HC Deb 19 June 1934 vol 291 cc320-47

10.5 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, to leave out "he thinks fit" and to insert "Parliament may determine."

It may be convenient if in moving this Amendment I refer to the two Amendments in my name later on the Paper, which relate to the same point. If this Amendment were passed it would be necessary to insert words providing for some other kind of control by Parliament over the proceedings of the Minister. The subsequent Amendments to which I refer, therefore suggest that instead of the particulars of these schemes being merely laid before Parliament as suggested in Sub-section, (3) of the Clause, they should be laid before each House of Parliament and should not take effect unless within 20 days of their presentation they are approved by resolution of each House. I take this opportunity of expressing the hope that some day Government draftsmen and Ministers will realise that, until some such provision as this is normally placed in Bills submitted to this House, someone on one side of the House or the other will always protest that there should be more control by the House of Commons over public expenditure.

It will be seen that this Amendment is supported on the Paper by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who is, I might almost say, the father of this whole scheme, and who unfortunately is absent from the country on business. He has asked me to say that he hopes the Committee will realise that, so far as his own proposals with regard to milk are concerned, he thinks it vital that the House of Commons should maintain some control over expenditure under this Clause. The Clause seeks to provide, on a pound for pound basis, up to £500,000 of public money for assisting milk marketing boards to encourage the drinking of milk. There are two ways I understand in which it is intended to do this. First, there is ordinary advertising, and secondly, there is the increased use of milk by school children. As the Bill stands the Minister would be empowered to spend the £500,000 without the House of Commons knowing what proportion was spent on purely advertising and publicity purposes and what proportion was spent on the school children. It seems to us that when the Minister decides how the money is to be allocated between those two methods, the House of Commons should be entitled to approve of it. If we are to give a sum running up to £500,000 to these boards for general purposes of publicity and advertising, the House ought to have the right of an affirmative Resolution.

I recognise that in the later Amendment we mention both Houses of Parliament, but I do not stress that point. I want the House of Commons at any rate to have the right to approve. We are doing something here which is new in the technique of public finance. We are going to grant a large sum of money—we do not know what proportion of the £500,000, but probably the larger part—to a board which is not a public corporation in the same sense as various gas and electricity undertakings, the amount of whose profit is statutorily limited. We are to pay this money to a board which is trading for the profit of the people concerned and to the amount of that profit there is no limit as far as this part of the Bill is concerned. That seems to be something which ought not to be left as this Clause provides, to be dealt with by the Minister as he thinks fit.

That is the gist of the argument. We ought to try to maintain, under this new system which is growing up—because I have no doubt that this proposal will be made a precedent—the principle that when public money is given to boards, however worthily constituted and however worthy their objects, if those boards are trading for private profit there should be at some stage some control by the House of Commons. I am not particularly concerned as to the exact form of words which the Minister would think it wise to adopt for that purpose. But in this Clause he gets right away by giving us no control at all and that alone makes it important that we should adopt some kind of check from the House of Commons. I hope therefore, he may find it possible to agree to the insertion of some words on these lines, especially when he bears in mind that our proposal has the support of the hon. Member for Altrincham.

10.13 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot)

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having so succinctly put a point which I know he considers to be of great importance and one which he has submitted on more than one occasion, namely, the point of Parliamentary control. I hope to satisfy him that his object is met in the proposals before the Committee. I was interested to hear him say that as long as proposals in this form were brought forward, an Amendment of this kind would always be moved by him or some other hon. Member on one side or the other, while almost in the next sentence, he admitted that in this Amendment he was proposing to adopt the unprecedented course of giving another place control over moneys provided by the House of Commons. That could not stand constitutionally and therefore his Amendment would have to be drawn in some other form. I do not stand upon that, however, because that is a matter which I have no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend would himself have made right if he were moving this Amendment with the serious intention of pushing the point home on this occasion.

I hope it will not be necessary for him to divide the Committee on this Amendment. I ask the Committee to consider that this would be an innovation. The Committee rightly seeks to exercise control over proposals by a Minister, but this proposal would be pushing that procedure to hitherto unheard lengths and lengths which I shall be able to show would stultify the very desirable reform which the House of Commons have already sanctioned, namely, the provision of milk for school children, at the earliest possible moment, at cheap rates. That reform has been proposed for the purpose both of helping the school children and of devoting the milk surplus to its obvious and most appropriate use, that of being drunk. The expenditure of public money comes under the control of Parliament on this occasion in many ways. We are working here under a Financial Resolution by which the House of Commons has already sanctioned the sum, and the Clause is drawn in accordance with that Resolution. The gross sum is there limited to £1,000,000, so that the Minister cannot go beyond that amount.

