Lords Sitting of 21 October 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Beaverbrook to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Moyne, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name upon the Paper.
Moved, That on this day and during the current week Standing Order No. XXI be suspended and Government business have precedence of other Notices and Orders of the Day, unless the Government agree to the contrary.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Earl OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power of Minister to buy requisitioned land.
(3) In determining the amount of compensation to be given for any land acquired compulsorily under this section, the value of that land shall be taken to be the value which it would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the time when possession was taken by the Minister or the Committee, as the case may be, and such reduction, if any, shall be made in the compensation as is neces-
314
sary in order to off-set any appreciation in the value of the land which is directly or indirectly ascribable to the war.
(6) Nothing in this section shall authorize the acquisition of any land which is, or forms part of, a Metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or which is subject to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882 or under any local Act or otherwise, or which is or forms part of any town or village green, or of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, or of any land the fee simple absolute in possession of which belongs to, and is held inalienably by, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act, 1907, whether subject to any tenancy or not.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK) moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "value which it would have had at the date of the notice to treat" and insert "price which a willing seller would, at the date of the notice to treat, have been likely to obtain in the open market for the land." The noble Duke said: This Amendment is really a drafting Amendment to bring the wording of subsection (3) into conformity with subsection (3) of Clause 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, leave out (" value which it would have had at the date of the notice to treat ") and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved, in subsection (6), after "subject," to insert "or might be made subject." The noble Duke said: This is another drafting Amendment and its purpose is to make quite clear that no common land can be acquired under the provisions of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, after ("subject") insert ("or might be made subject ").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD HARMSWORTH: May I venture, on behalf of those who are particularly interested in the preservation of the commons and open spaces of the country, to thank the Government most cordially for this Amendment, which, though brief and very simple, entirely meets the case of those in whose interests I speak?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I add one word to what has been said by the noble Lord, on behalf of the Committee of the Society which has been dealing with this matter, agreeing with what he has said?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Disposal of land required under the last preceding section.
(3) The said offer shall be an offer to sell the land for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, subject however to any tenancies, easements or other rights which existed when the Minister acquired the land or were granted by the Minister in so far as they are still subsisting at the date of the offer, at such price as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by arbitration to be the price which a willing seller would at the date of the offer have been likely to obtain in the open market:
Provided that where the price or compensation paid by the Minister for the acquisition of the land from the person to whom the offer is made or his predecessor in title included a sum in respect of severance from, or injurious affection of, other land, and the damage for which that sum was paid will be wholly or partly made good to the person to whom the offer is made by his availing himself of the offer, there shall be included in the price to be paid by him such sum as corresponds to the damage so made good, not exceeding the sum included as aforesaid in the price or compensation paid by the Minister.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved, in subsection (3), after "price," where that word first occurs, to insert "as may be specified in the offer or, if the person to whom the offer is made so elects in accepting the offer, at such price." The noble Duke said: This Amendment is the first of two drafting Amendments to make it quite clear that the period of three months, which is mentioned in subsection (4) of Clause 10, shall be the period in which negotiations as to the price may be discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, after (" price ") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: The next Amendment, in the proviso in subsection (3), is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 2, leave out from (" offer ") to (" such ") in line 3 and insert (" the Minister in considering what price he is prepared to
316
accept, and the arbitrator, in determining what price is to be paid, shall include therein ").—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill I promised my noble friend Lord Jessel that I would give an explanation of an Amendment made in the House of Commons and circulated with the Bill, with reference to the City of London Municipal Elections Amendment Act, 1867. The explanation is that, as this Bill removes the qualification of actual occupation of premises within a ward in respect of a voter at Aldermanic elections, it was considered necessary to make provision in the Bill to amend Section 6 of the Municipal Elections Amendment Act, 1867, by omitting those words in that section prescribing a form of declaration to be made by voters at City elections declaring that the voter is an occupier of premises in the ward in which he votes. It was found, however, after the Bill had made some progress in the House of Commons, that Section 6 of the Act of 1867 had in fact been repealed as long ago as 1887. It was therefore unnecessary to include words in the Bill dealing with this point, and the Amendment to which my noble friend referred alters the Bill in that respect.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to call attention to the grave increase in the number of fatal accidents on the roads; to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to reduce the unnecessary loss and suffering caused by these casualties; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, last February I brought before your Lordships' House the problem of the large number of casualties on the roads. I had considerable hesitation in bringing it before the House again in the same Session, but as the number of casualties has increased so alarmingly and there is a new Minister of Transport who has already shown concern over this matter, I felt it right, once again, to bring the question before your Lordships and to ask the Government what steps they are proposing to take in connexion with it. The figures speak sufficiently of the gravity of the position. Before the war 6,600 were killed on the roads every year. In the first year of the war the number rose to 8,300. In the second year the number reached over 10,000. Since the outbreak of the war 18,000 people have been killed on our roads. The comment recently made by The Times on this was that for every two of our own citizens killed in our own country by the enemy we have killed one. Among these 18,000 killed there were rather over 2,000 children. To those who are killed you must add those who are injured, some seriously, some slightly. At first no returns were made during the war of the number of non-fatal casualties, but lately returns have been made, and these show a very remarkable decrease, a decrease of about one-quarter in the number of those who were injured but not killed on the roads. I shall, in a minute or two, say something about the explanation of this.
In all probability, if you take into account all those injured on the roads as well as those killed since the outbreak of war, 400,000 have been killed or injured on our roads. If you add to these physical injuries the bereavement, the sorrow, the anxiety, the suspense and also the loss in man-power to the nation at the very time when we are saying that every man is important and ought to be doing some national work—if you add all this together you have a vast sum of national loss and human suffering. Last year—or
318
earlier this year I think—we were all very inclined to say that this was due to the black-out, that the black-out was an inevitable evil which we must bear as patiently as we can, and that it was hopeless to attempt to reduce at all materially this terrible toll in lives. But the last figures we have show that there are other factors involved besides the black-out. The number of pedestrians killed in the black-out in the last year has been reduced; the number of pedestrians, on the other hand, who have been killed in daylight hours, has increased by something like 34 per cent.
This shows that there must be some other causes besides those due to the black-out. I think, undoubtedly, one of those causes is excessive speed. I am not for a moment saying that every driver who goes quickly is a dangerous driver. There are many who go quickly on the roads who are safe, careful and considerate drivers, but when there is excessive speed the margin of safety is reduced and it is hard to correct any error in judgment either on the part of the motorist or on the part of some other user of the road. I think it is largely on account of excessive speed that the number of fatalities has risen so strikingly in comparison with the decrease of nonfatal accidents. While before the war only 1 in every 39 casualties was killed, now it is 1 in 22. It is obvious that when a car is moving rapidly and there is a collision the results will be very much more serious than if the car was moving slowly. Of course there are other causes. I think heavier traffic and cars of heavier weight also have something to do with the increase in the number of fatalities compared to other casualties, and I think it is also significant that wherever you have a speed limit you find a reduction in the number of casualties. In 1935 a number of areas were put under speed control and casualties at once dropped by 19 per cent. As soon as control was put on during the black-out there was a drop in the number of casualties. I think all this indicates that excessive speed has a great deal to do with the number of casualties.
Sir Philip Game, the Commissioner of Police for London, said the other day that undue speed was the predominant factor in causing the increase of accidents. I know it may be pointed out on the other side that the larger number of these acci-

319
dents take place in districts where there is already speed control. That undoubtedly is so, but the reason I believe is that the speed control to-day is generally ignored. If the speed control was really enforced in these districts we should find, I believe, a reduction in the number of casualties. Every one of your Lordships, passing through a restricted district, through a village with a thirty-mile speed limit, will know that he is passed again and again by cars going rapidly. In my own case, as I am a slow driver, if I am passing through a rather narrow village, I am sometimes conscious of a string of cars behind me protesting with no uncertain sound against the way in which I am observing the letter of the law. I am sure that what we want now is not a universal speed limit—I am not asking for that; I am asking that the existing law about speed should be enforced. Until it is enforced I doubt if we shall have any appreciable reduction in the number of casualties.
It would not be fair, and it would obviously be inaccurate, to say that all these casualties are due to the speed of motorists. There are other users of the road who are also to blame. I have every sympathy with the cyclists. Motorists often regard them with scant courtesy, driving them into the gutter or to the side of the road. But the cyclists are sometimes inconsiderate. For example, you see cyclists swaying across the road. Then again there are the pedestrians. I am a pedestrian myself, and I have, therefore, the fullest sympathy with the pedestrian as against the motorist. I would rather cross a ploughed field and make my way through barbed wire than walk along a road on which there is heavy traffic but which has no footpath. But pedestrians, also, are careless and inconsiderate. Very often—sometimes, even, in the black-out—they walk along the white line, and they frequently cross the road at places where crossing is obviously dangerous. Sometimes, too, they step off the pavement without looking. I wish the noble Lord, the Minister of Transport, would use the powers which I believe he possesses to insist that pedestrians, at night at any rate, should wear or carry something white, and always walk facing the traffic. That, I think, would lead to some reduction of these casualties.
Then, of course, there are the children. Not the most careful motorist can avoid some accident with fatal consequences to a child happening occasionally. The children in many instances have no playgrounds, no recreation spaces. The only place in which they can play is the road. The older children are not always good guardians of the younger, and quite unexpectedly some small child will dart across the road, and the motorist, however carefully he is going, is unable to avoid an accident. All these factors must be taken into consideration. It is not just to blame only the motorist; but, undoubtedly, the largest proportion of the accidents which now occur on the road are, I think, due to excessive speed, going round corners on the wrong side of the road, and, also, to the very great difficulty which many motorists experience in getting spare parts. This last may seem a very trivial point, but the fact is that a large number of motorists are unable to have their cars looked after as carefully as they did before the war, and the difficulty of getting spare parts for any defective portions of the car is very great. It may be a matter of weeks or even a matter of months before they can be obtained, and if a man is dependent upon his car for his business almost inevitably he will take some risks. I wish something could be done to make it possible for motorists who have to use their cars on business to obtain spare parts that are really necessary more quickly.
I do not want to put before the Government a whole series of recommendations. They have here in a Report already published recommendations of great value. In 1936, I think it was, this House appointed a select Committee to go into the whole question of the prevention of road accidents. A strong Committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alness, and, after hearing a great deal of evidence, they produced in 1939 an admirable and most careful Report; a Report with a very large number of detailed recommendations. I have not counted the recommendations, but I should say that they number something like 200. Now I know it is quite impossible in war-time to put in force a number of these recommendations. We have not the labour available and we have not the money needed to carry out some of the more drastic reforms which are suggested. But there

