Lords Sitting of 10 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Dunleath—Took the Oath.
The Lord Glenarthur—Took the Oath.

THE LATE VISCOUNT SOUTHWOOD.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am sure it would meet with your Lordships' approval and be in accordance with your wishes if I were to express our deep sense of grief at the sudden death of Lord Southwood today, who was one of our Whips for a considerable time during the war period. I am quite sure it is true to say that he was beloved in every quarter of the House. I know just as well as any man could how ceaseless a worker he was and how full of all sorts of interests which many people little suspected. One was always discovering many acts of kindness that he had done quietly so far as he was concerned, with no one knowing, and there are many organizations of the helpful kind which owed very much, sometimes even their continued existence, to his help. You are, of course, aware that he was interested in the great Children's Hospital for which he worked so hard for so many years, and in all topics connected with the welfare of young people he was consumedly interested. I always remember the speech he made in your Lordships' House on the need for family allowances in which he was ably supported by the late Archbishop Temple. It was a very striking and, to me, a not forgettable occasion. Behind it all, as we know, he had a very acute ability and a remarkable power of direction on a great scale which few suspected, I think, who knew him only as a modest and kindly friend. Through everything he did there was a kindness of heart and lovability which I am sure all of us who knew him well will ever treasure in our memories. I am sure,
642
my Lords, you would like to be associated with the tribute to him and with of sympathy to those he has left behind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as the Leader of the House has well said, there is no one in any quarter of this House who would not wish to join in the most truly personal sense with the moving tribute that he has paid to an old friend and an old colleague. We got to know Lord Southwood first as a Whip. A Whip, I always think, has one of the most difficult jobs of anybody, very often a harder job than the Minister. He has to keep everybody right; he has to keep the people behind the Ministers sweet, when the Minister has ruffled them; and he has not only to deal like that with his own people, he has to have, if business is to go through expeditiously, equally happy relations with his opponents on the other side. Lord Southwood, coming to that post with I suppose no political experience of any sort or kind, by his ability, and indeed perhaps even more by his kindliness and good nature, did turn out to be the ideal Whip. He made friends with us all. We all feel we have lost a friend. That kindliness was, I think, the whole key to his character. It was that which made us so fond of him, and it was characteristic of that kindliness that not only was he most generous with his wealth in the cause of children and young people, but equally generous and unsparing in his personal energy and his great ability. We all wish to be truly associated with the tribute and with the sympathy the Leader of the House has expressed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the sudden and wholly unexpected death of Lord Southwood has come to us all as a great shock. He was a man who had here very many friends. He was remarkable for his great kindness of heart and his deeply benevolent disposition. This was shown in his indefatigable work for the hospitals and also during the war by his invaluable service for the Red Cross. I think he was the initiator and was certainly a prime mover in the Penny-a-Week Movement for the Red Cross which yielded many millions of pounds to the Fund. On the Front Opposition Bench he was for some time Chief Whip, and I have no doubt that the present Prime Minister would have invited his services

643
in the Government if he had not been tied to the great newspaper enterprise which he had himself largely built up and in which he took so deep and legitimate a pride. Your Lordships' House has lost a faithful member who commanded here universal affection and esteem.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, may I as one associated with Lord Southwood in the profession which he followed, be permitted to say a few words on this sad occasion? I have known Lord Southwood possibly for more years than anybody else in this House, and I had many associations with him. He was a man of inexhaustible courage and tremendous industry. He rose by his own efforts alone from the humblest of beginnings. He was never a journalist, and he was not very interested in politics, but, by his great powers of organization, he managed to steer two national newspapers to vast circulations and at the same time to create a publishing business which is one of the largest in the country. He became the employer of thousands of men, and commanded their whole-hearted admiration and esteem. At one time, as some of your Lordships may remember, he was faced with a great catastrophe due to no fault of his own, and it looked as though he would go under, but with great courage and determination he fought his way back and re-established his enterprises on a stronger basis than ever.
He was a lonely man, and of recent years, as has been said to-day, he became associated with a number of charitable enterprises. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has mentioned some of the public ones, but I would also refer to those connected with his own profession to which he gave great assistance in every direction. He was not by any means a wealthy man but he gave freely of his money. What is more, he gave his time. What he did for the charities of which I am speaking—and this probably can be said of the charities in the public world too—was that he made as great a success of them as he did of his life in the business world. I pay tribute, above all, to his benevolence and his kindliness of heart.

PASTEURIZATION OF MILK.
2.41 p.m.
LORD ROTHSCHILD LORD ROTHSCHILD rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to
644
the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in spite of your Lordships' well-known indulgence towards beginners, I imagine there are few who do not feel considerable apprehension on the occasion of their maiden speech in this Chamber. I feel this particularly because there are so many noble Lords who are better qualified to speak on the Motion in my name than I am. Nevertheless, I am fortified to a certain extent by the fact that the Motion has the backing of a number of learned institutions such as the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Joint Tuberculosis Council, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians.
It will not be necessary for me to say much about the benefits of pasteurized milk or, as it is known in these days, heat treated milk. Your Lordships are aware that a large number of people die each year through drinking milk contaminated with the bovine tuberculosis germ. I will not weary your Lordships with statistics, but will merely mention that if all the members of this House were killed twice a year—and I think your Lordships will agree that this would be a matter of some gravity—the number of deaths would be of the same order as that caused in the United Kingdom by drinking raw milk contaminated with the germ of tuberculosis. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of casualties from this germ far exceeds the number of deaths; but no precise figures are available to me on this point, though the number of casualties has been estimated at about five times the number of deaths. If we put the number of deaths per year at 1,600, the number of casualties will be between 7,000 and 8,000. These casualties, which require months of hospital treatment, are a source of misery and anxiety to their families and grave expense to the State.
Of course tuberculosis is not the only disease caused by drinking raw milk contaminated with germs. Undulant fever claims an unknown number of victims each year—un-known because it is a difficult disease to diagnose—while outbreaks of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, dysentry, food poisoning, scarlet fever, and diphtheria

645
are known to be caused from time to time by the drinking of raw milk. During the war, well authenticated milk-borne examples of each of these diseases were reported in the medical Press. Possibly the noble Lord who replies for the Government may be able to tell your Lordships if there have been any outbreaks of disease caused by drinking contaminated raw milk in the United Kingdom during 1946.
It would appear obvious from the few words I have said that considerable benefits would accrue to the population of this country by removing a perfectly clear cut source of disease and death from the population's milk; and on the assumption that this side of the case is not in dispute, I will turn to the other side which concerns the arguments put forward by the opponents of pasteurization. May I say at the start that I neither can nor shall attempt to deal with the economic aspects of this matter? Your Lordships are well aware that one of the criticisms of any scheme involving the compulsory pasteurization of milk in the United Kingdom is that it will have an adverse effect on the small producer-retailers. Your Lordships may have something to say about the relative merits of killing off numbers of the population each year and maintaining the economic interests of a relatively small section of the community, though the words "as far as is practicable" in my Motion indicate that I appreciate the difficulties of extending any scheme of heat treatment to special or rural parts of the country. If I may, I shall return to the question of the producer-retailer later.
The first objection with which I shall deal is that pasteurized milk tastes nasty, metallic, or at any rate different from raw milk. When I say to your Lordships that this is untrue, you will treat my statement with the same scepticism as the original statement that pasteurized milk tastes nasty. Your Lordships will require scientific or legal evidence one way or another. Such evidence could be obtained by submitting samples of raw and heat treated milk to some cross section of the community and seeing whether the members of this cross section could distinguish between the two types of milk more often than someone guessing or drawing the answer blindfold out of a hat. Your Lordships would decide one way or another on evidence of this type and not
646
on unsubstantiated statements of mine or anybody else. These experiments have in fact been done and Show without a shadow of doubt that an overwhelming number of persons are totally unable to distinguish between raw and heat treated milk. Of course if the milk is not pasteurized properly and, for example, is boiled, it is quite easy to tell the difference, but we must, I think, assume in the argument that the Government would not institute an incompetent scheme of heat treatment.
So much for the non-existent difference in taste. Another objection often raised is that pasteurization takes what is called "the life" out of milk. This phrase is a difficult one to deal with because it is so vague. In so far as heat treatment takes the life out of the noxious bacteria which are so often present in our milk, it is of course true, but I doubt whether those who put forward these statements mean them in this sense. It is more likely that they infer that some essential nutrient substances are removed from the milk by the process of pasteurization. It is true that minor changes are brought about in the composition of the milk, but numerous investigations on rats, calves, and human beings, carried out in medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions in this country and in Scotland, have shown conclusively that such changes have no appreciable effect on the nutritive value of the milk. According to the Director of the National Institute for Research in Dairying, which your Lordships are aware is the most important Institute of its type in the United Kingdom, the difference in composition between raw and heat treated milk has been found in fact to be less than that between samples of raw milk taken from different herds.
Though milk is one of nature's best foodstuffs, it is by no means a perfect one, and no one can live exclusively on milk without additional minerals and vitamins. Consequently the fact that a certain amount of these substances is removed by heat treatment is of much less significance than the opponents of heat treatment would have us believe. The opponents of pasteurization—and many people who have fallen victims to their propaganda—sometimes say that pasteurization will remove the incentive to clean milk. Such criticisms display a

647
lack of understanding of the difference between clean and safe milk, and also impute a somewhat alarming degree of ignorance to the Government in imagining that if compulsory pasteurization were introduced, the Government would remove the existing regulations about the cleanliness of milk. The regulations about the cleanliness of milk are directed towards preventing milk being contaminated with dust, blood, water, cow dung, and milk-souring bacteria, all of which at one time were an almost natural constituent of milk in this country. Heat treatment, on the other hand, is intended to destroy disease-producing germs. Though it may render milk safe for human consumption, heat treatment cannot render dirty milk clean. Both clean milk and heat treated milk are desirable for different reasons.
The opponents of pasteurization also say that it destroys the need for the T.T. and attested herd schemes. Here again there is a lack of understanding of the objectives of the schemes. The T.T. and attested schemes are directed towards improving the health of our cattle as well as towards producing germ-free milk. The heat treatment of milk is directed primarily towards improving the health of our population and reducing the unnecessary number of deaths each year. Quite recently in this country an outbreak of dysentery occurred and was traced without a shadow of doubt to milk from a tuberculin-tested herd. There is nothing extraordinary in this as T.T. milk is always exposed to the possibility of contamination after the milk has left the cow, and we shall never be able to prevent farmhands, and others concerned with the milk, from unwittingly being carriers of disease But suppose we accept the risks that caused this recent outbreak of dysentery; even then, it will take many years for a high percentage of our cattle to become attested or to produce T.T. milk. Experience in the United States, where a costly slaughter policy has been combined with a T.T. herd scheme, makes it clear that it would take a minimum of twenty-five years for an important percentage of our cattle to come into this class, and I doubt if we shall be prepared, or even able, to slaughter cattle on the scale that has been done in the United States. Twenty-five years means many unnecessary
648
deaths and very many unnecessary casualties. Your Lordships may agree with me that anyone who says that the T.T. and attested schemes can achieve what we need in a comparatively short space of time must produce good evidence for such a statement if it is to carry conviction.
I now come to the criticism which the opponents of pasteurization put forward with a success which only real nonsense seems able to engender. These gentlemen say: "If we take all the noxious germs out of milk, we shall be preventing the population from acquiring a natural immunity to disease." Your Lordships may agree with me that the cost of this immunity, even if it existed, is somewhat high, and one that might not appeal to the mothers of children who have died from bovine tuberculosis. But apart from this, why do we not drink water contaminated with germs of enteric fever or any of the other diseases that are sometime carried by water? Are we not incurring a very grave risk in accepting the dicta of Ministries of Health of every political shade, of local authorities, of the medical profession, of scientists, or even of the ordinary man? This frightful risk in which most of us are involved by drinking pure water, is one which we appear to sustain with comparative equanimity and impunity. I wonder why a different view is taken by some people because we substitute the word "milk" for the word "water." The truth is, my Lords, that this argument, though on occasions it appeals to those who have not thought much about it, is one that is sufficiently illogical, if not vicious, to be rejected out of hand.
There are three objections to pasteurization which are more serious than those to which I have already referred. The first concerns the possibility that the institution of compulsory heat treatment would not only put small producer-retailers out of business, but would reduce the nation's milk supply. Of course if the Government were to pass some totalitarian Bill making it illegal to sell any form of milk anywhere in the United Kingdom which was not pasteurized, this would be the case. But my Motion is not worded in this way, and nobody in his senses would attempt such a measure. I submit to your Lordships that the compulsory institution of heat treatment in towns, shall we say with a population of