Next, I should point out that all the expenditure within this limit will have to appear in Estimates or Supplementary Estimates submitted to Parliament by the Minister. Not a penny of this sum is being given away beyond the control of Parliament at all. It comes within the control of Parliament in exactly the same fashion as other sums. If my hon. Friend were logical he would, in fact, move that the Minister should be subject to a series of permanent Resolutions in detail, and on this Estimate and other Estimates also clearly the House would tie itself in a tangle of its own procedure from which it could never escape. It is most desirable as abroad general principle that the time of the Ministers responsible for the general good administration of the sums placed within their control should not be cut into, especially at this stage when the burdens upon Parliamentary time are so great. As to the effect of this procedure in this particular case, a better example of the way in which the Committee could stultify itself if it accepted the Amendment could scarcely have been designed. It is not to have effect until after the twentieth day. Consider the twentieth day on which this House has sat. I have worked out a draft Amendment for the purpose of showing what the proposals of my hon. Friend would look like if I were to accept an Amendment of that kind in this Bill. Sub-section (3) would read something as follows: The Minister shall, before approving any arrangements submitted to him for the purpose of this Section by the board administering the milk marketing scheme, lay particulars of the arrangements before the House of Commons"— and proceeding, by the Amendment which I am sure he will desire to make— and shall not approve the arrangement until after the twentieth day on which that House has sat after the particulars are laid before it, nor if before the end of that date the House resolves that the arrangements be not approved. That means that the board can take no steps whatever until the Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament and receives the Royal Assent. Next, this procedure, which is admittedly intended to be taken seriously, and to give the House an opportunity of scrutinising these schemes, would have to be carried out as follows: For 20 Parliamentary days these proposals would need to be laid before the House. Let the Committee consider where this would take us. Long after the House had adjourned for the summer no proposals could be undertaken. The desire of the House to see that the surplus milk is brought to the children in the schools would be completely stultified by the procedure we are asked to adopt. The summer Session would go by, school holidays would go by and nothing could be done. The children would return, and nothing could be done. Parliament would not be sitting, and nothing could be done until the House reassembled, perhaps in October or November. Further Parliamentary days would continue to run out, and some time about Christmas, when the milk surplus had entirely disappeared, it would be possible for the House to sanction a scheme with which, but for this cumbrous procedure, we might be able to get well ahead before the House rose for the Summer Recess.

I ask the Committee whether they desire to inflict a procedure like that upon the progress of schemes which we all desire and on this occasion to see that it is impossible to accept this means of control over public expenditure in place of the general principle in our financial procedure which has governed the public expenditure for so long in this House, that the Minister has to account on the Floor of the House for the way in which he has spent money which Parliament has, in general, entrusted him to administer.

10.20 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

I have had no consultation with the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), but I think it is possible that the reason for the suspicion he has expressed is partly that in the early stages of the schemes, and in the Financial Resolution, it was definitely stated that one of the main objects of this expenditure up to £2,000,000, that is £1,000,000 of our money and £1,000,000 of the Milk Board's money, was to be for milk for school children. There is no mention of that in the Bill and, therefore, it will be perfectly legal for the Minister to allow the whole £2,000,000 to be spent on the board's posters. If the Minister could give us some indication as to the line he intends to take on two later Amendments to the Bill, that he will accept a general direction that a fair proportion of the money to be spent shall go to the supply of milk to school children, we should be satisfied.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating an Amendment which he himself has on the Order Paper.

Sir F. ACLAND

My point is that as the Clause now stands the Minister might approve schemes which have nothing to do with the spending of money on the feeding of school children.

10.22 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is anxious to preserve democratic control through this House, just as I am. The difficulty which he constantly meets every time he makes these protests is that the existing procedure of the House does not enable democratic, control to be exercised in matters of this sort. The Minister has truly said that if expedition is to be used in bringing in reforms of this sort it is impossible for the House, in existing circumstances, to exercise proper control over financial matters. He illustrated clearly that this innovation, this suggestion of control, with the consequent necessary delays, would defeat his purpose in getting these schemes through quickly. That answer can, of course, be given on practically every occasion by practically every Minister, and no doubt as long as the present procedure continues will continue to be given by every Minister. But this is not an ordinary case. We are here dealing with a subsidy, not the ordinary expenditure of the Minister in the course of administration. It is the case of granting a subsidy for the purpose of increasing the profits of a particular industry. I am not discussing the merits of a subsidy, but clearly that type of expenditure is one over which the House is entitled to have as much control as it has in any other case.

I suggest that the time has arrived when the Government should seriously consider the question of revising the procedure of this House so as to enable us to have expedition and control. At the present time the two things are impossible. Unless we can devise some system of functional committees where matters of this sort can be dealt with expeditiously away from the Floor of the House, and yet with representatives of all parties present, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to get what the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I want, that is, an efficient democratic control and, at the same time, an efficient and quick means of getting legislation through the House of Commons. It is time that the Government began to consider that problem.

