Lords Sitting of 18 June 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2ª.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2ª.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No 2) BILL.
Read 2ª.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MILK IMPORTS.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH rose to draw attention to the increasing importation and consumption of dried and tinned skim milk to the detriment of the market for British produced whole milk; to ask, in view of its grave effects on the health and physique of the nation, what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My. Lords, I understand that in bringing forward the Motion that stands in my name I am not to have the privilege of being answered by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, but at the same time I wish, if I may, to say a word of congratulation to him on the new position to which he has attained—if indeed it is a matter of congratulation to take up such an
12
arduous office—and to assure him, as I know to be the case, of the great appreciation with which the farming community have received the notice of his appointment because his very real sympathy with them in their plight is well known. If I may say so, I venture to hope that I shall have the gratitude of the noble Lord who I understand will reply, because I cannot but feel that noble Lords on the other side of the House must be somewhat disappointed themselves at the fact that, after all the words that have been spoken and after twelve months have gone, the score sheet of measures to help agriculture is so regrettably blank. I am offering them a chance of opening their account in this matter.
If your Lordships will look at the Notice on the Paper you will see that it endeavours to establish three points. The first point is that the importation and consumption of dried and tinned skim milk have enormously increased during the last three years; the second is that that importation and consumption are to the detriment of the British farming industry; and the third is that they are also to the detriment of the health of the nation as a whole. The first point is one which I need not labour, because it is a matter of figures. Nevertheless I venture to think that, to those of your Lordships who have not studied them, the figures will be something of a revelation. I will not give them in detail, but in 1921 the imports of unsweetened whole milk were 612,000 cwts., in round figures, and in 1929 they were 405,000 cwts. The imports of sweetened whole milk in 1921 were 691,000 cwts., and in 1929, 258,000 cwts. In 1921 the imports of separated or skimmed tinned milk were 873,000 cwts., and in 1929, 1,988,000 cwts. During that period, therefore, while the imports of whole milk have decreased by 51 per cent., those of skimmed condensed milk have increased by 128 per cent. The figures show this increase in a regular sequence year by year and, so far from the position being changed this year, there is every reason to believe that at the end of 1930 the imports will exceed 100,000 tons. That seems to me to be sufficient comment on the first point that I have to make.
As regards the detriment to the farmer, this is equally demonstrable, but I am going to leave the point mainly to my noble friend Lord Hastings, who is equally responsible with me for this Motion and who will deal with the matter at length. It must be obvious that the British farmer does suffer in this matter, and the more so because the legitimate demand in this direction for the skimmed milk that should be used can be entirely supplied by him. As for the competition to which he is subjected, I wish for a moment to draw your Lordships' attention to the question of the fairness of that competition. As your Lordships know, the production of milk in this country is governed by various milk and dairy orders, which impose an increasingly rigorous demand on the farmer for a higher and better production of milk. I do not say for a. moment that this is wrong. I think it is right, but I ask your Lordships whether it is fair that the British farmer should be saddled with this increased cost in production unless his foreign competitors are saddled with the same cost. Some such idea influenced the late Government to a certain extent, and in 1927 they sent out a Commission to investigate the conditions of milk production in the Netherlands and Denmark. That Commission consisted of three excellent men, two civil servants and a professor, who brought out an excellent Report, carefully considered, beautifully worded and admirably drawn up, and as the conclusions were definitely against the British farmer it might be considered to be almost perfect in every way, but for one small fact which rendered it a complete waste of public money—namely, the time of year at which they went.
Most of your Lordships are probably aware that the conditions of milk production in those countries differ entirely from ours. Their cows are out the whole time from May to October and are milked in the fields. For the rest of the year they are stalled in the cow byres and are milked there. Two points obviously arise from this. The first is that a much higher standard is required in the byres in which the cattle are wholly confined during the winter months than is necessary here, where this practice is found in only the smallest percentage of cases. The other point is that, if you want to get at the truth of
14
the matter, the only time when it is the least use going out there is during the months when the cows are in those standings. For certain reasons, as stated in their Report, the Commission went out on August 18 and issued the Report on October 18. Except, therefore, that they asked the farmer if he kept his cows perfectly clean and uncrowded in their byres—to which, from what I know of farmers, there would be only one answer—the visit was completely valueless. There are only three points of first-rate value that I can find in this Report. In paragraph 40 they say:—
"The purity of the milk supply is controlled by a Royal decree."
Then they add, in paragraph 41:—
"This decree does not apply to milk or milk products which … are clearly intended for export."
Then in paragraph 47 we find that their milk and dairies order—
"lays down no specific requirements as to structure of cowsheds."
Accordingly, by the admission of that very Commission, the British farmer is confronted with unfair competition from his rivals abroad.
Now I come to the third point that I am endeavouring to prove to your Lordships, and that is the detriment to the health of the British nation. To my mind it is vastly the most important point that we have to consider, and I may also say that it is the one on which I have the greatest hope of inducing His Majesty's Government to take some steps; for, although their sympathy with agriculture has not in the past been too apparent to those of us who sit on this side of the House, no one would deny that they are at least sedulous in their care of the health of the population. I venture to think that there are many things as to which people who are fond of their country must be deeply anxious to-day, but there is nothing which causes: greater anxiety than the deterioration of the national physique. A little more than a hundred years ago a diplomatic complaint was made from the Continent that our workmen who competed over there did so unfairly, because they worked too hard and lifted weights and did feats of strength with which the workmen there were not able to compete.
I would ask your Lordships, if in many parts you were to go and see the

15
factories emptying, whether you could make that claim in any sense to-day. I think we first became aware of this deterioration in our physique during the War, when we found that, while the courage and spirit of our men flamed as high as ever, their physique, as shown in the various categories, was most disappointing. I ask your Lordships whether it is a fact, or not, that this deterioration has not stopped. I want to draw your attention to some figures that were given by the Minister for War in the House of Commons on the Army Estimates. I think they are somewhat illuminating. Mr. Shaw, in another place, said that out of 72,268 recruits who presented themselves for the line 61 per cent. were rejected (91 per cent. of them on medical grounds) although in December, 1928, the standard for infantry of the line was reduced to 5 ft. 2 ins., and in the same year the dental standard was lowered. That is to say, more than one out of every two recruits who presented themselves for enlistment were rejected for not passing a standard which would allow a man to be received at 5ft. 2 ins., with no teeth.
That is a serious thing to be given out as an accepted fact by the Government. I am not suggesting for one moment—it would be absurd to suggest—that this deterioration in physique is due to the fact that the people of this country drink tinned skimmed milk in the quantities that they do. The life of this nation has changed. The ancestors of the men of whom I have been talking no doubt had plenty of regular work, perhaps too much. They had wholesome food; perhaps not enough of it. At all events they did not live, as so many of the population do now, mainly on cheap cigarettes, canned food and aperients. What I do say is this, that with the new conditions which we have to face it is up to whatever Government is in power to see that everything that a Government may and can do to preserve the health of the nation shall be done. After all, if the Government think of what they put into the heads of the children to-day, are they to take no responsibility for what they put into their stomachs?
What is this tinned skimmed milk? I have here a tin of the most popular brand, I understand. I will not disclose
16
the name. On the front of it is the word "Milk." On the side of it we have the words "Unfit for babies." Not for children, mind you, but for babies. If your Lordships will get one of these tins—I should be glad to give mine to the noble Lord who will answer me, if he has not one.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: He must drink it.
LORD CRANWORTH: If you place in a tumbler of water, pure or impure, from the tap or water butt, three teaspoonfuls of the contents of the tin you will get a substance which looks remarkably like milk and which tastes not so much unlike milk as you might think. I will tell your Lordships of the convenience of it. It costs 3d., and three teaspoonfuls make half a pint of milk. You put it on the mantelpiece, and it will probably last for a fortnight. Is it surprising that the temptation is too great for practically any poor person to overcome, and that it is used as it is? I have an analysis here of this substance by a first rate analyst in London, and this analysis has not been challenged:—Specifie gravity, 1.34; water, 27.5; total solid matter, 72.5; ash, 2.8; fat, 65; milk sugar, 13.7; cane sugar, 45.1; protein, 10. Therefore I am not going to say for a moment that the mixture is a poisonous one, or that it is even a valueless product. The tin is worth something, and so is the sugar in it. I am not going to say that for certain purposes it is not a useful thing; but in the first place I am going to say that it has no right to be labelled "milk," because it bears no resemblance to it, and I look upon it as a monstrous thing that three-quarters of the children in this country should be brought up on that product. I look upon it as a disgraceful thing that any Government should countenance that children should be brought up on it. I think it is a grave thing indeed, whichever Government is in power.
I do not think that it is for me, if I prove my three points, to suggest what the remedy should be. I can think of at least six methods of combating the evil, and I have no doubt the noble Lord who will reply to me can suggest many more, and it is for him to do so. If I have proved my three points I think it is for him to suggest the remedy. All I would say, finally, is this: I think the noble