321
are, nevertheless, a large number of recommendations which could be acted upon at once, I think. If the noble Lord reads through this Report—and I have no doubt that he has done so very carefully already—he will, I think, be able in the course of half an hour to mark off a number of recommendations which could be enforced within a very short time. Therefore, the main suggestion which I want to make to the Government is that this Report should be taken out of cold storage, and that as many of its recommendations as possible should be accepted and acted upon. They are practical, and they are full of common sense. They recognize the difficulties of motorists and of other users of the road.
Mainly, they fall into two great classes. The first class of recommendations deals with education—education of the road users. The second class relates to the segregation of the various classes of those who use the roads. If the noble Lord will act on this Report, or upon part of it, he will save the Report from the fate which members of the Committee evidently feared. In the last words of the Report they say they hope that it may not have the fate of other Departmental Reports—namely, that it will be put to rest in some pigeon-hole in Whitehall. In this Report there is reference to the staggering nature of the figures, and to the appalling holocaust of the roads. The position to-day is much more appalling and more staggering than it was at the time when the Report was drawn up. The Report also refers to the strange complacency exhibited by the people of this country with regard to the matter. I sometimes am more alarmed at this complacency than I am even at the toll of actual casualties. There has been no outburst of indignation when we hear of ten thousand persons killed in a year. There has been no outcry of pity when we hear of children killed on the roads at the rate of four or five a day, and of a hundred injured every day, many more or less seriously. I sometimes wonder whether, unconsciously, we are being infected with that totalitarian philosophy which cares nothing for human personality. I sometimes wonder whether the continued spectacle of suffering may not be dimming the pity and compassion which we normally feel. I hope that the Government will take immediate action, and that
322
by their action they will do something to reduce this terrible toll of death and accident which is a reflection on the common sense and a disgrace to the humanity of the nation. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not think that the right reverend Prelate has any need to apologize to this House for bringing this matter again before the attention of your Lordships. It is a very long-standing scandal, which is becoming worse and not better; and the apathy of the population which is alleged to exist—I shall have a word to say about that before I finish—is nothing to the callousness with which successive Governments have dealt with the situation. The right reverend Prelate referred to the Committee presided over by Lord Alness, and to the melancholy result—or non-result—which has followed from that very careful investigation and that very elaborate set of recommendations. Nothing whatever has been done as a consequence of that Report, and that is true not only of that Report but of a very large number of inquiries and recommendations, of votes carried in this House and of debates. This goes back for ten or fifteen years. We all remember the extraordinarily eloquent speeches which were made by the late Lord Buckmaster, speeches which moved the whole House, and which sometimes led to the defeat of the Government of the day on the actual Motion which he brought forward. The net result, however, was nothing. The way in which this question has been treated is one of the greatest scandals in English history.
I do not know what the Government's present proposal is; I do not think that this House has been told exactly what it is. It is said, however, that they are going to have another Committee consisting of six persons—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—and that three of them are to be civil servants, unnamed and probably no better than any of their predecessors in this matter; their great anxiety will be to report that nothing need be done. The other three members, so I am told, are to be nominated by the Society which now calls itself the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. That is what is said; it may turn out not to be accurate. It is also said that one of those three members is to be the representative of the very large body which

323
calls itself the Commercial Motor Users' Association. The other two I know very little about. I confess that the general idea of this Committee does not fill me with the slightest confidence that anything serious or effective will result from its deliberations.
I admired the extreme moderation of the right reverend Prelate when he very frankly and candidly admitted that there might be other causes of these accidents than the speed at which motor cars are driven. No doubt that may be so; but I do not think that anyone who gives impartial consideration to the matter can doubt that speed is the dominating cause of these accidents. To my mind, the fundamental mistake which we have made in this matter is to require the same roads to be used by vehicles going at the speed of an express train and by little children toddling along at no speed at all. That cannot be done with safety; it is absolutely impossible. Friends of mine have asked me: "Why do you bother about speed? Look at the speed at which railway trains go; it is much greater, and quite safe." Yes, but just consider the precautions which we take. We exclude from the railway tracks everyone except those actually concerned with the traffic. But for that, the accident rate would be terrific; if we allowed children to stray about on the railway lines, thousands of them would be killed every day. They are not allowed to go there. Even so far as the small amount of contact between railways and roads at level crossings is concerned, I remember very well that, when I was first practising at the Parliamentary Bar, whenever a railway came forward with a proposal to enlarge its lines, or to do something similar, it was made a condition that it should abolish all level crossings in the part of the line affected by the proposals. That was the regular practice, and it was done by the railway companies at a cost of thousands of pounds, the intention being to prevent the ordinary user of the road from coming into contact with the railway tracks. The result of that and of similar measures has been to make it extremely rare for an ordinary member of the public to be killed on the railways; but that that is so is due to the fact that the public are not allowed to wander about on the railway lines.
324
It seems to me that that in itself shows how immensely important is the question of speed; but that is not the only thing to be taken into account. A noble friend of mine, when this matter was last discussed, made a speech in which he denied altogether that speed was the main cause of accidents. I cannot understand anyone holding that view who considers for a moment the history of the roads. Many of us can remember when it was an extremely rare thing to see a motor on the roads; I can remember, indeed, when there were no motors, and the traffic was entirely horse traffic. Accidents in those days were extremely rare; although a certain number of people were killed on the roads even then, they were very few. Now, what is the real difference between the motor vehicle and the horse carriage? So far as safety is concerned, almost the only serious difference is speed, and perhaps I ought to add as well the weight of the vehicle. In every other respect the motor is a more manageable vehicle than the carriage-and-pair or the coach-and-four; it is easier to stop it and to divert it. The whole reason for the great number of accidents which take place is the speed at which motors are driven. When I say "the whole reason" I am not saying that every accident is due to that cause, but if we could get rid of that cause of accidents, we should get rid of all the serious evil which exists at the present moment.
I confess that it is the slaughter of the children which moves me most. I have therefore made it my business to look at some of the documents which have recently been issued by this society which is to have such a large share in advising the Government as to their policy. I looked particularly to see what they said about the children, and this is what I find in one of their most recent publications, a publication of June this year. I notice that there is very little indeed said about speed in that document, which is a kind of summary of the recommendations of the society, but this is the actual recommendation as to the children; it is set out as one of the causes for the "unduly inflated total," which is the decorous way in which the writer describes the slaughter on the roads. It speaks of parents and guardians
"not making arrangements for better supervision of young children so that they do not go out alone on errands nor play in busy

325
streets, on or around vehicles which may move off, nor on toy cycles, scooters or roller skates. Safety training of children is not sufficiently universal."
I wonder how anyone could have written such a paragraph as that. How is it possible for the parents of the poorer children to be always watching and guarding them when they are going to and from school, or going in any other capacity which takes them outside of the door of the cottage or small house where they live? Your Lordships do guard your children. You do not allow your children to go out without a guardian, or nurse or somebody to look after them, but the poorer people cannot guard them in that way. This is a case where the poor suffer, as they so often suffer, because they are unable to take the precautions which the richer people can take. I confess I read that paragraph with profound regret. It seems to me that the man who can write that is utterly unfit to advise the Government on a question of this kind.
I find in another Bulletin this observation, and I venture to read it to your Lordships because it seems to me thoroughly characteristic of the difficulty which we are up against. Discussing the general causes of accidents, it says:
" There are two extreme schools of thought. The first believes that the solution is to impose further speed limits. If it were practicable to reduce the speed of all traffic to a universal crawl then perhaps this would be a solution. But traffic is the life-blood of modern civilization; it cannot be choked."
Then there is an additional observation:
" Few child accidents occur in circumstances of ' speeding '."
No definition is given of what is meant by the word "crawl," but it is a very useful admission by a writer who is certainly not unduly prejudiced against motors—an admission that if you did reduce speed to the condition of what he describes as a "crawl," you would get rid of this 10,000 death-rate, or a very large proportion of it. But he says that cannot be done; it would choke "the life-blood of modern civilization."
I do not believe a word of it. I believe that if you reduced to a moderate speed the motor traffic of this country you would not affect the life-blood of civilization at all. If the necessities of commerce make it necessary to transport goods or people at a greater rate, there are always the railways. That, or you
326
must have speed roads, confined to rapidly-moving traffic. If you are going a short distance the question of whether you go twenty or thirty miles an hour is not very important; the actual loss of time becomes very small when it is only ten or twenty miles. But when you are going a very great distance no doubt the speed of the traffic may become important. But then, that traffic ought to be dealt with by the railways, or special speed roads, and not by the ordinary roads which are used for the ordinary traffic of the population.
Then there is the phrase at the end, that few accidents are due to speed. Well, there is one thing which I think it is very important for everybody to recollect. When somebody, particularly a child, is killed on the road nobody really is in a position to speak as to what happened except the driver of the motor. The child cannot speak, and it is a great chance whether anybody is watching; in point of fact, if you look at the proceedings before coroners, there is usually only the evidence of the actual driver of the car. And that is not the only thing to remember. It is not only the speed at the moment of impact that matters. It matters too, but that is not the thing which is the cause of the accident. The cause of the accident is the speed at the moment when the danger of an accident appears probable. Then is the time. If at that moment your car is going fifty or sixty miles an hour it is quite evident you are much less likely to be able to stop in time to prevent an accident than if it is going at a moderate and reasonable speed. I feel very strongly that unless this question of speed is really seriously tackled by the Government nothing effective can be done. No amount of preaching and recommendation is any use, and no appeals to the public. You drew up the Highway Code. It produced not the slightest effect on the safety of the roads. But all these things have been pointed out over and over again. Appeals are not what is wanted; you have to deal with this thing seriously and definitely. No doubt the difficulties are considerable at this moment because of the war. But even now the very moderate proposal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester might be adopted; you might at any rate enforce the laws which exist.
It is said that there is great apathy on this subject. Yes, I think there is. But

