Lords Sitting of 14 June 1944

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

URBAN DISTRICT OF HEMSWORTH ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Munster, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Temple-more.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORKINGTON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

PRODUCTION OF AEROPLANES.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the acquisition by His Majesty's Government of Power Jets Limited, and to ask whether it is their intention to create and maintain a State monopoly in the production of aeroplanes, or to compete with private enterprise in the production of these and other consumption commodities, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, I consider that this Motion of mine raises a great many questions, but I am going to confine myself to-day to the question of the production of aeroplanes, and, in particular, jet propelled aeroplanes. I understand—and I think I am correct—that the Government now own three if not four aeroplane producing companies. So far as I can find out, they own these companies lock, stock and barrel. That is to
224
say, they own the works, they own the shares; in fact they own the whole of the assets of these companies. It is not my intention to question the advisability of having acquired these companies' interests in war-time. It would be impertinent on my part, without full knowledge of all the circumstances, to question such a proceeding. What will the Government position be at the end of the war? They will be aeroplane producers. I do not think anyone will dispute that the development and the expansion of civil aeroplane production after the war will be enormous, and there are three questions that arise out of this. There are the commerical question, the economic question and the political question. I will deal with them in that order. First, the commercial question. A great many new types of transport planes, passenger planes, seaplanes and landplanes will, undoubtedly, be produced. Do the Government intend to compete with various important companies and private enterprise organizations in this market, not only in this country but in the Empire and in the world? I put it to your Lordships: What chance have the Government in setting up a new Department with no commercial experience? After all, private enterprise produced the Spitfire which won the Battle of Britain; and history tells us that all great inventions have come in the past from individual enterprise, ingenuity and speculation.
Now I come to the economic side of the matter. We know that Government construction is expensive. For instance, I believe that the cost of building a battleship in the ordnance factories is far more than that for which it can be built in, for instance, the establishment of Messrs. John Brown, or some of the other great shipbuilding organizations. Undoubtedly the same thing will apply in the case of the aeroplane, and Government factories will very surely lose money. That money will be the taxpayers' money. Some people go about saying: "Oh, the Government will do this and the Government will do that" in regard to the spending of money. But the Government have got no purse, as we well know, they have no money except the money they get out of the pockets of the people of this country. I hold the view that before this important departure from custom is made the electorate should have an opportunity of registering their opinion, because any

225
losses—and in my view losses must come—will have to be met out of their pockets.
Then there is the political side of the question. We are aware that there is a Party in this country, which is now, united with other Parties within the National Government, which has quite clearly stated that its policy is the nationalization of industry. Moreover, the Minster of Aircraft Production has been for years, quite honestly and consistently, an advocate of that policy. I and many others feel that before this innovation becomes a fait accompli the electorate should have an opportunity of deciding whether they are willing to foot the bill.
Coming back to Power Jets Limited, there are at present five companies of very high repute who are developing this method of propulsion. I have not asked them whether I can mention their names, but I am perfectly willing to give their names to my noble friend if he so desires. There are certain questions which I think, should he answered. There is no parallel between this case and the ordnance factories, the products of which do not enter into ordinary trade, are not for sale to private individuals, and do not compete with the products of private enterprise. The Government's acquisition of jet Propulsion Limited is a wholly different matter. Not only is it to be a permanent policy of the Government in peace-time, but it relates to an article which will in peace-time enter into ordinary competitive trade, unless the production of civil aircraft is to become a Government monopoly. If the production of civil aircraft is not to be a Government monopoly, the Government's action in acquiring Jet Propulsion Limited means that they will be entering into competition with private enterprise.
In that case the following questions arise: (1) What will be the relation between the Government and private firms producing jet-propelled aircraft? (2) Will the results of research in connexion with the Government-owned factory be made available to private aircraft firms? (3) Will the prod acts of the Government-owned factory compete with those of private firms in the home market and in the export trade? (4) What about the priority of raw materials and various other questions arising therefrom? I must conclude
226
that the Government have considered these matters, and I presume that I shall receive very definite replies to these most important and far-reaching questions in regard to the future prospects of this great and expanding world industry. We hear much about the control and planning of industry after the war, and I put this question to your Lordships: By whom? By those who in the nature of things can have little knowledge and no experience, or by those who have vast knowledge and experience? I want it to be clearly understood that in war-time I question nothing; my concern is entirely with the post-war position of the Government and the aeroplane industry. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to say a few words on the Motion brought before your Lordships by Lord Teviot. It raises a matter of important political principle. With the concluding remarks of the noble Lord I do not think any of us would quarrel. He says that the test of all present arrangements is whether the war effort will be furthered, and there we agree with him. That is indeed the test of all the steps taken and of all the policies embarked upon and of everything that we do. There is no quarrel between us there. However, he apparently proposes that at the end of the war the Government shall abdicate all their properties and interests, which they hold as a trustee on behalf of the nation, and hand over the results of their researches, experiments and development, carried out at tremendous cost, to private enterprise. That, I understand, is the noble Lord's contention, and it requires a little more consideration before we find ourselves in agreement with him.
He quoted the analogy not of the Royal dockyards, as I thought that he would, but of the Royal Ordnance factories. I do not know whether he meant to say the Royal dockyards, because he spoke of battleships being built in the Royal Ordnance factories. If he refers to their armament that may be so, but the battleships and other warships themselves have been built in the Royal dockyards. They form a perfect analogy. The Royal dockyards, especially before the last war, used to be heavily attacked by members of the Conservative Party as being extravagant and expensive and so

