Lords Sitting of 14 December 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PETROL FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES
  2.34 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the amount of petrol allocated to and consumed by members of the county agricultural committees for England and Wales for the year ending September 30, 1948.]
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this question. The amount of petrol allocated to county agricultural executive committees for use by members and officers during the year ended September 30, 1948, was 1,874,000 gallons. Returns of actual consumption are not yet complete, but it is not expected that the amount consumed will be very different. I regret that separate figures for consumption by members of committees are not available.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would ask whether he is aware of the waste that is going on, not only in the country generally, but in certain counties in particular. I would ask the noble Lord to make further inquiries, especially in view of the questions that I put down over a week ago, to which I received certain replies. I would ask him to make special inquiries in the county of Wiltshire, whether there is not an excessive use of petrol by the war agricultural committee at Ramsbury, and in the county generally. Further, I would ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, owing to the use of this petrol, the carrying of foot and mouth disease is the responsibility of the war agricultural committee in my county at the present moment.
  EARL HOWE: World the noble Lord extend his inquiries also to the county of Surrey?
  LORD CARRINGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether the figures given include petrol used by operational machinery, such as tractors?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, with regard to the first two points, I will certainly convey the remarks of the noble Viscount and the noble Earl to the appropriate quarters. The figure I quoted does not include any petrol used for operational machinery.
  VISCOUNT LONG: I did not suggest that it was for operational machinery.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was not then answering the question of the noble Viscount. I was answering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.

AMERICAN MAIZE CROP
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the estimated 1948 maize crop in the United States of America, and what percentage of this crop they have succeeded in obtaining for consumption in Britain.]
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have also been asked to reply to this question. The provisional estimates published by the United States Department of Agriculture on November 10, assess the 1948 maize crop at 3,650,000,000 bushels — approximately 91,250,000 tons. Because of the necessity to limit dollar expenditure, no coarse grains are at present being bought from the United States of America, but it is expected that a consignment of grain recently diverted to the Combined Zone of Germany, and a loan to Eire of maize, will be replaced by American maize amounting to approximately 100,000 tons.
LORD HAWKE: Arising out of the noble Lord's reply, can he tell me whether Marshall Aid was not intended to provide dollars for vital raw materials such as maize?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a somewhat different question from that which the noble Lord has on the Order Paper. If he requires a reply and will put down another question, I will do my best to give him the information.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, arising out of the answer of the noble Lord, does it mean that, since we are continuing to import finished products, such as meat and bacon, from dollar countries, but no longer feel ourselves able to import coarse grain for feeding animals in this country, the Government have finally decided that it is better to import the finished products, such as meat and bacon, rather than feeding stuffs for producing the meat and bacon in this country?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am afraid that the assumption of the noble Earl does not arise on the question I was asked.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of the news given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in another place last night as to the precarious meat position of this country, what steps are the Government taking to obtain more maize and coarse grain from the United States so that we can raise more pigs in this country to provide bacon which is so vital?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is rather a different question from the one that appears on the Order Paper, but I can assure the noble Lord that the coarse grain requirements of the United Kingdom are reasonably assured until about September, 1949, by purchases already made or arranged.

PETROL RETAILERS' ALLOWANCE
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they are aware that the 1 per cent. allowance to retailers of petrol for "breaking bulk" is inadequate, and is leading to dissatisfaction particularly among the smaller distributors.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have received no
992
representations from the interests concerned, nor have they any reason to believe that the 1 per cent. tolerance is inadequate. The noble Lord will realise that any allowance above losses actually incurred provides a dealer with a certain amount of petrol which he might be tempted to supply to motorists without the surrender of coupons, which is clearly most undesirable.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has received a representation now!

JEWELLERY AND SILVERWARE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER, 1948.
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. The purpose of the Order for which I ask the approval of your Lordships is to give effect to the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, by the institution of a Development Council for the jewellery and silverware industry. The setting up of this Council will give effect to the recommendation of the Jewellery and Silverware Working Party. Although the Order follows very closely the Order made in respect of the furniture trade, which met with the approval of your Lordships a short time ago, I cannot claim that there is in regard to this Order the same degree of unanimity in the industry as was present in the case of the furniture trade.
I think it would be acceptable to your Lordships if I explained the reasons why that is so. The British Jewellers' Association (which is really a confederation of the employers' organisations, covering about 800 firms and representing about 75 per cent. of the total output of the trade) and the Society of Goldsmiths and Silversmiths and Kindred Trades (with a trade union membership of about 1,850) are in favour of the setting up of this Development Council. The Master Silversmiths' Association, representing about 78 silversmith firms, producing about 12 per cent. of the output of the industry—a purely local association, centred in Sheffield—are opposed to this Development Council Order.
I would remind your Lordships that this is a very difficult industry. It is

993
composed of a multitude of small manufacturers. Just before the war 1,258 firms out of a total of 1,716 employed fewer than eleven workers each, and the industry has found great difficulty in adapting itself to present-day conditions. Its premises are old and antiquated, its plant is the same, and perhaps its old traditions and craftsmanship are themselves militating against the development which it desires. I do not think I should be in error if I stated that there is some disagreement between Sheffield and Birmingham and London as to which is the centre of this particular industry. Although the Master Silversmiths' Association is centred in Sheffield, with 78 firms, the British Jewellers' Association also has in its membership 277 silversmiths. It is upon the basis that the majority of the industry, both upon the employers' and upon the workers' side, require this Development Council, that this Order is before your Lordships for your approval. It is hoped that, by the provisions of the Order, the silverware and the jewellery trade—which can be looked upon only as one complete industry—will benefit and will be able to go ahead with the very good work they are doing. For a small industry they have made a substantial contribution to the export trade of this country during this last year or so. With that explanation, which I thought was due to your Lordships, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it certainly was very right that the Minister should give this clear and full explanation to the House. We get a great many orders of one kind or another, some important, some not so important, some supposed to be necessary and some supposed to be less necessary; but generally these industrial organisation orders are not orders which we should take as a matter of course sub silentio. As the Minister himself said on the last occasion, when we were all unanimous in supporting an order, it is absolutely essential that this should come forward, if possible, with the complete support of the whole of the industry. By that I mean the employers and the workers,
994
and upon that support depends not only the power of the Government to make an order—because it is provided in the Act itself that this substantial majority is necessary for the making of an order—but the likelihood of the scheme working successfully. Here, as I understand it, there is not unanimity, although (if I followed the Minister aright) there is, both in the numbers of firms and in the numbers of workers engaged in the industry, a very large majority of both employers and workers who desire this Development Council.
This is a pretty complicated industry—I knew something of it when I was President of the Board of Trade. It varies from the largest firms to the tiniest firms of almost household family crafts. There is also the variation in quality, from the highest craftsmanship and the most skilled and beautiful designs to those less beautiful forms of jewellery, which are very useful—because, after all, the public want them—and which, I am glad to say, still enjoy a substantial sale in this country. For instance, there are union badges; the Primrose League badge is another example—and it is certainly desirable! This industry is not like the great textile industries where there has been tremendous organisation in the past, where all the ground is already well covered.
The position has not changed much. The vast majority want to come together for this common purpose and an industrial council or Development Council of this kind will help others who may wish to pursue that purpose. I am not entering into the merits of the claim as between Sheffield and Birmingham; I hope that it will not lead to too much internecine strife. Certainly the great bulk of the industry, both in Birmingham and in London is, I understand, in favour of this Order; and on that clear understanding, that a great majority on both sides want it, I think we ought to agree to it.
2.52 p.m.
LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter. This Order is of a very far-reaching nature. Pains and penalties are specified therein if one is not willing to fall into line with the majority. Under Clause 8, any person who fails to comply with the requirements concerning the keeping and production of records is liable to a summary fine of not less than

995
£5 for each day during which his failure continues. That is a very far-reaching provision to put into a development organisation order, which should really be devoted to the main conduct of business generally. I have been associated over a long period of years with the development of four important industries, all of which have been to the benefit of the country, and I can assure your Lordships that they did not grow up by reason of a development council. They were built up by hard work and progressive policies in regard both to industry and design.
It is stated in the Second Schedule of this Order that a function of the Council shall be:
"Promoting or undertaking measures for the improvement of design, including promoting or undertaking the establishment and operation of design centres."
If anything can interfere with the development of what is, when all is said and done, an artistic business, I cannot imagine anything more likely to do so than this. To my mind, the effect of the Order will be to split up the industry into those who have business ability and those who have artistic qualifications, who will certainly not fall into the ruck of the general mass of people working in industry. They will break away, and if they do not break away it will be all to the detriment of the industry, for Great Britain does not hold the highest place for artistic jewellery. I believe that the French people have certain very good qualities in this connection. I feel quite sure that a Development Council such as this cannot really be of benefit to the jewellery trade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for his very helpful remarks and for the encouragement which I think the industry will derive from what he has said. I can assure him that 75 per cent. of the industry in both London and Birmingham really require this Order. The breakdown was caused because the Sheffield silversmiths wanted conditions to which the bulk of the industry could not and did not agree—namely, recognition of the silversmith as a separate industry. The Council will check any sub-dividing, and it is entirely for the Council to regulate their own affairs. I should like to make it clear that this
996
Order is not being imposed upon the industry against its will. I feel certain that what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, not only on this occasion but upon other occasions, will be of great encouragement to the industry, whose members desire to set their house in order.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Kenilworth, said, perhaps he will look at the Second Schedule of the Order, in which he will see the scope of the Development Council. He will see that the principle is permissive. The Council—which represents the bulk of the industry—may ask for such statistics as it desires, but it is operated by the industry, and for the industry, without outside interference except that there is compulsion to send an annual report to the Board of Trade. I hope that this explanation will be satisfactory, and that your Lordships will now approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS. 1948
2.58 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1948
2.59 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. It would, I think, be wrong for me to deal extensively with the proposals in these regulations. They are chiefly of a minor character, and need not be discussed in detail to-day, although there is one feature of the new regulations about which your Lordships may like to know something.
The widow of a police officer who died before the regulations of last Session came into operation could, notwithstanding that fact, be given an allowance but,

