of our operations.

Objection No. 3 is that the Germans would reduce the ration cards of the children whom we helped, so that although the child might exhaust his ration card, the card itself would call for less food, which would leave a residue by which the Nazis could profit. Dr. Kershner's answer is: From experience, I can tell you that the Germans did not do this. The children whom we helped continued to have exactly the same ration card as the children whom we were not helping. This objection, therefore, falls down in the light of experience.

Objection No. 4 is that "we cannot burden the American taxpayer with additional expense." His answer is: We are not asking for any money from our Government or by private subscriptions. Norway, Holland, Belgium and France have funds of their own in this country more than sufficient to pay for all the food that it is proposed to send. The operation could be financed by unblocking a portion of these funds. The heads of these Governments have all assured me of their eagerness to use some of their resources in this manner.

Objection No. 5 is that ships cannot be spared to send the food. His answer is: We would not use a single ship available for the war effort. Neutral ships, which cannot be hired for war purposes, would be used. Objection No. 6 is that "in view of our growing shortage we have not the food to spare." His answer is: A few weeks ago I saw a dispatch from the Department of Agriculture in Washington, stating that the American people are still wasting enough food to feed 20,000,000 people the year round. That is more than three times as much as we are asking permission to send to Europe. Objection No. 7 is that "no American could work in any occupied country, and we would not be sure of careful supervision." His answer is: It is true that no American organization could work in these Nazi-occupied countries, but the International Red Cross, with a neutral personnel, which does it so well in Greece, is ready to undertake the responsibility of distribution. We may be sure, therefore, that the operation would be properly controlled. I realize that some of these claims of Dr. Kershner were generally contested by the noble Earl in his speech on March 15, especially perhaps the one that the Germans would reduce the basic ration so that the children's last state would be worse than their first. Dr. Kershner has given an answer to this, and I put this forward, not as a contradiction to the noble Earl, but as a possible assistance. Of course, the noble Earl realizes the sufferings of these people and he knows more of their difficulties than anyone.

I do not bring this Motion forward in any form of hostility, but because I feel that the terrible urgency of this matter requires that it should permanently remain a subject for constant review and discussion. So, most earnestly and respectfully, I would ask him these two questions. First, does this Kershner scheme or any other recent scheme give him any reason to modify his previous statements, or has any other event since March 15 enabled him to reconsider what he said on that date? Secondly, if these starving children are veritably a first charge on the humanity of mankind, independently of every other human ambition and action, does not the relief of them take precedence over everything else and more rightly challenge every possible difficulty, except perhaps the delaying of their final liberation? It is only on this last point that I would presume to differ from the noble Earl's speech of March 15, because the amounts involved are so very small and the apparatus proposed is so very independent. I would like to assert, and I think I am justified in doing so, that such an act of mercy would redound enormously to the credit of the country which is sponsoring and supporting this operation, and also of any country which would permit it to mature, and not only now but in the future.

The Continent of Europe is now obscured by the fog of war, but one day it is going to emerge into the daylight of irritated and difficult neighbourliness. Therefore anything that could be done would be of supreme help in these difficult conditions. If His Majesty's Government could see their way to releasing sufficient control to allow some such scheme of modified relief to operate, a scheme which, mark you, involves only surplus American food, neutral ships and distributing agencies, I believe it could be an act of such Christian goodness, and therefore of such benevolent potency, that it could not fail to produce great benefit, not only to the receiver but also to the giver. In conclusion I would like to quote a very few words from Dr. Kershner's broadcast: If these starving children were sitting on your doorstep to-night and you could see their piteous eyes, set in bloodless faces, begging even for the garbage from your kitchens, you would feed them. You could not eat yourself until you had done so. Because they are across the sea does not lessen their suffering or our obligation. Those are the feelings with which I beg to move this Motion.

THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the dearness and courtesy with which he has raised his Motion. I do not wish to delay your Lordships unduly, but I must answer him fully on the point with which he has dealt although the subject was covered in the very full debate which took place here on March 15. The noble Earl stated that, in his opinion, neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor I dealt with the Kershner plan in that debate. But the most reverend Primate dealt with the problem, in fact he concentrated his plea on the adolescent children and nursing mothers of Europe and, looking through my own speech, I find that on four separate occasions I referred to that problem. Therefore I do not think my noble friend is justified in suggesting it was absent from my argument. Dr. Kershner is not the only gentleman who has put forward a scheme for the relief of children and expectant mothers in Europe. There is the scheme put forward by Dr. Eigwood and there are a number of other schemes. Since, however, the noble Earl has referred to Dr. Kershner's scheme and especially to his broadcast I feel I must make some remarks to your Lordships on the subject.

Let me say two things first. I do assure my noble friend that the term "starving children," as applied to countries in Europe other than Greece in 1941 and to Poland and occupied Russia, is I believe an entirely misleading phrase. Except possibly for isolated cases, my information is that nothing of the sort has occurred in Western Europe. There is hunger, there is privation, there is malnutrition, there is distress, but nothing that could be called starvation. When we are considering this very distressing subject—and I fully share and admire Any noble friend's humanitarian feeling—let us not exaggerate. Let us be clear in our minds exactly what the problem is. I cart most solemnly assure my noble friend that the word "starving" is not justified, and it is very important that he should bear that in mind and that other people should bear it in mind as well. In my speech on March 15 I gave reasons why we have come to that conclusion. The other thing I should like to say about the scheme he has advocated this afternoon is that I do not think any form of relief could justly omit Poland from its ambit because Poland is one of the most distressed countries in Europe, and the technical difficulties of getting food to Poland are no greater than the problem of getting food to any other occupied territory.

Now may I say one word about Dr. Kershner's broadcast? The noble Earl has not had—he may be thankful—to study this terrible problem as closely as I have, and therefore very naturally he has been misled by a number of statements in Dr. Kershner's broadcast which, I regret to say, were misleading, though no doubt quite unintentionally. Let me take the first point—the question whether the Germans would steal the food that was to be sent to these children. Dr. Kershner said that "from four years' experience directing relief work in Europe, I am glad to report that the Nazis have never taken a mouthful of our food." Nowhere in his broadcast did Dr. Kershner reveal the fact that none of his experience was in German-occupied Europe. The whole of his experience was in Vichy France and in the Vichy French Colonies. My noble friend doubtless is not aware of that fact; but on that account Dr. Kershner's argument falls to the ground. He did valuable work in administering relief in Vichy France, but the problem there was entirely different from administering relief in a country occupied and policed by the Germans.

Then Dr. Kershner went on to say, "Our own State Department is authority for the fact that the Germans do not take any of the 19,000 tons of food going to Greece each month." Then he said, "I received the same assurance from the Ministry of Economic Warfare in London last winter." It is perfectly true that Dr. Kershner visited the Ministry of Economic Warfare. He saw the present Director-General of the Department and the Parliamentary Secretary, but both these gentlemen have assured me that they never gave any assurance of the sort to Dr. Kershner. It is a regrettable fact that I have not been able to assure your Lordships that the relief scheme for Greece does not benefit the Germans. Then Dr. Kershner, in another part of his broadcast, said that he could have fed two million children in Southern France, but he was not allowed to bring the food through the blockade; this forced him to limit the number of children fed to 100,000. Dr. Kershner does not mention the fact that five shiploads of relief foodstuffs were allowed through the blockade to the children in Vichy France, but when that territory became occupied by the Germans naturally we could not allow any more shipments. Therefore, I do say with very great respect that the whole of Dr. Kershner's argument, which is based on his experience in Vichy France (without stating that fact) falls to the ground when it is applied to occupied Europe. The short answer to the noble Earl and to Dr. Kershner is one that I gave in the debate on March 15.