10.26 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS

I do not think we can lightly dismiss this merely as a matter of procedure. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the help of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and puts the blame on the existing machinery of the House. It is very old machinery, I admit, but on the whole it has been a protection of the public against the inroads of Government Departments spending public money in a way that Parliament does not approve. We should be very jealous of parting with this control, and the Minister should really satisfy the House that it is going to keep a grip on the way this money is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly clear. We are giving a lump sum, which may be spent in publicity or on milk for school children; 75 per cent. may be spent in the latter way and 25 per cent. in the former. We ought to have some control over the large subsidy on this new experiment in administering a great and important industry. The right hon. Gentleman, who was very anxious to disarm criticism, can put as many arguments in a short space of time as any Member of the House. He first suggested one thing as a defence of the procedure and then another. First, he said there are the Estimates. Are we to understand that this £1,000,000 will not be spent until an estimate is presented to the House? Later on, he said that there was the accountability of the Minister for expenditure. That is another thing altogether. It is one thing to try "and stop money being spent in a particular way, and another to call the Minister to account after the money has been spent, which really means passing a Vote of Censure on the Government. That is a much less satisfactory way of controlling expenditure.

The primary purpose of this House and the most fundamental principle on which all our traditions and procedure have been built, is the control of the public purse. We are making this great new experiment for which the whole Committee wishes well, for anything that will help the milk industry and make the consumption of liquid milk more popular has the good will of the whole Committee. We are, however, going to spend money in an entirely new way. I will not say through a private board, but through a model organisation responsible, not to the Minister, or to the House or to private shareholders, but to the industry itself. In making this new experiment, therefore, we ought to be very jealous not to hand over to any Minister, however capable, competent and enterprising, this large sum of money until we know exactly how it is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman made great play about delay. It is an important point. Here we are to have this great new experiment to give milk to children, which is to be a help for agriculture, and we do not want this to be held up while the House goes into Recess. I consider that that point can easily be met. This proposal does not say that you have to wait 20 days, but it says "within 20 days." I understand that we are not to rise until early in August, and that there is the prospect of our sitting over Bank Holiday. Surely we can sit up one night for an hour or two after eleven o'clock to pass this expenditure, in order to maintain the sacred principle of the right of the House of Commons to control the purse strings. We should support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough—not necessarily in his words—to keep this power in the hands of the House of Commons.

10.31 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I do not want to press this matter any further to night if the Minister will agree with this proposal. I quite take the point of the possible delay and of that continuing into the autumn, just because the House is not sitting. There is always an alternative. I expect the Minister knows what kind of scheme he has in mind; why should he not formulate that scheme and add it to the Bill as a schedule? Then, before the House passes the Bill, we should know what is proposed under this Clause. That does not seem impossible, and I hope that he will consider it. His general answer that the House retains control through the Estimates is theoretically but not practically true. Unless my memory is wrong, we have not yet seen the, Estimates of the Minister's Department, although it is towards the end of June and half the Supply days are gone, and for all we know we may never see them. If we do, it does not follow that this particular item would ever be discussed. We want to ensure that before the scheme is started there shall be general approval of the House of Commons on the detailed internal distribution of the £500,000. I therefore suggest, if the Minister cannot see his way to adopt this before the Report stage, that he would see whether he can introduce a complete scheme and include it in the form of a Schedule to the Bill.

10.33 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO

Did I hear the Minister say that so far as this Amendment is concerned any expenditure would have to be on a Supplementary Estimate? It is very important. The Bill is only for two years, and if the Committee are to consider a separate Supplementary Estimate for the expenditure, that gets us out of the difficulty that several hon. Members feel.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I can assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that the sum called for this year would require a Supplementary Estimate. That is the information I have from my advisers.

Captain CROOKSHANK

If the main Estimates have not been closed before the end of Supply, we shall not have a separate Debate on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. ELLIOT

It is a little, difficult to see how the ancient procedure by which Supply days are selected by the Opposition is to be altered solely in order that the Committee shall more meticulously examine the details of what is proposed here. I hope I may meet my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) by saying that, although it would not be possible to lay out a scheme as a Schedule to this Bill, because any alteration could not take place without some form of Amendment having to be passed by the Commons and Lords and receive the Royal Assent, I certainly desire, in the course of the discussion on this Clause on this stage of the Bill and on the Report stage, to give the House some general indication of the proportions in which, for instance, we hope to allocate the sum, and the progress which is being made by the scheme. As to the making of a full scheme, I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough to consider that because of the elections it is only within the last few days that the Milk Marketing Board have begun negotiating. It was impossible to negotiate before the new board came into existence, and we have pressed on as quickly as possible. As I have said, I hope to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend details of the proposals during the passage of the Bill, and as soon as possible thereafter to lay the details of the scheme; and I hope that perhaps he will not find it necessary to press the matter further on this occasion.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment that I. select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Oswald Lewis)—in page 14, line 29, after "milk," to insert which has been derived entirely from cows free from the infection of tuberculosis. Mr. Oswald Lewis.