997
strangely enough, no provision was made for the children of such an officer. The Regulations that your Lordships now have before you to-day put that matter right, and henceforth it will be in order for the authorities to make allowances in such a case. Under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the children of a police pensioner who died more than a year after he had retired were not allowed to receive any allowances. That matter has also been put right. Thirdly, and lastly, where children have lost their mother also, allowances can still be paid in respect of the children. I thought it right that I should mention these matters to your Lordships because they are an indication that an effort is being made to do full justice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1948
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. There are six minor Amendments to the Regulations, all of which effect improvements in the treatment of police widows and children. If your Lordships desire me to detail them I will do so.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
" . Notwithstanding anything in the Principal Act, it shall be lawful for the Service Authority to make Regulations whereby persons who so desire can be, accepted for a period of service shorter than 18 months (or any such less period as His Majesty may appoint by Order in Council under Subsection (2) of Section one of the Principal Act) but in compensation for such shortened period of full time service can be accepted for periods of training during part time service additional to those laid down in Section four of the Principal Act."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the names of my noble friends, Lord Rochdale and Lord Bridgeman, and myself, is worded in rather a complicated way. The point, however, is a simple one, and I think I can put it before your Lordships in a few sentences. In the course of the Second Reading debate in this House yesterday, and indeed in the course of all stages of this Bill in another place, two very real objections were voiced from both sides of the House. They were that the number of men being called up is greater than the Services at the moment can properly absorb. The second point was a real fear that this increase of National Service from twelve to eighteen months will further jeopardise and endanger the higher education of the men who are being called up. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, both in his opening remarks and in his winding-up speech on the Second Reading, was fully aware of those fears, and indeed expressed himself sympathetically. He explained that deferment to a certain degree meets this objection, but only to a certain degree. There is still too much uncertainty, too much risk of injustice taking place, too much risk of a man escaping service altogether. Attempts have already been made in another place to deal with this problem but without success. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to them yesterday.
This Amendment attempts to deal with these two problems but from a slightly different point of view. We are trying to take a different bite at the same cherry—if the noble Lord will forgive my referring to him as a cherry. The educational threat is a real one. This period of eighteen months' service, particularly for university undergradu

999
ates, for apprentices and for students in the learned professions, presents a real difficulty. What we suggest is this. We would like to vary the ratio between the period served in the Regular Forces under National Service, and the period served afterwards in the Territorial Army. Under this Bill, those two periods are eighteen months in the Regular Army, and four-and-a-half years in the Territorial Army. Let me show, by an example, what we want to achieve. Suppose a young man is contemplating reading law at a university. He has to make up his mind whether he will do his National Service before going to the university, or after. His domestic situation and the military situation may be such that he has to abandon going to the university at all. What I am suggesting is that he should be able to elect to do a short period, say, only three months (which can be filled in during the long vacation) in the Regular Forces, and then do an extended period of, say, seven years, in the Territorial Army. He will thus be enabled to fulfil his obligation under this Act and at the same time continue his education uninterrupted.
I think it is essential that some period of basic training should take place in the Regular Forces. Speaking as a Territorial officer, I do not think that the Territorial Army could, at present, take in a large number of men who had received no basic training. I appreciate that this Amendment will present difficulties, and certainly will raise objection amongst those who like the universality of National Service. Selection boards will certainly be necessary to pick out the right types of men to take advantage of this scheme. The Forces' authorities would have to decide what ratio of period there should be between the two types of service, but they have tackled more difficult problems than this in the past. It should not be beyond the administrative capability of the First Lord and his colleagues to think out the solution to this one.
The proposal contained in the Amendment will have one other advantage. We shall be able to get men into the Territorial Army a long time before the date at which we can now expect them. We want those men badly now, as the First Lord knows well. I realise that this may prove a difficult scheme and there are
1000
many obstacles to be overcome. I think, however, that we must make an attempt to solve this educational problem and the unfortunate interference that conscription entails. We also want to make sure more men will not be taken into the Forces than can be trained. In 1947, 120,000 fewer men were taken into the Forces than were registered. This Amendment provides one way of tackling the problem. I would like to hear the noble Viscount say that the Government view the Amendment with a favourable eye.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My noble friend has outlined the purpose of this Amendment extremely clearly. Therefore, in supporting him, I will be very brief. There are, however, one or two points I should like to mention. My noble friend has spoken of the advantages that would accrue in the case of the university student's education. Just as strong a case could be made out for the young man who is serving his time as an apprentice in some particular trade. I am perfectly well aware that, at the moment, a man who is so serving his time can, if he chooses, have his call-up deferred and then do his National Service afterwards. The Armed Forces no doubt look towards getting some of those men whom they badly require, but I suggest that there are other points to be considered. One of them is that the more assistance or encouragement we can give to a man to take up some skilled trade, to get down to it and serve his time, the better. Every advantage should be given to such a man as compared to his neighbour, who might be quite prepared to take up some less skilled occupation. The more men we can get to serve their time as apprentices in these highly skilled trades, the better. I would suggest that that is a particularly important aspect when we consider the great responsibility that all industrial activity bears to-day.
I wish now to make another and quite different point. Under the Bill when it becomes an Act the National Service man will come into the Auxiliary Forces, and in particular the Territorial Army, only after a period of eighteen months. That means that the volunteer cadres who are now being recruited into the Territorial

1001
Army will have a further six months in which they have, so to speak, to carry on by themselves. I regard that six months as likely to create a very definite problem for commanders and unit commanders in keeping interest alive, having regard to the small numbers we have in the Territorial Army at the moment. I would suggest that if we could enlist some of these particular classes of men and increase the numbers of the Territorial Army, we could to that extent make the training far more interesting for all concerned. It would also make it possible for those volunteers (who are always having impressed upon them that they are to be the instructional staff for the National Service men when the latter come into the Territorial Army) to "keep their hands in" at instructional work. This will give them some feeling that they are doing a useful job of work, whereas if they are left too long by themselves I am very much afraid they will begin to doubt it.
Like my noble friend, I realise there will be many difficulties should this Amendment be accepted. He mentioned the case of unfair discrimination between categories who may be affected by this proposal and others, but I cannot help thinking that it is not beyond the wit of the War Office to work out ways and means whereby any question of unfair discrimination could be avoided. Particularly would that be the case if, as I tried to point out, it was applied not merely to university students but also to young men in industry. There may be other difficulties. It would probably mean that the permanent staff in the Auxiliary Forces would have to be increased, but again that is only a minor point. I very much hope that the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply to this Amendment, will be able to give us some encouragement that it is being seriously considered.
3.15 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): I am afraid that in replying to the points which have been put by noble Lords I have to be cruel to be kind—cruel in the sense that I cannot accept the Amendment, and kind to them in the sense that I am protecting them against themselves. We think that this Amendment goes to the very root of National Service. National
1002
Service is really based upon universality. We want to apply that as far as we possibly can—and, indeed, we are making every effort to do so. I would not like your Lordships to take the pessimistic view which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has in relation to the call-up. It is true that we have deferred once this year, for three months, the call-up of National Service men. But I would like it to be understood that we are not losing these men by deferring them for three months; we are merely raising the age from eighteen to eighteen and three months. It is not intended (and indeed it may not be necessary) to defer for more than one period of three months in each of the next three years. The probabilities are that next year we shall not have to defer at all. If we do make one deferment in each of the next three years, the age at which National Service men will be called up will be nineteen.
Now, my Lords, let me deal with the case which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—that of the university undergraduate. I think it can be said that we are all anxious to do what we can to interfere as little as possible with the lives of these young men, whether university graduates or apprentices, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale referred. Unfortunately, in applying National Service we are bound to interfere with the lives of these young men. To take the case of the university undergraduate, he can defer his call-up until he has completed his university career, in exactly the same way as the apprentice can. Indeed, we would encourage the apprentice to finish his apprenticeship before he is called up. I think it is true to say that each of the Services—and the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy particularly—are anxious to get these young men into their Service to do the skilled job for which they are trained. There is a shortage, and that is one of the difficulties of the unbalanced service which we have, particularly in the Royal Air Force. So we will encourage these young men to complete their apprenticeship and become skilled men, and their skill will be fully recognised and used in the Services.
There is then the very difficult question of selection. Let us take the case of the undergraduate and the apprentice. How are we to make a distinction between those two classes and other

1003
classes which might bring forward claims almost equal—no doubt, in their opinion quite equal—to the claims of the undergraduate and the apprentice? If we are to reduce National Service basic training to six months and then extend the period of Reserve for that purpose, there will be a very large opting for the shorter service and the longer Reserve, and someone will have to decide the question. I would assure your Lordships that the three Service Ministers, together with other Ministers of the Government, have given very close consideration to this question of selection. It is a most difficult task; the nearest approach to perfection in this selection would be by a ballot, and even that is not very desirable. Moreover, that in itself would not give the guarantee which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asks for the undergraduate or, indeed, which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, asks for the apprentice. So far as we can see, it is impossible to accept this Amendment.
May I put one other point? In the Services, at the present time, we require not merely numbers—though of course we do require them—but also efficient and well-trained men. It cannot be suggested that a scheme whereby a person leaves a Service after six months of basic training and goes into the Territorial Army, or into the Auxiliary Service of one or other of the other two Forces, would do justice to those men who have to spend the full eighteen months in that Service. Then there is the difficulty of training. At the present time, one of our problems in connection with the matter of training is to give the necessary efficient training to the National Service man. Noble Lords will realise what it means to, say, the Army, which may take in anything from 100,000 to 110,000 men each year, or each period of eighteen months. I am sure noble Lords will recognise what a vast amount of thought and what a great number of persons are required to plan the training and to see it carried out.
If we are to have two methods of training—one being the basic training of National Service men who are leaving at the end of six months—it will mean they will have to be treated differently in many ways from the National Service men who have to complete what is regarded as essential training in the course of the
1004
twelve months. From the point of view of the Territorial Army, it would certainly add to the weight of the burdens already resting on that Force. It would provide the numbers, but not the type which we think will be attracted if we carry out what is the Government's intention at the present time. Noble Lords will realise that in the Second Schedule of the principal Act the Government have powers to reduce the training where that is regarded by the Service Departments as being necessary. We think that that power is sufficient. We cannot allow National Service men who are called up just to opt; as I say, it will be difficult to select. That and the other difficulties to which I have referred, together seem, to my mind, to be overwhelming. For the reasons which I have given, I ask the noble Lords not to press this Amendment.
3.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Viscount, as he always does, has given us a full and clear reply. He has also given us, I admit, some fairly strong reasons why we should not press the Amendment. His reasons, I think, fall into two parts. His plea is, first of all, that it would be impossible to make the discrimination administratively which this Amendment woud entail. Alternatively, he thinks that the Service Departments can deal with all these hard cases in one way or another, by proper deferment, in such a way as not to prejudice the men's careers. It is anyone's argument. The argument about administration is a very common one. I have a good deal of sympathy with it, having at different times been in administrative positions myself. But one must remember that administratively this is the easy way. It is far easier if you can hold a line and have the same rule for all. It is very difficult once you begin to give way at any point in the line.
The trouble about such an arrangement arises because all people are not alike, and all the circumstances of the people concerned are not alike. Whereas I can see arguments for keeping this rule, I feel that it is quite probable that the operation of this rule will, in fact, bear very unfairly on certain classes of young men who are called up, not merely from their own point of view and having regard to their careers but also because