227
on, but as a matter of fact they were a tremendous national asset. If you ask any officer of the Navy about the quality of the work on the ships produced by the Royal dockyards, you will be told that it was in every way excellent. As for price, the question has been gone into again and again, and I believe I am right in saying that in all cases the Royal dockyards' price compared favourable with the price in private shipyards. That is an analogy from the Navy which may be applicable in, future.
I do not want to rake over old troubles too much, but it is well-known—Lord Teviot knows this as well as I do—that between the wars there was an aeroplane manufacturing ring. That is not disputed. Certain firms banded themselves together —quite properly; it was in the interests of their shareholders that they should—and it was most difficult for any new firm of aeroplane manufacturers to get any share of the market. Many of these firms were efficient; that is also true, and, as the noble Lord said, some of the finest aircraft with which we began the war were produced by the designers employed by these private firms. But the existence of that ring was not altogether in the national interest. It was, for example, difficult for the Air Ministry to check prices against the ring, in the absence of any Government-owned manufacturing plant. I think I am right in saying that when these matters have to be settled in the future my friends will wish to see the Government retain a foothold in the great business of manufacturing aeroplanes, if for no other reason than as a check on prices.
At the same time, speaking still of future policy, I think we all recognize—certainly all my friends to whom I have spoken recognize—that it is in the public interest that there should be a flourishing aeroplane industry as well, and that what we can do to support it and foster it and stimulate it we of course will do. As the noble Lord points out, if we are going to make aeroplanes for export and sale abroad that must obviously be done by private firms, and I hope that whatever Government may be in power will always encourage such a business, because that means that you have more plant, more experts and more trained people in the country to draw upon in case of war or
228
other emergency. In the same way Governments before the war—I return now to the naval analogy—Governments of whatever complexion were very careful to do all they could to stimulate the building and production of warships in this country by the great private shipbuilding firms. One very good reason for that was that in case of war any uncompleted warship on the stocks, say for a South American Republic, was promptly taken into the Royal Navy. We were very glad to get them. I imagine that, in the same way, whatever Party is in power will do its best to stimulate a flourishing private aeroplane manufacturing industry, but that does not mean that we should hand over the whole business of research and development to private enterprise.
I feel, after the Government have spent a great deal of money, as the Government have done on behalf of the nation, in developing the jet-driven aeroplane, that it requires a little consideration—to put it no more strongly than that—before all the results of these costly experiments and long years of development should be handed over to the private financiers behind the private aeroplane making companies. I think there would be criticism if that were done and I suggest that the whole policy requires very careful thought. I would like to see the nation as a whole benefiting from the expenditure made on behalf of the nation in developing this wonderful invention. I do not think the case is as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has made out. I do not think it would be in the public interest, without a great deal of thought, to hand over all our inventions and special knowledge acquired during the war to promoters in the City of London. Because they are not the people who make aeroplanes or design Spitfires; they are the men who control the money side of the business. I have no doubt they are responsible and respectable people, but I do not see why they alone should have the whole advantage of what, after all, has been a great national effort in building up the finest Air Force in the world, technically superior I believe to every other, and that was not done by the gentlemen of Throgmorton Street or Lombard Street. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, thought fit to make some reflection on my right honourable friend Sir Stafford Cripps.
LORD TEVIOT: I would like to correct the noble Lord at once on that. I made no reflections at all on Sir Stafford Cripps, in fact I thought that it was rather a development of a policy which the noble Lord believes in and indeed the Minister believes in. I cannot see that there is any reflection on him in mentioning the policy that he has pursued for many years.
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course reflections can be complimentary and also derogatory. In this case Lord Teviot was apparently making a complimentary reflection on Sir Stafford Cripps. His remarks about Sir Stafford Cripps were praiseworthy, I understand; he was praising him because he believes in public enterprise.
LORD TEVIOT: I said he had been quite honest and consistent about this.
LORD STRABOLGI: Because Sir Stafford Cripps is a Socialist in other words, as I am. But surely Lord Teviot would admit that Sir Stafford Cripps and every other Socialist in the Government have sunk the whole of their political principles when they conflicted in any way with the national war effort. My colleagues who are in the present War Cabinet, the leaders of my Party, have never allowed the political tenets which we hold in any way to interfere with anything that could further the national war effort.
LORD TEVIOT: I am sorry to interrupt, but I never made any suggestion of that sort. The whole of my remarks were concentrated on what is going to happen after the war is over. I made it particularly clear that that was so.
LORD STRABOLGI: Well, why was it necessary to mention the fact that Sir Stafford Cripps is a Socialist. There could be no other meaning except to suggest that Sir Stafford Cripps's ideas might be coloured by his political doctrine. I do not think there has been any case in which one of the Labour or Socialist Ministers of the Government has allowed his political doctrines in any way to colour his action as a member of the Government. In fact I rather regret that in some cases they have been too anxious to abrogate their political doctrine when their colleagues of other Parties in the Government have insisted on their own political doctrine being observed, war or no war. However the test, as the noble
230
Lord said—and here we all agree with him—is what will help the war effort, and if it is going to assist the war effort that Power Jets Limited or any other aeroplane making companies should be completely controlled and owned, lock, stock and barrel, as Lord Teviot has said, by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, let us do it. I am sure Lord Teviot would not question that, and if it is going to prejudice private enterprise after the war, well that is just too bad and we cannot help it.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, you will not expect me to follow the two noble Lords who have spoken in the dispute they seem to have had about Sir Stafford Cripps's views in the political sphere. What I am asked to do—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing up this matter—is to give some information on a very important matter, and I would like to give a fairly full answer. The Motion which the noble Lord has put on the Paper really covers two points: first, is it the Government's intention to create and maintain a State monopoly in the production of aeroplanes; and, secondly, are we proposing to set up a concern which will compete with private firms in the production of aircraft and other consumer goods? The answer to both these questions is an emphatic negative. That is quite clear. We are not proposing to set up a Government monopoly, nor are we going to enter into any form of trading or manufacturing activity that will compete with industry. I can assure noble Lords—perhaps not so much the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who may perhaps be a little disappointed—that this is not the thin end of the wedge of State enterprise.
The reason why we have taken over Power Jets Limited is perfectly simple. It is that the development of gas turbine engines, or what is known as jet propulsion, has reached a stage when, if the nation is to receive the full potential benefit of this very revolutionary invention, it is essential that we should set up a permanent Government-owned research centre. There is nothing new in this. The National Physical Laboratory and the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough are examples. The possibility of constructing a new centre was con-