649
more than 20,000, would have no effect whatsoever on small producer-retailers; and, so far from reducing the nation's milk supply, it might well cause an increase. During the war literally thousands of gallons of raw milk were poured down the drain as unfit for human consumption, and it was this fact which caused the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to institute the heat treatment of milk as an urgent measure, thereby saving the nation thousands of gallons. I do not know whether any raw milk is poured down the drains nowadays, but if by any chance it is perhaps a similar saving would occur if the Motion in my name were adopted.
May I repeat that the institution of compulsory pasteurization in towns with more than 20,000 inhabitants need have no effect on the little man and the producer-retailer? It is no answer that about 70 per cent. of the nation's milk is already pasteurized. This is not a matter for satisfaction at all when we remember the number of deaths and casualties each year from the other 30 per cent. A further serious objection that might be raised is that heat treatment equipment would have to be bought in the United States and would therefore cost dollars, which we either do not have or cannot spare for this purpose. The Dairy Engineers' Association, of which most of the firms who make heat treatment plant are members, inform me that not one screw for this equipment would have to be bought in the United States.
Finally, I must I think mention an objection to pasteurization which I put into the serious category though some of your Lordships may feel it hardly merits this treatment. I refer to that type of person who knows from personal experience and observation that the earth is flat and not round, and who say such things as: "What nature produces is good enough for me, so better not tamper with it; it might be dangerous; I like my milk raw." Your Lordships will be well aware that the idea of not tampering with nature is apt to get one into difficulties from time to time. When one is dying of pneumonia one must not tamper with the course of nature by administering penicillin. One must not tamper with nature during an acute attack of appendicitis by having an operation. Or even if one were to be so unwise as to allow an operation to take place, one must not tamper with
650
nature by administering an anæsthetic. If anyone were fortunate enough to get hold of a steak in the future, one must not tamper with nature by cooking it. As a whole we tolerate the peculiar activities of cranks and eccentrics with a certain affectionate amusement, but when they affect the lives and health of the people of our country, I think we should give up this tolerance and at the same time explain to the uninformed why.
When one ponders over the various methods we have of killing off our dwindling population, one cannot help returning to the melancholy spectacle of road deaths, and one cannot help being thankful that committees constantly sit and discussions constantly go on to devise methods of solving this tragedy. But in the case which I submit to your Lordships there is no need for committees and little need for lengthy deliberation. The committees have sat; tie deliberations have taken place, and In fact schemes have already been set out—I referred to the one of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, during the war—for introducing cornpulsory pasteurization. The exigencies of the war were doubtless responsible for the shelving of the noble Lord's scheme. The exigencies of the peace make the institution of compulsory pasteurization an urgent necessity. Any Government which does not implement such a scheme, or at the very least accept the principle for large towns must, in my respectful submission, incur a large share of responsibility for the death and disease which result each year from the people of this country continuing this ill-advised and unnecessary practice of drinking unpasteurized milk. I beg to move for Papers.
3.0 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is the custom of your Lordships' House when a noble Lord ha; delivered his maiden speech to congratulate him. I think that the best way of making it clear that in doing this now I am taking no formal step is to say that I know I shall be speaking on your Lordships' behalf in saving that even if the speech which has just been delivered were not the noble Lord's maiden effort, we would still all wish to thank him and to congratulate him on a really useful, knowledgeable and—if His Majesty's Government are able to give a satisfactory reply to it—important speech on a really vital subject.

651
Not having the noble Lord's scientific training, I must confess that all my prejudices are thoroughly against pasteurization. It must be better to produce clean milk rather than to kill germs in dirty milk. None of us wish so to increase the capital cost of distributing milk—this is a point to which the noble Lord has referred, and referred, if I may say so, very helpfully and sympathetically—as not only to wipe out many thousands of small men, who might have to cease distributing milk, but also (because the two things are intimately wrapped up), to drive many out of production. In these days of shortage, this is indeed the very last moment to take the slightest risk of doing anything like that.
Another point to which the noble Lord has referred is this. We must be careful to do nothing that will in any way tend to make the industry feel that it is now less necessary to clean up the herds and to clean up the farms. Having said that, we have got to be realists. It is for the producers in any market to supply what the consumer wants. The wool trade may be deeply and sincerely convinced that the woollen stocking is a much better covering for the female leg than the silk stocking, but that conviction, I think, must to-day remain in the sphere of pious hope. There is no doubt whatever, as the noble Lord has said, that the over-whelming view of the medical and scientific professions—or at least of the vast majority, anyway, of those engaged in them—is in favour of pasteurization, at any rate of our urban supplies of milk that have to be bulked. The doctors may not know everything about health yet—they would be the last to claim that they do—but clearly they know a great deal more than does the layman. Therefore, speaking from the agriculturist's point of view, I repeat that it is for us as producers to supply the nation with the milk that the medical profession say will be best for the national health. At any rate, if we are honest with ourselves, we have no alternative.
What is the present position? Certainly, it is not as desperate as is sometimes suggested. No one, for a moment, denies the gravity of the figures that have been put before us by Lord Rothschild, nor indeed shall I attempt to dispute them. But I do not think we should forget that
652
really immense progress has been made in this matter during the last few years. So far as I can ascertain, the present position is this. About eighty per cent. of our total milk supply is served to the public by the distributive trade. Of that milk, supplied in that manner, no less a proportion than ninety per cent. is pasteurized to-day. I think that you would find it very difficult to get any milk now in London that, in fact, is not pasteurized. That figure which I have just given, ninety per cent. of the eighty per cent., roughly agrees, I think, with the noble Lord's figure, which was, if I remember rightly, seventy per cent. of the total milk supplies. On these figures it is clear that to apply compulsion to the bulk of that particular part of the trade would cause no difficulty at all. The noble Lord has suggested compulsion in the large urban areas. I think he mentioned places of 20,000 population and upward. Certainly I would be prepared to agree with him there if that is the population limit upon which he draws his line, but I would except all milk, even in those areas, that is up to an accredited standard of cleanliness. I feel rather strongly that if a member of the public would prefer to be supplied with fresh milk of an accredited standard of cleanliness, then he or she ought to be allowed to purchase that milk even in a large urban area.
We now come to the twenty per cent. of the total supply which is delivered by the producer-retailer. Of this, only a very small quantity is pasteurized. I think the noble Lord would agree that probably some of it is pasteurized, but a certain proportion of it is of certified or finer grade—that is T.T. or accredited. Of the total milk supply of the country to-day, twelve per cent. is of T.T. standard, and twenty-five per cent. is accredited. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for putting these figures before you, but I think it is rather important to try to get an accurate picture of the sort of problem with which we have to deal. I think that we can do so, perhaps, from what I have said. The position, though serious, is not quite as desperate as some people say. The only really difficult problem with which we are faced is that connected with the producer-retailer. There are about fifty thousand of these in this country, handling about twenty per cent. of our milk supply. They are usually small

653
men and they are usually serving small or urban communities, or rural communities outside the range of the large distributor, and areas which without these men would frequently have great difficulty in obtaining any milk at all. The producer-retailers, therefore, are performing a useful service which in many cases nobody else would be prepared to perform.
The question we have to decide really is, first, at what pace can we tackle this problem of cleaning up the milk supply delivered by this section of the trade, and, second, in what direction do we desire to travel? On the question of pace there is no doubt that if we try to go too fast we shall merely drive these men out of business, and we shall be deprived of quite a large quantity of milk which we need today. On the question of direction I venture to say that whereas pasteurization is quite inevitable for the large urban areas, by far the better manner of dealing with the problem of the producer-retailer is to tackle the problem of cleaning up the herds and cleaning up the farms. Not only is the capital cost of pasteurization far too heavy to be borne by this section of the trade, but where the bulk of the milk is taken from the producer to the consumer, where the milk is produced in a clean manner it can maintain its cleanliness. Therefore in the case of the producer-retailer, provided that the milk is clean, I can see no very great reason for pasteurization at all.
Here, my Lords, I venture to make a very definite proposal, or perhaps I should say set of proposals, to His Majesty's Government and to the Milk Marketing Board. Let us make a start, here and now, with compulsory pasteurization in large urban areas of 20,000 population or over. Then let us steadily extend it elsewhere to those producers and distributors who are not prepared, or not able, to offer to the public milk of an agreed and designated standard. Give them a reasonable period to reach that standard, but have a definite time limit. I would suggest that we should have something like a ten-year scheme, divided up into different stages; that by the end of the first two years all producer-retailers should have attained the present accredited standard; that by the end of the first five years they should have to attain a standard very considerably above the accredited standard; and
654
that by the end of ten years they should have to attain the full tuberculin-tested and attested-herd standard. And here I would like to interpose a remark. In doing this do let us see in future that milk of a designated standard is kept separate from other milk. A great deal of effort is required, on the part of the producers, and a great deal of public money is being expended at the present moment, in encouraging the production of clean milk which is mixed with all the rest the moment it leaves the farm.
Above all, do let us get going at once. One thing we do not want to do is to continue drifting along as we are at the present moment and then suddenly be driven into some panicky and drastic: steps. Let us here and now make up our minds as to the right long-term policy to pursue, and take our time in pursuing it, but with a definite time limit set for the end. During this ten-year period we should intensify the whole campaign for the cleaning up of herds. Firstly, the veterinary professions, the advisory and education services of the Ministry and of the committees, milk recorders, and anybody else concerned with the milk trade, should be mobilized to this end. Sir Thomas Baxter, Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, has already given a great lead to the industry on the subject and it is for those who have any connexion whatsoever with the problem to take up that lead. Secondly, clean landlords should be asked to join in the campaign, and to do so boll by personal propaganda among their tenants and by giving preference in electricity schemes, water schemes, and the improvement of farm buildings, to tenants who are prepared to come into the clean milk campaign. I should like to see a very strong appeal going out from the Government to the landlords to this effect. Of course the effectiveness of this appeal would depend a great deal on whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to ensure that labour and materials for the work to be done in cleaning up the farm buildings should be made available.
Thirdly, there is no question that the existing performance premium for producing tuberculin-tested milk is a paying proposition for the prod Jeer. Unfortunately, the small man without capital still feels he is unable to face the initial risk and expense. It seems to me that the time has come now when the Government

655
should consider whether they should not rather make their grant at the point where the actual loss occurs. Now the actual loss occurs usually when a farmer going into the scheme finds that a large proportion of his cows do not pass the test and have to be disposed of at a loss. We have to ask ourselves here whether we are going to change the financial basis of the scheme; would the new basis of granting assistance mean a prohibitive cost? I have tried to examine the figures, and my answer very definitely is "No," that in the long run it might actually be less than under the present system.
There are about 3,000,000 cows in this country at the moment, I think. Now if one-third—and I think we would agree that that is rather a high proportion—are ultimately affected, that means 1,000,000 cows for which, at some time or other in the next ten years, some form of compensation would have to be paid. Of course the amount of compensation would be determined by the policy of the Government towards slaughter, but as barely I per cent. of milk from tubercular cows are infected by tubercle bacteria I do not think anybody would urge the policy of slaughter at the present moment. At approximately £15 to £20 per cow, that means a sum of £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 would be required—rather less than the total of £4,000,000 a year or slightly over which we are paying out in premiums at the present moment. I do not recommend the immediate dropping of the premiums, but undoubtedly they will have to be considered in the future. If this were done it would make possible the scheme put forward the other day by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board for the establishment of free areas for the production of clean and healthy stock, for the replenishment of herds that are going into the attested-herd scheme. I think your Lordships would agree that that is an absolutely vital step to take if we are going to do anything with regard to cleaning up the herds.
I have said a good deal on the question of cleaning up the herds during the debate on pasteurization. I have done so deliberately because it seems to me the two subjects are so vitally and intimately connected. I would say to His Majesty's Government that I do hope
656
that they will base their policy on the principle of a general drive dealing with the whole subject, far wider in scope than pasteurization. Let us clean up the herds. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has a Motion on the Paper to-day dealing with veterinary education. That is all relevant. Let us push on to the greatest extent possible with the increase of veterinary education, to make sure that present methods of vaccination against abortion are pressed home. The problem of mastitis is not by any means entirely solved. But we are, I think, very hopeful. Both sulphanilamide and penicillin are going to make very useful contributions in the near future. Let us see that materials and labour for building and for bringing electricity and water to the farms are all made available. In the meanwhile, bring in compulsory pasteurization, as the noble Lord suggests, for the larger urban areas, but bearing in mind all the time—and this is what I would venture to impress on your Lordships as strongly as I can—that, even in the large towns, pasteurization, desirable in itself, is no substitute for clean milk, while, in the smaller and rural communities, it may never be necessary if only we make sufficiently rapid progress in cleaning up the herds and cleaning up the farms.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I may perhaps remind your Lordships that it is exactly twelve months ago to a day that we had a very important debate in this House on the subject of milk, on its purity and on its availability. Many distinguished scientists took part in that debate, including the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Lord Moran, and I think we all came to the conclusion that our milk production and our milk supplies were not matters on which this country had any reason to boast. I venture to hope that, as we have chosen an exact twelve-monthly period since we last debated this subject, we might almost in future select the second Wednesday in April as a suitable day for reviewing in this House the milk position and the effect of undesirable or impure milk upon the health of the population. I should like warmly to endorse the tribute which has been paid to Lord Rothschild for bringing this matter before the House to-day, all the more so because it enables some of us, who