327
when you consider the circumstances perhaps that apathy is not so striking. The people who are killed or who suffer are scattered all over the country. They are poor people, for the most part. They have no means, or very little means, of defending themselves. They are not members of any organization. If they were all members of a trade union circum- stances would be very different by now. But they have no organization at their back. The little efforts that are made by the pedestrian societies and so on are hampered by want of funds, by the fact that there is no great commercial interest in the safety of the roads, that all the commercial interests involved are in favour of no interference with motors, which might impede the sale of motors, which might impede the profits of those who live by the motor trade. I do not say that they are wicked, I say that that is the natural bias of their position. They persuade themselves that nothing is necessary to be done, and they write letters to the papers, make speeches in Parliament, and they use the immense organization which they have at their disposal to prevent anything being done.
I am very well aware, and those of your Lordships who have had the misfortune to listen to me on previous occasions know quite well, that I have no gift of emotional eloquence such as the late Lord Buckmaster had, to move your Lordships to passionate feelings of pity for the tragedies which are being enacted all over the roads of this island; but if there were somebody who could move this House, move the other House, and, if necessary, move the Party organizations, which is not very easy, something might be done. Something must be done to put a stop to this horrible scandal that now exists with very little protest. The moment the Government of the day were really in earnest in seeing that this thing was brought to an end, I have not the slightest doubt that very large improvements would be made in the safety of the roads.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I do not propose to take up more than a few-minutes of your Lordships' time, but I am probably expressing the feelings of every one of your Lordships, and no doubt the feelings of the public outside, when I say that the disclosures of the
328
present situation made by the right reverend Prelate will cause the deepest anxiety throughout the country. As the right reverend Prelate has reminded us, in 1937—not 1936, as he said—after a debate in this House, and in consequence largely of a speech by him and a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, a Select Committee was set up whose terms of reference were to see what steps should be taken to reduce the number of casualties on the roads. I have from time to time been a member of a good many Committees, but I do say this, that no Committee could have devoted itself to its task with more care or more patience, or taken greater pains in the consideration of the matter under reference. That Committee was presided over by my noble friend Lord Alness. I was a member of it, Lord Addison was a member of it, and there were four other members of your Lordships' House. We began our deliberations in the spring of 1938, we sat through the summer and the autumn of 1938, and in the spring of 1939 we presented the Report to which reference has already been made. We sat on some forty occasions and heard some seventy witnesses. Several members of your Lordships' House were good enough to come and make statements to us. Several members of another place gave us great assistance and gave evidence too. We received evidence also from, I think, all the principal organizations of road users, and we heard evidence from the police, both Metropolitan and provincial. We heard evidence from officials of the Ministry of Transport and from representatives of local authorities and the Board of Education. In due course we presented our Report—as I have said in the early spring of 1939.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, the figures presented to us at that time showed that the number of fatal accidents was 6,300 a year and the number of non-fatal accidents was 200,000. From what the right reverend Prelate has said, it is obvious that the position is incomparably worse now than it was then. Indeed, as I have said, it causes everyone the greatest anxiety. In our Report we said that obviously there could be no sovereign remedy for an evil of that kind. We never pretended there could be such a remedy, and I do not pretend it now; but we made a series of suggestions and re-

329
commendations, numbering—I counted them—about 230, which we thought and said would make a considerable contribution to the diminution of the terrible evil and dangers into which we were examining. The question I want to ask the noble Lord who is replying for the Government is a very simple one, and I am sure he will be able to answer it. The question is this: What has been done from that day to this with regard to the recommendations of that Committee? This Report has been in the hands of the Government for two and a half years, and, as I say, there are a great many recommendations. I would ask the Minister just to tell the House clearly and exactly which of these 230 recommendations have been carried into effect, which have not, and, if not, why not. He may say, and say with reason, that some of the recommendations cannot be carried out in time of war. For instance, we made recommendations, comprehensive recommendations, with regard to new roads, the improvement of old roads, and so on. It may well be that in time of war labour is not available, and these recommendations—or all of them—could not be carried out. My noble friend may say also that we made recommendations which would involve legislation, perhaps, of a very controversial character, and he may say it is rot reasonable to expect at this time that controversial legislation of that kind should be introduced.
But, as the right reverend Prelate said, scores of our recommendations do not require legislation at all. All they require is administrative action on the part of the Department concerned—namely, the Ministry of Transport. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has said, so far as I can see, this Report is just reposing in the well-filled pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Transport, and nothing has been done about it. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Addison agrees, but I was particularly disturbed when it came out in the course of our inquiry—a fact of which until that time I was ignorant—that Inter-Departmental Committees had been investigating the subject both in England and in Scotland with a view to providing for the safety of school children. With regard to the recommendations of the Scottish Inter-Departmental Committee, our Committee said that with these recommendations we found ourselves in agreement, and we added:
330
" Little has been done with regard to the recommendations of the corresponding Inter-Departmental Committee for England and Wales. The Committee find themselves in agreement with the recommendations of that Report also, and they were concerned to find that more progress has not been made as a result of it, under the direction of the Board of Education and the Ministry of Transport."
So far as I can see, the recommendations of our Committee are being treated with exactly the same indifference as were the findings of the Inter-Departmental Committees, which in the case of England and Wales was presided over by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen; in Scotland I am not sure who the chairman was.
I would ask the Minister who is about to reply to tell us, if he will, exactly which of our recommendations have been carried into effect. I shall not detail them, for it would take too long. Noble Lords need only look at our Report to see what they are, but I would ask him in regard to one or two. We recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that what we called "accident-prone drivers "should be prevented from driving in future. Has anything been done about that? It is evident that if a man is accident-prone, as a great many are, he ought not to be allowed on the roads at all, because he is a public danger and menace to every other user of the road. Another of our recommendations—I only give it as an example—was that on the sale of a second-hand car a certificate of fitness should be given as to the brakes of that car, because obviously a car of which the brakes are inefficient and out of order is itself a danger on the roads. In these days, when you cannot get new cars, it is more necessary to ensure that second-hand cars on the road are reasonably safe, particularly in regard to brakes. I only give these as two examples; there are very many more.
One other thing I should like to mention. I was very much struck, and I am sure Lord Addison was struck, by the evidence we heard from the Chief Constable of Lancashire. He told us that accidents in Lancashire before 1938 were rapidly increasing, as they were in every other part of the country. In the first six months of 1938 he started an experiment, the details of which will be found in the Minutes, which are printed, and which therefore I shall not delay your Lordships by going into now. In the first six months that this experiment was

331
in operation accidents in Lancashire decreased by 46 per cent. What I would ask the noble Lord to tell us is this: Is that experiment still going on, is it being repeated in other parts of the country, and, if so, with what result? because if the Chief Constable of Lancashire and his police were able to reduce accidents in Lancashire by 46 per cent., surely this is an experiment which ought to have been adopted and become universal all over the country. I know other noble Lords wish to speak, and I will not take up any more of your time, but I do say that the anxiety which is being caused by the present loss of life will, I am sure, be reflected in this House, and reflected also in the country. What I would ask the noble Lord who replies for the Government to do is to say that he accepts this Motion, and state exactly what has been done, what is being done and what he proposes to do, in order that we may know what the attitude of the Ministry of Transport is, that we may know what it has done, and what it proposes to do in the future.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have listened to a great many debates on this question in recent years, and have very frequently taken part in the debates myself. I must confess that the impression left upon me, although I do not wish to convey any imputations against anyone, has been one of their extreme futility, a futility only equalled by the complete complacency of the country, and the absence of interest in this particular question. Now everybody knows by this time, more or less, what takes place on a debate of this kind. A Motion is moved and supported by noble Lords who, metaphorically wring their hands over the devastation that is committed upon the roads of the country. The debate on the Motion is also participated in by noble Lords interested in motoring, who make out that the charges which have been made are grossly exaggerated, and that so far from speed being the principle danger, speed on the whole rather acts in the opposite direction. This is followed, of course, by a statement on the part of the Ministry of Transport. I do not think I am incorrect in saying that during recent years there has not been a Minister who has answered for the Ministry of Transport who knows anything what-
332
ever about this matter. I do not know whether that position is going to be reversed this afternoon, but that is literally the fact.
I am not sure myself that this is purely a Ministry of Transport question. It seems to me that the question has passed beyond that stage and that what is required is more than a vague assurance from the Ministry of Transport that they will consider the different propositions which are brought before us, which as a matter of fact they never do, judging by the remarks just made by my noble friend just behind me (Lord Rushcliffe) in regard to the Report of the Committee, for which I incidentally was myself personally responsible. I do not think as a matter of fact that the Ministry of Transport are much concerned with this question of the security of the individual. I do not think it is a matter which interests the Ministry of Transport. They are interested in other things, and, therefore, I say that the question has really passed from the consideration of that Department. It seems to me that it is now a question for the strict administration of the law.
We are suffering at this moment, so to speak, from an epidemic of road accidents. What happens when an epidemic occurs, whatever its nature may be? We are told, and we may be told again this afternoon, by the representative of the Ministry of Transport that the statements which have been made are much exaggerated and that the question can really be solved by education and propaganda. For my part I have a complete disbelief in propaganda in regard to this question. The pedestrian does not require to be subjected to propaganda. He knows the danger perfectly well. I am an unfortunate example as a person who has suffered more than most people. I have been knocked down four times in the last few years, and on each occasion I was on a recognized crossing. But one cannot draw a general inference from a particular case. What I wish to maintain is that propaganda against being run over by motor cars is an absolutely unnecessary proceeding, and one that is applicable only to children. An adult can think for himself, and nobody would go so far as to say that a pedestrian wants to be run over.
What would happen supposing there was another epidemic, an epidemic of