1005
we may find ourselves dealing with particularly valuable classes of young men—the coming lawyers, medical men and technical apprentices to whom Lord Rochdale specially referred, and the young scientists whom no one so far has mentioned in this debate. It is very important that such young men should be properly looked after, not only in respect of their call-up but also in respect of what they do when they are actually in the Services.
We have two problems here. First, there is that of calling up a man at the right time, so as to cause as little interference as possible with his civilian career; and, secondly, that of ensuring that we do not damage the prospects of a man becoming valuable in his profession or trade by misemploying him when he is in the Service. I cannot help feeling, on that score, that it will very likely be found in time that some greater use of the Second Schedule of the principal Act will be wanted than the noble Viscount seems to contemplate at the present moment. I think that we may have to have recourse to it if we are to avoid damaging these very valuable national assets—the coming scientists, doctors, professional men and so on.
I also think that the noble Viscount was very optimistic in thinking these deferments would disappear, and that after a time we should catch up to a proper date of call-up. It might work the other way, and we might be forced to the necessity of writing off, in some way or other, the whole of a class or its equivalent. In that event, the Government would have the alternative either of writing off a class altogether, and not training them, or adopting some sort of system such as is envisaged in the Amendment. These, to my mind, are questions which have an important bearing on the future. I would repeat that nothing which the noble Viscount has said removes the problem which we have put. If, therefore, we do not attempt to insist upon this Amendment this afternoon, I think we must make it plain that we shall regard it as our duty to watch the position carefully, and we shall count upon noble Lords opposite and the Service Departments to do the same. We shall not get over the problem merely by upholding the stone-wall rule and not deferring anyone. The problem will still be there. But we shall ask the Govern
1006
ment and the Service Departments to watch it on the understanding that they will come back to it—and that we shall have to come back to it—if things do not go right. If that is clearly understood and agreed to, I think that my noble friends will agree with me that this Amendment may be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HALL: I can give the noble Viscount the assurance that this matter, which we agree is one of very great importance, will be very carefully watched by His Majesty's Government. If at any time the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and his colleagues are apprehensive that we are not paying the attention to the matter which they think we ought to be doing, we shall be happy to discuss the question with them.
LORD MANCROFT: Before formally withdrawing this Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to thank the noble Viscount for his full and careful analysis of the position. The trouble with His Majesty's Government is that they are so dreadfully conservative. What the noble Viscount is frightened of, I think, is the difficulty of having to make a very nice decision. But the Government are perfectly prepared to make some very nice decisions now and then as he may know—or perhaps it may be that the noble Viscount has not tried to send any money to France lately. On the understanding that the Government will keep a careful eye on the position, that we shall do the same, and that in the future we shall hear further from the noble Viscount about this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 9), Bill reported without amendment.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hall.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I recognise that it would have been more appropriate had I raised during the debate on Second Reading of this Bill the points

1007
which I wish to raise, but unfortunately I had other official duties which prevented my being present. Therefore, I pray your Lordships' indulgence while I deal with some of the points arising out of Clause 3. When the principal Act was under preparation, I placed before the Government, and it was accepted by them, a plea that the calling up age should be the same for all, including medical men and dentists, but that there should be power, at the request of the individual for the calling-up age limit of twenty-six to be extended to thirty. I readily agree that experience has shown that it is necessary for that age to be advanced to thirty; otherwise, as was explained by the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty, many men would escape liability for service. Moreover, I have to bear in mind that medical men and dentists are in a special category, for when they are called up they are called up to commissioned rank. That may be regarded as making them more favoured than others, but it must be remembered that this is not entirely disinterestedness on the part of the Legislature, because the Services must have medical officers.
A deficiency in the number of medical officers is obvious at once, even in peace time, while a deficiency of other experts may be revealed only in war time. I am surprised that none of your Lordships has raised the question of the deferment of men preparing for certain professions, such as the law or engineering, so that they could be called up at a later stage as fully qualified experts and put straight into commissioned rank. That might be a way of dealing with the wastage in expert training, but that is rather beyond my province. As I said, I readily accept the raising of the age to thirty, but at the same time I wish to warn your Lordships that that may not provide the number of general duty medical officers required, because there are so many ex-Service men going through the medical curriculum at present that the output of men still liable for military service may be considerably less than it was in the past; and the position may become serious.
I fear a shortage of general duty medical officers, but I warn your Lordships and the Government, who have already
1008
been informed from many sources, that there will be a shortage, and in fact there is already a shortage, of specialists. In the debate yesterday anxiety was expressed on all sides of the House that the cream of the youth of this country called up for service should be properly cared for—and I presume that that includes medical care. The extension of the period of service to eighteen months means that a larger proportion of men will be sent to distant fields and their care will require a larger number of qualified and experienced specialists. In the view of the Army Medical Advisory Board, of which I am the Chairman, and of the Medical Personnel Priority Committee, of which I am the Vice-Chairman, the specialists cannot be provided under the present law. Therefore, I earnestly beg His Majesty's Government, and particularly the heads of the Service Departments to give immediate attention to the possibility of making service in the Forces more attractive, of improving the terms and conditions of service, particularly in the medical branches, and of trying to work out a scheme by which the National Health Service and the Forces can to a certain extent be integrated.
In the National Health Service there will be a number of whole-time appointments for specialists, and it may be thought wise that some of these posts should carry the obligation to be liable to be seconded for service with the Forces, the specialist resuming his old position without loss of any seniority, chance of promotion or other advantages. I maintain that we are on the verge of a very serious position, and unless the Government and the Service Departments give immediate and serious attention to it, there is a danger of a breakdown. There is a danger that your Lordships' sons and grandsons may be thousands of miles away from home without the assurance that there is a proper medical service to look after them in case of illness or injury. Do not throw the blame on that magnificent corps, The Royal Army Medical Corps, with which I have had the honour of being associated for forty years, and whose uniform I have the privilege of wearing. The responsibility lies with us, if we send these young men to distant fields and do not arrange for proper care to be taken of them.
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, we must all, and particularly someone like myself who occupies the position of political head of one of the Services, take note of any remarks which fall from the lips of so distinguished a surgeon as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson. He has held an important position in the medical world for a long period and has rendered great service to the Forces, particularly in the position which he occupied during the war. I think it can be rightly said that much of the success of the medical service in the three Forces during the war was a result of the close co-operation between them and the medical profession; and in that co-operation the noble Lord played an important part. For that we are all grateful to him. Of course, I can say little about the points he raised this afternoon, other than to assure them that what he has said will certainly be conveyed to my Service colleagues and the Minister of Defence. I have no doubt they share my view that we must keep the closest and most friendly co-operation between the Services and the medical profession. One has only to read the record of casualties and of those who suffered from illness and disease during the 1939–45 war and compare it with that for the 1914–18 war to see what a marked change has taken place and how many valuable lives were saved and needless suffering prevented by this close co-operation. I shall certainly see that the remarks which my noble friend has made are conveyed to my colleagues, to the Minister of Defence and to His Majesty's Government.
3.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I rise for only one moment to say how much we on these Benches appreciate the weighty intervention that has been made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, and also to say how glad we are that the noble Viscount opposite has said that he will give these matters the consideration which they deserve. I will add only this. This matter affords another instance of how nothing appears yet to have been done to implement that part of the White Paper on the Ministry of Defence issued two years ago which forecast economies in the administrative Departments of the Services by integration of the kind my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson mentioned just now.
1010
There is here, quite clearly, a field to be explored, and, as I have said, we are very glad that the matter is to be considered in the light of Lord Webb-Johnson's remarks.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a small Bill of five clauses and one Schedule—an unusually small Bill for Scotland. It comes to your Lordships' House from another place, where I am glad to say it went through without a Division being taken at all, which is also somewhat unusual. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase from thirteen to a maximum of fifteen the number of Judges in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. At present there are thirteen Judges in the Court of Session, five in the Outer House and four in each of the two Divisions of the Inner House. These Judges act also in the High Court of Justiciary, which is the supreme criminal Court in Scotland. Their number has not increased since 1830, and, since the war, has proved insufficient to cope with the increased volume of judicial business. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with figures, but in the Court of Session the business has increased since the war by about 90 per cent. in the Outer House and 60 per cent. in the Inner House. These figures do not include undefended divorce cases, which have increased from 75 to 900 a year. Unfortunately there is no immediate prospect of a reduction in the amount of business, and the delays in its disposal are now serious.
It is therefore proposed, in Clause 1 of the Bill, that the number of Judges shall be increased from thirteen to a maximum of fifteen, with the proviso that appointments in excess of thirteen will not be made at any time unless the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, is satisfied that the state of business so requires. This means that in future the minimum number of Judges will be thirteen and the maximum number fifteen; and the new legislation will enable the actual number to be reviewed