657
occupy what I may call a middle position in this matter, to put our views before the House in the hope that the adoption of them may lead to a much better and safer milk supply, without too seriously upsetting the process of production, which is all too small in this country on its various farms.
The noble Lord opposite, if he will allow me to say so, I think unduly stressed some of the supposed objections to the pasteurization of milk, one of them being taste, another being its effect upon nutritive value, and the third being the removal of vitamins. Whatever may have been said in days gone by with regard to taste, I do not think any reasonable person nowadays, with any knowledge of the facts, would suggest that properly pasteurized milk is either nasty, metallic, or otherwise unattractive to drink, if the pasteurization takes place as it ought to take place, between 135 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit for a matter of half an hour, with a subsequent cooling for at least five minutes to below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. There should be no difference in the flavour of the milk as a result of the pasteurizing process. The same may be said with regard to the effect upon nutritive value. After all, there are several highly civilized countries in the world where the bulk of the milk is pasteurized, and has been pasteurized for many years past, and it has never been suggested—at least I have never heard it suggested seriously—that the process has appreciably reduced its nutritive value.
With regard to the removal of vitamins, there is only- one vitamin, which is perhaps all too scarce in milk, which can ill be spared, and is by neglect in the treatment of milk very often entirely removed. That is vitamin C. I do not know if your Lordships are aware of this fact, that, if you keep a jug of milk in the sunshine for half an hour, the whole of the vitamin C in the milk disappears. It is therefore most desirable, if you want to retain that vitamin, which is particularly valuable to infants and young children, that milk should not be exposed to sunlight after it has been drawn from the cow.
I want to say quite frankly that I welcome, indeed I am prepared to endorse, this Motion of the noble Lord opposite in favour of pasteurization, using his words, "as far as is practicable," and so long as he does not act as a deterrent to
658
securing bovine health improvement. The main advantage of improving the health of our dairy cattle is to increase the yield. That is an even greater advantage than improving the quality of the milk. We have to increase the yield of milk, which is materially reduced in this country today by bovine disease, by tuberculosis, by mastitis in particular and by contagious abortion. It is perfectly true to say that it has frightened a good many people, and we cannot deny it, that 40 per cent. of the whole of our cattle in this country react to the tuberculin test. But we have to bear in mind at the same time, that only one half per cent. of our dairy cattle yield tubercular milk, and, if we were to take the drastic steps in the matter of slaughter which are taken in the United States, where there is something less than one half per cent. of the cattle affected with tuberculosis, of course the availability of milk in this country would be reduced. Milk would not be so available in this country and, as a result, there would be an adverse effect on the health of the population, and especially that of the children.
I am also uttering this warning because there is a great deal of popular misconception on the danger to human health of milk which contains bovine tubercular germs. It is my experience from time to time to receive drafts of articles and books on various agricultural subjects with the request that I shall provide a foreword or preface. I received one only a week ago, and the proposed title of the book was, Your Enemy the Cow. That book, so far as I was able to read it, contained a good deal of information, although rather exaggerated, similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has submitted to your Lordships to-day. But to my mind (and I told the author quite candidly what I thought, the whole book is damned by its title. In a country like this, where the milk yield of our cattle is something less than the miserable amount of 500 gallons during a lactation period—500 gallons a year—as against 750 to 800 gallons in countries like Denmark, Finland, Holland and others; and remembering that the actual consumption of milk a day in this country is an average of one half-pint, whereas in most civilized European countries it is at least 5o per cent. more, and in many countries double, for any one with any

659
knowledge (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in this connexion), to frighten the public with a book entitled Your Enemy the Cow is, to my mind, almost a matter for public prosecution.
The question of pasteurization has been a matter of controversy in this country for at least a generation, and curiously enough has had very litle relation to scientific facts. It has been influenced almost wholly by a fear that progress in particular directions would be obstructed. It has been opposed in the past by leading stock-owners, first as calculated to check the improvement in the health of dairy cattle by rendering even bad milk potable and safe; and secondly because, by giving the distributors better-keeping milk, it would make the producers victims of price-bargaining. The distributors, on the other hand, favoured pasteurization as a means of prolonging very considerably the period for keeping milk in a drinkable and relatively wholesome condition. The medical profession, with little knowledge of farming conditions, demanded pasteurization as the most certain method of ensuring for the public a safe milk supply. Up to a few years ago the veterinary profession supported the opinion of the stock-owners, because of its conviction that there was a great need for a considerable improvement in the health of bovines, especially dairy cattle, and that pasteurization would tend to check it.
These interested parties formed themselves into two groups who hotly contested the issue without appreciating the fact, now generally recognized, that pasteurization, as my noble friend Earl De La Warr has pointed out, is not an alternative to the improvement of animal health, but is complementary to it. May I just remind some of those who are opposed to pasteurization that they probably quite unconsciously carry out the process of pasteurization every time they drink a cup of tea and every time they eat a milk pudding, the temperature in each case having been raised above that which is necessary to effect pasteurization. There are some stock-owners who still oppose pasteurization, but there is no doubt that this opposition would entirely disappear if only the Government would boldly give a definite and firm assurance that they would henceforward actively promote improvement in the health of dairy cattle as well as insist on the pasteurization of milk so far as
660
that is practicable. So long as the public are led to believe that even tainted milk can be rendered innocuous by pasteurization, the process of reducing the inordinate morbidity of our cattle will be a very slow one. It may confidently be expected that in the not distant future the consumer, the producer, the distributor and the medical and veterinary professions will agree that, although efficient pasteurization may make an unsafe, bad milk innocuous to human health, it does not and cannot convert a bad milk into one of high quality.
It is the duty of the public authorities, commencing with the Government, to see that the public are given every opportunity to procure, at a reasonable cost, safe, good milk—that is, a milk which is produced from cattle free from such diseases as tuberculosis, contagious abortion, and mastitis, and that the animals from which it is drawn are kept under good, hygienic conditions, so that masses of bacteria and dirt do not gain access to it. Indeed, if compulsory pasteurization of all dairy cattle not specially designated "T.T." (or otherwise) were introduced with the knowledge that the Government had started upon a definite policy of bovine health improvement, there is not the smallest doubt that the demand for milk would expand enormously, to the benefit both of national nutrition and of the producer.
Surely the immediate problem is whether it is practicable, even if it is desirable, to introduce complete compulsory pasteurization. Apart from the special problem of the producer-retailer with which my noble friend in front of me has, in my judgment, convincingly dealt, it is common knowledge that there is at present a shortage of both reliable pasteurization plant and of trained technical staff to ensure that pasteurization is carried out efficiently; and if it is not carried out efficiently, it may aggravate the present position rather than improve it. There would therefore seem to be strong justification for allowing the best milk produced on our British farms to be delivered raw to the consumer, at any rate for the present. The usual recommendation of our leading experts is that milk from attested and certified herds should be allowed to be retailed to the public without being subjected to heat before sale. The only drawbacks to this practice are that although the cattle of these herds are free from tuberculosis—and T.B. is, after all, the dominant risk—they may not

661
necessarily be free from contagious abortion, and that therefore this milk may contain germs which will induce undulant fever in human beings. It would seem desirable ultimately, if not immediately, to insist that milk should be sold raw and unheated only if it comes from herds free from both T.B. and contagious abortion.
There are, of course, still further risks involved in the consumption of raw milt: arising from certain types of mastitis which occasionally cause sore throats, but arising more particularly from infection entering the milk after it has left the cow. This danger is increased considerably when the milk is bulked. I hope the time is coming when the Government will insist that good milk from healthy animals shall not be bulked with that of milk taken from cows which are diseased in one way or another. During distribution there are a number of individuals involved, any of whom might introduce a germ liable to cause illness, but this risk is minimized if milk is bottled on the farm. That is done, of course, in several countries with which I am well acquainted but it would present obvious practical difficulties in this country at the present time.
It is therefore clear that we should have a definite assurance from the Government that they are now at long last genuinely and actively about to embark on a long-term policy for the improvement of our dairy herds, and that they realize that although there are reasons, wholly unconnected with the farm, why all milk should be pasteurized, the soundest practical measure would be compulsory pasteurization of all milk except that coming from tubercular-free herds and, so far as practicable, from herds free from contagious abortion. May I say in passing that the Royal Agricultural Society of England, of which I have the honour to be the President this year, has during the last month embarked upon an inter-county pure milk competition? The conditions are now being drawn up in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, who are wholly in sympathy with the scheme. The trophy will be awarded to that county in England or Wales which has during the previous twelve months done most in the matter of increasing its herds of attested cattle. Certain counties, which I will not mention before the award is decided upon for this year, have made a most remarkable increase during the last three
662
years in the number of attested herds and herds that have passed the tuberculin test.
Then there is the question of a supply of veterinarians. I know that the noble Lord opposite who represents the War Office will presently reply to the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. That Motion will be dealt with later, but I should like to say that during the last week an assurance has been given in another place on behalf of the Government that the recommendations contained in the report of the Loveday Committee on Veterinary Education will be implemented by the Government. The only weak point, if I may say so, about the answer made on behalf of the Government in another place is that there is no immediate prospect of bringing before Parliament the necessary legislation to implement that Report. All I would venture to say in that connexion is that from the point of view of public health the matter appears to be so important that I hope time will be found to pass into law rapidly a measure which would enable a larger number of young men in this country to be properly trained, through the medium of the universities, for what ought to be regarded as one of the honourable and learned professions in this country. To strengthen the veterinary profession would be a most profitable Government investment in the matter of national nutrition and national health.
Nutrition and health depend largely upon an adequate and safe milk supply; milk is the AI priority human food. This in turn depends upon far greater freedom from bovine diseases, and such freedom is conditioned by a sufficiency of skilled veterinarians. Veterinary practice should be made a worth-while profession, comparable in status and emoluments with that of the medical profession. If there were more skilled veterinarians there would ultimately be need of fewer medical practitioners.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have had the fortune, or misfortune, within the last few days to rind myself involved in disputes between experts. The last dispute concerned the constituent parts of bread and the only answer was able to give on that occasion so far as I personally was concerned was the one which seemed to me to be the most effective, namely, that I did not like the new bread. But

663
that answer would, I feel, hardly be appropriate to the present circumstances because I have to agree, as it is agreed on all sides, that clean milk is a necessity. However, there seems to be some difference of opinion as to how we are to achieve that object and which method is the most effective. May I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that the question he raises with regard to veterinary surgeons will be answered by my noble friend Lord Nathan?
I would like from this side of the House to congratulate the noble Lord who opened this debate on his manner of delivery, the text of his speech and its conciseness. Those are three qualities which will, I know, commend him to this House. As to his rather horrifying statement about the fatalities caused and the disease created by the use of contaminated milk, there are no reliable statistics which can be called in aid just now, although it is not disputed for a moment that there is a great need for every precaution to be taken and for a good deal more care and consideration to be given to that matter. In that connexion perhaps I may point out that this Government are aware and their predecessors were not unaware of the importance of this subject. In the White Paper it was indicated quite clearly that they were fully conscious of the necessity of grappling with it as soon as it was possible to do so having regard to the labour and material that might be available to them. No Government can ignore the danger of infected milk. The Government are fully conscious of their responsibility in this connexion. That responsibility is increased by the fact that this Government and preceding Governments encouraged schools to supply milk to school children and is increased also by the deprivation of choice of retailer by the rationalized retail delivery scheme.
That brings certainly a very large measure of responsibility which they accept. I would beg to draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's plan to ensure improved quality as set out in the White Paper issued in July, 1943, which was further reinforced by Defence Regulation 55G which prohibited the retail supply of milk in specified areas unless it conformed to a certain standard. For instance, that regulation prohibited the supply of milk by retail in areas to be specified in Orders to be issued by the
664
Minister unless it is either (a) tuberculin-tested milk, or (b) accredited milk derived from a single herd, or (c) heat treated milk, pasteurized milk, or sterilized milk. That is a plain indication, I think, that the Government are fully aware of the urgency and importance of the problem.
The solution of the problem is not quite so easy as it looks when set out in the White Paper, because there are a good many interests, a good deal of prejudice and other things which have got to be overcome in this connexion. Therefore, the preceding Government called in aid the dairyman's war-time associations, which are to be found in practically every town. They asked them to help set up schemes by which the proposals in the White Paper might be made effective. There are 621 rationalized areas in England and Wales and sixty in Scotland, and schemes have so far been received from less than one-third of them. I regret that it has not been possible to specify any areas but this is due to a variety of causes. It will be appreciated that the schemes submitted are paper schemes and in most cases they can only be put into effect after new plant and buildings have been provided.
The point was raised by the noble Viscount and also by the noble Lord who initiated the debate as to the availability of machinery and plant to deal with it. It has not been possible to secure new plant in adequate quantities to meet the requirements of the schemes owing to the limited capacity of the dairy engineering industry. The principal manufacturers have been overwhelmed with orders not only for plant for new users but also for plant for replacement purposes, because much of the existing plant is worn out through heavy usage during the war. The manufacturers of dairy plant are eager to help, and some of them are arranging to increase their capacity to enable earlier deliveries of plant to be made and to cope with the expanding demand. The other difficulties should be overcome in a fairly reasonable period of time, and a desirable increase in heat-treatment facilities secured. In that connexion, I am in a position to say that some of the American manufacturers are already establishing manufacturing plants in this country in order that they might assist in this matter. To a certain extent we are catching up a little in fields where the labour