333
burglary, for instance? Would the Home Office say it was purely a question of propaganda, and that, if all the right reverend Prelates in this House would devote their attention for a certain number of Sundays in advocating the observation of the eighth Commandment, the epidemic of burglary would cease? Of course nothing of the kind happens. What happens is that heavy penalties are enforced, and you get rid of the epidemic of burglary in that way. That is precisely what ought to be done in the case we are considering to-day. We may talk abort propaganda and about the criminal acts of drivers, but that produces no effect. All your propaganda would be perfectly useless. But if you let it be clearly understood that any motorist convicted of carelessness, the result of which is an accident, will be severely dealt with, then the whole position would change completely.
I suggest that the man who can do more than anybody else at the present moment to stop what is called the holocaust on the roads is the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. If the Lord Chancellor, or somebody representing him, would issue an injunction to the persons who constitute the Courts which try motorists that they must carry out the law strictly and if necessary enforce the highest penalties, then I am convinced that the whole situation would completely alter. I would venture, therefore, to make an appeal directly to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I believe that he or his predecessor did issue some kind of injunction to the Courts not so very long ago, and it had a very considerable effect. I am quite convinced myself that that is the remedy for the present position, and that we may go on talking here and in other places for years to come and nothing substantial will be done unless the simple step is taken of carrying out the law. If that were done then I believe this slaughter would come to an end long before people at present generally realize. After all, it is a perfectly simple solution, and I cannot see that anybody could raise any objection to it. All you have to do in fact is to see that the law, as it stands now, is properly and efficiently administered.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add a few words on this topic?
334
It is a matter on which I have not previously addressed your Lordships, but I know something about it because, when sitting in the Court of Appeal, I have had to hear a large number of cases relating to accidents arising from collisions of motor cars and running over of pedestrians, and I have given the matter very careful attention. The first thing I want to say is that I entirely agree with the very admirable speech, if I may be allowed to say so, of the right reverend Prelate, and I am perfectly sure that he and others who have spoken are quite right in saying that the dominant factor in all these cases is speed. How anybody can deny that I cannot understand. We know that in areas where the nature of the traffic reduces speed, such as exists at this moment and has long existed in the streets of the City of London, accidents are almost unknown. If you could impose a speed limit—I am not saying it would be necessary to do it—such as we had in the old days of horse-drawn traffic of about twelve miles an hour, nobody in his senses could deny that accidents would almost entirely disappear. That is the real basic factor.
The next thing I would say is that your Lordships might find it interesting to ascertain what is the experience which has been accumulated abroad on this matter of speed limits. I am informed that in some of the States of the United States there has been a reduction of speed limit which some of your Lordships would consider to be of a very drastic character, and that has resulted in an enormous decrease in the number of accidents. If that can be done in a State of several million people in the United States, and if it has that result, I do think, whatever anybody else may say in favour of people going as fast as they can; that the great object of reducing mortality and injury on the roads is such that if necessary we must reduce the speed limit. In many States in America I am told fifty miles is the maximum. Of course there are many roads in which a maximum of fifty miles would be very dangerous—in country lanes and so forth.
I do not want to address your Lordships at any length because time is short to-day, but I would like to tell you the story of events which took place quite a short time ago which shows the completely wrongful way in which this matter of

335
motor car driving is regarded, not only by motorists but, I regret to say, by magistrates all over the country. This is the story. A man, with a fairly fast car, is going along a comparatively narrow road. This is all true; it took place a short time ago. There is a car in front of him. There is space to enable him to pass it, so he accelerates and goes out just a little bit intending to pass the car and get ahead. That is all quite reasonable so far. But he observes in the distance a cyclist coming towards him and he can see that there is not enough room for the car he is overtaking and himself and the cyclist to pass each other. He thought he could pass the car in front of him before the cyclist would come up and he took the risk. He smashed up and killed the cyclist. He was summoned for dangerous driving and in the end, after a lot of talk and an able defence by counsel, the decision of the magistrate was that the man had been guilty of a serious error of judgment. The result was that he was fined £1, which is the sum which young women all over the country get fined when they leave their cars for over a quarter of an hour outside a shop. The same penalty, £1, is imposed for killing a man.
I do not want to get heated about this, although I feel some internal heat about it. What I want to call to your Lordships' observation is the fact that accidents of that kind are due to the fact that the motorist has no conception at all of the difference beween the convenience to him of getting somewhere two minutes faster than he otherwise would and the chance of the other man being killed or injured for life. In my opinion the law wants altering there. I do not say these things lightly—I have been in the law all my life—but I am perfectly sure that that kind of man, who takes a risk of that character for his own convenience and for nothing else, and who kills or injures for life the person on whom the risk will fall, should be severely punished. Until motorists know that they have not got a right to run risks of that kind and that they must go slower even at the cost of taking their foot off the accelerator, or of putting on a brake for a moment—until they know that, you will not get justice in these cases and you will not get people driving reasonably along the roads.
People talk as if motorists were reasonable and as if pedestrians were unreason-
336
able —I do not know which is the true description—but I want to point out that we have to remember in this matter that everybody has to begin. I remember when I began a good many years ago, and I have a son who since then has started driving at the age of seventeen. We have all seen young people driving, young women with cigarettes in their mouths who you would think had only just left school. You never can give these people road sense when they begin driving. It is a thing they have to learn. There are very few high-spirited lads who do not have a few accidents in their early days. The same trouble occurs at the other end of the mental scale. You get old people who have not the quick reaction and the quick appreciation of circumstances that they once had. You need not take these people off the roads if you have a law and regulations which will enable motor driving to be conducted with every care, because then you will teach the lads and the girls, and the old men, that they have got to take the greatest care the whole time and that then they will not have these accidents. For people to get on the roads at an early age or go on to the age of senility and drive at ninety or a hundred miles an hour because the road is not controlled, is absolute madness.
If you want to reduce the number of deaths on the road you must tackle the problem in a very different spirit from that in which it has been approached before. I hope that the noble Lord who replies for the Government will realize that the country is profoundly dissatisfied with the present conditions and, although it has not yet been established how strong the feeling is in country districts, where the playground is the village streets and three or four children are killed every year, the people will one day put the Government in a very awkward position unless something is done. I have only one other thing to say. I know, and I believe your Lordships know perfectly well, that since the war the speed of driving has greatly increased. I cross a road many times a day—Sloane Street—which is quite a good road for people to drive fast upon. I am perfectly convinced that at present if you had a really scientific record of the number of cars that go down that road at fifty miles an hour, although it is a controlled road—I am not speaking about the time when traffic is infer-

337
quent as on a Sunday—you would find fifty or a hundred cars driving at that pace; and nobody who has driven along the country roads of England lately can have failed to see lorries driven at many miles an hour beyond the thirty miles to which they are supposed to be limited. These things are known to everybody and I venture to think that the Government cannot put up a Government case against the obvious facts with which I have, I am afraid, troubled your Lordships.
VISCOUNT PLUMER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in this debate. It seems to me that the noble Lords who have preceded me have dealt with periods rather far in the distant past, and not so much with the present moment. I think that the formation of this Advisory Committee is rather a dangerous step, for I am perfectly certain that a Departmental Committee of that sort without any cross references to the Ministry of Home Security and the Service Departments will not accomplish the aims which have been put before it. As the accident rate at night in the blackout last year increased rapidly as the nights grew longer and as the black-out coincided with the rush hours, I do feel that this Committee which was, I believe, formed in August, should be hurried up so that some of the proposals it makes should be before your Lordships and before another place before this dangerous period comes again. Last December 873 fatal accidents occurred during the blackout, and the number fell during this June to 41. The number increased in July, and again in August. The September figures I have not got, but I presume that with the longer hours of darkness they will probably be increasing.
I think two of the reasons for day accidents, or additional causes of them, are those traffic light signals which, in many cases, are practically invisible in daylight, and also the absence of signposts throughout the country. There are now a very large number of Home Guards and in case of emergency these Home Guards could pull up and remove signposts very speedily. The traveller to-day needs to have the whole of his attention on his car and on the road, and if he is looking for lights which are practically invisible or for signposts which are not there and suddenly sees a road ahead, the temptation for him to swing across the
338
road or to swing into whatever direction he wishes to follow, without giving proper consideration to other road users, is very great.
There is only one other point which I should like to make. I feel the nation is prepared for very drastic and necessary restrictions to be laid on motorists during the black-out, and I feel that restrictions might be framed in such a form as to give precedence during the rush hours in the darkness to the pedestrians to a far greater extent than is now the case. If motorists, even in view of the shortage of petrol, are able to use their cars for travelling to and from town or to and from other built-up areas, surely certain areas in the black-out should be reserved for people going to and from their business or their work. The amount of road traffic should be kept down in the rush hours. The Services have been accused of causing a large number of these accidents, but I should be glad if we could have any information as to whether these accidents on the roads dropped considerably in those districts where, as your Lordships probably know, one day a week is called now a "make and mend day" and no cars or lorries are allowed on the road except with a special permit. I wonder whether it is true that during these days the road accident figures have dropped considerably. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government will be able to give us some information on the subject.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having introduced this subject to your Lordships once more. It is a most serious and a most difficult subject. I can assure your Lordships that we are fully alive to the heavy toll of loss and suffering which road accidents continue to take. The problem is a very serious one, not only on human but also on economic grounds; the wastage that goes on is something which we must not continue to tolerate. The figures which have been quoted to-day are more than serious, they are alarming. In the first year of the war about 25 per cent. more people were killed on the roads than in the year before the war. In the second year of the war the fatal casualties increased still further, and well over half of the total of lives lost were the lives of pedestrians.