17
Lord opposite is very likely to say: "After all, your Government was in power for five years, and if the menace is so great as you make out why did it not do something in the matter?" In the first place, I would reply that it did do something. It was responsible for the label "Unfit for babies," which, however, does not go far enough. Secondly, the case now is far graver than it was then. Thirdly, I am no bigoted devotee of any Party, and I am free to admit that in my humble opinion the late Government did not do its whole duty in this matter; but I do not think that that is any excuse for the present or any other Government not doing theirs.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I desire to support the Motion of my noble friend. It is quite clear that this particular matter can be approached, and indeed must be approached, from two entirely different angles. One comes within the purview of the Ministry of Health, and the other is under the ægis of the Minister of Agriculture. In that latter connection I would like to add a word of congratulation on the appointment of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to his position at the Ministry of Agriculture, It is a matter of great gratification to most of us who are interested in agriculture that there is now, and will continue to be, in this House a direct representative of the Ministry of Agriculture. My congratulations are made somewhat less because of the fact that the noble Earl is not now in his place, though I know that he is in the House.
Lord Cranworth has made out, I think your Lordships will agree, an abundant case for investigation from the standpoint of the Ministry of Health. It would be easy to emphasise and amplify the figures and particulars which the noble Lord has given, and to show your Lordships how essential from the health standpoint it is that this matter should be looked, into most carefully. Indeed, it is entirely a non-political question, as all your Lordships will agree. Approaching it from the other angle, that of agriculture, I think that, as the agricultural case hangs essentially upon figures, there are a few which I must give to your Lordships. I think is will astonish you to know that in 1919—which, after all, is only eleven years ago—the importa-
18
tion of this machine-skimmed, condensed milk was only 181,000 cwts. In 1929 it was 2,050,000 cwts., in 6,484,000 cases. Those are the Board of Trade figures. The value of those imports is no less than £3,271,000 per annum, and their average increase has been at the rate of 100,000 cwts. every year.
Apparently there is an unlimited market for this material. Agriculturists, and dairy farmers in particular, of whom I am not one, at least only in a very small way, have in past years devoted, and still are devoting, a great deal of thought, time, and money to increasing the consumption of fresh, whole milk in England—and a very proper thing for them to be doing. It is to be hoped that they will meet with a due measure of success, not only in their own interests, but in the interests of public health. But when it is realised that there exists a ready market for no less than 2,050,000 cwts. of dried skimmed milk in this country, it is obvious—and it ought to be obvious to any dairy farmer, as well as to a member of any Government—that here is a long-felt want being fulfilled, and that, no matter how much fresh milk may be sold, it is exceedingly unlikely to displace this other tremendous market.
My noble friend Lord Cranworth has graphically described why the temptation is so strong to a family living in industrial conditions to consume this milk. I have in a less public place made speeches on this subject, and I ventured in one of them to describe the kind of accommodation which an industrial family has. Imagine living in a slum tenement with only one cupboard—which, after all, is as much as any of them have—and that cupboard having to contain the boots, the kippers, and the dustpan, and the rest of it. Conceive the idea of having to put fresh milk into such a receptacle. Quite obviously if there is on the market a tin containing something which purports to be milk—and, after all, who is to know, if he is not too well educated, that it is not milk—persons living in those conditions will rush to it in gratitude, and will not think of buying anything else. That is particularly so when its sale is propagated and pushed by the sort of little leaflet which I have here, showing a bonny boy eating this stuff spread on his bread and porridge, and, inside the

19
leaflet, describing the thing carefully (though, of course, not mentioning anywhere that it is unfit for babies) and comparing its value in the most mendacious terms with that of other articles of food, such as lean meat, potatoes, bread and cheese. This is being broadcast through the grocers of the country. And what is the result? The result is that since 1919 the sale has increased from 181,000 cwts. to 2,050,000 cwts. And apparently there is no reason to suppose that it will not amount to 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 cwts. a few years hence, helped by this class of propaganda, and with the vast and illimitable market which evidently exists for it.
If that is admitted, it is one of those factors which dairy farmers in this country will have to take into account. It is most improbable that it will ever be possible for the finest propaganda work to displace this tinned stuff by fresh milk. Let us grasp that. Now from the agricultural standpoint what ought we to do? We ought to try to have that market for ourselves. That is surely the reasonable conclusion to which we should come. This Government, the past Government, and ourselves are harassed to know what to do about the agricultural industry. How on earth is it to be saved from disintegration and collapse? Here is a method ready to hand. It is not for me to say whether this dried skimmed milk is, or is not, a proper form of food for the children of this country. That is a matter which easily can be ascertained. I have my views about it, but I am not an expert, and I cannot speak very definitely. But of this I am certain, that that article, produced under the most careful conditions, as it would be produced in Great Britain, must inevitably be of greater value to the population than when produced under conditions which we cannot control and which we strongly suspect of being far from ideal.
If this dried skimmed milk is pronounced by those who know better than I to be a fit and proper food, think of the tremendous help it would give to the British farmer to have that market available for himself. If it is pronounced not to be a proper article of human food, the result is just the same, because there would arise a colossal demand, not for fresh milk in its liquid form, but for whole milk, condensed and produced in tinned
20
form. Whichever way we have it, the agriculturist benefits. It matters little which way. That is for others to decide. But the thing to try to do is to secure one or other of these markets—either for skimmed milk or for dried whole milk—for British farmers.
The matter is one of extreme seriousness, because, living as I do in East Anglia, I know that the condition of East Anglian arable agriculture is one which is not becoming, but is already, desperate. What is happening? Large areas of arable land are going down to grass, with the natural corollary that competition in the dairying trade is being increased by the addition of dairy farmers from East Anglia. Already in this country there is more than enough milk to meet the whole liquid milk requirements of the population. I can quote one or two figures from which your Lordships will see that I am speaking by the book. The estimated annual whole milk production at the moment is 1,324,000,000 gallons, and the total estimated annual liquid milk consumption is about 650,000,000 gallons; that is to say, 50 per cent. of the whole production. It is obvious that production of that kind gives the distributing agencies a power over the producer which reacts not to the producer's advantage. It is also obvious to any one who knows anything about agriculture that the surplus is being produced during the summer months when there is a flush of grass and when, clearly, the milk production is very much higher than it is during the winter. What happens to that surplus? To a very great extent it is wasted. We know that a very large quantity of it is taken by confectionery factories, and it is manufactured into many forms. But a large proportion of it goes to waste. Moreover, almost the whole of the skim resulting from the factory milk—the whole milk used in factories—is wasted.
If we had and could command a market of such an enormous magnitude as has been mentioned, what a good thing it would be for the British dairy farmer and what a tremendous incentive to the British dairy farmer to increase rather than decrease his herds, greatly to the good of the industrial population of the country. At the moment it cannot be doubted that no British dairy farmer or British factory owner can hope