665
conditions are able to meet the present supply, and even to a small extent to export some small quantity overseas. That I think will be accepted anyway as a beginning towards a better state of affairs.
While it is a matter for regret that more schemes have not been submitted, we have to take clear account of the local difficulties and prejudices. They must be considered, but they will not be allowed to stand in the way of a progressive policy, and a more active policy will undoubtedly be pursued as and when opportunity, labour and plant can be afforded. Everything will be done to facilitate the supply as soon as possible. May I be permitted for greater accuracy to quote from the information which has been supplied to me to answer some of the points raised? With regard to the specification of areas, although no areas have been specified, it should not be assumed that there has not been improvement in the position generally. With a view to encouraging the heat treatment of the maximum quantity of milk, the Ministry of Food has, from November r, 1944, been paying an allowance to milk distributors in England and Wales of one farthing per gallon on all milk subjected by them to heat treatment. This allowance has been increased to rid. per gallon as from April r, 1946. I hope that will give some satisfaction in some quarters. It would be fair to say that heat treatment is already the general rule, and not the exception. Of the total annual liquid consumption in England and Wales amounting to about 1,075,000,000 gallons approximately 725,000,000 gallons are already heat-treated. Of the 350,000,000 gallons not heat-treated about 190,000,000 gallons are sold by producer-retailers and it is estimated that of this quantity 18,000,000 gallons is milk of T.T. standard. Our fears, therefore, are in a good many ways considerably reduced from those alarming reports which I gather have been circulating in various quarters.
It would be perhaps as well if I say just a word on the point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on the matter of grading of dairy herds. Apart from the policy of heat-treatment the Government have for some years been engaged on a long-term programme for grading dairy herds with a view to improving the general quality of the
666
animals and reducing tuberculosis and other diseases in the herds. Despite the difficulties of the war years, steady progress has been made, and it is hoped to improve the rate of improvement in the future. I think not the least important side is the milk feeding of children in our schools, as in this connexion the future health of the community is involved, and that concerns very directly the problem with which we are at the moment engaged. It is of imps stance and interest to notice the progress being made in that matter. Much progress has also been made in securing that milk of an approved class is supplied to schools under the milk-in-schools scheme.
With a view to ascertaining the classes of milk being supplied to grant-aided schools, a census was carried out in England and Wales in the autumn of 1943 in conjunction with the Ministry of Education. A similar census was carried out by the Ministry of Food among the private schools participating in the milk-in-schools scheme. The complete census covers over 32,000 schools of which some 30,000 were being supplied with liquid milk. Of the latter, 67 per cent. were being provided with heat-treated milk, 64 per cent. with T.T. milk and the remainder with accredited or non-designated raw milk. Of the gallonage of milk supplied 82.2 per cent. was heat-treated milk and 4.2 per cent. T.T. milk. In Scotland it has been the practice to arrange where it is practicable for T.T. milk to be supplied to the schools. I think, having regard to the limitations imposed by war-time difficulties and particularly after-war difficulties, I have proved to your Lordships that the Government are not unmindful of the gravity of this and are doing everything they possibly can to deal with it. In some senses they have already anticipated some of the points which have been raised.
Both the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and Lord Rothschild raised the question of dealing with areas of, I think, 20,000 or more inhabitants. The White Paper lays down a figure of 10,000, so I would say that there is not likely to be any difficulty, in view of those figures, in arriving at an agreement so far as my two noble friends and the Government are concerned. One would quite agree with the noble Earl that the two problems he raised, one as to accredited herds and the other as to heat treatment, are interlocked.

667
It is accepted, in that sense, that they will both be taken into consideration in dealing with this matter. I think that I have already answered the two specific questions which have been put to me. In case I have not, I will venture to refer to them again. There has been no epidemic or outbreak of disease in 1946 which has been definitely traced to drinking raw milk. I have already said a word with regard to the supply of plant. Actually we are able to meet our own needs for the present, and the Americans are coming here to help in that direction.
Before I close I should like to say a few words on the heat treatment of milk in general. It is not possible to give any exact figures of the total amount of death and illness caused by milk-borne diseases, but it cannot be doubted that milk is a vehicle for conveying not only tuberculosis but also human infectious diseases, and that apart from deaths, much ill-health and disability are caused by it. It is also beyond question that an efficient system of heat treatment destroys any disease germs which may be present in milk. At the same time, the Health Departments are satisfied that the food value of the milk is not thereby prejudiced. Experiments carried out over a series of years, both on animals and on human beings, have established beyond any reasonable doubt that while heat treatment undoubtedly causes certain small changes in milk, those changes have no significant effect on its value as a food. The Government are satisfied that the extension of the heat treatment of milk is essential, and I assure your Lordships that everything possible will be done to secure the fulfilment of a safe milk policy. With that statement, and in view of the wording of Lord Rothschild's Motion: "To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the urgent need for compulsory pasteurization of milk in as many parts of the United Kingdom as is practicable," I am prepared to say that the Government will accept the Motion.
4.4 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as one of those who for some little time had, perhaps, the main responsibility for milk distribution and for the cleanliness of the milk supplies of the country, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words this afternoon. I found when I went to the Ministry of Food that two most innocu-
668
ous articles of diet, bread and milk, were those that seemed to generate the most heat. The noble Lord who has just spoken for the Government mentioned his reaction to the new bread. He also said—and this is the only point in his remarks with which I disagree—that there were disputes between us to-day. For my part, I have found a very large measure of agreement in your Lordships' House this afternoon. One thing I do particularly want to say is that I hope that nothing that is said in this House to-day will make anybody take less milk. I was a little alarmed at a quotation which the noble Lord read out, because although it is very regrettable that some people do die from bovine tuberculosis, the number, whatever it may be, is only a tiny fraction of the total number of people who drink milk. If we begin to get the idea into the heads of the population, at these times of food shortage, that milk is a frightful carrier of germs, then the nation will suffer far more from ill-nutrition than we should do in consequence of a few people (regrettable though that is) contracting this complaint.
I believe that one of the best things done during the course of the war at the Ministry of Food was to insist that we must get more milk in this country, and to press the agricultural departments—both the Ministry of Agriculture here and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland—to increase the milk supply. I have always been one of the strongest advocates of the milk-in-schools scheme. I believe it is a most valuable thing for every child of school age to have this glass of milk every day. I do sincerely trust that no alarm or despondency will be communicated to the population and that no idea will grow up that milk is a dreadfully dangerous substance—for indeed it is not. We are, of course, all agreed that we ought to get the best milk that we possibly can, milk free from germs and clean as well. I look upon pasteurization as the worse of two methods. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion, for which we are all obliged, did so in a well-thought-out and, if I may say so, entertaining speech, and he drew some analogy with water. I am going to draw an analogy with water supplies, too. If you find that the village water supply is contaminated the wise thing to do is to go to the source of the supply and try to clear it up, so as to

669
have pure water from the source. If you cannot do that, then it is necessary to go round to every house and say to the people: "You have got to boil your water before you drink it." That is almost exactly the same thing as the pasteurization of milk.
There is not the slightest doubt that if all our dairy herds in this country were T.T., if all our dairies were clean, and all the milk were bottled cleanly on the farms, there should be and would be no pressure to pasteurize a single drop of milk. So the first thing I want to say is that every encouragement should be given to ensure that the dairy-farmers have really clean beasts—tuberculin-tested cows. After all, it is to the advantage of the farmer to have good, healthy cows. These produce not only better milk but more milk than unhealthy beasts. It pays the farmer to have a good herd of healthy cows, and I hope that none of this talk about pasteurization will in any way hamper the work of cleaning up our dairies and our herds. I believe that is the first essential. It is only if and when you fail in that that you have to have recourse to the other remedy, and so, as we have, unfortunately, failed, so far, to complete the cleaning-up process, we have pasteurization of milk to-day. We recognize that a good deal of our milk is not safe without it.
We tried to give encouragement by allowing an extra price of 4d. a gallon for tuberculin-tested milk. I think one of the saddest things is the mixing of first-class pure milk with an inferior article. You find it going on to-day. I found it when, as Minister of Food, I went to one of the stations of the Milk Marketing Board. I there saw some beautiful T.T. milk being bulked in for pasteurization with some other milk that really looked dreadful. When you have a farmer and his cowman, and, it may be, his land girls being very careful to keep themselves, the dairies and the cows clean, and then you bulk the clean milk which they produce in this fashion, I think it is a most dreadful thing to do. Now this happened in Aberdeen. When I saw this being done, I asked the reason, and the reply I got was: "No one here will pay the extra 4d. a gallon," although I do not know whether that was the true reason or not.
I am glad that the Government are continuing the policy which was set out
670
in the White Paper of 1943. I was not Minister of Food at that time but it was followed when I was Minister. I do not think the noble Lord who initiated this debate meant that he would pasteurize the tuberculin-tested milk as well. He nods his head against it, and I believe it would be quite wrong to do that. But where you cannot get clean milk pasteurization is no doubt very necessary in a very large number of cases. I hope we shall go on giving the maximum encouragement to the clean herd and shall not by pasteurization let our intentions be diverted from that which is the major problem. I hope nothing which is said will discourage anybody from drinking as much milk as they can.
4.11 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, the merits or demerits of pasteurization seem to excite a certain amount of controversy, but I feel very strongly with the noble Lord who has just sat down and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that we should aim at cleaning up our herds and the conditions under which milk is produced. I feel strongly that pasteurization and similar processes are merely palliatives until we can reach the ideal conditions, when we have eliminated cattle diseases as hydrophobia was stamped out in the 'nineties, and when milk is all produced in hygienic conditions. That is the only target we should aim at. Other countries, notably the United States and Finland, are far ahead of us and it is time we endeavoured to catch up and establish a lead in an industry to which our country is particularly suited. The niggardliness of successive Governments in their encouragement of the veterinary profession and veterinary research has been quite appalling and no Party can escape blame. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, if I may have his attention for one moment, spoke very feelingly on this subject in the debate on April II last year, and one hopes that now he is in a position of greater authority he will bring all his influence to bear on the Government Departments concerned—not forgetting the Treasury. I have not had much opportunity of studying the Budget that was handed out yesterday but perhaps the noble Viscount will be able to tell us of any provisions that there may be for the encouragement of research.

671
It is not too much to say that in this matter no less than the health of the nation is at stake. The merits of pasteurization have been shouted from the house tops. It is a fact that many genuinely believe that this parboiled milk has enormous merits and no defects; and there is no doubt that vested interests are very powerful. No one can deny that pasteurization does destroy dangerous organisms, and for that reason it has great value. But it is a pity to gloze over the defects. There is no doubt that the process discolours milk and then imparts a taste which is noticeable to any but a chain cigarette smoker. It is nauseating to domestic animals and goes putrid after a time, instead of going sour, and in this state is useless for any purpose. It has other defects which I will go into later.
I was a little surprised when in the debate of a year ago the noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated that the controversy in respect of pasteurized milk was moribund. Perhaps to-day's debate indicates the contrary. In the same debate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speaking for the Ministry of Health, used these words:
"The Ministry of Health are satisfied, after most careful inquiry, that heat treatment properly carried out destroys germs without materially affecting the nutritive quality of the milk."
Everything depends on that word "materially." It seems to me astonishing that eminent and responsible scientists can conduct experiments, conduct research and publish results of considerable importance which are promptly pigeonedholed and forgotten.
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, mentioned experiments at Reading University, and I would remind your Lordships of experiments by Messrs. Mattick and Golding into the nutritive properties of pasteurized milk, the results of which were published in the Lancet in 1931. I will not weary your Lordships with details, but it was conclusively proved that a diet of pasteurized milk reduced the fertility of rats by 52 per cent. Further research was described in the Lancet in 1936 when exactly the same results were confirmed. This fact seems to have escaped the notice of prominent members of the medical profession and the Ministry of Health. I do not know all the reasons why pasteurized milk should have pro-
672
duced such results, but, in spite of what Lord Rothschild said, it is true to say that Dame Nature does exact retribution if her laws are violated. And it is a fact which is being brought home to any who have had experience of artificial insemination for cattle. In regard to the experiments which I have mentioned I do not suggest that all results achieved from experiments on animals necessarily apply to human beings, but it is not unreasonable to assume that a diet so deleterious to animals may not be without its disadvantages to the human race. I do not want to labour the point but since thermal action does destroy good qualities as well as bad, in milk, and certainly destroys vitamin C, I do suggest that if Governments and local authorities are to enforce pasteurization they should at the same time make known how to compensate for the depreciated value of milk, by fruit juice, if obtainable, or by other means.
I would like to turn to a possible alternative which I hope the Government will consider. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House will recollect that when he was a member of the Medical Research Committee a report was rendered to him and his colleagues in 1920 in regard to the treatment of milk by electricity. The Report shows the result of some years of work by Professor Martin Beattie, Professor of Bacteriology, and Dr. Lewis, lecturer in the same subject, both of Liverpool University. I gather that the Committee, influenced to some extent by the views of the late Sir Oliver Lodge, supported the practical results but were not convinced that electricity acted on the bactericidal side otherwise than as a thermal agent. But that is not the end of the story. There was further research under the same heading and the results were published in 1925. These proved conclusively that electricity played the major part in the slaughter of the tubercle bacillus and did so at a temperature considerably below that considered requisite for pasteurization. Furthermore, this process did not discolour milk or give it any unpleasant taste.
I suggest that research is required into the nutritive qualities of milk that has been treated by electricity, and I do urge the Government to institute research on these lines. If the results are satisfactory then the method could easily be developed on every dairy farm where