231
sidered, but was turned down, for obvious reasons. There is not at the present time the building, the labour or the material for setting up another research laboratory. This firm, Power Jets Limited, which the Minister has decided to take over, was a private company, in which some £20,000 was invested, and in which the Government have put over £1,000,000. From the middle of 1939, when this company ran out of capital, the State—that is to say the taxpayers—have defrayed all the expenses and paid a fixed profit based on the company's capital with an allowance for management. Virtually this company was a State-controlled establishment for nearly five years. We built the factory and provided the necessary facilities and equipment at a cost of some £350,000. The decision to take over this firm's organization for a national centre implies no reflection at all on the competence of the management or on its technical achievements, and we so informed the directors. Moreover, the two managing directors have been offered seats on the Board of the new company which, I am glad to say, they have accepted.
The Minister of Aircraft Production has now taken over the company and appointed a board of directors. I should like to read the directive he has given because it makes perfectly clear what this company is there to perform. This is the Minister's directive:
"To act as the recognized national establishment for furthering, in collaboration with industry and the Services, the advancement of knowledge on the subject of gas-turbine engines and their use in aircraft; and for this purpose—

(1) To conduct research on such engines and their components, accessories, and materials of construction;

(2) to design, construct, and develop prototype engines, components, and accessories and to develop materials for their construction;

(3) to devise methods of manufacture appropriate to such engines and to manufacture small batches of such engines so as to carry development up to the production stage;

(4) to test such engines, their components, accessories, and materials of construction on the test bed, in the laboratory, and in the air, and to design, develop, and construct apparatus for this purpose;

(5) to make available to those concerned, by reports and otherwise, the knowledge obtained by such work;

232

(6) to train Service and civilian personnel for the various countries of the British Commonwealth in the technique of the gas turbine engines and the other work carried on at the establishment; and

(7) to do such work or things as the responsible Minister may direct on behalf of His Majesty's Government."

Then there is another part. The Minister has also set up a Gas Turbine Technical Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. H. Roxbee-Cox, who is chairman of this company. This Committee includes representatives of all the industrial firms directly engaged on gas turbine work for the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and it will be extended as necessary to cover any other interests involved. The Minister has informed the Chairman that it is his wish that, on questions of technical policy, the directors should seek the advice and assistance of, and work in the closest collaboration with, the Committee. Noble Lords will see that this is not a question of the State taking over something which is to be in competition with private enterprise. It is a matter of research. The taxpayers have put over £1,000,000 into this firm, and the firms are quite agreeable to the terms which have been settled. The terms include looking after all those who are employed in the company in a proper way. The taking over has been amicably carried out in every way by His Majesty's Government. I do not think anyone need be afraid that this is the thin end of the wedge of State enterprise. As the noble Lord has said, there are other companies involved in furthering this great new invention, and this will mean that we shall have an advantage which we should not necessarily have had before. These private companies will be able to draw on this research company which otherwise, being competitors themselves, they would not have been able to do. In this way, we in this country will get the full advantage of this great new invention and see that it goes forward in the public interest.
LORD FARINGDON: Would I be justified in assuming that private companies taking advantage of any discoveries as a result of this research will be able to use the discoveries, as it were, under licence, paying licence fees just as any private company does now to other private companies whose patents they use, and that in that way there will be a