339
As the right reverend Prelate has told the House, we have been keeping account of the records of the non-fatal accidents since the month of April, and they do show that there are 25 per cent. fewer people injured than in pre-war days. Road accidents are in fact fewer than before the war, but those that do occur are more deadly. The reason for this is that, although there are fewer cars on the road, heavy goods vehicles constitute a much higher proportion of the total traffic. An accident in which a heavy goods vehicle is involved is, of course, likely to be more serious than one in which a light car is concerned. It is possible also that black-out conditions have increased the number of accidents of the completely unexpected type in which vehicles concerned have not been able to take any avoiding action.
I think that I can most usefully reply to the points made in this debate by briefly summarising the more important war-time measures which have been taken to improve road safety. I should like first to say that the Minister of Home Security has always done his utmost to facilitate road transport and road safety consistent with the lighting restrictions dictated by military considerations. We have made rear lights compulsory on bicycles and, although headlamps of motor vehicles have to be masked, the masks are designed to give sufficient light to enable drivers to proceed safely at a reasonable speed. As your Lordships will be aware it has recently been decided to allow the use of two masked headlights instead of one. A special form of street lighting, the so-called "starlight," has been authorized and introduced by a number of local authorities. This standard of lighting would be more widely used had it not been found by many local authorities that the public objected to it on grounds of safety. I have seen renewed suggestions in some sections of the Press that a system of master-switches should be installed, so that normal lighting could continue until enemy aircraft are approaching. I am not, of course, competent to judge the security aspect of such a suggestion; that is a matter which must be left to the Air Staff. I would point out, however, that any such system would require much equipment and man-power, which we could ill afford at this time. From the point of view of road safety, I would also
340
ask your Lordships to consider the effect of such a sudden black-out.
In conjunction with the Ministry of Home Security, a complete system of aids to movement during the black-out has been devised. This consists of dimmed and screened lights to mark islands, roundabouts and obstructions, and white paint in the centre of the roads, on kerbs and on crossings, and to mark trees and lamp-posts bordering on the carriage-way. The use of reflector studs in the middle of the roadways is encouraged as far as the limitations of material will allow. Highway authorities have been enjoined to provide additional aids to movement on classified and other important roads. Your Lordships will remember that in February, 1940, the speed of motor vehicles was restricted to twenty miles an hour in built-up areas during the blackout. The police report that in general this speed limit is being observed. Another useful step which we have taken is to provide that vehicles waiting in the roadway must face the right way during the blackout.
In his speech, the right reverend Prelate made a number of suggestions for further positive action by the Government. He suggested that the law should be enforced more strictly against dangerous driving. The law does prescribe very heavy penalties for those convicted of this offence, and these penalties are well known to drivers. The police do their utmost to bring offenders before the Courts, but I need not remind your Lordships that the war has put a very heavy additional burden on the police, and they cannot at present do as much in this direction as they would like to do. I know, however, that they are doing everything which is possible within the limitations of their manifold new duties.
I think that I ought to say a word here about spare parts. We realize how important is the provision of spare parts to the maintenance of the good condition of cars on the road. Some months ago, a Committee which had been working very hard on this subject completed its labours and presented a Report which was a most excellent document, and which was adopted by the Ministry of War Transport in its completeness. In addition to making provision for what should be done, even in time of war, for the supply of

341
spare parts, we were also enabled to obtain a priority for material and labour, so that the recommendations might be carried out.
I turn now to propaganda. I know that many of your Lordships have in the past criticized too great a reliance on this weapon so far as road safety is concerned, and I certainly do not assert that this problem can be solved by propaganda alone. Nevertheless, this terrible toll of fatalities and injuries cannot be stopped by direct Government action; it can be stopped only by the public who use the roads. It is our duty to do everything that ingenuity can devise to increase safety, but one of our main tasks must be to rouse the public conscience, to impress upon motorists that a moment's carelessness may bring death or injury to other people, and to remind pedestrians that a heedless movement on their part may be fatal not only to themselves but to others. While it would be wrong to rely wholly on propaganda, I am convinced that safety on the roads is primarily a matter of the education of those who use the roads, and we must lose no opportunity to foster a proper sense of responsibility on their part. I appeal to all in positions of influence and authority, and particularly to parents, to back the Government's propaganda scheme in every way they can. A road safety propaganda campaign, under the auspices of the Ministry of Information, was held during February and March, 1940. This was directed mainly to pedestrians, and was concentrated entirely on the new dangers of the black-out. Another Ministry of Information campaign was held last winter, from November to March.
Three weeks ago we launched a new road safety campaign, which will continue throughout the winter. This campaign is to be on a greater scale than ever before, and will be directed to all classes of road users. It is based on a close study of war-time statistics. Use will be made of the Press, of broadcasting, of posters and of films. The Board of Education are arranging for special attention to be given to instruction in road safety for school children, and local education authorities will be reminded of the facilities offered by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, under their child safety service, and of the fact that all reasonable expenditure incurred
342
in making use of such facilities will be recognized. I should like here to pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They have applied themselves to this task with patience and devotion. They have done invaluable work not only among school children but among the general public, and have done much in stimulating local activities directed to road safety. Their good work has been continued in analysing newspaper reports of inquests on road accidents, and they have produced a series of bulletins showing the results of their investigations. This has been a most useful contribution to the examination of the road accident problem.
The right reverend Prelate proposed that pedestrians should be subject to regulation in the same way as other road users. We might require pedestrians to use pedestrian crossings or to face the traffic—that is, to walk on the left side of the pavement and, where there is no footpath, on the right side of the road. We have for years been carrying on propaganda to secure that pedestrians shall do these things, but this propaganda has not yet been as effective as we should like. Nevertheless, I do not think that regulation is a practicable measure. With their present difficulties, the police would be quite unable to enforce any such regulation satisfactorily, and I am sure that regulations which cannot be enforced do more harm than good. It was also suggested that pedestrians should be made to wear a white band during the blackout. We concentrated our propaganda campaign last winter on securing this end, but I am sorry to say that results were very disappointing. Nevertheless, I cannot think that an attempt to make the wearing of something white compulsory would meet with success; again the difficulties of enforcement would be insuperable.
The right reverend Prelate has also reminded us of the Report of the Select Committee which was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, shortly before the war. I can assure your Lordships that every recommendation in that Report has been studied with very great care. Many of them are wholly in accord with the policy which the Government have pursued for years past, such as the education of school children in road safety and the need for enforcement and super-

343
vision by the police. I can assure your Lordships that I should not hesitate for a moment to adopt any recommendation which I thought could help to reduce this terrible toll of life. The Select Committee themselves went to the root of the problem when they said that the human factor is of supreme importance. Whatever we may do by regulation, by control or by improvements, we shall not solve this problem until the users of the roads are convinced of the need for care and common sense and until they keep this conviction in the forefront of their minds whenever they are on the roads.
In order that no practicable step to reduce road accidents may be overlooked or neglected, we have set up a Committee consisting of representatives of the Departments concerned—and this will include, of course, the Home Office—and of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. This Committee is presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to my Department and its terms of reference are:
" To consider and frame such plans as are possible in war-time for reducing accidents on the roads and for securing improvement in the conduct of road users in the interests of safety."
You will observe that we have stressed the consideration of those things which could and should be done during wartime.
Since September, 1940, the fatality figures for each month have consistently been greater than those for the corresponding month of the previous year, but I am glad to be able to close on a more hopeful note. This disastrous tendency was checked in August for the first time, when the number of people killed was very slightly lower than during August of the previous year. The figures for September show a greater improvement; although 768 people were killed, this was 140 less than in the year before and 360 less than in September, 1939. These figures, of course, give absolutely no excuse for complacency, but they do entitle us to hope that the steady deterioration has at last been checked. Details of the September figures show that the main improvement took place during the hours of darkness. This may be taken to indicate that the public are becoming wiser and warier in the black-out, although we must remember that enemy air activities were negligible last month compared with
344
the corresponding month of last year. I need hardly say that this encouraging sign will cause us to redouble, not to relax, our efforts.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he kindly give us the names of the people whom he has appointed to this Committee?
LORD LEATHERS: I am sorry I cannot give the names. We arranged for three representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and they were to choose those members themselves because they wanted to take the more representative people on certain subjects as they went along. The other Departments concerned are the Home Office and two other Departments. I really cannot tell your Lordships the Committee, but it was set up under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary of my Department, and the members have been at work from day to day studying war-time methods of safeguard rather than those other methods, like those in the Alness Report, many of which cannot be put into operation while the war is on.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Will the names be published?
LORD LEATHERS: It was purely a Departmental Committee. I shall certainly publish the names if it is desired, but it was merely an internal means of getting together those who were best able to contribute in that day-to-day work.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I hope the names will be published.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, though I am bound to express disappointment in some respects. I think the noble Lord is relying a great deal too much on propaganda. He himself admits that he has been disappointed by the ineffective results of some of the propaganda. And though there is possibly some hope in this Committee he has appointed, I should like to press on him most strongly the importance of that Committee reporting almost at once, without long delay, and I hope that Committee will consider very carefully the recommendations made in the Alness Report. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is accepting my Resolution. I hope he is, because I think there are various