673
electricity is available. The equipment is not costly and, unlike the pasteurization process, milk can be treated electrically in comparatively small quantities. The elimination of cost of transport to factories means cheaper milk to the consumer. There are advantages in treating milk otherwise than in great bulk. Some-times things do go wrong. Milk can be infected after pasteurization. One of the worst outbreaks of typhoid there has ever been, when there were five thousand cases and 414 deaths, originated from a typhoid carrier handling pasteurized milk in a factory. Such a danger is lessened, I suggest, if smaller quantities are handled by one concern. It is quite true that at present there are many farms which have not got electricity. One hopes that before long electricity will be developed throughout the country.
If I may briefly summarize, I would urge the Government first of all to treat the veterinary profession very generously; secondly, to inquire further into the nutritive properties of pasteurized milk; and, thirdly, to institute research into the nutritive value of milk electrically treated and the possibility of the development of that process if results are satisfactory.
4.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I only rise to make two observations. The noble Lord who has just spoken need have no apprehension that, so far as trained men are available,. which is the limiting factor in all these matters, the Government will be backward in encouraging research in whatever direction it may be required. This country is exceedingly short of the kind of people who are competent to carry that out, in all directions. I do not wish to controvert the general case which has been put up and supported on all sides this afternoon. The question now is accepted as proved. I rise particularly to reinforce the points which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made, which I think were of first-rate importance. We should be very careful to recognize that in any of our discussions we should not say or do anything which will prejudice the increased consumption of milk, which is very badly needed by a large section of the population. I do not think for a moment that there need be any apprehension that we shall do so. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out that no less than
674
70 per cent. of the milk consumed by the population is already treated. Therefore there need be no apprehension on that account. The extension of the scheme suggested by my noble friend is, I think, accepted as necessary by men of all Parties.
I wanted to support the other point made by the noble Lord opposite. We recognize to the full the importance of what he and others have urged, and are pressing on as vigorously as we possibly can with the improvement of our herds. That is of course a governing essential. I quite agree with him when he says that the scope for improvement is immense. Anyone who was intimately connected with the war agricultural executive committees during the war was painfully made aware of what is needed, and at the same time aware of the immense possibility of improvement. I believe myself that the county executive committees, which are continuing the good work of improving our herds begun during the war, are meeting wish a very ready response from the farmers. The improvement to which we can confidently look forward will be, I am sure, very great. A number of noble Lords have spoken of the need for the improvement of conditions on many of our [arms. Vast numbers of our farms have a most inadequate water supply. Multitudes of them have none at all. Many of them have no electricity. I am myself rather painfully aware, particularly with regard to smaller farms in some parts of the country, that it is not an easy matter to find a well-equipped and properly constructed cowshed. We have got an immense expenditure in front of us in effecting improvements in our farm buildings, which are an essential concomitant of the improvement of our herds thereby making it easier to produce clean milk. I have only risen to reinforce those two points which I was very glad the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made.
I think my noble friend Lord Ammon is going to deal with a technical point in connexion with the Motion.
4.25 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I am willing to meet everybody in accepting the Resolution which the noble Viscount has submitted, but there is a technical difficulty. I think I had better read this. While His Majesty's Government are, as

675
I have already indicated, quite prepared to accept the principle embodied in my noble friend's Motion, I am in some difficulty in doing so, as the noble Lord asks for Papers, and there are really no fresh Papers which His Majesty's Government can lay. May I suggest to him, therefore, and to the House generally, that he should rest content with the assurance I have given to him in the House of the Government's support for the cause which he ha: urged so eloquently this afternoon, and withdraw his Motion for Papers?
LORD ROTHSCHILD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for accepting the principle of my Motion and to the other noble Lords who have contributed to this very interesting debate. May I express the hope that the pressure of legislation will not prevent the implementation of the principle of my Motion in the not too distant future? I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

VETERINARY SURGEONS IN THE FORCES.
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government how many trained veterinary surgeons were serving with His Majesty's Forces at the end of the European war, and how many are still so serving; and, whether, in view of the seriously deficient average milk yield of our British cattle, attributable to avoidable bovine diseases, and the prospect of there being no appreciable improvement until more practising veterinarians are available in Great Britain, the demobilization of those still in the Forces can be accelerated; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is really a supplemental Motion to that which has just been withdrawn. I only desire to mention in this connexion that I understand there are still about 500 veterinary surgeons in the Forces and that, although provisional arrangements have been made for the release of a large proportion, very few have been actually released. As the total number of veterinary surgeons in practice in this country is about 2,000, the release of 500 more now in the Forces will very materially assist plans for the control of
676
disease in our dairy herds. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord opposite for a detailed reply to my question. I beg to move for Papers.
4.29 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, it was thought more convenient, in consultation between the noble Viscount opposite and myself, that, rather than interrupt the flow of the milk debate by reference to the subject of this second Motion, the noble Viscount would make his speech on that Motion and I would reply to it on this. I wish to say to the noble Viscount at once that the Government are fully sympathetic with the objects which he has in mind, and indeed that follows from the acceptance of the principle of the last Motion by His Majesty's Government through the mouth of my noble friend Lord Ammon. The noble Viscount will, of course, not suggest, and does not suggest, that veterinary surgery is the sole factor in dealing with this difficult and important question of bovine diseases. His Majesty's Government, however, recognize that it is a most important factor, and it is from that standpoint that, in giving this answer on behalf of the Government, I approach the matter.
I ought to tell the noble Viscount that, comparatively, the Forces are concerned with only a handful of veterinary surgeons outside of those who serve in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. They are so insignificant in numbers outside the Army Veterinary Corps as to be quite negligible, if indeed there are any now at all. But in answer to the question which the noble Viscount specifically put, I may say that at the end of the European war the number of qualified veterinary surgeons in the Army Veterinary Corps was 418, now reduced to 348, of whom 53 are Regular officers. In the desire to accede to the views expressed by the noble Viscount and those on whose behalf he speaks, and recognizing the importance of the objectives in view, arrangements have been made under which during the next two months a further 50 veterinary officers will be released. The result will be that at that time there will be in the Army Veterinary Corps only 298 qualified veterinary surgeons, of whom 53 will be Regulars, so that the total number who could possibly be made available for practice in civilian life would be about 240,

677
which is only 5.4 per cent. of the qualified veterinary surgeons who number upwards of 4,000. I think it is 4,400, somewhat more than the figure given by the noble Viscount just now, though of course I am not able to say what the difference is between those who are qualified and those who are in active practice.
I think the noble Viscount will agree that the action taken by the Government indicates the Government's desire to be helpful in the matter to which he referred. I interested myself in the facts of this position after seeing the noble Viscount's Motion on the Paper, because I was rather surprised and I wanted to know why veterinary surgeons were required in such numbers in the mechanised Forces of to-day. I have satisfied myself, however, that there is a real need. There are only thirty such officers operating in the United Kingdom, and there are very many more animals to be looked after by the veterinary surgeons than I had thought—upwards of 27,000 Army animals. Apart from India, the Veterinary Corps is also, of course, responsible for dealing with the remounting of the Army in the various theatres, and there are other services which they have to fulfil. I may say to the noble Viscount that it is not the intention that any new entrants should be taken into the Army Veterinary Corps until the post-war establishment is definitely settled.
Now I will go, if I may, a little beyond the actual question put to me by the noble Viscount, because I wish to make it clear beyond a peradventure that the Government attach great importance to the whole question of the provision of properly qualified veterinary surgeons and regards that as a necessary condition of creating an agricultural industry of the quality which has been sought and which is so necessary for this country. Consequently the Government adopt in the main the recommendation of the Loveday Committee that has been announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place. That will involve not merely a call upon Government funds, which is recognized and expected, but also arrangements with the universities for the purpose of putting education and qualification in veterinary surgery on the same footing as education and qualification in the medical profession. It will require legislation. I noted
678
what the noble Viscount said about that legislation being non-controversial. I hope and believe that that may be so. There are, of course, great demands upon the legislative programme, but I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture specifically to what the noble Viscount has said upon this point and the importance which he attaches to it. His voice carries great weight having regard to the position he holds on the technical bodies in agriculture, quite apart from the position he holds in the esteem of your Lordships in this House.
If my words could reach, outside the walls of your Lordships' Chamber I would say to the young men and women who are seeking a profession, and to their parents, that those young men and women might well consider the health, the interest, and the public usefulness to be derived from adopting the profession of veterinary surgeon a: a career. It is the desire, the aim and the intention of the Government that veterinary surgery shall be a profession worth while, and that that profession shall be improved in standards and in standing, so that it takes its place in its own sphere on the same basis in the same public esteem and with the same usefulness as the medical profession does in its sphere.
4.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord opposite for the very full reply of a reassuring character which he has given to the House. In the statement made in another place on the subject of the adoption of the Loveday Report it was particularly mentioned—and was very reassuring to the agricultural community—that what was called the Chancellor Report, which was a subsidiary report dealing with unqualified veterinary surgeons, would also be acted upon. I take it the noble Lord is prepared to endorse that statement, because there is no doubt that the elimination of unqualified veterinary practitioners will do very much to promote an inflow of recruits of the right type. There are too many quacks and Mrs. Games, if I may call them so, in the veterinary profession to-day who have indirectly the effect of deterring the right type of educated young man from entering the profession. He would be more likely to do so as the result of the Government's decision,

679
especially if they make up their minds to put the profession on the same footing in status and in emoluments as that of the medical profession in this country. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SHIPPING SERVICES.
4.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice that he would call attention to the large number of British subjects in the Dominions, in India, in the Colonies and in foreign countries who desire an early passage home to this country; ask His Majesty's Government what are the prospects of increasing the number of passenger liners available throughout the world to bring home British subjects; and move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, throughout the whole period of the war travelling by sea to and from this country was not accomplished without many dangers and difficulties. To-day, some twelve months after the conclusion of hostilities, the dangers have been lifted but the difficulties remain, and the position of British subjects in the Empire and elsewhere who wish to return home is becoming well-nigh intolerable. Many of the people for whom I believe I speak to-day are anxious to get home after seven, eight and even nine years' service overseas without any home leave.
A very large number of them have young children, who could obviously not return during the war for educational purposes, and whose health must suffer from any long stay in a tropical climate. My Motion is therefore designed to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the seriousness of the problem, in the hope that they may be able to announce new measures to alleviate the unhappy lot of many thousands of men, women and children who wish to return to their island home. I have made, and shall make, no reference whatever to G.I. brides, Australian brides or any other brides. My question is entirely devoted to these people who want to come back. I have a shrewd suspicion of the number of British subjects in the Dominions, in the Colonies and in foreign
680
countries who are anxious to obtain a passage home, however uncomfortable the journey may prove to be. But whether my suspicion is correct or not, I do know that in January of this year there were 6,000 people in India who had been waiting for months, and even for years, to obtain accommodation for a homeward trip. I shall refer to their case briefly in a moment.
The first question I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply is whether he can tell the House the number, at January 1 of this year, or later, if possible, of persons who had applied for passages and who were still waiting on that date for suitable accommodation on some ship to come home. I know that in sheer desperation many of these people have made more than one application, but that does not seem to me to be any reason why the Government should try to keep these figures secret. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be in a position to tell your Lordships the number of British subjects throughout the whole of the Empire and the world who wish to come back to this country. On March 2 last the Government announced their intention of handing back on that date all cargo vessels to their owners, although passenger liners, with very few exceptions, were still controlled by the Ministry of Transport as transport ships. I wonder if the noble Lord could tell me the number of liners which are still operating under the control of the Ministry of Transport and how many have been returned to their owners. I shall make no criticism of the Ministry of Transport, who, I believe, have done excellent service throughout the whole period of the war and in these months of peace. However, they are at the mercy of the Service Departments, with the result that passage facilities made available for civilians on any particular date and from any named port overseas are sometimes cancelled at the last minute. I would ask your Lordships to picture the mental agony of young men, young women and children, who, some months previously, had been promised a passage home to England on a certain date, only to find on their arrival at the port that at the last moment their passage had been cancelled.
In a very few words I should like to try to show the House what actually

681
occurs. During my recent visit to India I came face to face with the problem, of which of course I was aware before then. Up to January I of this year no fewer than 6,000 persons had asked for and were awaiting passages home. That number has been steadily increasing by reason of current bookings, and it is estimated that at the end of this month there will be no fewer than 11,000 people awaiting passages back to this country. There is a system in operation in India—and I have no doubt that the same system operates elsewhere—by which priorities for civil and military passengers who wish to come home are arranged in eight categories. I need not weary the House with these categories, nor need I enter into the somewhat complicated arrangement for the allocation of passages home, which is ultimately under the control of the Ministry of Transport. Roughly speaking, 400 passages a month are allocated to civilians in sailings from India.
One of two things now occurs. Either the Service Department—in this case I think it is the War Office—cannot arrange for sufficient transport to be allotted to the Indian run or, having obtained sufficient transport, it finds it necessary, probably due to faulty calculation, to reserve the greater part of the accommodation for Service personnel. So, as your Lordships will see, in both cases it is the civilian-priority category traveller who has to forgo his place and wait, perhaps indefinitely, until another opportunity arises. It is quite clear that the difficulty of clearing off the arrears of civilian passengers is aggravated by this lack of shipping or by the last minute demands of the Service Departments. But in India that is not quite the whole story; lately there has been a considerable reduction in the air trooping lift, and this in itself increases the pressure on the limited accommodation which has been reserved for women and children. I wonder if the noble Lord could give us some information as to why the air trooping lift has been reduced, if not abandoned, and whether it is intended to start it again or to increase it to its former level.
Your Lordships observe that I have dealt chiefly with the question as it affects India, but from letters I have received from South Africa and from information which has been placed at my disposal concerning Australia I have no doubt
682
whatever that the plight of British persons wishing to return home from those two Dominions is just as serious as the plight of those in India. That brings me to the question of what can be done to alleviate the sufferings and the continuous worries of British persons overseas who want to come back. I wonder if the Government could release for immediate reconditioning one or more liners to be put on those routes and to visit those countries where the situation is so bad. If the Government are unable to do that, would it be possible for them to add an additional liner to those routes, and could the accommodation on that additional liner be reserved wholly and entirely for deserving cases? I read in the newspapers the other day that the Ministry of Transport had taken the "Mauritania" off the North Atlantic run and put it on the Indian run to Bombay. Is it intended that this ship shall be used entirely to convey civilian passengers?
I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether he, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Transport, is satisfied that there is no wastage by the Service Departments. Could he also ensure that Service demands are not subject to frequent and constant fluctuation, and that the quotas which have been given on each ship to bring back the civilians are not changed at the last moment? I have wondered whether we are making a maximum use of aircraft carriers to convey military 'as well as naval personnel home from the East. The noble Lord, with his knowledge of naval matters, will no doubt be able to tell me whether the maximum use has been made of them, and whether it would be possible to put additional aircraft carriers on these routes, already over-burdened, in order to release liners for civilian use. I have been informed that there is a scheme in operation whereby military and I suppose Air Force personnel, too, win are serving in the Middle East are shipped to Toulon and Marseilles, and then complete the passage home by tram through France. I wonder if that plan is working to its full capacity. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some indication of how it is working.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord whether he himself could not make arrangements for additional aircraft to be placed on these routes to convey home