233
return on the moneys invested in this research?
LORD SHERWOOD: I could not give a definite answer to that. What I do say is that this research will be available, and in fact the Minister has set up this Committee in which these other firms are interested to see that they get full advantage of what comes out of the research. As regards the details of what happens afterwards, that is another question.
LORD FARINGDON: May I ask whether the private firms are, in fact, to get a form of disguised subsidy, or whether there will be a return on this public money?
LORD SHERWOOD: There will be eventually a return on public moneys in the shape of better work as a result of this research.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the statement made by the noble Lord creates serious misgivings in my mind. We are entitled to know a little more. I do not press him to-day because, of course, that would clearly be inconvenient; but if a million pounds of public money, and perhaps more before we are finished, is to be, spent, we are entitled to have some assurance as to the terms and conditions upon which other persons may be able to take advantage of that expenditure. I am not wishing to prejudice the case by suggesting the conditions, but it is of the first importance that we should have some information on this subject. If it were convenient for the noble Lord to give us a White Paper or something of that kind we ought to have it, because as the matter stands we clearly cannot be satisfied with his statement.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say that I hope your Lordships will not be unduly disturbed by the misgivings which my noble friend opposite seems to be entertaining. This arrangement appears to me to be entirely in line with present arrangements for scientific research. The State spends enormous sums of money on scientific research, both physical and medical, and otherwise, and a very great return does come directly and indirectly from these researches. I have not the slightest doubt that in due course a suitable report
234
will be made to Parliament as to the results of this research. My only reason for intervening is to express the hope that the House will not feel there is anything sinister because it seems to me that this arrangement is entirely in line with our present procedure.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, the noble Lord is not representing the case quite fully. In the case of industrial organizations the various industries, in practically all cases, themselves have associations and themselves make contributions to the work of the Industrial Research Council. Research is in that case associated with the industries which themselves make contributions. That is quite a different basis from the thing which has been explained today by the noble Lord. I am not saying that his explanation may not be supplemented. I am only saying that I am not satisfied with it as it stands at present. It is quite different from the basis of the Industrial Research Council. I know that because I, myself, started it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): I am not quite clear as to what the noble Lord desires.
LORD ADDISON: I am not pressing for any further answer to-day, but we shall look for some further statement in amplification of what the noble Lord has said and in the absence of it we shall put a Motion on the Paper in the ordinary way.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is open to any noble Lord to put down a Motion on any subject at any time. I hope they will consider the reply which the noble Lord has made for the Government to-day and then be able to have second thoughts on the subject. But it is always open to put down a Motion.
LORD ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not put it off so lightly as that. It is a big matter and one of public importance. Perhaps the noble Lord will think it over and see whether he cannot give further enlightenment upon the matter. The conditions have not been mentioned at all in the statement made by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Of course not only my noble friend who has replied

235
but the responsible Minister will take note of what has been said, and I have no doubt, if the House wishes to have another debate on this matter, it can easily be arranged at any time.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have never heard of this very sinister ring to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, and from my knowledge of the industry generally—which I must say is not very intimate, but I certainly know a great many people in it—I cannot imagine that there is any justification for saying that there ever was a ring in regard to the production of aeroplanes. I am sure that we must be very satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. It certainly goes a long way to ease my mind and I am sure also the minds of those in the industry in regard to the future. There is just one point that I am not quite clear about. I gather that this organization which has been set up—I hope the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—has on it representatives of the aeroplane producing companies. I gather there was some sort of co-operation.
LORD SHERWOOD: Which Committee?
LORD TEVIOT: The Gas Turbine Technical Advisory Committee.
LORD SHERWOOD: The Co-ordinating Committee which is under the chairmanship of Dr. Roxbee-Cox includes representatives of all industrial firms directly engaged on gas turbine work for the Ministry and it will be extended as necessary to cover any other interests involved.
LORD TEVIOT: That I think is most satisfactory. The only question which arises out of what was said by the noble Lord opposite is that some perturbation seems to be in the minds of noble Lords that some private enterprise or company would derive benefit from this development by the Government Department. I do not think that there need be any fear in regard to that.
LORD ADDISON: The noble Lord is misrepresenting us. We have not the slightest objection to private enterprise deriving benefit. Of course not. The point is we want to know the conditions on which private enterprise is to he entitled to derive benefit. That is the point.
LORD TEVIOT: That leads to another point. Supposing it is the case—and I think it highly probable—that the great companies which are now developing the jet propulsion idea, go on at a much quicker rate than the Government Research Department, is there any arrangement by which all the information gained goes into one pool? I presume probably not at this stage. I must say I would like to consider very carefully what has been said but, generally speaking, I must thank the noble Lord very much indeed for what he has said. He has relieved my mind a great deal on many questions in regard to this matter that were obscure to me and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPERVISION OF MILK PRODUCTION.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure that unclean milk is not being sold to the public; and move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I want to take this opportunity of congratulating His Majesty's Government on producing a Milk and Dairies Bill which is passing through another place at the present time. Although there seems to be a division of opinion about certain portions of it there is no doubt that there is general unanimity that such a measure is urgently necessary for obtaining a pure milk supply in this country. Only recently I myself took over a farm from one of my tenants at his request in order to convert it into an attested farm with a pedigree herd and to improve the quality of the milk supply. After taking over the farm I found that the conditions of milk production on it had been in the past far from desirable in every sense of the word. I will not weary your Lordships with details, but the milk conditions on this farm were very far from clean, and if such conditions occurred on this farm there was no reason to suppose they would not be found on other farms all over the country. It suggested to me that the same conditions must exist far and wide. Therefore I took the opportunity of inquiring into it and finding out