345
Papers about the matters he refers to which would be of general interest to the House. I should not press this to a Division, but I hope he may accept this Resolution and publish various things showing us exactly what the Government are doing.
LORD ADDISON: I do not see any reason why the noble Lord should not make public any steps he is taking which would relieve us of misgiving. At all events he has surely no objection to telling us what he has done.
LORD LEATHERS: I have no objection.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Thank you very much.
On Question, Motion for Papers agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question appearing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government:
(1) Whether they are in agreement with the view that the names of justices of the peace who cease to live in a county should be removed from the Commission thereof, and if the Lords Lieutenant of Counties will be supported in their efforts to induce such absentee justices to resign from the Commission;
(2) by what method and by whom justices who are no longer fitted to adjudicate in court should be approached with a view to their transferring to the Supplemental List.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is desirable that the names of justices of the peace should be removed from the Commission if they have left the county and are no longer in a position to carry out the duties of the office. Their continuance on the list is of no public advantage and involves a great deal of useless communication and expense in postage. I do not doubt that in the great majority of such cases, the justices concerned will comply with any suggestion made to them by Lords Lieutenant that
346
they should voluntarily resign. If, however, there should be any cases where justices who have left the county refuse to offer their resignations, or if they should fail to reply to letters addressed to them by Lords Lieutenant upon this subject, then I should be prepared to give directions for their names to be removed from the Commission.
Then, in reference to the second question put by my noble friend, in cases where, by reason of age or infirmity or other like cause, justices are no longer fitted to adjudicate in court, the first approach to such justices that they should go on the Supplemental List is made most fittingly by Lords Lieutenant, who have the advantages not only of their personal position but of local knowledge. I am grateful to Lords Lieutenant for undertaking the duty, which can never be very agreeable, of urging such justices to apply for such transfer. It is my experience that in the great majority of cases justices respond with great public spirit to such approaches, and I am very much indebted to many elderly justices for the manner in which they have accepted and acted upon advice thus given to them. If, however, any justice who is past court work should refuse to act upon such a suggestion that he should be transferred to the Supplemental List, then, if the facts are brought to my notice it will be my intention (after, of course, making my own communication to the justice, and, if necessary, my own inquiries) to support the Lord Lieutenant by using my powers under the Act.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: I beg to thank the Lord Chancellor very much for the answer he has given.

FOOD POLICY: NUTRITION OF CHILDREN.
THE EARL OF LISTOWELhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are taking steps to secure that the nutritive standard of the children of the country shall not suffer as a consequence of war conditions; and also move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main object of my Motion is to enable the Minister to report to the House on what he and the Government propose to safeguard the children of the country against a deterioration in their diet owing to war conditions,

347
and to improve the unsatisfactory standard of nutrition prevailing among working-class families before the war. This is not a controversial matter. It is for that reason, perhaps, particularly suitable for discussion during the pleasantly informal atmosphere which prevails in the House during the luncheon hour. The special urgency of the problem is due to a combination of two factors: the widespread incidence of malnutrition among working-class children in peacetime, before the outbreak of war, and the inevitable tendency of war conditions to aggravate this situation. Before the outbreak of war a far larger proportion of infants and school children than of adults were living in acute poverty and therefore suffering chronically from under-nourishment. Let me illustrate this by reference to a locus classicus on the subject, Mr. Rowntree's sociological survey of the city of York, a typical urban area, in the year 1936. He found that no fewer than 28.2 per cent. of all the children in the town were living below the poverty line, and that almost half the townsfolk sunk into deepest poverty were children under fourteen. This is characteristic of urban conditions all over the country.
The war has, of course, aggravated the situation by introducing a number of factors that increase the difficulty of providing the child population with an adequate diet. The flood of evacuees from the towns, the rising price of milk, fresh vegetables, and other foodstuffs, the employment of mothers on war work outside their homes—these have all added to the anxiety of those responsible for the health of the rising generation. The Government have not closed their eyes to this grave problem. On the contrary, there has been a rapid extension, since the war, of Social Services providing fresh food of first-rate quality for children under fourteen. We have to thank the Minister for enabling children under five, as well as expectant and nursing mothers, to get milk free or at a reduced price. If I may say so, the Minister has done in this respect a very great service because no scheme of this kind tried out before he came into office was successful. It is estimated, and the figure is generally accepted, that 75 to 78 per cent. of our infant population is benefiting under the noble Lord's scheme. Of course, some parents of the remaining 22 to 25 per cent. can obviously afford to
348
pay the market price, but there must nevertheless be a number of parents who cannot afford to buy their milk from the milkman, and yet do not at present take advantage of the Government scheme. I suggest that the noble Lord might consider an inquiry being made into the reasons why so many infants are still not supplied with fresh liquid milk.
Then there is the older plan for providing cheap or free milk in the schools. Steady progress has been made since the outbreak of war, and as many as three children out of every five are now drinking milk at grant-aided schools. Nevertheless, there are no fewer than 2,000,000 school-children who are still unable or unwilling to take advantage of this magnificent opportunity. This presents another fruitful field of inquiry. Why, for instance—to give a problem that has caused me and others a good deal of concern—is there so much variation between adjacent local authorities, where problems and conditions must be extremely similar? Of three neighbouring county authorities in the south of England, one is providing milk for 70 per cent. of its schoolchildren, one is catering for 60 to 65 per cent., and another for 40 to 50 per cent. There are even greater differences between certain adjoining county authorities who supply hot mid-day meals for their schoolchildren. I suggest that a friendly inquiry into the problems of these authorities might help them in the long run to overcome their difficulties, and in that way extend the benefit of these schemes to many children who at present are not able to profit from them. There has also been good progress in the provision of hot dinners served on school premises, but, in spite of the advance made in the last two years in this direction, only 300,000 out of 5,000,000 schoolchildren are now getting midday meals at school. Some parents no doubt prefer their children to come home for their meals, but we have still a long way to go before we can claim to have satisfied the enormously increased demand for school meals.
There is, after considering this brief survey, a good prospect of our achieving an important and very substantial measure of social reform. If these comparatively new antidotes to poverty and malnutrition come to be regarded not as mere experiments introduced by the stress

349
of war conditions but as no less a permanent feature of our Social Services than free education, they will bring a lasting benefit to many generations of the country's children. The success of the whole plan will depend on the success of the partnership between the State, the local authorities, the teachers, and the parents, who are all animated by a common desire to promote the welfare of the children under their care. The Government Departments should be in constant touch with the local authorities who are faced with vast and often baffling administrative problems. When these difficulties of the local authorities cannot be overcome unaided, it is up to the Government to help them out from our much larger national resources.
The teachers who have bravely shouldered so many new burdens since the war are beginning to reap the reward of their unaccustomed labours. They have discovered that a school meal is a practical demonstration of character training and dietetics, and as valuable a feature of their curriculum as regular classes or organized games. They realize more clearly than ever before that a stunted body means a stunted mind, and that it is their job to cure both. As for the parents, they are finding that the school and the home are complementary and equally indispensable aspects of their children's welfare. I am asking the noble Lord, not without gratitude for what he has already done, for information as to what he and the Government are prepared to contribute to a partnership that has begun well and that promises much more for the future. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, it would perhaps best serve the purposes of the debate if I intervened at this early stage and, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I might answer any further points that may be raised later on. I intervene now in order to inform your Lordships of the general policy of His Majesty's Government in the whole field of nutrition in so far as it is associated with food. In doing so I am most anxious not to curtail the debate. The noble Earl who has moved for Papers has placed the House under an obligation to him in this matter and I am quite certain that the expression of your Lordships' opinion will have great
350
value in the country. In the first place I want to make an announcement which I venture to think will be welcomed. In another place my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has to-day made a statement indicating that His Majesty's Government are anxious to facilitate and encourage the extension of the feeding of children in schools by local authorities and are prepared to make such grants as are considered necessary in order to achieve this end.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to problems of policy as we knew them in our social order before the war. In so far as the feeding of school children is concerned, your Lordships will be aware that some provision already exists. This provision before the war was mainly, though not solely, exercised in order to provide free meals for people who were financially necessitous and undernourished. War conditions may, indeed, have intensified that problem for that class of society, but I venture to suggest that they have also altered the whole nature of the problem. We are now all of us, as a result of the extraordinarily equalizing effect of the ration book, living on a diet which is mainly influenced by the domestic ration, and this ration is based on the average need of the family. It is not designed to meet the needs of special classes of the community, and there is in my opinion, and in the much more learned opinion of those who advise me, some danger that those who require special consideration in the matter of diet, either for the growth of their bodies or for the maintenance of more than average physical strength, may find this diet as contained in the ration book insufficient.
I think this is particularly the case with children who need more than the average supplies of body-building foods. Particularly as a result of the conditions of war family life and domestic arrangements have been seriously disturbed. We have to face a great call not only on the manpower but on the woman-power of the nation in order to secure the required out put of munitions, and in order to secure indeed a continuance of our ordinary industrial life. We have to recognize, as the noble Earl has recognized, that before the war the standard of nutrition of very considerable portions of the population of