1011
from time to time in relation to the current volume of business. If this Bill becomes law, it is contemplated that the immediate appointment of one additional Judge will be made.
In addition to the main purpose of the Measure, which I have briefly outlined, opportunity is taken in the Bill to make four minor changes. The first deals with sittings of the Court. The sittings of the Court of Session are at present governed by Section 4 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, which directs that the ordinary sessions shall begin and end on the Tuesdays and Saturdays preceding certain fixed dates. This has proved unnecessarily rigid in practice, and it is proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill that the Court should have direction to fix the periods of the ordinary session. The second minor change deals with Lord Ordinary in Exchequer Causes. At present Lord Ordinary in Exchequer Causes is appointed by the King from among the Judges of the Court of Session. It is proposed to transfer this power of appointment to the Court itself, by which all similar appointments are now made, and Clause 3 of the Bill so prescribes.
The third minor change deals with the qualification for appointment as sheriff substitute. An advocate or solicitor, when appointed to the office of sheriff substitute, is required by Statute to be of not less than five years' standing in his profession. But service as a solicitor and as an advocate cannot, under the present law, be aggregated, and a man who has, say, ten years' experience as a solicitor, followed by two years' experience as an advocate, cannot be appointed a sheriff substitute. It is proposed in Clause 4 (1) to rectify this anomaly and make it clear that in such a case the service in both capacities is aggregated. The final minor change deals with the power to appoint interim sheriff substitutes in a vacancy. An interim sheriff substitute can at present be appointed only during the temporary absence of a sheriff substitute. It is proposed to widen this power to enable an interim appointment to be made, as is sometimes necessary in a case where there is an actual vacancy in the office of sheriff substitute, but no permanent appointment is immediately possible. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is not a contentious measure. So far as
1012
I know, it is not. As I have already said, it went through another place without a Division. The changes proposed are necessary, and the main clause to increase the number of Judges is a matter of some urgency, as I trust I have convinced your Lordships, if, indeed, you needed convincing. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, as Lord Morrison has said, this is undoubtedly a short Bill but it is none the less very important. A Bill which in any way affects the Judicial Bench in this country must of necessity be regarded as important. Its purpose is to make justice more expeditious in Scotland—it is already certainly cheaper in Scotland than it is in England. For that reason at least, if for no other, I feel that the Bill will certainly be welcomed in your Lordships' House. It is perhaps worth recalling that we are now going back to the original number of Judges appointed by King James V something over four centuries ago. It is true that at that time they all sat together. It is not without interest, however, to note that occasionally all the Judges still sit together to decide certain rather difficult cases, a procedure which has been brought up to the present day.
I will comment quite shortly upon only two points of the Bill. First, I think the time has come when the scale of judicial salaries in Scotland should be brought in line with that which exists in England. It is all very well to have, shall I say, a 10 per cent. differentiation between the salaries paid to civil servants in London and to those domiciled elsewhere, that differentiation representing cost of living allowance; but the difference is more like 30 or 40 per cent. at the present time. I suggest that that matter might well be considered on another occasion. Another point I would like to mention is that, as your Lordships see, reference is made in Clause 4 to a "sheriff substitute." Those who are not accustomed to Scottish law may find it difficult to understand exactly what a sheriff substitute is. I submit that the title does not altogether indicate the dignity of the office which that judicial officer holds. He in fact carries out a great deal of the

1013
work, both in criminal and civil jurisdiction, which is carried out in England, so I am informed, by petty sessions, quarter sessions, and county court judges. It seems to me that an officer who carries out those very important duties should, at least, be dignified with the title of sheriff. I am aware that this would require other small readjustments elsewhere. I merely draw attention to that matter now.
There is only one further point I would like to make. I regret that this Bill should have been brought up on a timetable which clearly indicates that it will be difficult to put down any Amendment between now and the Christmas recess, whether it be to cross a "t" or dot an "i." I am aware that there is a variety of reasons which make it desirable that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent before we rise. I think it is a pity that we should have to consider a Bill on which His Majesty's Government would resist any alteration because of administrative reasons. I merely wish to express that as a matter of regret, which I feel sure is endorsed by noble Lords opposite. In the circumstances, I certainly commend this Bill to your Lordships as thoroughly desirable.
3.50 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, may I say that I endorse what the noble Earl has said. These unfortunate matters do arise, and I am sure that the Government will be grateful to the noble Earl that he has agreed that the Bill should go speedily through all its stages in order that it may become law. May I say that my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the figures which I quoted on the Second Reading I may not altogether have expressed what I endeavoured to do? I always get into difficulties when I try to quote figures which have been supplied to me. I was referring to the number of undefended divorce cases in the calling list in April or August, which was an average of seventy-five pre-war and is about 900 this year. That, of course, is no index of the actual number of cases going through the courts. To have the records straight, I will give exact figures. In 1937 there were 647 divorces; in 1938 there were 824 cases; and in 1947 there were 2,561 cases.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I desire only to support the suggestion made by the noble Earl with regard to the name of the sheriff substitute. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will bring that point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that it may be considered at the appropriate time.
LORD MORRISON: I will certainly do so. I understand that this is not the appropriate occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS) BILL
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Huntingdon is still unwell, and as this Bill relates to three Departments and in consequence of my previous experience in these matters, I undertook to commend it to your Lordships myself. We have had National Defence this afternoon and we have had the matter of justice. Now we come to an equally important human necessity—namely, that of food. This Bill deals with the best of all foods; that is to say, milk. I think it can be fairly said that this is rather a long-deferred reform. It has been asked for, in various ways, by men of all Parties, for a long time. I am sure that, subject to any minor Amendments, it will meet with your Lordships' general approval. We want to see that the public can obtain milk that is free from any risk of infection.
Before I come to particular points of importance, may I first mention to your Lordships certain encouraging developments that we have had quite lately? In 1943, about 7,750,000 gallons of milk were supplied to the market from T.T. herds. In five years the figure has gone up from 7,000,000 to 28,000,000, which is a very gratifying increase. Nevertheless, when we are taking it all into account, the amount of T.T. milk supplied as such to the people is only about 9 per cent. of the milk consumed by the people.
EARL DE LA WARR: Twenty-two per cent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No; 19.2 is the total produced. The 9 per cent. relates to the general sale. The figures supplied to me show that 19.2 per cent. of the total sales off farms is of this type, but I understand that the general sale to consumers is in the proportion I have given your Lordships. The more rapidly it increases, the better. When we come to the milk which is made safe by pasteurisation, the amount sold now is about 70 per cent. of the total consumption; and the balance is supplied as produced. In 1943 we had a very valuable White Paper, issued by the Government of that day, which, in some of its sections, anticipated the provisions of this Bill. It is Cmd. 6454 and paragraphs 26 to 29 contemplate provisions more or less in line with this Bill.
I am not going to say anything as to the amount of infection which unfortunately has been derived from impure milk, but we know that complete confidence of the public in milk is of first-rate national importance. I think we shall all agree that the efforts of Lord Woolton, during his tenure of office, to encourage the consumption of good milk represents an enduring national service, and the health of our children to-day (which is really remarkable, in all the circumstances) is very largely due to the increased consumption of milk. This Bill is designed to secure that, in the places where it is made available, the public are assured of completely good milk, free from any risk of contamination.
There is an objection which is sometimes raised to this method of approach. It has been suggested that what is proposed in this Bill—namely, the provision of facilities for securing that milk is completely pure—may be a handicap to the improvement of our herds. It is suggested that it may prejudice the improvement of our herds. That is certainly a most important consideration. Nothing we do should be allowed to interfere with the improvement of our herds. Great improvement is taking place and, I am glad to say, quite rapidly. Of course (in this respect anyhow) we have to recognise that our Scottish brethren North of the Border are considerably in front of us in the matter of T.T. herds. They have
1016
been more energetic, and they have succeeded in getting a much larger percentage of their herds free from tubercle than we have hitherto. But I am glad to say that we are making very rapid progress now, and I find on inquiry that the number of attested herds has more than doubled in this country during the last four years. At the present time, it is estimated that there are 35,700 attested herds in England and Wales, and they represent between them nearly 1,500,000 cattle. That is a notable figure, but we want to go much further than that. I was glad to notice that a short time ago my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture opened in York a market which had been specially designed and which provided for the sale of only attested cattle, a very appropriate procedure; and I pay a tribute to the enterprise of that ancient and distinguished city. That example, I believe, is to be followed extensively.
There is another feature which I might mention, which is partly related to this Bill, and which, it seems to me, has required considerable time to bring into operation. I refer to the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act of 1944, under which certain powers are transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, who becomes responsible for the registration of dairy farmers, the issue of licences and other matters. Many inquiries have been made as to why regulations which have to be framed and put into force for bringing this change into operation have been so long delayed. I cannot pretend to be acquainted at first hand with many of the difficulties, but I understand that quite a crop of legal and technical difficulties have arisen from time to time, and they have seriously delayed the completion of these regulations.
I can now inform your Lordships, however, that the Department are able to say now that the matter is so advanced that they will be able very shortly to submit a draft of the regulations to the parties concerned—the National Farmers' Union and others—and it is hoped that the regulations will be completed and brought into operation at the same time as this Bill. I am sure we all hope that that anticipation will be realised, and that under its terms the Ministry will be afforded considerably more authority in the matter of the improvement of our