683
the most pressing and deserving cases. That is the general case which I put to the noble Lord to-day, and I hope I shall have the support of other noble Lords in this House. Might I just add this? I read with some surprise a few days ago that the B.A.O.C. had agreed—no doubt under the authorization of the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation—to convey in one of their aircraft home from India a giant panda, with 80 lbs. of bamboo shoots upon which to feed it, and a Chinese zoologist who was to interpret the wishes of the panda and to feed it at reasonable hours. I would really ask the noble Lord, having regard to the position when there are tens of thousands of people waiting to come back, why he gives this priority to pandas.
I would like to summarize to your Lordships a letter which appeared in The Times a short time ago. The letter says this:
Can nothing be done to get extra ships to bring home the many families of civilians and Servicemen whose homecoming is long overdue …? Many have children and have been waiting with boxes packed in hopes of a passage. The hot weather is upon them, and travelling with children becomes increasingly difficult in the heat. Meanwhile leave is expiring and aged parents are waiting. In many cases families have not met for over eight years, owing to war conditions. In our own case we have not seen our son for that period; he is a doctor, and has been engaged in medical work among the Forces in addition to his usual work … so is greatly in need of a rest … and we are both over eighty years of age. Can nothing be done to expedite matters?
In spite of all our losses during the war; in spite of the difficulties to-day, I do believe that something additional could be done to assist these people, and I can only re-echo the words of that letter: Can nothing be done to expedite matters?
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of the noble Earl's Motion. I think all your Lordships will agree that he has performed a great service in bringing it before your Lordships' House and, like him, I do not speak in any sense of criticism of the Government for what has not been done. We all realize the difficulties regarding transport since the war, whether it be by air or whether it be by ship, and I do not feel that the Government have been remiss. But I wish to support the appeal
684
which the noble Earl has so movingly made that something more should be done. The noble Earl has referred particularly to India, a country of which he knows a great deal more than I do. He is aware of the facts in that country, and has given your Lordships figures and facts which I think have gone far to prove his case.
I rise to say a few words so far as South Africa is concerned. Last autumn when I was in South Africa I heard there were about 6,000 or 7,000 British subjects who were anxious to get back to this country, either on a visit or to come back to their own homes. There was quite insufficient shipping to convey them. I think the noble Lord who will reply to this debate will agree that when you begin to talk about thousands of civilians wishing to travel, so far as the air is concerned his Department would be unable to cope with it. It is only by placing additional shipping at the disposal of these people that their difficulties will be able to be solved. Only the day before yesterday I received a letter from South Africa from a friend of mine, whose wife and two children have been anxious to get over here since July last. They made application, and were told it was quite impossible to leave probably until May or June of this year. Now it has been found that whilst a passage can be given to the lady in question—who has been ill and has to come over here for treatment, and is receiving very special priority—she has to leave her two daughters behind, and that whilst it is possible they may be given passages next April, even that is not certain.
That is only one case. There are thousands of others in the same category, all waiting to come over here either to join their relatives or for schooling purposes or for private affairs. I am talking particularly about South Africa but the same conditions apply also in Australia, India, New Zealand and other parts of our Empire where people have been kept out of this country for six years owing to circumstances over which they had no control. They wish to return here as quickly as possible, even if only for a visit to see once more their own people in this country. To-day, from the figures I have heard, there are anything from 12,000 to 15,000 people in this category in South Africa awaiting passages to this country. I urge the Government to see what can be

685
done to provide shipping for these people. Whether that shipping goes up the East Coast of Africa through the Canal, or up the West Coast of Africa straight to the United Kingdom, I am sure would be immaterial to a great many of these would-be travellers, if only they could get home. I wish to support the noble Earl in the plea he has made, and to congratulate him on doing so.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have listened to the speeches of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and I noted that they devoted themselves mainly to the first part of the Motion, which asks about "an early passage home to this country." I happen to be President of the West India Committee, which concerns itself with the welfare of the British West Indies and the residents there, and I want to ask His Majesty's Government what are the prospects of increasing the number of passenger liners available throughout the world to bring home British subjects. Thai: includes British subjects who are resident in the West Indies and who are stranded in this country. I would like to give your Lordships a picture of the situation in which many of these people find themselves. As your Lordships know, the West Indies are among the oldest and the most beautiful possessions of the Crown, and their inhabitants have a splendid record for loyalty to the Throne. They contributed many thousands of volunteers, both in the 1914–18 war and in the recent one, to all three Services.
Before the last war, there were two main routes to this Dependency. One was the route to and from Jamaica; the other was to and from Trinidad and the Lower Caribbean Islands and British Guiana. As to the route to Jamaica, before the war there were two lines which carried bananas from Jamaica to this country, each of which maintained a weekly passenger service. They were Fyffes Line and the Jamaica Banana Producers Co. Ltd. In addition, the Royal Mail, Shaw Savill & Albion, and the East Asiatic Lines each maintained a monthly service, and other lines called occasionally—probably about twelve ships a month each way—between the West Indies and this country. Nowadays they have only the Jamaica Producers,
686
who run one ship of a capacity to carry 50 passengers, and Fyffes Line, running two small ships, each carrying only 18. passengers. These are the only lines which now run regularly to and from Jamaica.
The position on the other main line route is even worse. Before the war, the Harrison Line maintained a monthly service with the "Inanda" and "Inkosi"; there was a Dutch Line (Royal Netherland & Steamship Co.) which maintained a fortnightly service, a French line (the C.G.T.) which also maintained a fortnightly service, and two German lines (the Hamburg American and Horn Lines) which maintained monthly and fortnightly services respectively. This amounted roughly to eight ships each way in a month. Nowadays, no regular passenger service exists between the British West Indies and this country. The Harrison Line ships were sunk early in the war, and have not been replaced. The French and German Lines have no ships on the route. The Dutch Line has three small ships running to and from the West Indies, but priority is, naturally, given to Dutch subjects who are passengers to the Dutch West Indies, and only three or four berths are usually available for British subjects. The cost is £78 single against £36 pre-war.
At the present moment there are about 5,000 or 6,000 Service personnel awaiting repatriation to their homes. Service men whose release date has long since passed, can get no satisfaction from any authority as to the possible date of their repatriation to their homeland. This is particularly exasperating the case of the R.A.F., notably to the members of the air-crews of the R.A.F., because the R.A.F. have repatriated the West Indian members of the ground crews, and so excluded air-crew members who have far longer service and a prior right to repatriation. I have, naturally, no desire to hamper in any way tin legitimate desire of ground-crews to get home, but I do think that it is a shame to gratify their desire at the expense of their air-crew colleagues.
Apart altogether from the Service personnel, there are literally thousands of people, both in the West Indies and here, awaiting passages to and from the islands. On both sides, there are numbers of business men who urgently need passages in connexion with the re-establishment of

687
their businesses in export and import trades. There are numbers of employees of private firms, and there are also hundreds of wives and children of men whose working lives must be spent in the West Indies and who are unable to join their husbands and fathers. The result is, I think, nothing short of a scandal. The husbands are forced to maintain two establishments on resources quite inadequate for that purpose. Many cases of real hardship, and, indeed, of acute financial embarrassment, come constantly to the notice of the West India Committee. The West India Committee has repeatedly communicated with the Colonial Office, but unfortunately the Communications Department of that office seems to be in a hopeless muddle. We have heard of numbers of cases where on inquiry as to the progress of an application for a passage the papers cannot be found. Replies to letters take at least three weeks, but a great number of letters and cables are simply ignored.
I called attention to the fact that the Harrison liners were lost early in the war. So far as is known, no steps have yet been taken to replace them. I understand that the chief difficulty is that no decision has yet been taken by the Colonial Office as to the type of service which they would require of any company undertaking the service—that is to say, passenger accommodation, speed of vessels, quality of accommodation, etc.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): Would the noble Viscount kindly repeat the name of the Office where he alleges there has been these delays?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Colonial Office, which, of course, is concerned with the British West Indies. In the circumstances which I have just mentioned, Harrisons are naturally unwilling to commit themselves to a ship-building programme which, when it is completed, may not suit official requirements, and may be completely unprofitable without assistance from the Government. Obviously, to build suitable vessels and put them into commission will take not months but years, and the time has long passed when a decision should have been taken on this matter, and communicated to the shipping companies.
688
I believe that about a year ago the Colonial Office did dispatch a circular to the various West Indian Governments asking them for their views as to the passenger traffic of the area, and as to the speed, frequency, and size of the vessels which, in their view, would be required to maintain an adequate service. Presumably this was in order to enable the Government to decide what measure of assistance they should give, and the type of accommodation they would require, but no intimation has yet been given by the Colonial Office or any Government Department as to any decision which has been taken on these points. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government, whether the Government have in fact made up their minds as to what they would require and what help they would be prepared to give. I would also like to ask whether any British shipping company has as yet indicated that it is prepared to operate a mail and passenger service between this country and Trinidad and the rest of the British West Indies. I hope the sense of public indignation about this matter will stimulate the Government to perform their public duty, which they seem lamentably to have failed to do so far.
5.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would like to add one or two words in support of this Motion. I need not say anything on the ground of hardship, which is very grave, or of convenience, or of the needs of business—particularly export, which is so important at this time. They have been most thoroughly covered by the noble Lords who have spoken. This is not merely an appeal on what I may call sentimental grounds—although they are very, very strong, when people have been separated for years and years. It rankles all the more when you get the kind of case to which one of my noble friends referred, where the ground staff get home but the people who have been doing the dangerous job of flying do not get home. I want to say a word about Service co-operation at the end. I put the appeal first on the ground of efficiency.
I want to pray in aid my own experience in West Africa. A tremendous task all over the Commonwealth and Empire is going to fall on our

689
administrators, who have been discharging vastly added duties all through the war with very little leave. I was very lucky when I was out in Africa. I stood up to the climate because I was brought home for Cabinet meetings every year. It made all the difference in the world. I can say without any hesitation whatever, from my own personal experience, that unless you bring them home in eighteen months, efficiency steadily goes down. Their minds cease to work; and when a man has been out two years, and still more two and a half years, he really is perfectly useless. You never run an engine like that. At least you would very probably get the sack if you were a mechanic if you did. The noble Lord does not allow the aircraft that he runs—that he tells his companies how to run—to wait until they are all completely worn out, and their pistons are making an awful noise, before they have their overhaul. Yet that is exactly what we are doing with our public servants. It is not only hard treatment, it is very bad business. The noble Earl made some reference to the grand panda. I do not know whether that came home in partnership, and that one of the achievements of the noble Lord's Empire tour was to bring home the grand panda to join Uncle Torn Cobley and all.
It is not only bad mechanics, it is bad planning. The Government are a great Government of planners and I hope they are going to plan this shipping rather better. I wonder whether the best possible use is being made of the ships. I know it is easy to criticize when you have no longer the responsibility, but there are certain principles—practical principles—on which in these matters it is wise to work and they are principles we worked on together during the war. Our shipping was quite extraordinarily well run during the war, and after all ships were being sunk all the time and they are not being sunk now. In fact those which went into repair must be coming out and now there must be more ships.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: And no convoys.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And no convoys. You had then to bring the fastest ship down to the pace of the slowest. Indeed you had to take the chance of sending the fast ship independently routed, without any convoy, in order to avoid any
690
loss of time. We won through because we charged with the conduct of shipping people who knew how to run ships. Nobody knew more than Lord Leathers and people like Sir Ralph Metcalfe, Director of Sea Transport. I wart to ask the noble Lord whether that is being done to-day. The Government must lay down what are the priorities. They must tell the Services who will make their claim on what the priorities ought to be. That is all right. What I want to know is, who is really running the ships? Is it the people who know about running ships, or is it the Service Departments? It is perfectly right that the Services should have a right to say "We have got to have so many men transported every month from here to there," but what is not reasonable is for the Services to tell the shipping people how to do the job. They ought to say whom they want carried, but they should not be the judges of what ships they should be carried in, or how they should come.
I take an example from my noble friend Lord Munster about the use of Toulon and Marseilles. Obviously everything, or a very great deal, depends on a quick turnround. By slight reinforcements on the railways of France—and they have not to carry to-day the millions of men and munitions which they had in the war—it might be possible to make better use of them. Is the fullest use being made of them? Obviously if you can bring a ship into Marseilles, turn it round quickly and get it away to the East again, and bring home overland the men—and they would not mind not being awfully comfortable just for a few hundred miles across France—then the little ships can bring them quickly across the Channel. I am not making any allegations about this.
Then again, special ships should be used quickly to do a special job. Lord Leathers was doing that over and over again. Sudden emergencies arose which had to be met. The ship, and the right ship, could be quickly slipped in to do a particular job. You need not necessarily establish a line and say, "If this ship goes it has got to run on a scheduled service"—as the noble Lord would call it—but you might have a charter service equally suitable for the purpose. The main thing I want to be sure of—and frankly I am not quite sure of it—is that the people who have the say in what ships are to go, and how they shall run, are the people who really know how to