The next Amendment that I select is that standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland)—in page 14, line 33, at the end, to insert: Provided that not less than half of the moneys provided by Parliament shall be expended in repayment to the Board in respect of milk for consumption by children attending public elementary schools, or by mothers, or children under school age attending clinics under schemes approved by the local public health authority.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Before the right hon. Baronet moves his Amendment, may I ask whether the previous Amendment in ray name and those of two of my colleagues—in page 14, line 33, at the end, to inserts: Provided that not more than half the amount of the moneys provided by Parliament shall be expended otherwise than by way of compensation to a board in respect of milk sold at reduced prices for consumption by children attending public elementary schools. is not the broader Amendment of the two? My submission is that at present not only the education authorities but the public health authorities have the power, and exercise that power, to provide a supply of milk to mothers and children in certain circumstances at welfare centres at a cheaper rate than that at which similar milk is obtainable elsewhere. If that be so, any concession which the right hon. Gentleman may make out of the funds made available by Parliament for this purpose would perhaps exonerate the local education committee from footing the bill which they now incur, whereas under the other Amendment any concession that might be made would be exclusively for the purpose of helping to provide milk for elementary school children. On the face of it, therefore, we submit that, while the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet may seem to be the broader of the two, in fact we think that it considerably limits the milk that may be made available by the right hon. Gentleman for elementary school children.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member may be correct about the facts, but the effect of selecting his Amendment would be very considerably to narrow the scope of the Debate.

10.38 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND

I beg to move, in page 14, line 33, at the end, to insert: Provided that not less than half of the moneys provided by Parliament shall be expended in repayment to the Board in respect of milk for consumption by children attending public elementary schools, or by mothers, or children under school age attending clinics under schemes approved by the local public health authority. I do not think that the question which has just been raised would be very fundamental in the discussion, because probably both groups of Members who have put down Amendments which very nearly cover the same ground have put them down more as a method of obtaining declarations of policy from the Government than because they hope that any particular detailed scheme will be adopted by the Government. So far as my Amendment enables the question of the provision of milk, especially under this scheme, for mothers or for children under school age, to be raised, it seems to me to be the broader, and I feel sure that these purposes in themselves are not matters to which my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches really take any exception, but are, on the contrary, regarded by them with great friendliness. Already the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting my point of view, and I think it is important that he should, as he says he will, indicate, in a broad fashion at any rate, what his intention is. Consultation will no doubt be necessary with the Milk Marketing Board with regard to the question of supplies for school children and the other classes that I mention.

There is nothing whatever in the Bill that provides that any money is spent for this purpose at all. That we think wrong, and we and hon. Members above the Gangway would be very glad if words of some kind could be inserted to make it clear that some fair proportion is to go to this purpose which all the House regards as so important. When the Minister was dealing with it on the Second Beading I could not follow the reasons that he gave why it was not possible to say that one of the main purposes of the Clause should be to see that milk went to the school children, and I am still not in the least satisfied that it is not possible to put something of that kind into the Bill. If you are going to advertise a particular big expenditure on something that everyone can understand, it is more effectual in the long run than to be sparing and not make any really big public effect. It would undoubtedly have a real effect on the health of the children if you could have a system working for a couple of years or so under which in area after area, as reasonably safe supplies were available, all the children in the schools received this milk, whereas under the scheme that the Government contemplate, as I understand it, you are not as likely to get a real effect on public health.

If this is done in a way that necessitates payment by and on behalf of the children, and not in a really liberal way which will enable free distribution to be made to all children, you are going to put on the teachers an almost intolerable administrative difficulty. Under a system under which the milk is only delivered on payment, you will have, in practically every school, three classes of children who have to be differently looked after by the teachers. You will have the minority, for whom the medical officer says milk must be provided free, you will have a certain proportion who will come with their daily halfpennies and get milk, and you will have a certain proportion, who need the milk most, who will not get it because they will not be able to bring the daily halfpenny, and the teachers will have to keep watch and see that the milk is only given when the daily halfpenny is produced, and to collect the halfpennies and make sure that the number of halfpennies collected corresponds with the number of bottles of milk delivered is an administrative difficulty with which the teachers ought not to be forced. They are amazingly willing to do things which they believe to be for the better health of the children, but you cannot reasonably ask them in every class every day to be looking after three different classes of children who will have to be dealt with differently. There is the obvious point about the real value to the children, to the nation, and to the farmers, ultimately making a real impression on the public mind by getting greater publicity and popularity for milk consumption. I am certain that from the farmers' point of view, quite as much as from the children's point of view, it will pay over and over again to give as large a proportion of this money as you possibly can for milk for consumption by the school children and the other persons covered by my Amendment.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

We, of course, support the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) in the plea which he has now made. It is really supplementary to what most of us said, both below and above the gangway, in the Second Reading Debate, and if the Minister has something really pleasant to tell us, I should like to hear it as quickly as possible. As we see the situation, the Government are to make available for two consecutive years £500,000 each year as a maximum; therefore, each year there will be £1,000,000 made available. The Amendment asks that 50 per cent. of the Government grant shall be set aside for the provision pf cheaper or free milk for either elementary school children, nursing mothers, or children attending clinics. That means that only £250,000 is called for by the Amendment for 12 months for cheapening the supply of liquid milk, leaving £750,000 to be expended. on publicity. We understand that Guinness have done fairly well by advertising, that Bass have not done too badly, and that Bovril seem to keep their end up on the hoardings, but I imagine that £750,000 expended on the hoardings for this particular purpose is sufficient and that the other small proportion of the £1,000,000 should be made available for the consumption of liquid milk by children.