1017
herds. Nevertheless, through our county committees and otherwise, great and rapid progress is being made in all that is necessary and desirable—as the White Paper prophesied, and as many of us had contended for years—so that the public shall be supplied with milk which we know is free from any risk of infection.
In this small Bill, it is suggested that there should be certain designations of milk to be sold: "T.T. milk," "Pasteurised milk," and "Sterilised milk." In addition, with the qualifications I have mentioned, there will be "Accredited milk." Under war-time regulations, and indeed in 1939 under Regulation 55 (g) of the Defence Regulations, "Heat-treated milk" was added as well as "Sterilised milk." Your Lordships will see that in Clause 7 of this Bill that regulation is now repealed. That is done in order to clear the ground; subsequently, sterilised milk will be one of the types of milk which will be on sale under the conditions provided in this Bill.
In Scotland, which (as I have said) is rather in advance of us in these matters, there will be the same classifications—"T.T." "Pasteurised" and "Sterilised"—while the equivalent of "Accredited" milk will be "Standard" milk. In Clause 4 of the Bill your Lordships will see that the two types of milk, "Accredited" and "Standard," are to be kept separate, and may be sold as such in specified areas for a period of five years. At the end of that time, it is hoped that the producing herds will have reached a higher standard, but in any case the milk derived from these sources will be either pasteurised or sterilised before it is sold to the public.
The question then arises, "Where is this to be done?" It is quite certain that it is no good trying to rush this matter, so as to make it compulsory as regards all milk, unless the apparatus, the machinery and the organisation are available. The recommendation is that we should begin this scheme in districts of, I think, 10,000 population. I am speaking as a layman when I commend this Clause 5 to your Lordships, for I do not pretend to be able to understand it fully myself. But Clause 5, at all events, is the clause under which certain places will be appointed places. The large cities,
1018
such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and others, will be places where, when the machinery is complete and arrangements are made, there will be organised distributors appointed by the local authorities, or whoever may be concerned. An order will then be drafted prescribing these places as places in which all the milk sold to the public will be of these assured types. It is evident that in order to bring this machinery into operation smoothly, we must carry the people concerned with us. It is therefore provided in the Bill that, before a regulation is made specifying a particular area, it will be ascertained that there will be adequate machinery for sterilising or pasteurising—as the case may be—the milk, so that when the appointed day does arrive we shall have the machinery and the good will at our disposal for making the machinery efficient and workable. Therefore, an appointed day will be prescribed in the regulations: not the same day for all the places, but according to how the arrangements have been made; it will be one day for one place and a later day for another place.
Then there is the provision in Clause 6 about which the noble Earl opposite has expressed some anxiety—namely, that where some persons in an area have not the necessary apparatus at their disposal, or perhaps cannot afford to buy it, it is provided that the Ministry (in this case the Ministry of Food) shall be able to supplement their efforts, or enter into some arrangement with them so that the area may be able to deal with the milk according to the regulations. There is one point which the noble Earl asked me to look into, and which I have in fact looked into. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 6, you will find at the top of page 5 that where the Minister installs this supplementary apparatus,
"…he may either buy the milk to be treated and re-sell it after treatment.…"—
and so on. The question which the noble Earl put to me is: "How is the Minister to re-sell it?" I can assure your Lordships that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Minister of entering into the retail distribution of milk. The only idea is that it should be made available to the distributors who themselves have not the apparatus or who have provided it jointly with the Ministry, as the case may be. In order to make it clear,

1019
I should like to say, here and now, in response to the representations of the noble Earl, that when we come to the Committee stage my noble friend who will be in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept the words "re-sell it by wholesale." We propose to insert those words in order to make it quite clear that that is what is intended. I hope that that assurance will satisfy your Lordships.
There are other provisions dealing with penalties and offences which I do not now wish to spend time in reading. If your Lordships look at Clauses 8 and 9, you will see that the penalties for the breach of certain conditions are, happily, gradual and not severe. A first offence results in a notice in writing telling the offender that he is committing the offence. After all, it would not do to administer the scheme in such a way as to deprive the public of milk. I will not now go through the details of Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which I am sure your Lordships will agree are fair and reasonable. They refer to penalties. There will be regulations which will bring those into effect, and they will be made under the Food and Drugs Act, so far as England is concerned, and under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1922, as amended, so far as Scotland is concerned. They will be submitted to Parliament. The areas will prescribe what other conditions are to be provided for in the Regulations. In each case where any great city is brought into this scheme, and all the milk in that city will be of this prescribed quality, it must be made available to all the citizens. That is a very comprehensive procedure. Those Regulations will be submitted to Parliament. I feel sure that where any difficulty arises, it will be the subject of the usual questioning in one of the Houses of Parliament. The position is fully safeguarded, first for consultation and previous preparation in the different cities, which may take a considerable time—in some cases many months—and subsequently for the embodiment of these arrangements in an Order which will be sanctioned by Parliament. With this brief survey of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will accord it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
4.14 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Viscount for the great clarity with which he has put this Bill before us. He certainly tried to meet some of the points that were causing some of us considerable concern. The principle of the Bill, so far as it goes, is, of course, accepted, and must be accepted. It is now a long time since anyone of any responsibility in the agricultural world was prepared to oppose pasteurisation. The medical and scientific authorities in this country are perfectly clear in their views upon this question. But, before I deal with the Bill itself, there is one word of a general character which I should like to say in view of some of the things that have been said, not by the leading members but by certain members of the medical profession in particular, which would tend to make the public think that the vast majority of tuberculosis cases in this country are caused by the cow, and therefore by the farmer. I mention that matter because it is one which has caused a good deal of pain to responsible farmers, who naturally feel the charge.
Before I go further, I should like to make it quite clear that I am not in any way attempting to discount the harm that is in fact done by bovine tuberculosis. When we look at the actual figures of the incidence of tuberculosis in this country, however, we find that between 98 per cent. and 99 per cent. of all cases of pulmonary tuberculosis and 70 per cent. of all cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis are due to the human type of bacillus and not to the bovine type at all. That, I think, begins to bring the problem to its proper proportions. In matters of disease, I do not consider that it is always fair to deal solely with figures of deaths, because there is great suffering apart from deaths; but the figures of actual deaths in this country from tuberculosis caused by the bovine type of bacillus are given as somewhere between 6.4 per cent. and 8.4 per cent. If one could get the figures for children, one would find that the proportion of deaths from tuberculosis caused by the bovine type of bacillus would be swollen. That has to be admitted.
Why is this so? Why is the incidence of bovine tuberculosis less than members of the public think it to be? There

1021
are in this regard a number of rather surprising facts. One figure, which I think has been vouched for by both the medical and scientific world, is that under 1 per cent. of cows that in fact react to tuberculosis have themselves given tuberculous milk, because I think it is well known that the infection generally comes from the udder; in fact, it is more likely to come from the udder than from anywhere else, but I think it can get into the milk from other sources. That is a state of affairs which can be detected clinically fairly easily. We have to realise that already no less than 70 per cent. of the milk of this country is pasteurised. If we take the figure for London alone, it will be well over 90 per cent. The figure supplied to me by the Milk Marketing Board as being the total proportion of T.T. milk going into consumption is 22 per cent. of the whole. The noble Viscount said that only 9 per cent. of milk going into consumption is T.T. milk.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
EARL DE LA WARR: We would like to be quite clear upon that point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My figure was 19.2 per cent. produced and sold. For milk sold in general sales, the figure I gave was about 9 per cent.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, I think I understood the point; because we are all aware that, unfortunately, at the moment quite a large quantity of this T.T. milk is in fact mixed with other milk. Doubtless, that explains the point. Then, in addition to that, I think 25 per cent. is actually accredited. The fact that the 70 per cent., the 22 per cent., and the 25 per cent. add up to rather more than 100 per cent. means merely that there is a great deal of overlapping between those three classes. I mention those facts only because I think they underline what I venture to say now—namely, that this problem is one which requires urgent and drastic treatment, but it does leave us free from a need for what I call panic action. That was really one of the main reasons why I particularly regretted—although the noble Viscount has tried to go some way to meet us—that the Government should have decided to advance on one leg, so to speak, in dealing with this problem, and to in
1022
troduce legislation dealing with pasteurisation, which we are all prepared to support, without at the same time announcing their policy with regard to encouraging the cleaning-up of herds, cowsheds and so on.
With regard to buildings, and the cleaning-up of cowsheds, I think we all agree that the announcement of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to-day is extremely welcome. The multiplicity of authorities from which are suffering at the moment, with bordering counties having quite different and often contradictory regulations, has not only been confusing to the farmer but has naturally tended to bring the whole system of inspection into disrepute and contempt. I hope (as I am sure will be the case) that the instructions of the Government will be that only the most reasonable necessities shall be insisted upon. Many of us who have had to deal with this problem in the past have so often found that if we leave a cowshed just as it is, as virtually a slum cowshed, nobody says anything to us. Then, when we settle down to try to make that cowshed fit for the production of clean milk, we are asked to make unreasonable and expensive alterations, and the temptation is to wish that one had left things as they were.
That is one side of the problem of clean milk, but we hope to hear something fairly soon (I hope before this Bill reaches the Statute Book) about new measures for encouraging the cleaning-up of individual herds. It may or may not be that the present encouragement for the man who is already in the scheme is sufficient, but I am sure about the position of a man who has to take the decision to come into the scheme, and possibly to get rid of a number of his cows by selling them at low prices, because they have not passed the test, and who then has to go into the more expensive "attested" market: he has need of more assistance. Whether it is to be in the form of compensation for cows that he has to dispose of, or in the form of a higher premium, at any rate for the first two or three years, I am not prepared to attempt to dogmatise. But the sooner the Government can tell us what steps they intend to take with regard to this matter, the better. Then again, there is the establishment of clean

1023
areas. By "clean areas," I mean areas such as those—possibly in the Welsh hills and similar country—which may not be suitable for production of milk, but which are very suitable for the rearing of clean stock, and those for the establishment of new T.T. milking herds. Again, the sooner we hear from the Government what steps are to be taken in regard to this side of the problem, the better.
My Lords, I must apologise because, so far, I have hardly spoken about the Bill. Turning to the Bill, I would like to thank the noble Viscount for the concession he has made with regard to Clause 6, subsection (2), which was disturbing us a good deal. He will not ask me to say now whether the concession he offered, in that particular form, is exactly what our drafting advisers would advise. But there is no question that it is a very considerable concession. There is one other point that I think is giving very considerable concern to the distributive trade. Like the noble Viscount, I have not found Clause 5 very easy to understand, but I rather think it is the Government's intention, by a combination of Clause 5 and the Schedule, to put into effect the statement which was made in this House two years ago by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. He said then:
"To reduce the risk of contamination after heat treatment, the heat treatment and bottling of milk will be carried out in the same dairy premises, and all heat-treated milk, like T.T. milk, will be sold in closed containers."
At the present time, large sections of the distributive trade, and particularly the smaller retailers, buy their milk from a central pasteurising plant; they have their own bottling plant, and they sell it as their own bottled milk. If this statement of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is put into operation—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What is the date of that statement?
EARL DE LA WARR: It was made during the debate on Lord Rothschild's motion in 1946. If that is put into operation, as I understand has been fairly officially indicated, then those men will find themselves with a choice of two unacceptable positions. Either they will
1024
be driven into the hands of the large wholesale distributors, and have to buy their milk not only pasteurised but bottled, or they will be put to the expense of purchasing (if it is obtainable) pasteurising plant to install on their own premises. Frequently, as we know, the trade has not sufficient capital to purchase such pasteurising plant; and in any event, as the noble Viscount knows, there is a heavy call on all available pasteurising plant, and it is practically unobtainable.
I would ask the noble Viscount to look into that point. I think it could to some extent be met indirectly. If the noble Earl who is to reply could tell us that all orders made under this measure, when it reaches the Statute Book, will be subject to affirmative Resolution, and if he could also give us assurances that Clause 2, subsection (2), enjoins consultation on the Minister before he brings such Orders into operation, I think this and many other fears in the minds of those who are most likely to be affected will be to a large extent allayed. Those are only a few remarks and suggestions that I venture to make on this Bill. In the main, however, I should like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. I would thank the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has put this Bill before us. We certainly desire to give every help and facility in getting it on the Statute Book.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, although we must all regret the absence through illness of the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture in this House, I nevertheless very much welcome the fact that it has fallen to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to introduce this Bill, because, as I have good reason to know, there is probably no man in either House of Parliament who has taken a more continuous and fervent interest in this subject of pure milk than he has done. I think it was about forty years ago that, in another place, I made my first speech on an agricultural topic; and that speech was devoted largely to the subject which we are considering in this House to-day. Only three years ago—on April 11, 1945—I initiated a two-days' debate upon milk, with particular regard to the quantity, as well as the quality, of milk and the optimum to be aimed at in both respects. The noble