21
to compete with this rubbish produced at such a price. It is impossible. But I maintain that if the Ministry of Health and its advisers declare that it is not rubbish, though I say that it is, then let us manufacture it ourselves. But we cannot manufacture it ourselves when this stuff is allowed to be imported duty free, without supervision, and in unlimited quantities. It would take time to set up and establish factories large enough to meet so vast a demand. If the Ministry of Health and its advisers came to the conclusion that this stuff was the rubbish that I believe it to be, it would be their duty to prohibit its import. But even though it be rubbish, its market is so great and the demand for it so large that I doubt whether any Government could prohibit its import here and now. If you were to bring in a short Bill providing that the import was to be prohibited, say, in two years' time, during the interval British capital would be forthcoming for the establishment of the factories necessary to manufacture it here under supervision and under conditions which the industrial population as a whole thought would be right and proper and would regard as a guarantee to the health of themselves and their children. That scorns to me to be the only proper means of dealing with the question.
The same argument applies to the decision that it was not a proper form of food—prohibit its import in course of time. Equally, in the interval the British capitalist and the farmer would ensure between them the erection of factories which, to the enormous advantage of agriculture, would absorb the surplus milk of which I have been speaking and would meet the very proper and necessary demand of the industrial population, who are now paying their hard-earned money into the pockets of the producers of a worthless article. I beg to support the Motion of my noble friend.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have a great deal of sympathy with the Motion that has been brought forward to-day. Personally I feel a great deal of gratitude for the able way in which it was put forward and the moderate manner in which
22
a strong case was stated. I have tried to collect as much data as possible for the information of your Lordships' House so that we may examine the problem in the light of the information that is available. First of all, I would say that the Government consider that the use of milk is of immense importance in connection with the maintenance and improvement of the health of our people. They are also in agreement with the object of improving the market for British milk. The argument against condensed skimmed milk, as your Lordships have heard this afternoon, has been based mainly on the contention that it is objectionable as having no food value or that it may be actually dangerous to health. I will try to deal with those contentions as briefly as possible as I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily.
Let me say, first of all, that we believe in any case that fresh whole milk is far the best food for the nation. We also believe that it is particularly valuable for the feeding of infants. But the nation cannot live entirely on milk. There are a variety of other foods which must be part of the nation's diet and must suit the demands of individual people—bread, meat, coffee, whisky, beer. All these things are unsatisfactory as a sole food. I do not want anything I say to suggest that the Government are supporting, the use of condensed skimmed milk against whole milk. We know that it is inferior to whole milk and it might be classified, perhaps, as a second-class food and no higher than that. But I do not think it is possible to prohibit the import of a food merely because it is a second-class food.
LORD CARSON: Is this that we have been talking about milk? I understood the noble Lord who moved to point out that it was not milk at all.
LORD MARLEY: Its technical title is condensed skimmed milk and, with your Lordships' permission, I will explain exactly how it is prepared. It is whole milk from which fat has been removed as well as part of the water, and to the remainder, what is left after removing the fat and part of the water content, sugar is added. The composition

23
of an ordinary tin of milk is 26 per cent. of milk solids—those are definitely milk—45 per cent. or thereabouts of cane sugar, and 34 to 29 per cent. of water. The water and the milk solids are both part of the milk; the sugar is an addition. The dried milk to which reference has been made is milk from which not only all the fat but practically all the water has been removed, and it consists of 95 per cent. of milk solids, and a very small residuum of water. The milk solids, as your Lordships have heard this afternoon, consist of non-fatty solids of a considerable biological value. They include lactose—that is, milk sugar—mineral matter and other substances.
We have heard a little about the conditions of production of this condensed skimmed milk abroad, and it is a fact, as the noble Lord pointed out, that a Commission was sent to Holland and Denmark to ascertain the conditions of production. I have a copy of the Commission's Report here. It is an exceedingly interesting document. The Commission visited a number of typical farms, they also examined condenseries and other premises in both countries, and they reported that the conditions of production are at least as good as the conditions in this country. They also found that the cowsheds in Holland were in very many cases better than the cowsheds in England.
LORD HASTINGS: There were no cows in them when they went.
LORD MARLEY: It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, pointed out, the visit was made in August and September when the cows were not in the cowsheds, but I suppose most noble Lords have visited dairies at different times, and surely it is possible from the examination of cowshed—the examination of concrete bottoms, the arrangements for draining manure away, the arrangements for clearing away—to judge whether the conditions are good and suitable.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: How can you judge if the cows are not there? There would be no manure to take away.
LORD MARLEY: I think most noble Lords can judge the general condition of a farm. I have examined hundreds of dairy farms, and, personally, I feel satisfied that I should know a good
24
dairy farm from a bad one, and I think noble Lords opposite would also know. When the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, quoted from the Report, he called attention to an article which said the decree as to cleanliness of these dairy farms did not apply to milk or milk products which are clearly intended for export. I think it would have been perhaps a little fairer if he had mentioned the beginning of the same paragraph, in which it is said that the decree applies to all milk as such, whether intended for direct home consumption or for conversion into products such as butter, condensed milk, and cheese, irrespective of their ultimate market. That does somewhat alter the picture given by the noble Lord as regards this Report. I would also remind your Lordships that at about the same time a very well-known newspaper sent out a mission of British farmers to Denmark to enquire into agricultural methods in that country, and in their report they included these words which I venture to quote:—
"In recent years there has been a large reconstruction of cowsheds in Denmark. Concrete floors are found everywhere. … The sheds are kept quite tidy, and conditions are maintained that ensure the production of clean milk. The farmer is obliged to do this … by the creamery to which he sends his milk."
I do not really think there can be any complaint as to the conditions of the production of this milk.
The next question is whether there is any real food value in condensed skimmed milk. I believe that the only dietetic objection is that there is an absence of fat products, and the same objection applies to many other foods. As regards milk it is specially important, because the product which comes out of these tins does resemble milk, and, therefore, it is most important that we should guard against the danger of their use by ignorant people in the belief that they are using whole milk. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that adequate steps have in fact been taken to guard against that danger. It is a curious fact that while the consumption of Condensed skimmed milk has increased at the same time the general health of the nation has improved. I have made notes of the annual death rate, which averaged 15.4 per thousand in 1901–1910, was reduced to 14.3 per thousand in 1911–1920, and was further reduced to 12.2 in 1921–1929.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Is that from drinking condensed milk?
LORD MARLEY: It synchronises with the enormous increase in the consumption of condensed milk.
LORD CARSON: Do you not think it is in spite of it?
LORD MARLEY: It might be so; nevertheless, it does not appear to indicate that the general health of the nation is being depreciated by this consumption of condensed milk. But what is still more important is that the infant mortality rate has improved enormously during that period. The mortality rate averaged 128 per thousand in 1901–1910, was reduced to 100 per thousand during 1911–1920, and further reduced to 73 per thousand in the period 1021–1929. Furthermore, recently, owing to the extension of the school medical service in the statistical examination of school children it has been found that the general health of school children—their weight, their measurement, their height—has shown a steady improvement during the last ten years.
No doubt many of your Lordships will have read an exceedingly interesting report of some experiments carried out by the Scottish Board of Health in which

IMPORTED CONDENSED MILK.

Year.

Full Cream Sweetened.

Full Cream Unsweeted.

Skimmed Sweetened.

Total.

Cwts.

Cwts.

Cwts.

Cwts.

1913

…

…

…

481,435

50,008

720,772

1,252,215

1919

…

…

…

1,964,063

1,033,385

181,827

3,179,275

1924

…

…

…

317,003

418,167

1,479,213

2,214,383

1925

…

…

…

289,543

355,962

1,596,129

2,241,634

1926

…

…

…

257,133

361,758

1,773,431

2,392,322

1927

…

…

…

253,272

411,485

1,854,759

2,519,516

1928

…

…

…

297,015

425,406

1,951,025

2,673,446

1929

…

…

…

258,555

405,387

1,988,118

2,652,060

IMPORTED MILK POWDER (DRIED MILK).

Year.

Not sweetened.

Sweetened.

Total.

Cwts.

Cwts.

Cwts.

1913

…

…

…

46,572

7

46,579

1919

…

…

…

165,492

9,053

174,545

1924

…

…

…

118,581

14,963

133,544

1925

…

…

…

170,200

12,652

182,852

1926

…

…

…

162,190

14,288

176,478

1927

…

…

…

162,186

16,445

178,631

1928

…

…

…

227,125

13,327

240,452

1929

…

…

…

263,048

16,475

279,523

NOTE.—The quantities exported in these years were respectively:—2,263, 10,169, 18,159, 42,832, 6,159, 6,027 20,144, 17,389 cwts.
they took a number of groups of children of various ages and added to their normal diet certain additional diets of various kinds of milk to see whether it had any effect on their general health. I would quote for a moment from that report. They found that although in the ease of six-year-old children whole milk was significantly superior to skimmed milk, yet skimmed milk itself was an extremely valuable food, and in children above six there was no significant difference between those children who received whole milk and those children who received skimmed milk. Those figures seem to indicate that skimmed milk has a definite value as a food. Dried skimmed milk, when reconstituted with water, is practically the same as boiled skimmed milk, and, therefore, I think we can say that dried skimmed milk has about the same value as boiled skimmed milk as a food. I ask myself the question: Why was there this great increase in the consumption of dried skimmed milk?—not as great as the noble Lord indicated. I will circulate the figures, with the permission of the House, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I will give the House one or two actual figures in a moment.
Following are the figures ref erred to:—

Netherlands.