If the right hon. Gentleman has a scheme in his pocket, we ought to know what it is, but even if the Amendment is to be accepted, it will not help the sur- plus milk problem very much. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that merely to subsidise some milk for some children in elementary schools will be extremely difficult in administration, will contribute very slightly towards solving the problem confronting the dairy industry and the Minister, and will cause all sorts of anomalies. Last year we understand that 900,000 children were receiving milk at our elementary schools, that they were paying for that milk at the rate of 2s. per gallon, and that they were consuming approximately 10,000,000 gallons of milk in the year. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment and sets aside £250,000 per annum for free or subsidised milk, it means, if he were to halve the price, 5,000,000 gallons, not actually the full 10,000,000 gallons now being consumed in elementary schools. We are anxious that the Government should take some action. If the child is ever so small, we shall welcome it, but we want to see, if this money is to be expended in this direction, that the child in the elementary schools who needs the milk most will be able to obtain it. We do not wish, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman should halve the cost to those who now receive milk at elementary schools leaving those who cannot afford to pay for any milk at all without any supply. We have already brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice that in a city like Cardiff, which I imagine is not untypical, in the poorest section of the community 25 or 26 per cent. of the homes have no fresh liquid milk at all. Surely it is these children who require milk. The right hon. Gentleman who has this small sum at his disposal, which we hope will be larger in future years, should be able to give us something more than a skeleton of a scheme, and Members in all parts of the Committee are hoping the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what his scheme is.

10.51 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

I should be sorry if the whole support for giving milk to school children came from the other side of the Committee. Some of us feel very strongly, and if we are more silent it is because we do not wish to delay proceedings. If this Amendment were carried it might be an unfortunate thing, because it would mean that a quarter of the whole would go to the purchase of this milk.

Sir F. ACLAND

The Amendment says "not less."

Sir J. LAMB

My point is that if you put this in as a minimum there is a danger that it might be regarded as the sum which should be used for this particular purpose, and I think it is better to leave it open to the Minister, in conjunction with the board, to decide later on when they know the conditions, how much they can spend for this purpose.

10.52 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

I am not going to stand long between the Committee and the Minister's reply, but I would like to put to him one or two definite questions. My right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment admitted that he did so mainly for the purpose of trying to draw the Minister, but I must say that when I read the Amendment I was myself rather startled by its moderation. It asks that not less than one-half of the amount provided by the Government should be assigned to the purpose of providing milk for school children. We all know that it is possible in a case like this for the minimum to become the maximum. As long ago as last February or March, when the Government proposals first became known to the country, those who were studying the subject had some reason to believe that the scheme actually in contemplation proposed that not a half but two-thirds of the money provided jointly by the Government and the board on a pound to pound basis should be devoted to cheapening the milk for the children. On that assumption we made a calculation that if the price at which the milk was supplied was neither the retail nor the wholesale price, but something between the two, say 1s. a gallon, it would be possible for from 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 children to receive a daily ration of a third of a pint of milk for 200 school days at a ½d. At present there are fewer than 1,000,000 children getting the ration for one penny. The least we would get out of the scheme would be that the number of school children would be more than doubled, and they would be getting it for a halfpenny instead of a penny.

That did not seem to be a magnificent advance. There are 6,000,000 school children, so that nearly two-thirds would go unsupplied. They would all go un supplied except on the 200 school days in the year. We had no assurance that anything would be provided for the children under five years, or anything for pregnant and nursing mothers. If I am right in my apprehensions, the prospect before us is far poorer than we ever thought possible. We thought that there was going to be an improvement, and that at least one-half of the money would be used for the school children. The question is not merely how much of the money is to be used for the school children, but at what price is the milk to be supplied. We cannot judge what the proportion of one-half means unless we have some idea what kind of use is going to be made of the money to cheapen the milk. The other day, on the Second Reading of the Bill, extraordinarily vague replies were given by the Minister of Agriculture and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Minister talked as though the price that would be paid for milk would be not a special wholesale price but the full price of 2s. per gallon. With regard to the suggestion put forward that the whole number of school children should be provided for and that something should be left for non-school days and for children below school age, and for pregnant and nursing mothers, he told us that that would involve about 90,000,000 gallons of milk, and would cost £9,000,000. When he was challenged as to price he said specifically that he calculated the price at 2s. a gallon.