351
this country left a great deal to be desired. These facts constitute a background on which the food policy of the Government must be based.
At present there are, as Lord Listowel has pointed out, 5,000,000 children in the elementary and secondary schools of this country, and of those only 300,000 are receiving meals at school. But small as this number is it is an increase of 100 per cent. as a result of a campaign that has been conducted during the last year by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, backed as their propaganda has been by the inducement of an increase of 20 per cent. in the grant. But the provision of meals in different parts of the country is most uneven. In a few areas as much as 30 per cent. of the children are taking meals at school, while in others little or no provision has been made. Not all local authorities have realized the implication of a war-time diet scale. There is no doubt that many of them have found themselves faced with very considerable difficulties—difficulties of providing equipment, difficulties of securing premises, and, of course, difficulties of finance—and these difficulties have prevented them perhaps from developing as quickly as they would have done otherwise, and certainly have prevented them developing as quickly as the case demanded. Inquiries have shown that in some districts up to 50 per cent. of the parents are anxious to have their children take meals in schools and they are willing to pay for them if facilities be provided by the local authorities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that as from October 1, 1941, the rate of grant in respect of provisions for meals for children is to be increased by a further 10 per cent., with a maximum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has wisely put a ceiling and the ceiling is at 95 per cent. The minimum rate of grant will now be at 70 per cent., and the average rate in the country will be 80 per cent. while the maximum that any local authority can get will be 95 per cent. That, we hope, will deal with the financial aspect of this problem.
LORD ADDISON: May I interrupt? What is that 95 per cent. of? Is it 95 per
352
cent. of the cost of the administration and of the meals?
LORD WOOLTON: It is 95 per cent. of the loss that is incurred. I have indicated that I am sure financial considerations alone have not been the only determining factor. There have been others. There has, of course, been the question of food, the question whether there was sufficient food to do this work properly. Well, we can now assure the local authorities that a sufficiency of food will be forthcoming, whatever their demand may be. Moreover, my Ministry has arranged, in consultation with my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, for a priority supply to enable school canteens to serve balanced meals of the type that our medical and scientific advisers recommend. I am glad that these officers, some of them honorary, and the two Ministries are working in the closest consultation in order that we shall secure the right food for maintaining the growth and the health of school children. May I emphasize that the provisions regarding food will apply to all schools and not only to the schools that are under State control directly or indirectly?
The provision of cooking arrangements to feed such a large number of children as we hope will be fed is indeed a formidable task, and there I am glad to say we shall be able to help the local authorities as a result of the provisions which we have made under the grants on Civil Defence. Your Lordships will probably remember that the Ministry of Food is charged with the task of making emergency arrangements for feeding the people of this country in the event of war conditions making it necessary for there to be some extension of communal feeding. We have already 170 cooking depots set up under the auspices of the Ministry of Food by local authorities, and that number will presently be increased from 170 to 250. This equipment is now capable of providing 300,000 meals a day, and presently that number will be increased to 400,000. I propose to place those depots at the disposal of local authorities. These depots were created to deal with the problem of feeding the people of this country in the event of our lines of communication being broken, or of the normal domestic arrangements for

353
providing meals being destroyed by the misfortunes of war. Most of them are now lying idle in readiness for the day that we hope will never come. We are going to bring them into action now. They will be kept bright and polished in the daily service of the children of the country.
They will be ready to serve their original purpose, if occasion requires, and I think that this use for civilian purposes of a piece of machinery devised for special war purposes will meet with your Lordships' approval. It will avoid any unnecessary expense and duplication of equipment that would be called for if school feeding centres had to be furnished on a full scale in areas in which food can be quite easily supplied by these depots. Under one name or another we have some 1,000 British Restaurants. They have been adapted expressly to meet the condition that they may have to expand themselves suddenly in the event of national emergency. At present they are feeding but a portion of the numbers for which they could cater if occasion demanded it. May I just comment on the fact that the directors of education in this country and the teachers have rendered very great service, which I am glad to have the opportunity so publicly to recognize, in bringing in the supplementary food services that I am now proposing to place at their disposal? In addition to these 1,000 British Restaurants and the 170 rising to 250 cooking depots there are war emergency meal centres which have been established in approximately 4,000 centres in this country, in cities and industrial areas. They are already equipped with cutlery and crockery and they are already available for meals. I propose, with suitable safeguards for emergency conditions, to place these at the disposal of the local authorities.
But all this will not be enough to deal with so formidable a task. Local authorities will still find it necessary to start new individual or central kitchens. I do not anticipate that they will have difficulty in getting equipment because it has fallen to my responsibility—having become a rather large-scale caterer in this country as a result of having to bring in all this emergency organization—to have some equipment standing by for the time when it may be needed. I have, in fact,
354
a central pool of equipment that has been organized by the Ministry of Food, stocked with many of the necessary items that will be wanted. I propose to place this pool also at the service of local authorities. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Education and I am working on these things. We believe that these special facilities designed and maintained for another purpose can be seconded to the provision of school meals and that in doing this we shall be able to help and encourage local authorities to proceed apace.
My right honourable friend made reference in another place to the milk in schools scheme, to which the noble Earl has referred. The extension of this scheme can be put into operation immediately. At the present time, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, remarked, only 60 per cent. of the children are taking milk in schools. Of course it is entirely fallacious to assume that all children like to drink milk, but it is quite clear from the experience of some authorities that the mixed process of persuasion and education can bring the percentage of children taking milk in school up to a very large one. We hope this will be done. There again we come to a problem of cost. If this is to be done an additional new burden will fall on the local education authorities, because the milk distributors are already finding difficulty in supplying milk in one-third pint bottles, and as the demand increases and as bottles suffer the fate of bottles, the distributors will be obliged to distribute milk in bulk. This will involve education authorities in providing cups and facilities for washing them, and it will also mean some extra burden on the teachers of this country, but they have shown already their willingness to go a long way outside their professional duties in order to help in war work. The expense to which local authorities will be put as a result of providing utensils and means for keeping them clean, will be borne by the Exchequer. Moreover, in order that the policy, so far as milk is concerned, may be implemented without delay, a grant of 100 per cent. is to be paid on the school milk service as a whole.
The figures I have given so far relate to England and Wales. In Scotland the position is much the same as on this

355
side of the border. Fifty thousand children out of 750,000 in Scottish schools receive solid meals in schools and 415,000 out of 750,000—or about 56 per cent.—are receiving milk in schools. I have been in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and we are agreed that the new arrangements I have already described shall apply to Scotland, subject to any modification in point of detail that may be needed to adapt them to Scottish conditions.
I think your Lordships will recognize that His Majesty's Government have mobilized the powers that they have through the Exchequer, through the administration of education, through food supplies, and through the organization of their emergency cooking facilities, in a determined effort to achieve a great and practical ideal: the ideal that the children of this nation shall not suffer from malnutrition because of the war. Feeding children in schools is only one aspect of the problem of maintaining the nutritional life of the country. I wonder if your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes whilst, for the sake of completeness, I endeavour to present to your Lordships a picture of the way in which His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to deal with the general problem of nutrition in so far as it is affected by our food supplies. Our food supplies are certainly restricted, but I believe that by adopting an informed and sensible control of the things that we import and of the goods which the great efforts of the farmers are making available for us, we can secure that in spite of a restricted diet there shall be no deterioration in the standard of the health of the nation and no failure of output through shortages of food. That is what, I believe, we can accomplish.
May I begin my review at the beginning? The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has courteously referred to this and I am grateful to him for what he said. The provision of plentiful supplies of milk for expectant mothers and children under five is a plan that is already working. There is nothing I have been privileged to do as Minister of Food that has given me more permanent satisfaction than bringing in that scheme. I believe it has accomplished a great deal to secure that
356
as far as feeding is concerned, our children are starting right. Your Lordships are aware that we have recently taken some additional control over the milk supplies of this country. The main purpose of that is to ensure that growing children up to and including the age of seventeen, shall have adequate supplies of milk both in their homes and in their schools. I am glad to say that the plan is at the present time making no call on the forbearance of the public, though I do not disguise the fact that as winter comes on and the supplies of liquid milk become a little less, it may call for some sacrifice on the part of those of us who are older and who, except in exceptional and medical circumstances for which I have provided, can do with a little less liquid milk.
In addition to milk, we have arranged that such oranges as are available for us to bring into this country—and indeed that is no easy process in these days—shall be sold in the first instance to children and on a ration. But we recognized that it was inevitable that there should be some shortage of fruit, and we have taken particular steps to deal with it. Quite frankly, we have appealed to the great generosity of the United States of America, and not in vain, to secure fruit juices for distribution to children in order that we may in that way make up any deficiency in diet which, in the ordinary course of events, would be supplied by fruits in their natural state.
This, my Lords, is the story of what we have been able to do to deal with the problem of nutrition for children. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it represents a carefully planned policy and that it should secure that end which we have in view—that there shall be no preventable deterioration in the standard of child health during the war. So much for the children; but we have not only to preserve life; we have to defend Liberty. Those who are producing the weapons of war also need to be sustained in their efforts, and there must be no battle for resources between those who want to maintain child health and those who want the maximum of war output from the adult population. And there need be no competition. I believe that we are able to do both, and I will go further and say that we must do both even if we have to do it at some sacrifice from those of us