France.

Canada.

New Zealand.

Year.

Total Imports (cwts.).

Quantities (cwts.).

Per cent, of total.

Quantities (cwts.).

Per cent, of total.

Quantities (cwts.).

Per cent, of total.

Quantities (cwts.).

Per cent, of total.

1913

…

46,579

19,733

42·36

7,658

16·44

(No information).

1919

…

174,545

31,814

18·23

—

—

2,897

1·66

65,647

37·61

1924

…

133,544

11,080

8·30

1

—

18,931

14·18

85,417

63·96

1925

…

182,852

31,863

17·43

401

·22

18,769

10·26

118,902

65·03

1926

…

176,478

69,757

39·53

2,558

1·45

21,059

11·93

72,400

41·02

1927

…

178,631

49,166

27·52

2,429

1·36

20,783

11·63

97,706

54·70

1928

…

240,452

69,224

28·79

11,273

4·69

29,271

12·17

121,585

50·57

1929

…

279,523

90,485

32·37

8,735

3·12

34,412

12·31

99,650

35·65

NOTE.—The figures for 1929 are approximate and subject to correction.
I have lived nearly all my life in the country, and wherever you go in the country cottages you nearly always find a tin of this milk on the mantelpiece or table. There is no doubt that there is a lack of adequate distribution of whole milk in country areas. It is exceedingly difficult in country areas to get good whole milk which is really fresh. I live, for instance, at the top of a hill and my milk is delivered by a man who brings a very nasty looking bottle out of his coat pocket. He comes on a bicycle. I have never dared to look at the conditions of production of that milk. I think I must be immune to germs of that kind. But there is no doubt that many people, especially in the North, complain if milk is not served to them warm from the cow. They seem to think there is some virtue in having milk warm from the cow instead, of course, of the precise opposite being the case, because such milk cannot have been cooled and therefore must provide a breeding ground for increased bacterial content and lead to souring of the milk at an early period in hot weather.
There is this to be said, that possibly condensed skimmed milk may be better than badly-produced unsound whole milk, certainly not tubercule-tested and produced under conditions which are radically unsound. Of course these are only a limited number of cases, but there still exist in country districts such methods of production. Condensed skimmed milk is also a very convenient article for adding to tea, coffee and cocoa. Anybody who has been in the Navy knows that condensed milk is universally used for making cocoa and makes a very excellent drink.
LORD HASTINGS: That is condensed whole milk.
LORD MARLEY: Condensed whole milk, but condensed skimmed milk is also supplied to the Navy. It is very convenient because it can be purchased in any grocer's shop and it is cheap. As the noble Lord has pointed out a tin only costs 3d. It has the further advantage that on the whole it keeps well. It does not go sour in weather like we are having this afternoon. Dried milk is almost entirely used for manufacturing purposes. There is a certain amount sold under proprietary names for infants' foods, but there is practically no dried milk sold in the general market. It is used for making chocolate and products of that kind. I want to correct a few of the figures as regards imports which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I am not going to pretend that imports are not going up immensely—of course they are—but when he gave figures comparing 1919 with 1929 he gave in the first figure the imports of skimmed sweetened milk and in the second figure he gave the total import of full cream sweetened, full cream unsweetened and skimmed sweetened milk.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was quoting from an answer given in the House of Commons by Mr. Graham to Lord Wolmer on December 21, 1929. They were Board of Trade figures, no doubt, and I quoted them exactly from that reply.
LORD MARLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, but nevertheless I think perhaps the reply may not have been correctly reported or there may have been

29
some modification made. I will give the figures I have, and I will publish them, and then we shall have a chance of elucidating the difference. I entirely agree that in 1919 181,000 cwts. of skimmed milk were imported. I think that is right.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, I have that.
LORD MARLEY: In 1929 the imports of skimmed milk were 1,900,000 cwts.
LORD HASTINGS: That was 1928.
LORD MARLEY: 1929. They were 1,951,000 in 1928 and in 1929 they were 1,988,000 cwts. Does that agree?
LORD HASTINGS: The figures I quoted for 1929 were not given in the House of Commons. I had to obtain them elsewhere.
LORD MARLEY: That is where the mistake has arisen. The figures the noble Lord gave were figures of the total of condensed milk, including full cream and skimmed.
LORD HASTINGS: That is not so. The figures given here are up to 1928 only. I must read them to the House to disprove what the noble Lord said. Here are the figures:—Condensed unsweetened, 425,406 cwts; powder, not sweetened, 199,706 cwts.; preserved, other kinds, not sweetened, 34,073 cwts.; condensed, sweetened, whole, 297,015 cwts.; condensed, sweetened, separated or skimmed, 1,951,025 cwts. So it is not the fact that that total of 1,951,000 included anything but dried skimmed milk.
LORD MARLEY: I entirely agree. I was not saying that. I said that in 1929, the figure given by the noble Lord—
LORD HASTINGS: I gave 2,050,000 which was the figure supplied to me.
LORD MARLEY: That was not given in the House of Commons.
LORD HASTINGS: No.
LORD MARLEY: I do not say for a moment that it alters the case put forward. I merely want to correct that figure for 1929. The comparable figure is 1,988,000 cwts.—if I may just finish—and the total importation of condensed milk, whether whole milk or skimmed milk, has, as a matter of fact—there is really nothing in the figures—fallen from 3,000,000 cwts. in 1919 to 2,652,000 cwts. in 1929.
LORD HASTINGS: Agreed, but it is a most alarming conclusion to draw, because it shows that the importation is displacing whole milk.
LORD MARLEY: Precisely, that is the whole point. I want to correct that figure of 2,050,000. It is really, 1,980,000. There is not much in it, but we may as well be correct. The next question is the effect on infants, and I entirely agree that if infants are going to suffer we must do more than we have done. I have here the various labels that are used on these tins which I should be very glad to hand to any noble Lords who are interested. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, I furnished myself with tins of various makes—not the best make; I do not know what is the best make—but they are all very brightly coloured tins. They all bear most clearly the words "Unfit for babies." Under the last Order it was laid down that those words "Unfit for babies" should be in type double the size of any other type on the label and should be surrounded by a. clear space to separate them from the rest of the description on the tin. That is very clearly done on all these tins. Noble Lords will be able to see that even so far away as where they are sitting. It is clearly indicated on all the tins.
There is very little evidence that it is used for the feeding of infants. There are cases, of course, of people who feed children on fish and chips. There are cases of people who feed children on gin. We know that. But the main reasons for using this milk are undoubtedly ignorance and poverty, and perhaps, therefore, the beet attack on the misuse of this milk is an attack on poverty and, as one noble Lord mentioned very clearly, on bad housing. It is hoped that the measures that are being undertaken by the present Government in connection with improving education, clearing away slums, improving houses and getting rid of poverty will have some effect as regards the extent to which this condensed skimmed milk is used for feeding children.
I wanted to quote one case in which the blame for the death of a child was attributed to condensed skimmed milk, I believe entirely unfairly. This was a child three and a half years of age, and it died in April of this year near Grimsby.