I cannot believe that he really meant the House to suppose that if the amount of milk delivered to the schools and other places where it was to be supplied was to be multiplied nine times, or even if it was multiplied by two and a half times, as it would be if the very moderate estimate put forward that the number of children supplied was to be doubled, that the price would be the same. Making allowance for the cost of distribution, does he mean to say that if four gallons were delivered at a school it would cost as much as if one gallon were delivered, even allowing for the business of bottling? The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of 1s. 4d. a gallon. Do they mean 2s. or 1s. 4d., or do they mean that 1s. would be the price of the milk? The Committee is entitled to more precise indications of what the Minister expects to do for the children than he has yet given us. He has really told us nothing. I have read every word that he has said in the Debates. I have scrutinised every word that representatives of the Government have said. They told us practically nothing, except that they did intend, although it is not in the Bill, that part shall go to the children.

I do not think it is fair for the Minister simply to say to the Committee, "Shut your eyes and open your mouths and see what I and the kind Milk Board are going to give you." At best we gather, from the very small amount of money assigned to this particular purpose, that it is going to be a poor and disappointing scheme. We gather that possibly for two years at least these mothers—there are hundreds of thousands of them—who know that their children are suffering gravely in health because they can afford to give them practically no fresh milk, have to "wait and see," to wait until all the demands for cheapened manufacturing milk has been filled, and that then perhaps, in two or three years' time, not they but their younger brothers and sisters will be able to drink a little milk. I wonder whether the Minister would be quite so patient if it was a child of his own that was wasting away for want of sufficient nourishment and had to be content with a mere assurance that just a little was going to be given under this Bill, and that if the scheme succeeded perhaps a little more (might be done two or three years hence. Do let the Minister tells us what he does mean, how many children he expects to be able to provide for and at what price, how much the children will have to pay and what the further stages of expansion of the scheme are likely to be.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART

I ask permission to put another point. So far the discussion has been entirely upon the first of the two purposes for which this £1,000,000 is to be used, namely, the wider consumption of milk by children and so on. But there is another and second purpose. In his Second Reading speech the Minister said that there would have to be submitted to him the proposals of the Milk Board for the expenditure of this money, and that he would have to approve the schemes. Clearly, from what he said, one of the methods is to be pure publicity. I want to stress the very great importance of that. I know that there is, amongst State Departments, a sort of feeling that publicity is a cheap thing, that it is not the sort of matter that should be of first-class importance, and that it should be relegated to some third-rate cheaply paid clerk. I put this point to the Minister and to the Milk Board: This board is one of the greatest food trading concerns in the country. In some respects it is the biggest food producing and selling concern there has ever been in the country. It is handling one of the most important items of food in our national diet. Its task, therefore, is one of supreme importance, and it is essential for the board to retain the good will of the public. I am not going to make any undue criticisms of the Milk Board and other boards for what they have done or have not done. Some of them have been in existence only for a few months. But, talking with some knowledge of publicity, I must say that what has been done so far is completely futile. I have seen scarcely a single paragraph in any newspaper in favour of the boards.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The hon. Member is getting somewhat wide of the Amendment.

Mr. STEWART

Of the two purposes for which the £1,000,000 is to be used, one is publicity and the other is the use of milk in schools, and I submit that the Amendment does make a reference to that. The point I make is that in view of the importance of their task it is essential for the Board to devote a considerable part of this money to really scientific, well-thought-out, expertly managed publicity. I beg the Minister not to be led away by these eloquent appeals to use all the money in the one direction, but to insist that among the schemes is a properly planned scheme of publicity, because I believe that along that line alone will the Board attain success, and, what is most important of all, sell clean, wholesome milk for consumption.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

As one whose name is attached to this Amendment I want to assure the Minister that it was put down as a really constructive suggestion, and with no idea that it would raise all this discussion. I think the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was too wide of the scope of the Clause. As to what the last speaker said, our view is that the best way of advertising milk is to create in the children an appetite for milk. There may be something to be said for spending money on publicity and advertising, but just as the advertising of all other beverages has succeeded by creating an appetite for them we think the best means of increasing the consumption of milk is to get children used from an early age to drinking milk. The reason we put down this Amendment was that during the Second Reading Debate hon. Members in all parts of the House did agree that the best way of making milk popular is to provide school children with it. We are not raising here the full question of the distribution of free milk, but asking that under this particular Clause not less than half of the money shall be used for that purpose, and I hope the Minister will give us some satisfaction.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I readily respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), whose interest in this subject we all recognise, and whose contributions to our Debates have always been most friendly and most constructive. He wishes to be informed as to what we have in view, and that is a desire which we willingly meet. I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) without waiting to hear anything about the scheme, should have characterised it in advance as being a poor and disappointing scheme. So far from cutting down the vast sums which other people have devoted to this problem we are embarking on a new departure. She said she had hoped that two-thirds of the money would be available for this purpose, and was gravely disappointed to learn by, I suppose, a sort of telepathy, from the authors of the Amendment, that they had reduced their hopes as low as one-half or even one-quarter. I fly to reassure her; I can meet her, and more than meet her, and also meet my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). The proportion which we shall be spending in this matter is much more like six-sevenths than one-half or two-thirds. I say that, not with any desire to minimise the importance of the expenditure stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife, but on the assurance that the proposals have been gone into, as I understand, on behalf of the Milk Marketing Board by one of the greatest experts in the country and the sum which is at present suggested as reasonable to devote to this object is a sum of, say, £50,000 a year in England or £100,000 in all, which leaves the English share of the grant at £430,000 a year or £860,000 in all. It will be clear that the schemes which have been considered go far beyond the proportion which is suggested in the Amendment, and having elicited that information, I am sure my hon. Friends will not desire to press their Amendment, because the mere existence of these words might be taken by the bodies concerned as an indication that the House of Commons desired them to reduce the amount of the expenditure on the school children and to enlarge considerably the amount spent on publicity. I think in the present circumstances we should do better under the proportion which I have suggested—something like six-sevenths for school milk and one-seventh for publicity—than under any of the proportions which have been suggested.