691
manage the ships. The other people are the travellers, whether Service Departments or not. They are the customers; and the people who know how to run the ships are the operators.
5.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, let me say at once that my right honourable friend is acutely aware of the large numbers of British subjects now overseas who desire an early passage home. The number of those desiring passages outward from the United Kingdom must be at least equally large. It is frankly recognized that most of these people have a very good claim for an early passage. I regret very much but I have to say, equally frankly, that the prospects of increasing the number of passenger liners available throughout the world to carry out this movement are not bright in the short term. It would be as cruel as it would be wrong to make promises, or to hold out hopes which are not certain of fulfilment in this matter. My right honourable friend very deeply regrets the prolonged delays which are inevitably encountered by persons wishing to travel overseas, even if they have very good reasons for doing so. It is a matter which gives him real concern, and it is one which he keeps under his direct attention.
The real difficulties are due to two causes which are quite beyond his control. First, crippling losses in passenger ships on naval service, particularly armed merchant cruisers, were suffered by the British Merchant Marine during the war. These were far in excess of similar losses suffered by any of our Allies. Secondly, such passenger ships as remain to us are almost entirely occupied with urgent military movements and with the repatriation of Service personnel badly needed in productive industry.
British passenger liners requisitioned at the outbreak of war, mostly as armed merchant cruisers, but some for trooping service, suffered the losses which I have mentioned. At the end of the war, such of them as remained to us were switched on to the repatriation of Allied armies. In addition to these repatriations, the wives and families of Dominion Service men have to be carried back to their home Dominions. In recent weeks a few passenger liners have been released from military service. These are now
692
undergoing reconversion, but this work will take about six months in the case of the larger vessels. In view of the Government's recent decision to accelerate repatriation, it is under consideration whether any more passenger ships can be released in the next two or three months. Even if they can be, the number cannot be large, but as soon as vessels can be spared from their military tasks they will be released at once.
In the meantime, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has made arrangements to secure the maximum use for civilian passengers of such resources as are available. In the United Kingdom and in the major overseas areas Priority Boards have been set up to ensure that those whose journeys are most urgent shall travel first. A very restricted flow of civilian passengers is carried on troopships. The number cannot be increased owing to technical considerations, in particular the shortage of cabin accommodation in troopships. There are very many cargo liners which carry a limited number of passengers, and the accommodation on these ships is employed to the full under priority directives from the Minister.
Looking to the future, we can expect that the number of passenger liners released from military service will be much increased towards the end of the year, but I must point out that these ships so released will not begin to affect the situation until about six months after their release. Even this period assumes that sufficient labour in the shipyard finishing trades can be found to carry out all the reconversion work. There are seven large passenger carriers under construction in this country, but only one of these is likely to be in service this year. A very much larger number of passenger-cum-cargo liners is being built, but here again only four are likely to be in service by the end of this year, although a large number will come into service next year.
I should like to answer the specific questions which were put to me by the noble Earl and in respect of which he was considerate enough to give me notice. I think the noble Earl said that only 400 civilians were being brought back every month by sea from India. My information is that actually about 1,000 a month, including the wives of Service men, are being brought back. Then the noble Earl

693
asked me the number of British persons overseas who had applied for a passage home and were still waiting on January this year. I think the noble Earl made some reference to the figures being secret. I know of no wish to secrete any figures in this connexion, but it is a fact that the precise figures are not available for this date. The number of civilian priority passengers awaiting homeward passage to the United Kingdom from the several Dominions and Colonies on March 15, 1946, was 36,874. As regards the number of British passenger liners operating at present on the more important routes and the accommodation available in them for civilians, the total number of ships operating as troopships was 107.
With some few exceptions, all purely passenger liners are at present engaged in trooping service, and the majority of them are employed in bringing back Forces for repatriation from India and the Far East. There are also the small passenger-cargo liners of which I have spoken, which in some cases carry up to 250 passengers. The majority of them, however, carry under 50. But these ships taken together make a substantial contribution to the problem, particularly from New Zealand, Australia and India. The allocation of berths (and this I think answers a point put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton) available for civilians in these ships after the Cabinet have decided the military allocation is determined by Piority Boards set up in the several Dominions and Colonies.
Then I was asked what is the reason for the considerable reduction in the air-trooping lifts from India, and whether it is possible to make more aircraft available. In order to reduce the strain on the squadrons engaged on the air-trooping programme during the winter, the Air Ministry in January of this year introduced a series of measures, details of which were given by the Under-Secretary of State for Air in another place on January 23. The effect of these measures was to cut down the target of the air-trooping programme between this country and India from 10,000 to 5,000 a month in each direction and to suspend the United Kingdom-Italy programme. Further drastic cuts in Royal Air Force manpower accompanied by an increased rate of demobilization were subsequently decided on, and as a result it became clear that the air-trooping programme must
694
eventually be terminated. This was announced in the recent White Paper on Defence which said that as demobilization proceeds still further, the air-trooping programme must inevitably be brought to a close. This factor has been fully taken into account in our demobilization plans.
The reduction of the troop lifts from India has thus been due to the contraction of the Royal Air Force as a result of demobilization. It is not entirely a question of the availability of aircraft, it is also a question of the availability of aircrew to fly the aircraft and of experienced ground personnel to maintain them. But while the resources of Transport Command are limited, both by the reduction in the size of the Royal Air Force and by the disturbance caused by the rapid demobilization of so large a proportion of the Forces, such air transport resources as we have will be fully employed on useful work including the maintenance of scheduled services between the United Kingdom and India and the Far East. While I have to announce this reduction, I am sure your Lordships will recognize the immense trooping programme which has been so successfully carried out by Transport, Command.
As regards civil aircraft, it is appreciated that the existing services on the main Empire routes provide insufficient capacity to cope with all the demands. These services are, however, being developed as rapidly as possible as additional aircraft and crews become available; but even if additional aircraft were immediately available, there would still be a crew difficulty in view of the special training required fully to qualify ex-Service pilots for commercial air transport operations. Then the noble Earl asked me if the Government could release one or more large passenger liners, which, when reconditioned, would be put on the routes where they were most needed. Consideration has been and is being given to the release of passenger liners for reconversion when military requirements permit, and two are now in hand. The question of further releases is being examined at this moment in consultation with the Service Departments. Then I am asked whether there is any wastage by the Service Departments. This point was also raised by the noble Viscount.

695
Is accommodation, which has been reserved for civilian passengers, seized at the last moment by the Service Departments? The noble Earl said that Service demands are in violent fluctuation, but a great deal of the world is in violent commotion at the moment, so that is not surprising.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I interrupt for one moment? That is perfectly true—the world is in a difficult position. I am talking, however, about soldiers coming home from India, not those having to go to India. The position is that a number of troops arrive in Bombay. The War Office estimate the number will be 10,000, but it is found there are 20,000. By that method the civilian, who has a place reserved for him on a particular ship, is squeezed out.
LORD WINSTER: I quite appreciate the noble Earl's point, and that the remark about fluctuation was particular and not general. My information is, however, that this matter is very carefully watched. The ships are under Ministry of Transport control. Once the military lift has been allocated, the military authorities have no further say in the matter, and my right honourable friend knows of no cases of accommodation reserved for civilians having been seized at the last moment by the Services. If the noble Earl has some specific cases in mind, I hope very much he will let me know of them, and I will certainly bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend, who I know will be very glad to look into the position.
I am asked, is the best use being made of aircraft carriers? As demobilization proceeds, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep ships in commission, and this applies to aircraft carriers. I may tell the noble Viscount that everything is being done to use aircraft carriers for trooping purposes, but the Admiralty give priority to the carriage of naval personnel homewards because they can help towards working the ship. Your Lordships will notice that while this helps on the homeward journey, it still leaves the Admiralty with the difficulty of manning on the outward voyage. Although priority is naturally given to naval personnel, personnel of other Services are carried, and consideration would be given to the car-
696
riage of other exceptionally urgent cases. This use by the Admiralty of aircraft carriers for bringing home naval personnel of course reduces the Admiralty demands on other shipping space; in fact, such Admiralty demands are now practically negligible.
The last question put to me by the noble Earl was with regard to the "Mauretania." The "Mauretania" will be used outwards for civilians going to India, and Italian prisoners of war returning to Italy. Homewards, she will form part of India's back lift, which covers both troops and civilians. The proportions of military and civilian passengers carried by an individual ship are determined by technical considerations, as I have mentioned, namely, the proportion of cabin accommodation available. What matters is the total lift, not that of any particular ship. As regards the overland journey from Marseilles and Toulon, which of course would save so much shipping space, I am informed that its importance is realized, and that overland service is being fully utilized.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: How many ships are there on that run from Toulon?
LORD WINSTER: I will communicate the number to the noble Earl later. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, dealt with this question mainly from the point of view of South Africa. A great many of his points have been generally covered by the answers which I have given to the noble Earl. It has been brought to my notice, however, that my right honourable friend answered a question as recently as March 4 about the allotting of more ships and berths for British and South African nationals on the lines serving South Africa. My right honourable friend said:
"Large numbers of passenger ships have been converted for use as troopships and will continue to be needed for this purpose for some time to come, and until they can be released and reconditioned, accommodation for civilian passengers must inevitably be short. The available passenger space is allotted as equitably as possible on the various routes concerned, with due regard to the numbers of priority and essential passengers awaiting movement on each route. South Africa's needs receive the same consideration as those of other destinations."
Appreciable numbers of people have in fact been brought back from South Africa during the last few months.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt for one moment to point out that there are two routes from South Africa? You can either go by the West Coast or go round the East Coast, and you are serving two different sets of ports, communities and trades. Consequently, it may be more easy to put additional ships on the South African route than on the others, and I feel quite sure that those civilians who want to go over would be only too pleased to put up with the rather more lengthy voyage up the East Coast if they could only get home. That is the point would like to urge.
LORD WINSTER: I will certainly bring that point to the notice of my right honourable friend, who, I am sure, will appreciate its importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, raised the question of the West Indies in particular. Again might I call his attention to a reply recently given by my right honourable friend to the effect that careful attention would be paid to the question of the West Indies, but that he regretted that he was unable to see any prospect of an early improvement? I understand that the Netherlands are increasing their capacity on that route. But may I assure the noble Viscount that there is no discrimination intended against the West Indies? They share, I fear, in the misfortunes which are caused by general shortage of shipping with suitable accommodation.
I will certainly bring to the attention of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what the noble Lord has said affecting their Departments. I should be reluctant myself to encourage any statement as regards the Services, that one section was being gratified at the expense of another. Certainly, I am sure that in no Service could there be any deliberate intention of doing that sort of thing. If we are to use such a word as "scandal", I must point out that the use of that word is only justified when the matter cannot be remedied. There may be a disastrous and unfortunate state of affairs prevailing, but unless it can be shown that it cannot be remedied, the use of the word "scandal" cannot be justified.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised several very important matters, but I think he will agree that many of the
698
points which he raised have been answered by the replies I have given to the noble Earl. I agree with him completely on the importance of leave for our administrators. I have seen many men working under very arduous conditions abroad who, quite clearly, were not able to do as good work as they would desire to do because they had not had proper leave. Certainly the Government wish that they should have proper leave, but, as I have said, I am afraid many people share in a general misfortune brought about by causes which are almost beyond control. The noble Viscount says that we should plan our shipping better, but I do not think he has succeeded in showing where we are planning it badly. It is true that we are not having sinkings now, but I remember very vividly indeed the matter of the sinkings during the war, because I took a particular interest in that matter. In that connexion I think it is necessary to point out that we must not, for the purposes of his Motion, lump cargo and passenger ships together. Our great difficulties at this moment are due to the particularly heavy losses of passenger ships which we incurred during the war and to the fact that during the war such replacements as were built were replacements of cargo ships and not of passenger ships. That was a perfectly proper decision, but we are suffering for it at this moment.
The noble Viscount asked whether the people who knew about ships were running them or whether the Services were doing so. I can assure him at once that it is the Ministry of Transport who are running the ships and not the Services; and the Ministry of Transport is, of course, in constant touch with the shipping companies. It is not the case that the Service authorities are telling the shipping people how to do their job: the Ministry of Transport is in control. I would certainly endorse what the noble Viscount said about the work performed by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, during the war, which commands the admiration and respect of all of us. However, while in some ways the noble Lord had a more difficult task, in some ways he had perhaps an easier one because in meeting his problems he could call upon the whole of the Allied shipping resources. To that extent his task was in some ways simpler than the task which confronts the Government to-day.