31
The child was found to be well-nourished but very dirty, and a post mortem examination revealed evidence of acute irritation of the stomach with slight haemorrhage. The cause of death was gastroenteritis. At the inquest the mother admitted that this child of three and a half years had eaten a meal of corned beef and suet pudding. The family had also consumed part of a tin of sweetened condensed skimmed milk marked "Unfit for babies." But the mother explained that this had been used for making a pudding. Most of these tins show a notice that the contents are suitable for making into puddings. Naturally there was the usual tendency to blame the skimmed condensed milk for this death, but the real cause must surely have been poverty. The father was out of work and the mother and seven children were living on 30s. a week.
Finally I want to say that, although I do not feel that we can blame people for buying this condensed skimmed milk owing to their poverty and their not being able to afford better food, I am not going to pretend for a moment that whole milk is not far better as a food. We are consuming in this country far too little whole milk. I collected some figures which show that the consumption in England is under half a pint—the exact figure is 4 pint—per head per day; in the United States of America the figure is 1 pint a day; in Norway 1.1 pints; in Denmark 1.2 pints; and in Switzerland 1.8 pints. I do not know why the United States drink more milk than we, unless Prohibition has something to do with it. If Prohibition comes in this country perhaps it may help the consumption of milk and may prove a means of enormously assisting agriculture. I may say that this is not part of the Government's already overburdened programme. But we do give full support to the work of the National Milk Publicity Council. That Council devotes itself to the advertising of whole fresh milk and has conducted a scheme which this year is estimated to supply 4,000,000 gallons of fresh milk to school children. Moreover, many local education authorities are advertising milk and supplying it, and in Scotland the Empire Marketing Board is feeding thousands of school children upon milk with the aid of a grant. Personally, I should like to see a large extension of the supply and ad-
32
vertising of whole milk by local education authorities, child welfare centres and nursery schools.
Let me in conclusion summarise what I have said. The prohibition of importation as a means of helping agriculture is a policy that has not been adopted by previous Governments and cannot he adopted by this Government. It. would have the effect of raising prices and might very well fail to cause an increase in the consumption of whole milk, while it might cause an increase in the consumption of foods even less desirable than condensed skimmed milk. Machine skimmed milk is of substantial nutritive value, it contains no harmful ingredients and it is prepared in a sanitary manner in the countries of origin. It is admittedly unfit for feeding infants, as are many other foods, but the regulations are clear, the tins are clearly marked, and there is little or no evidence that it is actually used for feeding infants. Accordingly I would suggest to your Lordships that there is no justification on grounds of health for departing from the policy of previous Governments of allowing the unrestricted import of these milk products.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down began his speech by saying that he sympathised with my noble friend Lord Cranworth and my noble friend behind me. That made me very suspicious, because when I find a member of any Government sympathising with somebody who is bringing something forward, I always feel that before he sits down we shall find that he does not intend to do anything. That is exactly what the noble Lord has said. He began his speech by saying that he sympathised with the Motion, but he went on to refer to the cowsheds in Denmark, which had no cows in them when they were seen by the Commission, and upon which, therefore, the Commission could not express any opinion. The floors might be concrete, but that does not prove that the cowmen, when the cows were in the shed, removed the droppings from the concrete, and concrete floors will not remove them by themselves. As the noble Lord knows, the only object in having concrete is that it is easier to remove the manure, but if the manure is not removed by hand it remains there. The Commission could not

33
tell whether that was done or not, because it appears that there were no cows there. The noble Lord gave a very good advertisement, I think, to the tin brought in by my noble friend, because he quoted from his own experience and said that it was just as good as the milk that he was having himself.
LORD MARLEY: I did not say that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is what I understood the noble Lord to say. I may be wrong, but I will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
LORD MARLEY: May I correct that? I did not say that. I said that there were conditions under which this milk might in preferable to certain milk supplied n this country. There may be. I did not say that it was better than the milk that. I was supplied with.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not think I really misquoted the purport of the noble Lord's speech. He did not say that it was so in his own case, but he said it might be, so it will be perfectly easy for anybody who wishes to sell this product to say that, after all, it was stated in the House of Lords by a noble Lord who represents the Government that it was possible that whole milk might be worse than the tinned milk which is here by my side. Then the noble Lord went on to say—he will correct me if I am misquoting him—that dried skimmed milk was manufactured, as I understood him, first of all by excluding the whole of the fat. Supposing a farmer or a dairyman sells milk from which only a portion of the fat is excluded, what happens? He is taken up before the magistrates and fined. Yet people abroad are allowed to sell milk in a condition in which, if they sold it here, would cause them to be summoned before the magistrates and fined. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time any longer except on one point. The noble Lord says that there is a remedy—more education and less poverty. What does more education mean? It means a little more book-learning. How is that going to benefit people and teach them how to feed their children? Then, less poverty. If this Government remains in power much longer not only will there be more poverty but nobody who has any money will be left in the country.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord who answered on behalf of the Government for the courtesy and sympathy with which he did so, but I am bound to say that when we have had his sympathy we appear to have had almost all there was to give. With many of his statements, certainly, I find myself in agreement. He said, for instance, that whisky, or even beer, as a sole article of diet was not entirely good. I should have thought that few people would deny that. Then he gave us an elaborate, and no doubt quite correct, description of the way in which this article is prepared. I am going to suggest that what is more important than how it is prepared is what comes out of it. The analysis which I have given is more important than how this thing is prepared. I did not say, as the noble Lord has suggested, that this stuff is rubbish or that it is unhealthy. I gave the analysis and let it stand at that. I made a glass of milk with this product and gave it to my dog, and he is still alive.
LORD MARLEY: I think the word "rubbish" was used.
LORD CRANWORTH: Yes, but not by me. The noble Lord then went on to describe the conditions of production, and accused me of not quoting the whole of the paragraph in the Commission's Report. Would he object to my quoting it now?
"He informed us that the decree applies to all milk as such, whether intended for direct home consumption or for conversion into products such as butter, condensed milk and cheese irrespective of their ultimate market. He called our attention to Article 34, which runs as follows: 'This decree does not apply to milk and/or milk products which, as such, are clearly intended for export.' In Article 1, milk products are defined as all fluid products obtained from milk except condensed milk and whey; consequently condensed milk not being a 'milk product' is not included in the exemption from the decree provided by Article 34."
That seems as plain to me as anything can be. I admit it is a very involved paragraph. The only other thing to which I wish to draw attention is that the noble Lord accuses the man who supplies him with milk of breaking the milk and factory laws to a great extent. I understand that the man brought it in his trousers' pocket.
LORD MARLEY: I said that he delivered the milk in his pocket—if I said

35
trousers' pocket I meant coat pocket—and I hesitated to examine the conditions under which the milk was produced.
LORD CRANWORTH: The question of which pocket is rather immaterial, but I would point out that the noble Lord has his own remedy, because he could bring to the notice of his sanitary inspector the conditions under which the milk was produced; but he has not that opportunity in the case of this tinned milk. The observations of the noble Lord were apparently directed to dried milk. This is not dried milk. There are 100,000 tons of condensed milk—not dried milk but condensed milk—being brought in, and I maintain that the analysis which I have given shows quite clearly that the product is unfit for young children to be brought up on. The noble Lord pointed out, as I pointed out before him, that the tin has printed on it "Unfit for babies." Quite clearly that is not sufficient, or the consumption would not have gone up in the amazing way in which it has.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY It does not follow that the increased consumption is confined to babies. The figures I have given are clearly based on family consumption—home domestic consumption.
LORD CRANWORTH: I think the noble Lord would hardly deny that young children—I never know where to draw the line between young children and babies—ought not to be brought up on this.
LORD MARLEY: It is used among other foods.
LORD CRANWORTH: It is used because of its convenience and cheapness. This tin is stated to contain the equivalent of one and three-quarter pints. As it is used it gives at least ten pints, and the saving is such that no poor person can resist it. I have very little more to add, except this, that while I thank him for his sympathy I have heard nothing in the speech of the noble Lord which leads me to suppose that any help is coming to the agricultural industry on this point. I can see no advantage in dividing the House, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STATE AIDED EMIGRATION.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what progress is being made with State-aided emigration, and would move for Papers, said: My Lords, this question is not in any way a new one to your Lordships, and I do not profess to throw any particularly new light upon it, but I feel that having regard to the present conditions of unemployment and the depression in trade, any matter that may possibly be directed to mitigating those evils is deserving of your Lordships' attention, and I know of no better way of getting publicity for a matter of this nature than by submitting it to the House. I know very well that the question of State-aided emigration is an extremely difficult one. There are all sorts of difficulties in its way. There is the difficulty of the emigrant. He is a very difficult man to get hold of: generally you get the wrong one: the unemployable man is the last man to go: the good man possibly will go. Then there is the difficulty of vocation. Very often the artisan is not the man who is wanted, while the agriculturist is not forthcoming. There is the difficulty of physical condition, there is the difficulty of money, and there is difficulty from the Dominions.
The Dominions, or some of them, are full of objections. They do not want paupers, naturally, but now they do not want State-aided emigrants. It looks almost as if they only wanted those who paid Super-Tax. Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome their emigration or not I do not know. The report of the Oversea Settlement Committee has only been in the hands of your Lordships to-day. Possibly the noble Lord who is to reply has had the advantage of an advance copy, but I only glanced through it this afternoon, and it is not a very encouraging document. Canada appears to be the only Dominion that really encourages State-aided emigration, and there the figures are extremely small. I think 70,000 persons went to Canada under different schemes in 1929. In Australia more and more of an embargo is being put upon emigration from this country, for various reasons—unemployment, the bad wool crop, and difficulties, perhaps, with the emigrants when they arrive. Of South