Sir F. ACLAND

I sincerely thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I beg to move, in page 14, line 33, at the end, to insert: (3) With a view to ascertaining whether any and, if so, what sums are payable under the foregoing provisions of this Section by the Minister to the board administering a milk marketing scheme, any person authorised in writing in that behalf by the Minister may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises occupied by the board and request any person whom he finds in the premises to produce to him such documents and give him such other information as he considers necessary. The Clause may be summarised as providing for a subsidy for the purpose of creating an increased demand for milk, and the point of my Amendment is merely a point of accounting. As I see it, the Minister with the approval of the Treasury certifies the expenses incurred by the milk boards in selling milk at reduced prices. The question I want to raise is how these expenses are verified. Clearly, they can only be verified by some sort of investigation at the offices of the boards, but there appears to be no provision in the Clause as it stands for such investigation. It is in order to give the Minister power for that purpose that I move the Amendment. Those who happen to be on the Public Accounts Committee will appreciate the importance of this proposal. I do not complain of the number of boards which are being set up by the Minister, but it is important with the increasing number of boards that there should be some effective check on the amount of money spent on particular services. It is to enable the Minister to satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the accounts that I ask him to accept these words.

11.15 p.m.

The UNDER-SECTETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton)

The Committee will appreciate the motives of the hon. Gentleman, and will agree that before moneys are paid out under the provisions of this Clause, or any other Clauses of the Bill, there must be a careful check to see that the moneys to be received by the Marketing Board have in fact been earned. The ordinary method of having the necessary dockets, receipts and other evidence is the proper way in which to deal with the matter, just as it is in the case of a trustee, who does not pay out any money until he has satisfactory documentary or other evidence that the money has been earned. That is the real answer to the very natural anxiety and preoccupation of the hon. Gentleman, and, that being so, I need not point out the weakness of the proposal. I very much doubt whether any extra information of a relevant sort would be discovered by this proposed right of entry. I do not think that that would be a very likely source from which to glean the extra information. No method in view of the necessity for obtaining detailed receipts, documents and other evidence, could be more inept than giving the Minister power of entry upon premises at any reasonable time to request from any person who might be found on the premises to produce such documents and information as he considered necessary. I do not think that that would be a very useful method. The Milk Board as a responsible body will have to show all the necessary receipts, dockets and documentary evidence and satisfy the Ministry and the Treasury that the money has been earned. In these circumstance?, I ask the hon. Gen- tleman not to press the Amendment, the mere moving of which I think has satisfactorily raised the question he had in mind.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I am sorry to say that I have not been convinced by what the hon. Gentleman said, but I will at the present time ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.18 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot provide us with a little more information as regards the expenditure of this money. I could not raise the point on the Amendment, as it would probably have been out of order. The right hon. Gentleman has only told us that he intends to spend six-sevenths or some such proportion of the money upon the, provision of milk for school children, but he has not informed us at what price, by what method, and the periods for which that milk is to be distributed; whether it is to be limited to the school terms or is also to go on through the holiday period; whether any sum at all has to be paid by the children, or whether the distribution is to be free; and whether there is to be any provision as regards differentiation between different children, that is to say, whether some are to get it free and some are to pay for it? We are very anxious to learn the precise circumstances on the matters I have mentioned as regards the distribution of milk. We were very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say earlier in the evening that he and his hon. and learned Friend have now realised that the most useful purpose to which milk can be put is liquid production, and not to keep the cheese factories going as was suggested in an earlier part of the Debate. We are delighted that light is stealing on to the Treasury Bench, although by slow degrees. It is also heartening to us to know that although the amount of money devoted to it is inadequate, it is perhaps one of the first steps towards planning the prices of the commodity, and I imagine that the Minister is going to plan the price of milk distributed to schools irrespective of the cost of the commodity. That is an important principle to introduce into the industrial life of this country. Once you introduce that principle you must inevitably, without any doubt, arrive at the position where private ownership and the means of production is entirely eliminated. We welcome it as a useful step in that direction.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. H. STEWART