1025
Earl, who I am glad to see sitting opposite to-day, made a very sympathetic reply on that occasion.
I came to the House to-day with the intention of being somewhat of a critic of this Bill, but the noble Viscount, Lord Addison has to some extent cut the ground from under my feet by telling us that the recommendations of that portion of the White Paper of 1943 which is not dealt with in the Bill will probably be put into operation through regulations, simultaneously with the coming into force of this Bill after its passage. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the perusal of this Bill gave me a severe headache. The wording of the Bill is not only a bad example of legislation by reference but the Bill is so full of nebulous and bewildering verbosity as seriously to cloud both its object and the contemplated process of attaining that object. In fact, it was only after consulting one of our leading farming journals that I discovered that the Bill means that, in future, milk in this country will be either T.T.—that is the product of tuberculin-tested cattle—or pasteurised.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Or sterilised.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Apropos that intervention, it would certainly interest me—and perhaps the House also—if the noble Viscount, or the noble Earl, would tell us later on what in their opinion is the difference between the two processes (I have no doubt that it means the application of greater heat in one case than in the other), and in what circumstances will milk in the selected areas be sterilised, and in what circumstances will it be pasteurised. I understand that after five years there will be no accredited milk for which to-day a premium is allowed, and that six months after the passage of the Bill the Government are to specify certain districts as what I may call pasteurisation areas or sterilisation areas. Curiously enough, however, the expressions "tuberculin-tested,"T.T.," "pasteurisation" and, even, I believe, "sterilisation" do not appear in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, although himself finding it difficult to interpret his Bill—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, that is not quite correct. I referred especially to Clause 5. I hope that the noble Viscount
1026
will not take me too seriously. I said that Clause 5 gave me considerable difficulty, but that does not apply to much of the other parts of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: The noble Viscount has greater mental perspicacity than I can claim, in spite of the fact that for many years, when I was a comparatively young man, I carried on a practice as a conveyancing lawyer.
I think we all admit that the basis of a sound milk policy is well-bred and healthy dairy herds. The present Bill departs from the three consecutive stages of a comprehensive programme of milk improvement as laid down in the White Paper, to which the noble Viscount has referred, the eradication of tuberculosis from the dairy herd being practically ignored. These three stages, to summarise them, are these: the progressive elimination of bovine tuberculosis—and that was to be first secondly, the standardisation and simplification of the various regulations and authorities affecting the production and distribution of milk; and, thirdly, closer control over the quality of milk as it reaches the consumer. This Bill deals with the last stage and, in doing so, in my judgment at any rate, puts the cart before the horse—perhaps I should say before two horses, represented by the two other main ideals and intentions adumbrated in the White Paper.
We are told—and I am sure we must all welcome this—that in fact the whole of those three stages are to be undertaken simultaneously. But my chief objection—or the chief objection I intended to state, and I am still inclined to put it forward—is that this system of improvement, of rendering milk safer by heat treatment, tends to discourage the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The veterinary profession have for many years past been asking for a bold scheme, based mainly upon this eradication. Vague promises have been made for many years, by or on behalf of the Government, that such a policy would be embarked upon at an early date, and discussions continue between representatives of the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry of Agriculture. But in those discussions, I understand, so far, the veterinary profession have not taken any part. I

1027
venture to suggest that it is most desirable, and would be only fair to a great and enlightened profession, that the National Veterinary Medical Association should be called into consultation in this regard.
My noble friend Lord De La Warr has rightly drawn attention to the fact that although 40 per cent. of the cattle of this country are credited, or rather debited, with probable reaction to the tuberculin test, less than one per cent.—I believe I am right in saying no more than one-half of one per cent.—actually yield tuberculous milk. It is only fair to remind your Lordships that, as against that, only one-half of one per cent. of all classes of cattle in the United States react to the tuberculin test; in Canada about two per cent., and in New Zealand about four per cent. Perhaps the most illuminating figure of all was disclosed recently in Denmark, which to-day has about one-half of one per cent. My great fear is that far from promoting the cleaning up of the herds of Great Britain—a process which by the way is going forward steadily but slowly—this Bill will delay that progress. I wish I could agree with the noble Viscount who suggested that there was a rapid progress; I am afraid there is not, except, of course, in some counties, notably in Wales.
It is quite right to mention Scotland. In this connection, Scotland stands preeminent in Great Britain, but most of the improvement in recent years has been in Wales. I suggest that enforced pasteurisation in the larger urban and industrial areas may delay this process, which in the countries I have mentioned has been carried through successfully in a comparative short period of years. If the public realise that, however tuberculous the cattle in their environment, the milk can be and will be rendered innocuous by pasteurisation, both producers and consumers are likely to be callous about and indifferent to the eradication of the tuberculous disease. In my judgment there will be a decline, rather than a betterment, in the position.
Whatever be the merits of the policy and procedure contemplated by this Bill, it must not surely be allowed to impede or further postpone the more rapid extension of the activities of the Government to improve the health of our dairy
1028
herds. For many years and in spite of the policy adumbrated by the White Paper, the Government have done little more than mark time. Most of the leaders of the veterinary profession have repeatedly stated that bovine tuberculosis can be entirely eradicated in this country within ten or fifteen years, provided that an active policy is pursued. Even when the milk is pasteurised, the consumer has the right to demand pure milk from healthy cattle, bottled under the most hygienic conditions. The comparatively small amount of bottling of milk in this country is no credit to us. In Copenhagen, where I have seen the process going on, practically all milk is bottled at the present time, and in the chief cities of New Zealand, with which I am still more conversant, the same applies. Until we bottle milk there is a danger that disease will affect the milk, even after it has been pasteurised and before it reaches the consumer.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has pointed out, there is an improvement in pure milk production, especially in Scotland and Wales. In the matter of attested herds, Scotland leads the way with an average of 35.3 per cent. Wales stands at 27.5 per cent. Cardigan is a steady first with 85 per cent., Carmarthen has 69 per cent., and Pembroke 45.5 per cent. The average for England is no more than 10 per cent. The figures for Scotland are striking. Shetland can boast of 100 per cent., Bute of 86.5 per cent. and Ayrshire of 85.2 per cent. I quote these figures particularly in order to make it clear that by an emphatic, bold policy on the part of the Government, aiding this volunteer movement of the cleaning up of herds, there is no reason why any large-scale pasteurisation or "doctoring" of milk should take place, and no reason why, by process of healthy enterprise on the part of the producers, backed by the Government, the whole country should not be cleaned of bovine tuberculosis in a comparatively short time. I did not mention the county figures for England after giving the 10 per cent. average, but Westmorland stands first with 37.7 per cent. and Berkshire second with 26.7 per cent. I think I must refer to the achievement of Cardigan. Cardigan, in the course of the last twelve months alone, up to September last, has reduced her non-attested herds by no less than 22.5

1029
per cent. That is a very fine achievement, and I think we in England ought to try and learn a little more in this connection from our Welsh friends.
Before I sit down I want to emphasise the fact that the quantity of milk is almost as important as the quality. Tuberculosis, like mastitis and contagious abortion, materially reduces the yield of our cattle. The loss to farmers from tuberculosis alone is put at £3,000,000 annually. It is far more likely that insufficiency of milk, which the noble Viscount opposite has indicated to be the greatest of foods—certainly of our protective foods—will result in human tuberculosis than that a few bovine tubercule germs will induce the bovine type of the disease in the necks or stomachs of our children. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend the President of the Royal College of Surgeons will have to say on this a little later. In saying that, I do not minimise the fact that some of our children suffer from bovine tuberculosis, and that a certain number die. But I ask your Lordships to believe that far more children in this country suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis, through lack of milk, the great buttress against disease, than from the occasional ingestion of bovine tubercle germs.
I think we may congratulate ourselves on having produced during the last twelve months 1,300,000,000 gallons of milk in this country. That figure constitutes a record, but we are told by the experts that for full nutrition of our population we need at least another 500,000,000 gallons. Our average annual yield per cow in Great Britain is only about 500 gallons, which is far too low. In that respect we do not compare favourably with most of the civilised countries in the world. If all preventable diseases were prevented, we could easily raise our average yield per cow to at least 700 gallons per annum. I venture to think that the time has arrived when some encouragement in the matter of the price of milk should be given to those who have herds with a much larger yield—shall I say, to herds yielding an average of from 700 or 750 gallons a year and upwards.
I have already indicated that to my mind the most remarkable achievement
1030
in recent years in the securing of pure milk for a nation has undoubtedly been that of Denmark. In that connection I have received the latest figures from my friend Mr. Moltesen, who is the agricultural adviser to the Danish Government. He mentions that last July, 99.9 per cent. of all Danish herds were tuberculin tested, at which date 99.2 per cent. were found to be free from tuberculosis. All that has been achieved since 1942, when the Danish Pure Milk Act was passed. In conclusion, I wish to indicate the sort of means by which Denmark has produced these striking results. In a report on this subject lately issued in Denmark and published by the National Veterinary Association, I find these words:
"Thus, one clause in the law"—
that is the law of 1942—
"says that every dairy which prior to April 1, 1943, has not adopted a plan approved by the Veterinary Directorate for the combating of the tuberculosis in the district of this dairy, has to lower the price of milk delivered from non-tuberculosis-free herds by an amount fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture."
Interpreted in English coinage, that reduction per kilogram of milk is a fraction of a penny. The report goes on:
"The amount of money thus subtracted is put in the bank in an account, and it is paid back to the owner of the herd concerned only if his herd becomes tuberculosis-free within three years after the dairy district has obtained 80 per cent. tuberculosis-free herds. If not, this amount of money becomes the property of the dairy. This clause has greatly stimulated the dairies to adopt the plans for combating the tuberculosis."
I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but if there is one subject more than any other upon which I feel strongly and upon which I appreciate the gravity to the health and efficiency of the whole nation, it is on this matter of pure milk. I am perfectly certain that unless the problem is tackled at its source—namely, the prevalence of the disease amongst the cattle of this country—we shall never within a reasonable distance of time effectually solve the problem.
4.54 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I think your Lordships will agree that no one has approached this question with more feeling and determination than he has, and he has achieved much by his efforts.