37
Africa nothing at all is said in the Report, and, though I hesitate to suggest it, Ireland never appears to be considered by these various bodies which concern themselves with emigration. I should have thought some consideration might be given to that.
LORD DANESFORT: They want to emigrate themselves from Southern Ireland.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: We should then have a good deal more opportunity of filling up their vacant places. A great deal of work, of course, has been done by Lord Lovat's tour in 1928, and by Sir Arthur Duckham, and a great deal of useful work is done here. But it seems to me that the result is woefully small. Yet the Americans go a great deal to Canada. I am told—I do not know with what truth—that. Germans go to the south of Ireland, and I should have thought that more vigour and an increased subsidy—that is what it is—could he devoted to encouraging emigration both to Canada and to Australia. Diplomacy, of course, would have to be resorted to in order to get the Commonwealth to agree.
I was reading the other day, on June 7, a letter on the front page of The Times from General Higgins, the present head of the Salvation Army. He says:—
"The Salvation Army have always hold that the two problems"—
that is, unemployment and emigration—
"should be dealt with on parallel lines and that the Army Founder's dictum of over forty years ago that of all the remedies propounded for the immediate and permanent relief of distress arising from unemployment emigration holds the field,' is still true."
He goes on to say that many of the Dominions have a natural and very sincere desire to help the old country. He says further:—
"The unemployables are the last of all the people who want to leave these shores,"
and he testifies to the line qualities of the emigrants who do in fact go. Then he advocates the establishment of an Empire Development Board which will deal with unemployment and emigration pari passu.
It is not for a private member of your Lordships' House to put forward suggestions, but, reading the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee one does
38
wonder whether the policy of the acquisition of these large blocks of land, which the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Hudson River people and other bodies of Canada are willing to sell, might not be very largely developed. In one of the reports quoted in the Oversea Settlement Committee's Report stress is laid on the need for intensive cultivation in Australia. Then, again, is there nothing possible in the way of large town-planning, to which one could send artisans, or in the way of the development of agriculture, to which one could send those who have been trained on farms? The whole thing seems to be done in such a modest manner. Very little money is spent compared with the immense sums that are devoted to keeping the unemployed going in England. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply whether any attention is ever paid to the C3 class of men. Do we wily consider the emigration of the very best class of labourer or artisan? Is it not possible to do something with the settlement areas where the physical condition of those who migrate might be improved? And, as I have already said, is there nothing that could be done in South Africa or in Ireland?
This Government is in close relation with the great trade unions. Cannot the trade unions utilise their influence with their colleagues in the Colonies to facilitate the removal of some of the restrictions under which emigration is labouring at present? Every Government, I am sure, desires to develop this policy, and yet not only does emigration not increase to any extent comparable to the increase of unemployment here, but the emigration to Australia, at any rate, is diminishing, and the Report alludes to a strong feeling in Canada against State-aided emigration. Is that a thing that cannot be combated? Is propaganda in this country made real use of? One sees propaganda for enlistment in the Foot Guards—a very good thing. I look about me, but I never see any Government posters directing attention to the benefits of emigration to Canada or Australia. That does not seem to be advertised at all in any manner like the big foreign railway companies or the Underground Railway Company advertise. Nothing of that sort seems to be done. Are there pictures of farms in

39
Canada and in Australia? Do we draw attention to the very laudable offer that has been made of a £10 oversea passage? That is a real asset, which I think was obtained by Lord Lovat's tour. Is attention drawn to that?
These are only suggestions that I throw out to the noble Lord, and I am sure that I shall learn very much more from him than he can learn from me. I am no expert on this matter, but it does seem to me that anything that might be a palliative, a remedy of however modest a nature at this time, should be considered by the Government with the greatest attention. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Thomas to his new position. Vision and vigour are two of his principal qualities, and I believe that those are qualities which are needed to deal with a question of which, in my humble opinion, very much more use could have been made than has been or is being made. I hope that the noble Earl on the Bench below, who never contributes anything to your Lordships' debates without effect, will be able to say something more useful than I have been able to say. I beg to move.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount is very wise and opportune in the occasion he has taken to bring this matter of emigration before your Lordships' House. As he has very justly observed, we have, unfortunately, to seek nowadays every way of dealing with our surplus and unemployed population, and I must say that the Government will De wise to direct their attention—no doubt they have already directed their attention—very gravely to this question. I do not propose to detain your Lordship,' for more than a few minutes, and I will comment only on two things. One is that as regards emigration or possibly State-aided emigration, I do not think there is a great deal of difference of opinion between the different Parties. At one time I think large sections of the Socialist Party were very much opposed to any sort of assistance or help or encouragement being given by the State to emigration, anyhow to parts of the Empire. I believe that is now changed and that between the different Parties there is, as I have said, no difference of opinion
40
although there is, perhaps, a difference of opinion as to methods on some of these questions.
I read the Report of the Committee on Oversea Settlement to which the noble Viscount has alluded. I am not sure that I read it with the same feeling of profound melancholy as the noble Viscount. No doubt the circumstances are rather distressful at the present moment with regard to emigration both in Australia and New Zealand. But I was glad to note that though Australia, unfortunately, for the reasons there set out, has had to restrict the opportunities for emigration from this country, nevertheless the Government of that country pronounced itself most strongly in favour of the principle of the better distribution of the white population of the Empire. That seems to me to be a great point, even though I regret that emigration to that country has been largely suspended.
I confess, and I speak because I have some little personal experience of the matter, that one must regard Canada as by far the best opportunity for emigration from this country at the moment. We have had great co-operation and assistance from Canada, not only from the Central Government and the Provincial Governments, but from all sorts of different bodies in that country. May I take this opportunity of saying how much we, and I think the country, owe to the great energy that Lord Lovat displayed when he was Under-Secretary for the Dominions, in that journey he made through Canada when he started a number of fresh suggestions and gave a new impetus, I think, to emigration from this country to Canada. Canada, of course, lies close to this country, far closer than the other Dominions. Those who have recently been to Canada and have travelled there and are aware of the marvellous possibilities for development which must take place and are taking place in that country, often wonder why far more of our inhabitants do not take advantage of the tremendous opportunities they must find there. I think the figures of the increase of emigration are to some extent satisfactory. I note that in 1928–9 there was an increase of from 55,000 to 65,000. As we are dealing with not very large figures,