The noble Earl estimates that something like 10,000,000 people—mothers and children—are involved. These 10,000,000 people are not grouped together in any locality where you can get at them, but they are dispersed throughout occupied Europe, in every city, in every town, in every village. If you are going to get food to them and to ensure that none of this food reaches the Germans you obviously have to have an organization in every one of those localities. The organization of the sort we have attempted to set up in Greece, if applied to the whole of Europe, would be a most elaborate affair. It would take many months to establish and it could only function by the good will and the fair play of the German authorities. As I have told your Lordships, our experience in Greece does not lead us to believe that that fair play would be forthcoming. The noble Earl has said, and Dr. Kershner also, that if we found the Germans taking the food or stopping the rations of those who were receiving it, it would be possible for us to bring the scheme to an end. On that point, with all sincerity I beg to differ. Once you have started a scheme of this sort and once you have encouraged people to be dependent on it, then you have taken the responsibility on your shoulders. If we shut off the food supply we really could not expect the Germans to give food in its place. Therefore the last state of those unfortunate people would be worse than their first.

But I am bound to add this in reply to the noble Earl, that even if, say a year ago, it had been possible to erect the vast organization to distribute food for these selected individuals throughout occupied Europe, does he really think it would be physically possible to do so today at a moment when every port and every important railway in Europe is the subject of intense attack from the British and American Air Forces? And not only that, the noble Earl is aware that military operations are impending which will make the whole of Europe a battleground. In my opinion any scheme of this sort was never practical. I should have advocated it before if I had believed in it. But any such scheme under the circumstances of 1944 is fantastic, and it would be exceedingly unkind and exceedingly wrong to hold out hopes to distressed people in Europe that this kind of assistance was coming to them when we know from the facts I have mentioned that it could not materialize.

What would be the effect of such an announcement? The noble Earl must remember that these unfortunate people eke out their existence by the utmost economy of their supplies. There are the rations that they get which are inadequate; there are also the adventitious supplies that come from friends in the country, from the Black Market, and from charity and the like, and these supplies are eked out with the utmost economy. If the people of occupied Europe thought that they were going to get relief in a comparatively short time there would be a more rapid consumption of these supplies. The only result of taking the step my noble friend advocates would be that these scarce supplies would be consumed rapidly, and in a few weeks they would all be gone and the aid which the people had been led to expect would not be forthcoming. In those circumstances, I think you really might get something like starvation; certainly the situation would be considerably worse than it is now. We had experience of that on a small scale in Greece last year. At one time the military situation led the people of Greece to believe that they were going to be liberated in a very short time. The result was they dipped into their reserves at an optimistic rate and that was one of the factors that produced the deteriorated position last autumn which we have had to meet with increased supplies. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that the course he recommends, far from assisting the people of occupied Europe, would really inflict great injury upon them because it would lead them to entertain exaggerated hopes which in present circumstances could not be fulfilled.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his full and very courteous; reply to me to-day. There are one or two small points arising out of his reply that I should like to refer to. The most important, it seems to me, is in regard to the organization suggested. It would not be the duty of this country to set it up. It is to be entirely independent. It is going to consist of neutral ships, of food from America, and neutral distribution. Therefore I venture to suggest that the noble Earl may have exaggerated the difficulties that attach to the scheme because of the enormous military operations that are impending. The noble Earl said something about Poland, and I would willingly include Poland in the list of countries mentioned by Mr. Kershner. I was not quoting those countries on my own initiative but entirely on his.

The noble Earl said something that was consoling in one way but not in another. He said there was no actual starvation in North-West Europe at this time. It is not within my province to know the details of this subject. I can only talk about what I hear and what was said in the debate of March 15, when noble Lords urged that food should be sent and quoted horrible figures in regard to starvation and distress. If that is not the case I am only too overjoyed to hear it. I have not put forward Dr. Kershner's scheme as the only scheme—if there is an improved scheme so much the better—but simply because it is the most familiar. In conclusion I would like to say that I should have liked to see the noble Earl, like Don Quixote, tilting his lance at the windmill difficulty on behalf of these wretched people because I believe the greatest duty of adult people is to the little ones who suffer, not because of their own fault but suffer all the same and suffer hideously. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.