1031
In common with others, I have a little difficulty in finding the exact meaning of Clause 5, but I have had no difficulty in finding the meaning of the Bill and the object it has in view. I welcome it most warmly. How could I do otherwise when I have seen the suffering that results in children from infection by the tubercle bovine bacillus? My noble friend Lord Bledisloe may be right in saying that the cart is before the horse, or the pair of horses; the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, may be right in saying that it is an advance on one leg. Nevertheless, from my point of view, an advance on one leg or with the cart before the horses is an advance, provided the horses are not backing the cart or the cart is not pulling the horses backwards. I do not know exactly how that works out, but the metaphor was dragged in by the noble Viscount.
Surely the noble Viscount would not wish that we should wait ten or fifteen years until the herds of the country are cleaned up. Let us get on. What is going to happen to children in that intervening period of ten to fifteen years? The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that results of infection are not counted in deaths, and they are not counted in incidence of disease. Some members of this House have been struggling this afternoon to save a fully grown healthy man from having his education interrupted by a short period of military service. What about the whole of your youth, the whole of your life, being altered, perhaps by seven years' immobilisation, with disability at the end of it; a struggle for life at the beginning, a struggle for limb later on and eventually, if there is a cure, great disability? Do not let anything delay an advance which can do something to eradicate this infection.
4.58 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I shall not attempt to discuss the merits of pasteurisation. There is a great weight of expert opinion in favour of it, and we have just heard a very powerful speech in its favour. It has been so fully discussed that I do not feel any useful purpose can be served by a layman entering into the discussion at this stage. This Bill, however, deals with only one side of the whole question. Apart from the delivery of safe milk,
1032
there is the problem of the production of clean milk in ever-increasing quantities.
In the White Paper of July, 1943, as has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, it was stated that the basis of a sound milk policy, whether from the point of view of the economics of production or the quality of the product, is a well-bred, healthy dairy herd. I think that is accepted by everyone, but this Bill, introduced as it has been alone, may tend to obscure the issue. Many people may feel that as soon as milk is made reasonably safe, the rest of the problem is of secondary importance. The Government should state categorically what their policy is. As we all know, there has been a considerable increase during the last year in the number of T.T. and attested herds, and I think we all realise that it is essential that the numbers should continue to increase—and to increase even more rapidly in the future.
If we look at the Report of the Committee on Milk Distribution (Cmd. 7414), we see two important recommendations, both in paragraph 75 of the Report. The first is that:
"As an ultimate objective compulsory heat-treatment should be applied to all milk sold for liquid consumption, except milk consumed in remote and thinly-populated areas.…"
The second recommendation which occurs in the same paragraph is that until compulsory heat treatment can be applied generally, raw T.T. milk should be permitted to be sold in any area.
Do His Majesty's Government agree with both those recommendations?—that is, is their policy in the future to be that all milk, whether T.T. or not, should be pasteurised?
There are some 46,000 producer retailers in England and Wales, and the majority of these have to decide now whether or not they will arrange for their milk to be pasteurised, or whether they will try to produce T.T. milk. The same problem faces all producers who are not already producing T.T. milk, though it does not affect them quite so directly. If the Government accept the proposal that all milk should eventually be pasteurised, what encouragement will there be for anyone to pay more for T.T. milk which has been pasteurised? After all, T.T. milk is not necessarily of better quality. It is merely free from the germ

1033
of bovine tuberculosis, although, of course, it may contain other germs. Of the T.T. milk sold off farms in England and Wales in 1947, only 36 per cent. was sold to the consumer as such. If all milk in populous areas is pasteurised, I cannot see how it will be possible to retain, let alone to increase, the market of T.T. milk in those areas.
I realise that this threat will not materialise in the immediate future, but the eradication of tuberculosis in our cattle is necessarily a long-term process. If we are to have a healthy dairy herd in this country, it is essential that the diseases such as tuberculosis, contagious abortion and mastitis should be eradicated as quickly as possible. It is essential that all producers should know where they stand, and what is the long-term view of the Government on this subject. How do they propose to eradicate these diseases, the eradication of which, though ultimately profitable, can involve a very serious initial expense? I believe that a statement of policy, and possibly early legislation to achieve these objects, is a necessary complement to this Bill, although I agree that the Leader of the House did say much on the subject of clean milk to relieve one's anxiety.
So far as the Bill itself is concerned, there are obviously several points which will have to be inquired into at a later stage. One of the chief points appears in Clause 6, which has to-day been dealt with by the Leader of the House. The other question is with regard to bottling at the same place as the pasteurisation, which was included in the Government statement of policy on July 31, 1946. That also is causing a certain amount of concern to the distributors, and it has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I feel that, in spite of these things, we must support any measure which will increase the safety of milk for our population.
5.7 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he introduced this Bill, said that he regarded it as a long-deferred or long-overdue reform. I think that description has been accepted in every part of the House, and it was this reforming spirit which was behind the speeches of all noble Lords
1034
who have taken part in this debate. I am indeed grateful to all noble Lords for their support for the principle of this measure.
The need for the improvement in our milk supply is not, I think, denied by any responsible person, here or outside; and every noble Lord who has taken part in this discussion has emphasised the great and absolute urgency of cleaner and safer milk. We all realise the serious effect which the drinking of contaminated milk has already had upon the health of the country. I think that, by now, every one of us is painfully familiar with the toll taken by bovine tuberculosis in the loss of life and life-long physical deformity. This, of course, diminishes nothing from the truth of the assertion of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the vast majority of all cases of tuberculosis in human beings have a human and not a bovine source. Of course, to the toll of bovine tuberculosis must be added the many serious illnesses and infections caused by other milk-borne diseases.
We can prevent the continuation of these conditions only by safeguarding the public from the sale of any raw milk which may have picked up disease germs, whether from a sick animal or by contacts. The extent of the danger, which will continue so long as this type of milk remains on the market, can be judged by the amount of such milk which still reaches the consumer. Many figures have been bandied about, and the following are the only figures which I shall inflict on the House. The estimated figures of sales by retailers of liquid milk for the year ended September 30, 1948, show that in England and Wales 117,000,000 gallons of T.T. or certified milk were sold; 900,000,000 gallons of pasteurised or heat-treated milk were sold; and approximately 167,000,000 gallons of undesignated milk came on the market. The figures for Scotland under the same three heads are 20,000,000 gallons, 91,000,000 and 21,000,000 gallons. These figures show—and everyone accepts this—that a very large quantity of undesignated raw milk is being drunk every year in every part of England, Scotland and Wales, and that the amount of this unsafe milk still exceeds the amount of T.T. milk drunk in England and Wales. I am afraid that even in Scotland, although the record is a good deal better, the consumption of

1035
undesignated raw milk wins by a short head.
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has already said that we are not wedded to any one way of improving our milk supply. We are just as anxious as preceding Governments have been to use any method of serving this purpose, and the best of these methods were described in the White Paper which set out the policy of the Coalition Government in 1943. I am particularly glad—if I may be allowed to express my personal feelings—having been a member of the Government that laid down this policy, to be now a humble instrument in putting the policy into legislative effect. Your Lordships will remember that in this White Paper we dealt with four main ways of attaining the objective of a safer and clearer supply of milk. The first of these ways was the cleaning up of our dairy herds; the second was the improvement and unification of standards of administration; the third was the offering of financial inducements for the production of T.T. milk; and the fourth was the granting of powers to the Minister of Food to schedule areas in which milk can be sold only if it conforms to the safety standards.
The present Bill deals with the fourth of these methods of ensuring a better milk supply. Its emphasis on pasteurisation does not mean that we attach any less importance to the other methods set out in the White Paper. I can accept the first principle enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, when he said, quoting some words from the White Paper, that "the basis of a sound milk policy is a well-bred, healthy dairy herd." I should like to illustrate what I have said, in order to show that we are practising what we preach, and that we are not trying to advance on one front only—or on one leg or by some strange method of locomotion in which a horse was somehow connected with a cart. Apart from what has been done in the past, I can inform the House now that discussions with the National Veterinary Medical Association on plans for the eradication of tuberculosis on an area basis are about to take place very soon indeed. But I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who speaks with such unrivalled authority on this subject, put the
1036
point strongly that we cannot wait until the herds are cleaned up before liquid milk for human consumption is rendered safe to the public health; prompt action is demanded.
That is all I have to say in a general way, but I should like to make one or two observations about two clauses which contain some very important provisions of the Bill. My noble friend has touched on them but I may perhaps be excused if I add a little. The first point deals with Clause 5. I should like to make it clear that the Minister's powers under Clause 5 to make an order to apply the Bill to a specified area will not be used hurriedly, without due regard to local conditions or without the fullest consultation with any local organisation who may wish to express their views.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Could he indicate what will be the "appropriate organisation"? It appears to be entirely at the Minister's discretion to choose those organisations whom he himself will consult.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: These are representative organisations. It is the intention to consult the National Farmers' Union, representative associations of local authorities, town and county authorities and so one—all representative bodies who deal with communities whose interests will be affected by the Bill. That is the intention, and it is laid down in Clause 5.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I ask who are the local organisations who will be concerned? Some of these problems are not only local, and it is important for the Minister to satisfy himself that he is consulting a representative local body.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The local organisations are not specified in the terms of Clause 5. I was really addressing myself to the elucidation of that clause. I appreciate what the noble Earl says and I know it will be appreciated by the Department.
LORD LLEWELLIN: When we were planning milk rounds and such things we consulted organisations of local milk retailers, who are very important people from this point of view. Will they be consulted?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is another body which will certainly be