357
who are neither children nor come in the category of being physically heavy workers.
The principle that we are adopting to secure the health of children is to see that they shall be fed where they are congregated, so that we are sure that the food, and the appropriate food, certainly goes to children. We have adopted the same policy with industrial workers. Industrial workers need widely-different foods. Heavy workers need more meat or cheese or fish than the office workers. Workers in some forms of employment require more sugar than do others. We therefore propose to allocate foods to industrial canteens and catering establishments according to a broad general classification of their customers—a broad classification of their needs. No precision is possible here, no hard and fast definitions. We shall divide them into three groups—those who serve the workers who require meals of the most substantial character; those who are catering for other workers; and those who serve the rest of the population. We shall then be able to allocate a larger allowance of some foods to the second class than to the third, and, again, a larger allowance to the first class than to the second. I repeat that any such allocation must be on a rough and ready basis and it must be judged by whether it produces the right results or not.
In the case of miners, as your Lordships were informed by Lord Templemore, we shall before the end of this year cater in some measure for 85 per cent. of the mining population, by having supplementary foods served at the pit-head before they go down the pit, which will provide them with what are called "snap-pings," and thereby we shall relieve the wives of the miners of what I think must have been one of their most difficult problems of housekeeping in war-time. But I ventured, when opening one of these places a few days ago at Stoke, to say that "snappings were not enough." We have been greatly encouraged by the enterprise of some of the colliery owners and of the Miners' Welfare Commission working with the Mines Department, in arranging, at some mines, that canteens should be provided to secure that a hot meal shall be available for the miner when he comes up from his day's work.
It involves new organization: and, it involves acceptance of new ideas, both by
358
the miners and by the employers, but surely we are on indisputable ground when we say that in war-time it is the duty of Government to see that food adequate for the purpose of maintaining the physical strength of the people, is directed to the workers of this country who are producing munitions both for our Allies and for ourselves. We accept that obligation, and, subject to all the accidents and the uncertainties of war and thanks, indeed, in large measure to the aid both given and promised by our friends in the United States on the one hand and by the farmers of this country on the other, my Ministry is prepared to secure that food for this purpose shall be available. I believe that in this development of industrial canteens, in the pursuit of this policy of securing that the workman at his work and the child in its school shall have the opportunity of being appropriately and adequately fed, we are not only maintaining the health of the nation during war-time but we are doing something of permanent value both for the industrial life of this country and for the rising generation.
I have ventured to take the opportunity which my noble and gallant friend Lord Listowel has given me, to place before your Lordships the whole broad outline of the food policy which—according to our resources, according to the limits of our ability, and always subject to the uncertainties of war—we shall endeavour to carry out. But to make it effective there must be behind it an informed public opinion. Public authorities, armed with the powers that my right honourable friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland have given them this morning, must consider the extent to which they can speedily avail themselves of those facilities. On them rests the responsibility. Employers of labour must recognize the importance of securing adequate feeding arrangements for their workpeople, and I ask them in addition to note that the Ministry of Food is at their disposal in order to help them to carry out this policy. This is the first time that the Government have had the opportunity of placing before Parliament their food policy in so far as it affects the special classes of the population. I express the hope that it is one which will meet with the

359
approval of your Lordships and that this debate may hasten its adoption in the country.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I am very grateful, as I am sure your Lordships are, to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for bringing this matter of the country's nutrition before the House, especially as it has drawn from the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, as he has himself told us, the first explicit and full statement of the Government's policy not only in regard to the nutrition of children but also in regard to the nutrition of the people of this country as a whole. Together with many of my colleagues, I, like the noble Earl, have been concerned about the standard of nutrition of the child population of our country; and, although it is true that so far no overt signs of malnutrition are to be observed, it must be remembered that, if we wait until signs of malnutrition appear, we have waited too long. If these signs once appear—let us hope that they may not—their appearance means that grevious injury has been done, and injury which, unlike a similar defect which may appear in adults, will leave a permanent mark—indeed, it may be called a scar—for the rest of life.
So far, as I say, we have been fortunate. The Government evacuation scheme has undoubtedly acted as a deterrent against deficiency diseases in children, because, as your Lordships of course realize, sun and air are essential elements in preserving nutrition. We do not know at present how far our children may be from a state of malnutrition; modern science gives us at present no means of measuring the safety of that margin. For that reason alone you will forgive me if I emphasize this time factor. The child, as the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, has reminded us, is at the mercy of chance in any rationing scheme; and with most mothers, as we must realize, knowledge marches a good way behind affection. This fact, I may say incidentally, is, I think, one reason why family allowances, excellent in themselves, cannot be expected to preserve the child against malnutrition, nor to solve this problem of safeguards. The school is the only place where defects may be made good and hazards warded off. It is gratifying, therefore, that His Majesty's Government have, as we are
360
informed to-day, accepted that principle in full.
It is good to hear that the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, can see his way to supply the protective and body-forming foods which, as we know, are necessary in preparing the diet of a child. It is equally good to know that the noble Lord can see his way to provide the requisite equipment, or a considerable amount of it, and that the local authorities are assured of a Treasury grant of such generous dimensions. Experience shows, however, that quite frequently and for a long time there is a lag at the periphery, even when direction has been given and action taken at the centre; otherwise one would feel quite optimistic about protecting the health of the children. I am not pessimistic, however, and I do feel that this is a red letter day in the annals of our children's nutrition. I envy the noble Lord the fact that in years to come it will be to his credit that this principle of preventing the nutrition of the children being sacrificed during war-time has been accepted and met by the bold move of increasing very considerably the provision of a standard meal at school. I do not doubt that the necessary encouragement and stimulation from the President of the Board of Education will be forthcoming. It seems to me that encouragement and stimulation will be necessary for the local education authorities, for the teachers and for the parents, in order to get the machinery going as soon as possible. The work of organization will not be easy. Everybody must help. We have to aim at as many meals as possible in as short a time as possible. Our children deserve that we should make this effort; they at least are not responsible for the grim state of the world which puts their health and happiness in jeopardy, and let us remember that our children are all that we have for to-morrow.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I rise for a minute or two only in order to express my gladness at the announcements of far-reaching importance which have been made. If your Lordships will forgive me for one personal recollection, my mind went back, as I was listening with envy to the noble Lord, to what happened to me in I921. I was Minister of Health at that time and I encouraged as best I could the provision of school meals and milk for children at school. I well remember

361
that at the height of the outcry against me for my extravagance, because we were spending £800,000 altogether in the whole country on all these things, a popular London evening paper had my photograph on the front page with a black band all round it and with the superscription—"The Super Squandermaniac." That is a true story. My mind went back to that sad day, and I thought with envy of what the noble Lord can do on much more generous lines to-day.
I hope, as my noble friend Lord Horder suggested, that the combined Departments will get together to encourage and galvanize some local authorities, which, without a doubt, they will find will be slow, and possibly, sticky. There are such local authorities. They are the standing difficulty of every administrator, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to devise some ways and means of applying the necessary stimulus. I am glad, too, that he has adopted the canteen device for giving increased rations to manual workers, where they are wanted, because of course it has always been a very difficult administrative problem as to how you are to give the extra rations to those who require them. I sincerely hope that we shall hear of rapid progress in the future.
There is one matter that I was listening for and did not hear. It is true it was not quite a part of the statement made by the noble Lord. We all hope that there will be an enormously increased demand for the milk which this courageous scheme provides for children and, I trust, for others too. But except incidentally, when the noble Lord talked of those of us who, like himself and myself, do not perhaps require the extra supplies—in some directions one has to go without a bit—he did not refer to what it will mean—namely, a vastly increased supply of liquid milk. I am very apprehensive indeed as to what is going to happen to our milk supply, and I hope the noble Lord will waste no time in considering this. The Minister of Agriculture the other day at Norwich said that the farmers of the country have done magnificently in providing an increased quantity of food for their animals, but for various reasons we are in great danger of the milk supplies not being adequate
362
for what the noble Lord has in mind. I am quite sure that is a serious danger.
If he will allow me to return once more to the subject—he will perhaps think it is a sort of King Charles's head with me—one of the most important things in this respect that the Ministry of Food must see to and amend is the price obtained by the farmer for his milk, because the attractions of other forms of production are competing very heavily with the production of milk, which is a very difficult seven-day-a-week job, with very long hours. Unless the farmer sees he is getting an adequate and fair return for it the production may drop off; in fact I am afraid it will. What has happened has been that the farmers have had promised to them a certain price until next March, but when it came to the past summer the farmers found that whilst the nominal price to the producer was so much, what he actually received was 4d. a gallon less or thereabouts because of various deductions that were made. The result has been that during the past summer the public—I am not talking about the children—were paying twice as much or nearly twice as much for their milk as the producer received. It had an exceedingly discouraging effect. What the producers want is some assurance as to what the prices will be next year, after March. The present arrangement is announced up to March. It is of first-class importance if the noble Lord is going to maintain the supplies of milk, and if suitable heifers are to be selected and put aside, that the price received by the producer for milk should be announced much more than six months' ahead and put on a satisfactory basis at a very early date. That is most important; otherwise, the Minister will not get the milk.
I mention that incidentally, but it is exceedingly material. I know that the noble Lord will not think that I am in any way lacking in appreciation of the highly important statement he has just made. I wish it had been made to a full House at the beginning of a discussion, but I have no doubt that it will, for all that, make little difference to the ultimate appreciation of the statement. It is one of first-rate importance, which many of us for years past in various degrees have done something to work for, and have often suffered, as I have, a great deal of

363
obloquy in the process. But I am sure we congratulate the noble Lord on being able to make this statement, and our congratulation is not untinged with a considerable amount of friendly envy.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire in a few words to say on behalf of noble Lords who sit on these Benches how much we welcome the initiative taken by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in inaugurating this discussion, and how very cordially we welcome the highly important and comprehensive statement that has been made by the Minister of Food. I share the regret just expressed by my noble friend Lord Addison, that so many of your Lordships have been engaged in the applied and very personal study of the subject of nutrition and were not here to listen to this momentous declaration by the Minister. In congratulating him upon it we are sure that the House and the nation will most cordially welcome it, and the statement made to-day will confirm the confidence that is generally felt in the noble Lord's administration of the important Department over which he presides.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure I am speaking for the House when I say, associating myself with what has fallen from my noble friend on the Liberal Benches, that we are deeply grateful to the Minister for taking us into his confidence and giving us such an exhaustive survey of Government policy in the matter of food. What is more, it is quite evident that the speeches that followed, when published in the country, will give added weight to the views of the Government on this matter. So far as the children are concerned, it is quite clear from what has been said that the Government are playing their part in this partnership, and it is now up to the local authorities and teaching staffs to make the most of the very generous facilities that are being placed at their disposal. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MARRIAGE (MEMBERS OF HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.