237
what was happening on other farms in other parts of the country and even in Scotland.
I ascertained that there were many similar cases, especially where there was no hot water provided. In some cases even no water was laid on at all. To go into mere intimate detail, in some cases cows' udders are not washed nor are the men who wash the cows properly washed, while sterilization of the milking plant is not attended to. There are many other things such as dirty dairies—dairies which are neglected and where general hygiene is imperfectly and carelessly controlled. Under the present system there is no doubt whatsoever that a very considerable quantity of impure milk is being sold on the market both to adults and to young people. I think it will be agreed that it is our duty especially to safeguard the health and future of our children. The inspections at present are carried out by local authorities, but in some places cleanliness is not enforced. There is no doubt about that. While in some areas cleanliness may be present, in other areas it is non-existent. In some places, even if the inspection takes place, the rules of cleanliness are not enforced by the local authorities.
That is why I welcome the Bill to which I have referred, as that does, I think, in effect, put the full responsibility for inspection and clean milk on the Minister of Agriculture himself. Under that Bill State veterinary surgeons will do all the work that is so necessary at present to ensure that cows are healthy and free of tuberculosis and that the milk, even if not of the best quality, is clean and free of germs. No one should be permitted to sell diseased cows at auction sales. The exercise of proper control is required in this direction. It is true that the local authorities have quite full powers, but they do not always exercise them, and that is why I am very glad that the new Bill is to be passed as soon as possible. I took the opportunity of inquiring what were the views of the dairying industry both with regard to the Bill and the present conditions of milk supply in this country, and I found that their views were absolutely the same as mine—namely, flat the milk at present is often not clean; that in fact a great deal is not clean.
I have here a letter from a prominent man in the dairying industry, who writes:
"There is not the slightest doubt among progressive men in the dairy industry that the supervision of milk production is very unsatisfactory with several authorities dabbling in it. We all feel we must come down heavily on the side of the new Bill, and anything that can be done in stressing a few hard facts in to-morrow's debate will he most helpful to us. Whilst it is true to say that many of our dairies maintain a high standard of hygiene, there are also hundreds of dairies where conditions are far from perfect. An official of the National Milk Testing and Advisory Scheme told me last week that in something like 70 per cent. of our dairies milk is either uncleanly bottled, or unclean milk is bottled. He revealed that in 8o per cent. of dairies handling zoo churns a day and over they have no churn washer. As you know, hand washing of churns is notoriously inefficient."
He goes on to say that a very prominent member of the Lanarkshire County Council told one of his representatives that
"from a survey of Lanarkshire milk supplies to schools it has been found that complaints were made in 51 out of 73 schools visited. The complaints concerned dirty bottles, sour milk, cracked bottles, and foreign matter in milk. I understand that 60,000 bottles of milk a day are supplied to schools in Lanarkshire, and that this county council has been very much alarmed as the result of their investigation."
Then his letter goes on to state that from Gloucestershire a very well known alderman
"says in a report which he has sent me that of 1,140 samples bf milk suplied to Gloucestershire schools between July 1 and October 31. 1943, nearly half were declared to be unsatisfactory. He says that local authorities throughout the country have not used their powers to see that milk is handled in dairies under good sanitary conditions. The effect of the new Bill will be clear cut and will mean a country-wide minimum standard by which the Ministry of Agriculture takes power to inspect the cattle on dairy farms. This can be the starting point of a national drive to eliminate disease from our dairy herds."
I think I have said enough to show that undoubtedly the condition of milk in this country is not clean. Of course we have compulsory pasteurization, which may help to a certain extent, but it is not a good thing that we should pasteurize all milk and allow it to be dirty at the same time because we say pasteurized milk is safe. That is the wrong way to go about it. Milk must be clean to start with.
It must be remembered that in the twenty-four years from 1912 to 1935, for which official figures are available, 150,000