41
I think that is really a very satisfactory increase. But we are being helped by the Government of Canada, because they have proceeded on the policy of limiting the number of what are called non-preferred European immigrants going into that country. I believe it is their policy still further to limit those numbers. There is a magnificent opportunity for us, and there is no reason at all why we should not fill up the gap so left and take advantage of our opportunities.
There is a further point to be considered. There is some danger, I think, and I would like to call the attention of the Government to it though, no doubt, they have considered it already, that under the National Origins Quota Act in the United States a far larger quota, rising I think from 34,000 to 65,000 for this country and for Northern Ireland, is being allotted at present, and there is some risk, possibly, that a large number of those who wish to leave our shores may go to the United States and that to some extent may limit the flow to Canada. We should all wish, of course, that this migration should be within the Empire. I was always very anxious that the fare to Canada should be reduced. I think the noble Viscount has alluded to the influence of the reduced fare of £10 to Canada, which was arranged with the steamship companies over here. I understand that that very largely accounts for the increase in the recent numbers of those who have gone to Canada.
Perhaps I am not altogether supporting the noble Viscount in his request for State-aided emigration when I mention my experience—I was going to say our experience in Canada, because I am speaking of the Empire Delegation of which I was a leader, some year and a half ago, consisting of representatives from the nine Parliaments of the Empire. We went as far as we could, when we were travelling across country, very fully into this question of emigration. We found certain unfortunate impressions in the minds of Canadians (I am not talking, of course, of Ministers, officials and so on), as to what we were doing in this country. They supposed that the masses of the people here were living on "doles." At that time we were able to refute the point and show that this was not so. We explained over and
42
over again in innumerable speeches, I am afraid, what was the real bearing and point of the Insurance Acts. I may say in passing, of course, that we could not at that time prophesy or look forward to what would happen under a subsequent Government and to their changes in the Insurance Acts.
May I repeat that the old problem which we always have to deal with is that we want to ship to Canada the unemployed from this country? We were able to point out that there were then, as there are now of course, large numbers of an admirable class of worker, fully capable of employment, but through the unfortunate circumstances of this country at the moment not fully employed. We did our best then to try to impress upon the minds of the people of Canada—it is the people of Canada I am dealing with—that there was no intention to dump upon them any of our unemployed or any of our unemployables. But I should like to make this point, for we were very much impressed by it when we went through Canada. There was, we found, a certain suspicion that people who were assisted by the Government, by loans from the Government and by land found for them by the Government, were not the kind of sturdy stock that they required in Canada. There are at present in Canada 10,000,000 people, in a vast country where everybody can fend for himself and make a fortune if he has the energy and capacity to do so, and they were suspicious of people who required State-subventions or State-aid behind them. That is why that passage in the Report has been of very great value. No one knows how the emigrant comes, and when he is there he has to fend for himself, and when his future there depends upon his own energy and capacity he gets far more sympathy from the people round him than do those who go over and are known to be receiving the support of the Government. We found that attitude very wide-spread in Canada.
At the same time I should like to say that these schemes—the 3,000 family scheme and the settlement schemes—have been very successful, and certainly the Provincial Governments and the Central Government itself have been sympathetic and done all they could to assist. It is not only right but it is certainly

43
very good business to send out a fine class of emigrant. Of course in Canada they are extremely proud of their citizens and of the class of people who are developing in that country as its future people, and if we can say that we can send out—and certainly we can—quite as good stuff from this country as they have in their own country, nothing would be a better advertisement for the enlargement of emigration from this country to Canada.
There are three other points which I would like to mention. One is this. We have heard a great deal of the effect on emigration, or the desire to emigrate and seek fortunes in other countries, of the various Insurance Acts in this country. In this Report there is a reference to the schemes that have been brought in, allowing persons who are insured in this country to become voluntary insurers in the Dominions, or, for a short time, to carry with them the insurances they have already. I am quite aware that this system has only been recently inaugurated. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us whether there are any signs that this new provision is getting rid of the difficulty which has hitherto been found to exist and whether there are any signs that the relaxations are having some effect on emigration from this country.
The second point I should like to refer to was touched on by the noble Viscount, and that is bringing home to the people here the advantages they may obtain in the Dominions. I notice that at a certain period it was stated there were 159 meetings in the last year, addressed by various persons, on the advantages of emigration. That seems to me to be a totally inadequate number of meetings to bring home to the people of this country the astonishing opportunities that await them in these vast Dominions. I cannot imagine anything more inadequate. During one election in a single constituency one addresses quite 159 meetings. It is, as the noble Lord knows, by bringing it home to the people of the country in their own districts by means of speeches or lectures, or the experiences of those who have been to the Dominions, or by means of the cinema, that you really operate on the mind of the individual and get into him and his family the idea that great advantages await
44
them in seeking new fields and new fortunes in the Dominions. I do not know whether the noble Lord can assure us that all has been done that can be done to develop what I may call the advertisement side of the advantages of emigration to the Dominions.
The last point I would make is this. I am not going to ask what are the actual subjects which are to be brought before the Imperial Conference when it meets in September, but I do venture to hope that this subject will he very fully discussed, and that all the conditions which we have heard of in New Zealand, in Australia and even in Canada will be brought into the general discussion. I do not say that the State can do everything in the matter of aided emigration, but I think it can do a great deal, by enlisting the sympathy of the Dominions, to make things easier for those emigrants when they get there, and to spread abroad the great doctrine, already fortunately accepted by the Government of Australia, that a great deal might be done to bring about a better distribution of the white population of the Empire.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as one who has been for the past two years conected with an emigration society I rise to offer a few short comments on what has fallen from the lips of the noble Earl on the subject of emigration. I suggest that while there is undoubtedly a need for advertising emigration this work should be undertaken with the utmost care and delicacy. A very great deal of harm has been done by men who have gone out to the Dominions with the idea that they will find there a land of promise, and of promise of a kind which needs very little effort to obtain it, and have found, on arriving in Canada and Australia, that the struggle for life is there exceedingly hard, that there is, as of course is the fact, unemployment even in Canada, and that competition with emigrants from other European countries is severe and keen. I hope that in any advertisement on emigration great care will be taken not to raise hopes which cannot be satisfied.
There is one further sphere in which I believe advertisement could be of the very greatest advantage, and that is in the matter of women. Australia, in par-

45
ticular, needs, and will admit, a considerable number of British female emigrants, and it is very regrettable that the training colleges that do exist for fitting the young women of this country for domestic service and other employment in Australia are now not as full as they were. I hope that His Majesty's Government will do their best to see that the women's training colleges receive their full complement of applicants.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHUEBREDE): My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this Motion as, for the first six months that the present Government were in office, I held the position of Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this question, because I hope to reply to the questions he has put, and, at the same time, if I may, give a general survey of the present stage of emigration, about which a considerable amount of misunderstanding and ignorance exists in the public mind. This is not a Party question, nor is it even a political question; it is an economic question, and largely a scientific question. Unfortunately the superficial view appears so easy and plausible that people who have not got the opportunity to investigate further are apt to be very seriously misled. You hear people saying: "Here are we with 95,000 square miles and a population of 45,000,000 people, and there is Australia with an area of something like 3,000,000 square miles and A population of 6,000,000 people. Why not ship off some of our inhabitants and so relieve our congestion and help Australia?" It all seems so simple until one gets to very close quarters with the subject and realises its difficulty.
The effect of this having been taken into the Party and political arena has been very damaging—very damaging indeed. It has done infinite harm and I would plead, my Lords, that this subject should not be associated with the question of unemployment. That fact, that statement, that declaration has done a very great deal of harm because there is no question that superficially, in the eyes of people in the Dominions, there is an association between the words "unem-
46
ployed" and "unemployable." At once the notion becomes current that we desire to ship off those who are not fit for work in this country. It has done harm. Of course every man or woman who goes out of this country and relieves the labour market and leaves room for someone else, does incidentally relieve unemployment, but that consequence is a very different thing from setting out to state definitely that you are going to relieve unemployment by shipping people out of the country. Unfortunately, it got very much about at one time that it was the intention of the authorities in this country to drive people out of the country. That created a very great deal of prejudice.
The first consideration in this matter that must be taken into account before anything else concerns the wishes of the Dominions—the desires of the Dominions, the needs of the Dominions, the economic position of the Dominions. If I may put it rather crudely, this question of migration is a question of pulling and not of pushing. If full account is not taken of Dominion intentions and desires you at once come to grief. I think the best way is for me to deal with the subject from the point of view of the conditions which apply to any emigrant, man, woman or family, and I think, incidentally, as I pass along I shall be able to reply to the questions put by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl opposite. There is the question of the willingness of the emigrant first, his fitness second, his passage third, the desire of the Dominion Government to receive him fourth, and lastly, there is a question of after-care, when he arrives.
Let me begin with willingness because that is, as I say, the essence of the matter. You must have people who want to go. You must attract the adventurous spirits. There must be no question of trying to get rid of people who are not inclined to go. Assistance is given to the extent of about 35 per cent. of those who are sent out. The agencies that have to be consulted—and this will show the noble Viscount the complexity of the whole matter—include the Dominions representatives here in London, and the passenger agents and shipping companies. The two latter are responsible for 50 per cent. of emigration. Necessarily, through the commercial element, the element of profit, coming into it, their