1037
borne in mind when the question of consulting local interests affected arises. The intention is that the Bill will become operative by stages, at different times in different parts of the country, the safe milk area being gradually extended throughout a number of years. The Bill will first be applied to groups of large urban centres of population which can be conveniently grouped in the same neighbourhood. It will come into effect later, as circumstances permit, in country districts where the problem of safe milk is much more difficult. Before any area is specified, a complete survey will be made of the available pasteurisation facilities in that area. If they are insufficient to deal with the non-designated raw milk sold in a particular area, the distributors will first be asked to increase their pasteurising plant, and the producer-retailers will be invited to up-grade their milk to T.T. standard, or alternatively to arrange for it to be pasteurised. Only when this survey has been made and after the Minister has been satisfied that an area has sufficient pasteurising equipment to deal with its non-designated milk will an order under the Bill come into force. Owing to the shortage of milk plant and the delay in putting up suitable new buildings at the present time it is likely that twelve or eighteen months will elapse from the passing of the Bill before any area will be ripe for specification.
EARL DE LA WARR: Will the order be an affirmative one?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The provision of the Bill is for a negative order, but that is a point I will consider in consultation with the Department. I appreciate what the noble Earl said in his speech about his preference for an affirmative order as against a negative order.
It should be remembered that although the manufacture of dairy machinery is steadily expanding, 40 per cent. of its output is still for export. As time passes, a larger share of its production will be allocated to the home market. Nevertheless, it is not expected that all urban areas will have sufficient pasteurising facilities for the Bill to be applied there in less than five years, while rural areas are expected to take not less than ten years before the whole country is guaranteed against unsafe milk.
1038
I should like to make one other point before I sit down. It is a point that has not yet been made, but it is one which is of considerable interest and importance to all who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, regard milk as being almost the staff of life. The operation of this Bill, by making a supply of safe milk available for all consumers, should encourage and increase the consumption of milk, which everyone agrees is the best of all foodstuffs. The consumption of milk per head at the present time in this country is considerably less than the dieticians consider desirable. That is a statement with which I know the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will heartily agree. The average amount consumed at the moment is 0.65 pint per person per day. Adults may drink less, and children may drink more, but it works out at an average of 0.65 pint per day. Experts recommend an average consumption of at least one pint for every person per day, which would mean a stepping-up of the present amount of milk drunk by all sections of the community. A larger supply of safe milk, in which people will have complete confidence, should certainly help to raise consumption nearer to the recommended average level. If it is important that everyone should drink more milk, it is even more important that more milk should be drunk by those who need it most—namely, growing children.
At the present time, as noble Lords who live in the country are well aware, some medical officers of health, mainly in rural areas, have refused to give authority for the use of raw milk, other than T.T. milk, in the elementary schools. The number of children affected is, of course, small, compared with the number of children in towns who are already supplied with pasteurised milk. But when safe milk is available everywhere, the consumption of milk by school children is certain to rise in those areas where at present doctors are unwilling to run the risk of authorising the use of raw milk, other than T.T. milk. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Lords very warmly for the support they have given to the principle of the Bill, and for the encouragement which we have received from their response to it. I would say to those noble Lords whose points I have not answered that I will examine them carefully between now and Committee

1039
stage, when, in the light of my consultations with the appropriate Department, I hope to answer them more fully, and indeed more accurately, than I should do if I endeavoured to answer on the spur of the moment.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships' House for only a few moments. I did not know that the noble Earl was going to get up when he did, otherwise I should have jumped up in front of him so that he could have answered my points. I take a strong view about milk, because of which I am probably known as a bit of a "crank." I welcome this Bill most heartily, having had a small herd of dairy cows for a great many years. But let me put it to your Lordships in this way. My view is that milk was never meant by nature to be drunk by anybody. If your Lordships think of it for a moment; the calf, after it has been suckled, never drinks milk again. In the case of animals, after the young have been suckled and weaned, they do not drink milk any more. In my view, that is what nature intended. In my view, milk is a very dangerous food indeed, even after pasteurisation. We know of the celebrated case in Belfast where there was once an immense increase of tuberculosis. What did they find? They found that there was a tuberculosis carrier working in the pasteurisation plant, distributing tuberculosis germs in the milk all the time. You may produce milk from clean herds; you may do everything in your power to get the milk to the consumer in a perfect state in a bottle. You take the cork or the stopper out of the bottle, you pour the milk into a jug, and, within a very few moments, if there are microbes about which are dangerous to human existence, the milk will pick them up.
My suggestion—and I hope that the Minister of Health will take heed of it, to see whether something cannot be done in these terms—is that the milk, having been produced and being perfectly healthy, is put into a bottle from which it cannot be poured. Let me visualise someone going into the dining room for a cup of tea. A bottle of milk is placed on the table. You cannot pour the milk out; you give the bottle a squeeze, out comes the milk, and then the bottle is automatically hermetically sealed. That
1040
is one way in which one can be certain that milk will not pick up these evil germs. I have a Guernsey herd, and I once had a Jersey herd. I have often been over to the Island to buy my bulls. Everybody who has been over there knows perfectly well that, although there is no tuberculosis in their herds, the people there suffer a great deal from tuberculosis. As has already been said, the reason for that is that the infection is carried from one person to another, very materially through the milk. One pours out milk into a jug, and the milk can immediately pick up germs. The noble Lord opposite always laughs at me, but to me this idea is just commonsense. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the question of the distribution of milk and the method by which it is handled. I still adhere to my view that milk was never meant to be drunk by anybody. It is not drunk by any animal after its suckling and weaning. I believe that, if we followed their example, then we should get rid of tuberculosis throughout the world.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL
5.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is purely drafting. As your Lordships see, the Third Schedule is a repealing Schedule. As the Road Haulage Central Wages Board is being abolished, it is necessary to repeal those parts of other enactments which refer to it. One which has been overlooked is the reference in the Road Haulage Wages (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940. This Amendment has been tabled in order that this particular reference in that Act may be abolished. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 43, column 3, at end insert ("the words 'with the Central Board and'").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment appears to us to be drafting. It brings the Schedule into line with what has been decided, and we take no objection to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, with your permission I will take the two following Amendments together. They have been tabled because the Schedule as at present drafted goes rather too far. We can, of course, only repeal in so far as the substantive provisions of the Bill itself require it. The C licence is left intact by the Bill, but the Road Haulage Wages (Emergency Provisions) Act of 1940 covers the C as well as the A and B licences. If the Schedule were to stand as it is tabled at present, the provisions would relate to C licences but not in the same manner as to A and B licences. These two Amendments have been tabled in order to preserve the C licence, and I think your Lordships will agree that they are effective to secure that purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 48, column 3, leave out ("from").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 49, column 3, leave out ("to the end of the subsection") and insert ("of the Central Board").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of December 9), Bill reported with Amendments; Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1947
5.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, a year ago my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House providing for an extended period for a number of measures.
1042
This year His Majesty's Government require to recommend to your Lordships that only two measures should be continued, and they are the subject of the Motions which appear in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will recall that at the beginning of the late war an agreement was reached between employers and employed under which workshop practices were waived in order that production might be increased. The agreement was embodied in a Bill which became the Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942. Under that Act of Parliament these practices were to be resumed in force within two years from the end of the war, and were to be maintained in force by the employers for a period of eighteen months. For this purpose, however, the end of the war has not yet been reached, but it would be reached if we allowed the present measures to die at the end of this year, December 31. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has been in touch with the National Joint Council on the subject, and both sides are agreed that the Government should recommend to your Lordships that these measures should be continued for a further twelve months. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of Section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which, as amended by subsection (1) of Section five of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I would like to ask for further elucidation on this Motion. It says:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of Section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, which, as amended by subsection (1) of Section five of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, would otherwise expire …."
and so on. I really cannot make anything of that, and it is not the first time it has happened. I wonder if the Minister

1043
knows twice as much as I do! I know nothing about it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I should say that we on this side have no objection to this Motion. We have gone into it perhaps a little more fully than the noble Lord who has just spoken, and although I must say the wording of this particular Motion is extremely complicated, it does what the noble Lord has said it does; and to that I think none of us will have any objection.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not quite clear on one point. The noble Lord mentioned the end of the war. Does "the end of the war" apply only in one specific instance? May it be a different date in other instances?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, what I know about this measure is really what I have been told. I understand that if the particular measures mentioned by my noble friend had not been re-enacted or enacted year by year since, there would have been considerable trouble in the workshops in the country because of the position that these practices would bring about. We are anxious to keep them out of the productive machinery of our country for the time being.
On Question, Motion agreed to, the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my second Motion refers to Regulation 76 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. It covers the handling of explosives and inflammable materials in ports and inland waterways. New by-laws, under the Petroleum Consolidation Act, 1928, are now being prepared for acceptance by the Minister, and new regulations are now being prepared by the Minister under the Explosives Act, 1875, for the approval of Parliament. Unfortunately, there is still need for His Majesty's Government to deal with explosives and inflammable materials in the ports and waterways so, pending the new regulations, the Government suggest that we should continue this regulation in force for a further twelve months. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of Section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947,
1044
praying that Regulation seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, which would otherwise expire on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I understand it, the reason for the continuance in operation of this particular regulation is that the Government have not been able to get out their new regulations in time, and they are asking us to give them another year in which to complete their researches. I only hope that we may not have to have regulations to deal with petroleum and petrol for a very long time, and that the Government will have more of it to deal with than we are getting into this country at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to, the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House: That they have appointed a Committee of seven Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 6th day of this instant December, to consider all Consolidation Bills and Statute Law Revision Bills in the present Session.