699
I have endeavoured to answer clearly and fully all the questions which have been put to me. I would conclude by saying that while there has been a note of criticism—it is nothing that I would complain about for a moment—running through some of that speeches, criticism is only justifiable if it can be shown that my right honourable friend is not doing all that can be done in this matter, and I consider that that has not been shown. The noble Earl has raised a most important matter and, if he will allow me to say so, he has done so very fairly indeed. We can all of us imagine the human implications which lie behind this Motion. It bears to some extent upon the Motion which the noble Earl introduced on the subject of Service divorces in that it deals with prolonged absence placing a heavy strain upon married life. Then there are those factors of which he spoke—health, education which is interrupted and business which cannot be resumed or restored. We all sympathize deeply with those who long so much to get home and have to suffer that hope deferred which fills the heart with sorrow. Words, I realize, are poor things in the face of so much anxiety and frustration. As I have said, it would be as cruel as it would be wrong to make promises which possibly might not be fulfilled, but I wish to tell all those who are affected by the existing state of affairs, many of whom are living in very lonely places under very difficult conditions, that their need is not forgotten. The Government and my right honourable friend are alive to what is involved, but the plain fact is that what can be done is being done. It will be our constant endeavour to do more and as much as the circumstances will allow to reunite the exiles with their homes and their families.
5.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the information which he has given in the course of his reply. I quite agree with him that it would be cruel and wrong to hold out hopes and bright prospects to these people overseas when none really exist. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Toulon route was working to full capacity. I hope it is, but perhaps he will ask his right honourable friend to look into the matter again. There were two Italian liners on this route, one of which was sunk. My latest information
700
goes to show that there is in point of fact one ship only running on that route from the Middle East at the moment. The noble Lord said there were 107 liners in operation to-day. I should have thought myself that military movement and the repatriation of Service men from overseas was declining and that more of these liners could be put on the routes on which they are most required. The noble Lord mentioned that 1,000 a month were coming back from India. It is quite correct that my figures were wrong and that it was 1,000 a month during last year and the first months of this year, but it is not so now. Here the noble Lord has been wrongly informed. The figure has been cut down to 300 a month. It was that figure which was in my mind and perhaps the noble Lord will take it up with the Minister of Transport. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, if they had any statement to make regarding the development of the London airport at Heath Row. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question that stands in my name on the Paper.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, information has been given from time to time about the initial stages of development of the London airport. But I will, for the sake of completeness, briefly outline the course of events. The site is only about twelve miles from the centre of London. Being on the west side of London, it is comparatively free from industrial haze and has a favourable meteorological record. The land is remarkably level, not only on the site, but in the surrounding area. The gravel sub-soil has excellent bearing and drainage qualities. To meet the needs of post-war civil aviation for a major terminal to serve London 52 sites were surveyed. No better site for the purpose could be found than the one at Heath Row. In addition to the points I have mentioned, it has good road access and this will be still better when certain plans my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has under consideration have been carried out.

701
As has already been made known, one of the main runways 9,000 ft. long is now competed and is being used by British South American Air Lines for services to South America. Two subsidiary runways, 6,000 ft. long, are in an advanced state of construction and will be ready in July. Until permanent buildings are erected, passenger handling facilities will be provided in temporary hutted accommodation between the main runway and the Bath Road. As regards further development, the total area of land which, subject to Parliamentary approval, I propose to acquire, is somewhat over 1,000 acres. It extends both north and south of the Bath Road. The ultimate layout will consist of three sets of parallel runways—nine in all—with the terminal area in a central position. The runways will vary in length between 9,200 and 5,300 ft. but one can be extended if necessary to 15,000 ft. and another to 12,000 ft. Three runways will be usable at a time and the maximum capacity of the airport will be 160 aircraft movements an hour in good weather and 120 aircraft movements an hour in bad weather. An aircraft movement is counted as one take-off or one landing.
It is my intention that the terminal building should be worthy of London's main airport, and I propose to take all necessary steps to ensure this result. In addition to bays for aircraft loading and traffic handling accommodation, rooms for aircraft employees and operator's staff, there will be all the amenities which a passenger would expect to find at a first-class airport. The layout for the site has been the subject of much deliberation. Many different runway designs, including the much debated tangential pattern, have been considered. In order to have the best possible advice, consideration of the runway lay-out was referred to a committee on which outside experts in this field as well as departmental staff served. I have arranged for a plan showing the boundaries and the proposed layout to be placed in the Library. Although nine runways are to be available when the airport is fully developed, the plan actually shows ten. The explanation is that one of the runways—marked No. 3 on the plan—will, after a period of use, cease to be used as such. But all except a small portion of it will be used for other purposes.
702
If this runway had been retained as such in the final plan, a much inferior layout would have resulted and the terminal area, which must be centrally situated, would have been badly cramped.
The total area of land required is extensive, but not when considered in relation to the capacity of the airport. The main reasons why so large a tract of land is needed are the long runways required for safe operation in all weather conditions by large modern aircraft, the wide separation between runways essential for safety reasons, particularly in bad visibility, the large terminal area required for passenger handling and related activities, and the generous space which must be allowed for hangarage. The area south of the Bath Road will be fully developed as rapidly as circumstances allow, so as to provide six runways in all. Development of the area north of the present Bath Road, which will have to be diverted to the north of the new boundary, will not start for at least five years.
This phasing of the work will fit in with the need to minimize demolitions while the present housing shortage continues, and to keep the maximum amount of agricultural land in cultivation for the next few years. Such demolitions as are necessary before this will be kept to the minimum and will be few in number. I am aware of the anxiety which has been felt, and expressed, by residents in the area, and take this opportunity of stating that it will be the endeavour of the Government to mitigate hardship. In the event of the housing shortage in this area continuing to exist in five years time, the Government will arrange with the local authorities concerned 10 provide houses in place of any which have to be demolished. One of the reasons which led to the siting of the London airport in this district was that it could be done with the minimum disturbance of householders. Compensation will, of course, be payable for houses and other buildings demolished, on the basis prescribed in the relevant Statutes. Steps will also be taken to mitigate the loss of agricultural land and to make as good a use as possible of available land during the conduct of the operations. The area contains some buildings of archaeological or historic interest and your Lordships will be glad to know that the plans for the development of the airport have been so framed

703
that there will be the least disturbance of such buildings.
The airport at Heston has become completely out of date through the spectacular advances in aircraft design during the war years. It is in order to avoid the underestimates of the past that we must plan the new London airport on a scale which will take care of future developments. The Heston airport, owing to its proximity to the new London airport, will have to go out of use as an aerodrome. The land thus made available will do much to compensate for the loss of building and agricultural land to be absorbed by the new airport. The buildings at Heston will prove of great value to the British airline operators for various non-flying purposes, such as the accommodation of stores and motor transport. Although the plan of the new London airport has been settled in outline, there remains much detailed work to be done. But I hope that the outline I have given will show to the House, and to the world at large, that when the airport is complete it will be one worthy in every respect of the heart of the Commonwealth, one which will give a fitting welcome to visitors from abroad, and one which will give wings to the commerce on which our prosperity depends.
5.57 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves this vitally important question, could he just enlarge a little on one aspect—namely, the plans which the Ministry of Transport has in hand with regard to the communication system between this wonderful and splendid new airport and London itself? My noble friend spoke of objects of historical and archæological interest. He is, I am sure, well aware that one of the objects of historical and archaeological interest is the western exit from London. It is entirely inadequate for the ordinary traffic to-day, and when petrol rationing is lifted and new motor cars and motor vehicles come on the roads, for anyone trying to get out of London westwards the congestion will be appalling on all roads. This matter of the western exits from London was raised in your Lordships' House several times before the war, and was one of the outstanding subjects discussed in your Lordships' House. It is not the trunk road, but the district all round Hammersmith and so on where the
704
congestion is perfectly appalling, and it will have to be taken in hand quite apart from this new airport. When you are going to have great passenger liners and cargo liners coming in from all over the world and landing at Heath Row, how are you going to get the people into London? They may be able to go westwards to Bath, and northwards, but this matter of the western approaches will have to be considered.
What I am afraid of is that the aerodrome will be completed and great airlines will use it, but the plans of the Ministry of Transport will still be in hand. I would beg my noble friend, if he possibly can, to relieve my mind. I do not know whether any other noble Lords are interested in this particular aspect of the matter. I want to be constructive, and apart from urging the necessity of getting on with the work of road improvements as soon as possible, I would make this suggestion: Has the question of enlarged electrical railway communication beer considered We have the nucleus of it now, but could we not vastly increase electrical railway transport? Goods traffic, I suggest, could also be relieved. There will be a great deal of goods traffic to and from this airport and it could be greatly eased, I suggest, by the greater use of electrified railways. I hope that my noble friend will not mind my bringing this matter up without having given him previous notice of it. He will, I am sure, agree that it is of great importance, for his work, I suggest, will be largely stultified if passengers in the future should find that it will take as long to get, say, from Heath Row to the Strand as from Paris to Heath Row.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to ask the noble Lord to amplify the very interesting answer which he has just given. He said that the South American service was already flying from Heath Row. Could he tell us when the Commonwealth and the transatlantic services are likely to be able to use Heath Row? That is the first question I would like to put to the Minister. Then he said that the capacity of Heath Row major, as I may call it, when you have got north of the Bath road and the whole thing is complete, would be 160 an hour. Could he tell us what would be the capacity of that proportion

705
of the airport which is to be south of the Bath road, which is all we shall have for a number of years to come?
The third question I should like to put to the noble Lord arises in this way. He has stated that on the layout of the airfield he was advised by a committee consisting partly of officials and partly of outside experts. Now layout is a matter on which there are very many schools of thought. The Minister is to lay for us or to have put in the Library all the plans of the airfield: Would he be good enough to put in the Library or, what may probably be more convenient, publish as a White Paper or Stationery Office publication, the report of the Committee to which he has referred and upon which the final plan is based? In addition to asking that, perhaps I may be also allowed to add this, for there has been a great deal of discussion about Heath Row. I have no doubt that Heath Row is the one and only possible site for a great London airport. It was considered by the Royal Air Force long before the Ministry of Civil Aviation was created. And the Royal Air Force had to consider it really as a civil aviation problem. They had to consider where could be found the most suitable airport capable of taking very large transport liners as near as possible to London. That indeed is the problem of a London airport. I thought it my duty when I went into office to review all possible sites, to go into the matter afresh and with an entirely open mind. Not only did it appear to me quite conclusively that Heath Row was the best site, but I say without the least hesitation that it was the only possible site on which a great airport for London could be built.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I have your Lordships' permission to answer the questions which have just been put to me? My noble friend Lord Strabolgi put a question which I was very glad to hear about road and rail access to Heath Row. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and myself are most fully alive to the necessity for developing access to the airport as work on the completion of the airport proceeds. As regards road access, this is a matter which has been, and is at the present moment, under consideration in the greatest detail by the Minister of Transport and myself and by
706
the officials of our Departments. As to rail transport, that question is being examined in conjunction with the main railways and the London Passenger Transport Board. Finality in this matter cannot be reached until a decision has been come to on the location of a terminal building for our air lines in London. Access for employees on the airport will probably be catered for by an extension of the Tube beyond Hounslow West: to the airport itself.
My noble friend Viscount Swinton asked when the airport would be open for use by the Commonwealth and the transatlantic services. Those services will be able to use Heath Row this summer, when the three runways to which I referred are completed. With regard to movements, the figure of 160 which I quoted refers to the whole scheme when completed. With respect to the nature of the Committee which advised on layout and the various plans that they put forward, I will certainly consider the noble Viscount's suggestion that these plans or a selection from these plans should be laid in the Library and that the final plan to which I have referred shall also be made available. I will certainly give very careful consideration to the noble Viscount's suggestions on this matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What I had particularly in mind was the question of whether the layout should be on the tangential or triangular principle. Obviously the Committee has made a definite report on that point and it would be extremely valuable to have it so that we could know on what basis the Committee's judgment was formed.
LORD WINSTER: I will consider what the noble Viscount has said and see what it is possible to do. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount for the encouragement which he has given me by telling me that my views as to the suitability of Heath Row as a site for this airport coincide so exactly with his own?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE, in whose name the following question was on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government if they have any statement to make regarding the provision of civil airports for London additional to Heath Row, and if they will consider setting up a London Airports Authority to control and administer on behalf of the Government

707
all civil airports serving London, said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, Northolt is being loaned by the Air Ministry for extensive use by civil aircraft, the arrangements being subject to review later. The future of Bovingdon is at the present moment under discussion. The preservation of another site for future development as a civil airport is being considered. As regards the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I have to say that since airports serving London will be closely linked with those in other parts of the country, a separate controlling authority for London is considered inappropriate.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wonder if the noble Lord could give me some information on one further point. I understand from his previous reply that Heston is not going to be used in the future. Is he satisfied that the position after the passing of the Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Act, 1939, is quite satisfactory? I understand that various orders were served on tenants and owners of property. It may be that the position ought to be reviewed to see if these orders, if they are not in abeyance, should be cancelled.
LORD WINSTER: I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting that to me. I will certainly look into the matter. On the question generally, I am satisfied that we can now see our way to make proper provision of civil airports.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Viscount Swinton and the Viscount Stansgate be added to the Select Committee.—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  MID AND SOUTH EAST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  The King's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.