239
people in this country contracted tuberculosis of bovine origin by the consumption of tubercular milk and butter. Sixty thousand of these died, many of them after years of great suffering. Contrast this story of Britain with what is going on in American cities where such cases are looked upon as clinical curiosities only to be seen when imported from areas where the pasteurization of milk is not enforced. In America milk is kept extraordinarily clean and people over there write to ask whether compulsory pasteurization will not militate against the cleaning up of dairy herds. This is entirely contrary to fact. On making reference to authorities I find that the 100 per cent. of milk pasteurized in most American cities is the produce of 100 per cent. tubercule-free cows. The fact that pasteurization may make milk safe does not justify the continued production of diseased or dirty milk. Another country I would like to quote is Finland which is very much in the news just now. In Finland they have completely eradicated bovine tuberculosis by tuberculin testing, segregation on the Bang system, and if necessary by slaughter. In Finland only 0.02 per cent. of the cows are tuberculous while in Britain the percentage is not lower than 40. Finland is a poor country. If they can do that surely we can do the same thing.
In the opinion of a very prominent member of the dairy trade, the case for the Ministry of Agriculture taking over the powers of the local authorities is overwhelming. Local authorities have deplorably and conspicuously failed to ensure a safe and satisfactory milk supply. Quite rightly counties with good records will be no worse off under the new provisions, but on the other hand the many idle local authorities will be no longer able to affect the quality of our milk by allowing terrible conditions of production to continue to exist. For instance, only too often we hear of the mixing of good and bad milk so that the good milk is spoiled by being mixed with the bad. I beg to move.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, the Motion put down by the noble Duke is one of great importance and the short
240
answer to his question is the Bill which is now before Parliament. That Bill will be presented to your Lordships in the very near future, and I feel therefore that the best reply I can make to my noble friend to-day is to give him a picture of these various regulations concerning milk from both the production and distribution sides and to mention also the various departments and local authorities who are concerned in those regulations. In that way I hope to be able to paint a picture which will show the reason why this Bill is before Parliament. During the war, as your Lordships know, milk has been priority number one. Consumption has risen very largely, but as we do not yet produce enough milk to meet all our requirements we cannot see the end of rationing—that is if we are to give the priority classes such as nursing mothers and children the milk which they ought to have and the quantity which they want. We must therefore see that as little as possible of the milk which is produced is wasted either because of its being unclean or because of its going sour.
In the efforts which we hope to make to continue the upgrading of the production of milk we must see that we get better quality cows in order to get better quality milk. That is the side for which the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible and in 1942 the Ministry introduced the National Milk Testing and Advisory Scheme. The principal aim of this scheme is to improve the keeping quality of milk both as it is produced on the farms and during the handling of it in the creameries, the depots and the dairies to which it is delivered from the farms. The methods used for this purpose are to test bacteriologically the milk supplies and the utensils with which the milk comes into contact and where necessary, as a result of the tests, to advise the producer and the distributor how best they can improve the efficiency of the production and handling of milk. The supplies of 77 per cent. of the milk produced in the country are now tested every fortnight. The proportion of producer-wholesaler supplies tested is 89 per cent.; and, while the proportion of the producer-retailer supplies tested is much lower, the supplies of the latter are being tested much more frequently. The results of tests which prove milk unsatisfactory are sent to the county war agricultural execu-

241
tive committees and their advisory staffs. These staffs are being strengthened as far as possible and these people visit and advise the producers on how to improve their efficiency. The whole of the work of the scheme is under the supervision of a strong headquarters Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, on which are represented the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Health, the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Union, the distributors rid other interests. The Committee works largely through three sub-committees—the Milk Distribution Sub-Committee, the Farm Advisory Sub-Committee and the Technical Sub-Committee. Standards and techniques used throughout the work are laid down and supervised by the last-named sub-committee.
So much for the actual production of the milk. Now I come to the buildings in which the milk is produced. The Milk and Dairies Regulations, 1926–1943, which are enforced by local sanitary authorities, broadly cover the following matters it relation to all dairies. Regulation I, which deals with registration, sets out that no person may carry on the trade of cow-keeper or dairyman or use any premises as a dairy unless he and the premises are registered with the local authority. Section 22 of the Act enables the authority to refuse or cancel registration in the case of persons registered or applying to be registered as retail purveyors of milk, if they are satisfied that the public health is, or is likely to be, endangered by any act or default of the person concerned. A person aggrieved may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. I am taking the opportunity of reading this to your Lordships as it will be concerned with the Bill when it comes before your Lordships' House. Conditions and methods of production also come under the Regulations as well as matters of conveyance and distribution, and measures to deal with infected milk. With regard to infected milk it is provided that a supply of milk may be temporarily stopped if the medical officer of health has evidence that human infectious disease has been caused by it, or that the milk has been infected with such disease.
The measures concerning the production and distribution of milk which I have outlined to your Lordships are, at present, the responsibility of three Gov-
242
ernment Departments—namely, the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Health—as well as county councils and local authorities. All these bodies have a hand in milk production. The noble Duke referred in his speech to Scotland. As I have had to mention certain matters which come under so many authorities already, I hope you will forgive me if I stick to this side of the Border. It is not too much to say that it is vital that all steps should be taken to see that all the milk which is produced is clean and safe to the consumer. The Government believe that certain powers held by the local authorities should be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture in order that we should get better uniformity throughout the country. The question which is really the crux of the Bill I have mentioned is where the line of demarkation is to be. I think I need not go further to-day because your Lordships will have a chance to discuss this matter fully when the Bill comes from another place. In conclusion, I would say to the noble Duke that my picture is not finished, but that I hope he will be satisfied with it so far as it has gone. I welcome the speech which he has made to-day, and I hope that he will allow me another sitting.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I would just say that I am more than satisfied with the noble Duke's reply. I look forward to the time when the Bill of which he has spoken will come before your Lordships, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ACCOMMODATION IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of Tuesday last—namely, "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the Message on the Paper, which it is now my duty to ask your Lordships to consider, is one which was received from another place on the 6th of June, and it is in the following terms:

243
"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."
I have already mentioned this matter to the House of Lords Offices Committee, and the view of the Committee, as I understood it, was that so long as this proposed Joint Committee confined the scope of its inquiries to establishing facts and elucidating the position as to accommodation in the building generally, then it might be very useful for members of both Houses to have its Report in their hands.
Your Lordships will note that there is in the Message a reference to recommendations. That, I think, is common form. It clearly would not be possible to debar the Committee, if they had so agreed, from making any recommendations. Indeed, I should have thought that the members of the Committee would have been very unwilling to serve if they were completely debarred from making recommendations of any kind. At the same time, I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that such recommendations—if any are made—will in no way commit your Lordships' House. They will only be made for the purpose of enabling Parliament to give due consideration to the facts which emerge from their examination. In these circumstances, I would suggest to your Lordships that a Message should be sent to the House of Commons acquainting them that this House agrees to the proposal. The next step would be, as I understand it, that the House of Commons should return a Message, giving to this House the names of the members whom they would propose should represent the House of Commons on the Joint Committee. It would then be for me to select for submission to your Lordships the names of members of this House to serve upon the Joint Committee. I think there is nothing more that I need say now, and I beg to move that this House do agree with the message from the Commons.
Moved, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons—namely, "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of West-
244
minster, and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

TURKEY AND THE STRAITS.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government for details of the recent action of the Turkish Government in allowing German vessels of war to pass through the Straits from the Black Sea to the Ægean; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before putting my Motion as to the rather curious conduct of our curious Ally, I should like to say a few words about the course of this somewhat fantastic relationship as it has appeared to the man in the street. During the years in which we suffered adversity, we made every allowance for the position of the Turks; we put no pressure upon them. In that I think His Majesty's Government were wise. The Turks were indisposed to come in, and for material reasons no doubt afraid to come in, and we all understood that. I even well understood the occasional references of the Government to the loyalty of the Turkish Government, though some of those references had, to my ears, the somewhat perfunctory tang of diplomacy. But then the tide turned, and I think it might have turned more quickly if the Turks had had the courage of any convictions; but, instead of that, they played us up. They extracted from us as great a quantity of arms and munitions as was possible, running into very considerable amounts which we could ill spare to spectators. Then, when we said "Come in now, the water's fine," they still shivered on the brink and said, "It looks to us a little chilly still, so we think we will go home"—and they went home, and proceeded to sell chrome and other commodities to our enemies.
Even that performance we stomached, though some of us, like myself, stomached it with feelings of rising disgust. When the export of chrome was finally abolished, I can assure your Lordships that some of us felt no gratitude whatever; we thought that this was merely a sign of long overdue decency. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to imagine our feelings when we find that the next development in this

245
extraordinary story is that the Turks are actually and actively helping our enemies by passing German warships through the Straits in order that we may be the better attacked on the high seas. I am not going to waste one word on the niceties and details avid technicalities of the Montreux Convention; I am going to come straight to the hard fact that this is not only an unfriendly but a hostile act, committed by a so-called Ally on behalf of a half-beaten enemy.
His Majesty's Government have shown exemplary and indeed monumental patience, as they always do. I think that sometimes they show too much. I could do with a little more asperity in the case of false friends, and therefore I hope that on this occasion a stiffer line will be taken with the Turks. The Prime Minister adumbrated in his last speech on the subject that they would not be admitted to the peace table. I should hope not; but that is a very small consolation. As a matter of fact, that speech was made before the commission of this unfriendly act; and therefore I ask myself, and I ask the Government, what remedy we have. I hope that the Government will be able to tell me something about it to-day. I should also like to know from them the approximate extent of the damage to which we may be exposed by this unfriendly act, although, of course, I shall not press them on that point if they feel indisposed to embark on the seas of operational prophecy.
This time, however, I think that we want something more than mere representations. The Turkish Government may explain, may argue, and may even apologize, but all that seems to me no good whatever; they cannot put the ships back into the Black Sea. Are the Government going to content themselves with protest and rebuke? I hope that we shall find some more tangible means of making our displeasure felt. I might venture to suggest two very humble contributions. One is that they should form in the Foreign Office a very small additional department, a Department of Curiosities, and that this alliance should be Exhibit A. Secondly, bearing m mind the precedent of the "Alabama," I hope that the Government will notify the Turkish Government that at the conclusion of hostilities a bill will be presented to them for any damage sustained. I hope we shall also find means
246
to ensure that the bill may not necessarily be a big one; but, whatever it is, the Turkish Government should be compelled to foot it hereafter. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, himself will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not enter into the rather wider issues which he mentioned in the early sentences of his speech. They went a good deal beyond the terms of the Motion, and I propose to confine myself merely to answering the question which lie asks. I think it may be for the convenience of the House in answering his question if I recapitulate briefly the incidents which gave rise to it. Your Lordships, I think, are already aware that, consequent on the series of recent Russian victories on the Eastern Front, the German theatre of operations in the Black Sea has been severely and happily restricted; and, as a result, during recent months the German authorities have started to move shipping from the Black Sea, where they no longer require it, through the Straits into the Ægean Sea where, in consequence of the efforts of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, the German shipping position has greatly deteriorated.
A few of these German ships are merchantmen, the free passage of which, as your Lordships know, by a belligerent through the Straits is permitted under the terms of the Montreux Convention regarding the régime of the Straits. Other vessels, however, fall into a very different category. These are of two types. The first are what are known as K.T. vessels, ships of some 800 tons, with a normal armament of two 3·7-inch guns and machine guns. The second type are known as E.M.S. craft, of some 40 or 5o tons, much smaller vessels, with a normal armament of one 3-pounder, machine guns and depth charges. The former are used mainly for the transport of troops, war stores and so on, and the latter for all sorts of warlike purposes, including submarine chasing.
These vessels are of a type which were used consistently by the Germans for military operations in the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean, and there can be no shadow of doubt that they will be similarly used in the Ægean. To obtain passage for them through the Straits, the Germans, for obvious reasons, dismantle