47
activities perhaps are more successful than those of other organisations. Then the Ministry of Labour acts as the executive machine for the Government, operating through labour exchanges and now, occasionally, through shops. There are three of them set up. There is one in Sheffield, one in Newcastle and one in Hull. They are eminently successful because there is a desire if possible to get recruits by other means than through the labour exchanges in order to get away from the idea that the unfit are being shipped off. Then there are local migration committees. There are about fifty of them up and down the country. Some of them are very much more active and have much greater opportunities than others. There is one, for instance, in Yorkshire which is extremely active and which is supported by the very admirable work done by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who has just gone off to Canada. He has done very splendid work and really devoted his life to this service.
Then there are voluntary organisations. There are something like thirty of them. It would be invidious to single out any of them in case it might seem that I was not laying sufficient emphasis on the assistance given by others. I might say that there are notably the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., and Dr. Barnardo's Homes, to instance three of them. They all do admirable work and they are able to get into contact with sections of the population of various sorts which are quite outside the reach of any Government Department. All these voluntary societies are supported fifty-fifty by the Government. Through them men, families, single women, and boys are dealt with. The noble Lord who spoke last called attention to the question of single women and I think it is very desirable that they should be attracted to the Dominions. There unquestionably is an opening for them. There is a great deficiency of women in Australia and we have two million women more than men. I will not say too many, because that does not sound polite and we are very reluctant to part with any of them, but when they get to Australia the prospects of marriage are certainly much rosier. About 7,000 a year are being sent out.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Is the noble Lord aware that there is a serious
48
falling off in applicants for training women?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes, I understand there is for the time being, because there is some difficulty with regard to Market Harborough owing to the Australian contribution having been withdrawn. Now I come to the question of fitness and here I may answer one of the questions put by the noble Viscount. He must get out of his mind really from the outset that there is any possibility of sending out anybody who not A 1. The idea that we can send out anyone who is C 3 or B 2, or whatever other category of physical fitness there may be, must be rejected at once. In the first place the physical test laid down by the Dominions is very severe, and in the second place it is quite obvious that it is no good sending out men who cannot do the job and have to be deported. You want to send out fit men. You do not want to part with them, because you want them here—that is the trouble—but they are the men who ought to go.
To show how strict the test is, the noble Viscount may have seen the figures lately issued showing that there were 18,609 applications to go to Canada and only 5,941 acceptances. That meant that the migrants had to go first of all through a sieve on this side, not only as to their physical fitness but as to their suitability, and then through the medical sieve of the Canadian authorities. This fact will also indicate how cautious we have to be, as the noble Earl who spoke last reminded us, with regard to advertising. The truth is that, except in regard to single women, applications to go overseas are far greater than the numbers that can be placed and will be accepted, and therefore there is no need for any great extension of publicity. We are anxious that emigrants should undertake agricultural work and take root when they get there, and should not drift away to the cities or be deported.
I need not enter into the question of training centres, which is fully set out in the Paper to which the noble Viscount has already drawn attention. He will see there accounts of the training centres for men, for boys and for women. I have visited a number of these. They are admirably conducted. When I visited the boys in one of the hostels I heard expressions of regret that boys of such a

49
sturdy and enterprising kind should be lost to this country. It is unfortunate. In the same way, with regard to the young women, you hear complaints that people cannot get domestic servants here, and it is asked why these people should be trained to go into domestic service in Australia. I found that the type of young woman in this home was not the same as that which would go into domestic service in this country. The sort of social help that is given to families in Australia is rather different. With regard to the passage, it has already been stated that the reduction in the fare to Canada has had certain results. In 1928 the numbers taken over were 54,709, and in 1929 65,553. That seems to denote an increase due to the reduction, though perhaps not entirely; but there comes a point at which you do not want to reduce further. You want to assist as little as you can, in order to preserve the spirit of independence in the man or family going out. Also, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, they prefer in Canada the independent, unassisted emigrants to those that have to be supported by the State.
I turn to the question of Dominion acceptance. I do not want to keep your Lordships long, but it is rather important to make a general survey. The question of Dominion acceptance, as I have said, is one of the most important considerations that we have to take into account. With regard to every emigrant you have to consider his fitness and willingness and you have to negotiate with the society responsible for him and with the Dominion Government. Every care is taken to see that as few failures as possible are sent out. The scheme in regard to 3,000 families which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was very successful indeed. There were only 115 failures in the years 1927–9. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, was a little optimistic with regard to the present position in Canada. The collapse in wheat prices, which began before the drought of 1929, and the financial crisis in October, followed by the difficulty of disposing of the wheat crop, has led to unemployment and to reluctance to take people into farm work. We cannot expect that they will receive so many as in recent years. Last year 65,558 went out to Canada, and of these 58,755 were assisted.
50
With regard to Australia, the economic conditions have rather hung things up for the moment. I need not enter into the conditions of the agreement that has been referred to and the schemes that were entered upon under it. For the time being it is suspended, but there is a reluctance on the part of the Commonwealth, forced upon them by economic reasons, to open their doors so wide as they have opened them in the past. I should like to say a passing word, since we are talking of training centres, about the admirable Fairbridge school in Australia for the farm training of school children from the age of seven upwards. There is accommodation for 350, and there were 344 there in October last. It is receiving support not only from the Commonwealth Government but from succeeding Governments in Great Britain, and it does most admirable work.
The noble Viscount asked about South Africa. The figures from South Africa will show him that last year 5,766 went out, and of these 84 were assisted. The percentage is negligible. There is no opening for assisted emigrants. Anybody who goes out to South Africa must have a certain amount of capital so as to shift for himself, to buy land and stock and set up a farm. The 1820 Settlers Association does admirable work in getting hold of people who will go out and who have capital, and gives them facilities and all the necessary information. I think the noble Viscount, in mentioning Africa, also referred to Ireland. Ireland let me tell him, is not an immigrant but an emigrant country. Unfortunately people go out of Ireland.
The question of after-care has been very carefully gone into. It is felt that the obligation of the Government, if they assist a migrant to go over, should not stop with his arrival, and a certain amount of financial assistance is given to migrants once they are over there, and the Government of the Dominion join in and help. The best publicity is the success of the migrants who write home and whose letters are published. Unfortunately cases of failure get broadcast very much more easily and have much wider publicity than cases of success. That is very unfortunate. If anybody fails, he writes home and

51
his letter gets into the local Press, but I have seen numberless letters from people who have succeeded in the Dominions, both young people and families, and these very often do not reach beyond their own circle. I will not go into statistics, because these are fully set out in the Paper to which reference has been made.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked a question about the United States, and how far the raising of the quota would affect emigrants from this country. It is a little too early to say, but in 1929 there was certainly an increase—the number went up to 30,709, as compared with a lower figure in the previous year. He also asked whether the effect of various insurances was not to anchor people to this country and make it more difficult. It is rather too early to give any real direct results, but I would assure the noble Earl that this question of the anchorage of the population here because of our insurance and pensions is very much exaggerated. That is not the difficulty. The difficulty is at the other end. I may mention that the meetings which have been quoted are only meetings of the Oversea Settlement Committee. Voluntary societies have held a great many meetings, but just now it is very difficult to hold meetings. I was asked to attend one, but you cannot urge people to come forward when you cannot show them any openings to go to. The trouble for the time being is the economic condition of New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
I think I have gone over this question sufficiently to show that it is a matter of great complexity, but world wide economic influences have presented it to us in a way which is far more difficult and far more complex, and requiring far closer study and consideration, than the way in which it was ever presented to any of our predecessors. There is no reluctance on the part of any of the Dominions to receive men and women of British stock. On the contrary, there is eagerness to
52
receive them, and there is no reluctance on the part of a great many adventurous spirits to go out to the Dominions. There are, however, barriers in the way, largely of an economic description, which need not be emphasized by bringing in any sort of political bias, but which I hope in a few years may be overcome sufficiently to allow us to see a greater flow. Meanwhile I am not announcing any policy on the part of the Government. It is obvious that it is one of those questions which require close consideration with the Dominions themselves, and the Government are waiting for the next few months, when the Imperial Conference comes on, to have very close consultation with the Dominions on the whole question.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I take it that the noble Lord has no further Papers beyond those which are contained in the Command Paper that I hold in my hand?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think the Command Paper gives all.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Then I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH FREE STATE AND EX-SER-VICE MEN'S CLAIMS.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire to postpone the two Questions on the Paper standing in my name until this day week—[relating to certain paragraphs in the Report, dated November 8, 1928, of the Committee set up by the Irish Free State Government on the claims of British ex-Service men.] I may mention that Lord Passfield has told me that that day will suit him.
LORD PARMOOR: I quite understand that that is so.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.