247
their armament, and this armament is installed again when the ships reach their destination in the Ægean. Both these classes of vessel are regarded by His Majesty's Government as either men-of-war or auxiliary ships of war, the passage of which by a belligerent through the Straits in time of war is prohibited by Article 19 of the Montreux Convention. There has been a question whether the E.M.S. craft fall within this prohibition; but we know, the Germans know, and the whole world knows, that these craft, like the K.T. type, are essentially military in character, and that they have been used for military or naval operations in Black Sea, and are going to be used again for the same purposes in the Ægean. In the view of His Majesty's Government, therefore, they cannot be considered as other than vessels of war, and their passage through the Straits is entirely contrary to the real objects and intentions of the Convention, and to permit it is to assist in a clear abuse of that Convention.
The duty of the Turkish Government to stop these vessels is the more evident when I remind your Lordships that the Turkish Government have already once detected the Germans in a similar breach of the Convention. German landing craft, disguised as commercial barges, were passed for some time through the Straits by the German Navy. Then the Germans made the not unusual blunder of giving publicity to the military use of the barges, and that particular fraud was brought to an end by the Turkish Government. In spite of repeated representations by His Majesty's Ambassador, four K.T. vessels and eight E.M.S. craft in all have during the first days of June passed through the Straits into the Ægean, the Turkish Government having maintained that on examination no proof could be found of their being any other than commercial vessels.
His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora at once protested to the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs not merely against the passage of the vessels but against the inadequate and hurried inspection to which they were subjected by the Turkish authorities. The Minister for Foreign Affairs persisted, however, in his claim that there was no legal ground on which he could stop the vessels, a claim which His Majesty's Government find it difficult
248
to understand, since, as I have said, the Turkish Government have already put an end to the precisely similar fraud of the German landing barges. In view of this unsatisfactory reply and seeing that there are further ships of these types which the Germans will be wanting to pass from the Black Sea into the Ægean, His Majesty's Ambassador was instructed last week to seek an audience of the Turkish President in order to represent to him how profoundly shocked His Majesty's Government were by the fact that the Turkish Government should have lent themselves to this palpable manoeuvre of the German Government who hoped thereby to increase German naval strength in the Ægean to the direct detriment of British interests.
This interview took place on June 8, when the President promised to have the matter examined by his Government and return us an answer to our protest. The matter is thus still the subject of discussion in Angora and I hope the noble Lord will understand if I am not able at the moment to give any further details. I should however like to conclude this statement on a happier note by saying that a further K.T. vessel which arrived at the entrance to the Bosphorus on June 5 has been detained in the Straits by the Turkish authorities.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, it is not denied that this time the Turkish Government have lent themselves to a definitely unfriendly act with their eves open. If I understand the noble Viscount rightly, there was a previous occasion when some kind of action was either undertaken or attempted without their knowledge, but this time it has been done with their knowledge and they have sought to excuse it by a pretext which has been declared to be unacceptable by His Majesty's Government. We seem to be embarking, as I anticipated, on a course of protest and if necessary rebuke, but I come back to what I said in my few opening remarks, that that surely gives us no satisfaction, because we are liable to damage owing to the passage of camouflaged warships through the Straits to the high seas, and they cannot be restored to their former position. Therefore I would like again to urge upon the Government the possibility of obtaining some sort of satisfaction by considering

249
the possibility of putting in a bill at the end. I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will take that suggestion into consideration, because I do feel that there are limits to our patience, and that those limits Should at times be clearly defined in order to maintain not only British interests but the respect in which this country should be held; because, it people continue to think that they can get away with murder or something a little less, and then say, "Well, sorry, it is done now; there is nothing more to be said. Perhaps there is something in the British case, but why go on talking?" I do not think that is very conducive to the respect in which I wish to see this country and this Government held abroad. So I put the point again to the noble Viscount and ask if he will place the suggestion I have made before the Government.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I will certainly transmit to the Foreign Secretary what the noble Lord has said, but I think it is clear to the House that I have made a very firm statement on the subject. I do not think it would justify any suggestion that the Government are shilly-shallying in this matter. We take a very serious view of what has happened, and I can assure the noble Viscount that everything that he has said will be taken fully into account.
LORD VANSITTART: I made no suggestion that the Government were shilly-
250
shallying but that we were showing an almost too exemplary patience. But I shall be amply satisfied if the noble Viscount assures me that my suggestion will be put before the Government, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Frinton and Walton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.