I want to refer to the amount which has been set aside for the purposes of publicity. The right hon. Gentleman says that £50,000 per annum is to be set aside for advertising this immense industry. Speaking with some experience of advertising foodstuffs, I say deliberately that, if the amount is to be limited to that figure, it will be money completely wasted. I can give the right hon. Gentleman countless examples to show what it costs to produce a really effective campaign. I am not concerned with any interests, I am offering the benefit of what experience I have. The amount should be at least doubled or not spent at all. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. It would be better to spend these few thousands in providing more milk for the children than spend it in a way which will have no real effect.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I respond readily to the desire of the Committee for further information, as far as is possible, about the proposals in the Clause. I note the desire of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) that a larger proportion of the money should be spent on the cost of pure publicity, but I would beg of him to consider that the people who have examined this question have done so with a genuine desire to find the most useful sum which can be spent, and have come to this conclusion after full consideration. I can assure him that it is not a hasty decision. Now as to the proportion which is to be devoted to making the product advertise the product, making those who consume the product living examples of the usefulness of the slogan, "Drink more milk." The Committee welcomed the proposal I have already made, that about six-sevenths shall be devoted to this purpose. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me to give further details as to the price at which we hoped to supply milk, and the conditions under which we hoped to supply it. We intend to work upon the scheme which has been in operation for some time under the National Milk Publicity Council.

This scheme, which is now supplying something like 900,000 children with milk, is working well, and I think it is the desire of all sections of the Committee to build upon the existing foundation. We shall thus have the benefit of previous experience and of working along lines which the new people who are to be brought in will be able to see in operation. Under that scheme, milk is supplied while the child is attending school, and that is the line along which the initial arrangements, at any rate, will be made. The method is to supply a separate bottle to each child with a straw through which to consume the milk. That makes sure of absolute cleanliness and of slow absorption of the milk, which makes it more easily digested. On the question of price, we set before ourselves the ideal of at once halving the present price charged to schools, and I am sure that will meet with the approval of the Committee. Milk is at present supplied at one penny for one-third of a pint, and we hope as soon as we get the sanction to proceed under this Bill to reduce it forthwith to one halfpenny. That will apply to all those who are already receiving milk and to all new entrants. We hope that halving the price will act as an excellent advertisement, because I cannot imagine any more excellent advertisement for any food product than for people to realise that it can be bought at half the price it was before. The extent to which we can spread the milk at one halfpenny depends on the arrangements we are able to make with the Board and the arrangements the Board are able to make with the distributors. We shall do our best when sanctioning schemes to see that as hard a bargain as possible is driven, but I do not think we shall be able to drive distributors down to the rate suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who suggested one penny as a reasonable cost for distributing a gallon of milk.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

If the right hon. Gentleman will care to examine the OFFICIAL BEPOKT he will find that the tentative suggestion was 6d. As the people using manufacturing milk were to pay 3½d., there would be a margin of 2½d. in favour of the school milk. A penny or other copper was mentioned as suitable once a perfect scheme had been produced, but I never suggested a penny to meet all the cost.

Mr. ELLIOT

I had worked out a few details on that basis which I was going to give to the Committee. My hon. Friend mentions a penny or other copper, no doubt suggesting some larger copper coin which covers more than a penny, but I will not press him too far on that. It may be that in his part of the country larger and nobler copper coins circulate. I will not, however, press this point since we agree that some cost will have to be allowed for distribution and that that cost should not be unreasonably inflated. In passing this Clause, the Committee will sanction a stage in the Bill which will provide for the extension of a scheme which has already been tried out by experience and covers something like 1,000,000 children, and under which the difficulties foreseen by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol and others, in regard to the necessitous child are not nearly so dangerous in practice as they seem in theory. Hon. Members will be passing a Clause under which we should be able forthwith to bring down the price of milk from one penny to one halfpenny. That will come into operation as soon as may be. I doubt if it will be possible for it to come into operation before the school holidays, because I doubt if the Bill will be on the Statute Book before that time. If we get the Bill on the Statute Book in good time, we shall be able to bring it into operation the moment the children return from their school holidays. We should be able, on that basis, to find an arrangement by which, when the two years are up, the board themselves may continue a scheme. We hope that within the two years we can work out a scheme which can be continued after the expiry of State assistance. Without any hesitation, I say that this is a very considerable step forward in our agricultural and social policy. If this Clause is passed, it will not, as an hon. Member suggested, prove to be a poor and disappointing scheme, but a scheme which will be welcomed most heartily in all the homes in the land, and there are millions of them who will benefit.

Miss RATHBONE

The Minister has given some reassuring information. Will he tell us what he estimates will be the price paid to the trade per gallon for the milk; and, secondly, can he give us any idea of how many children will be able to receive milk under the scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT

The price per gallon is under close negotiation just now, and it will not be possible for me to give information. The new Milk Marketing Board have only just begun negotiations. On them, the hon. Lady will see depends the answer to her second question. I can certainly assure her that the number runs into millions, but it depends on the price which will have to be paid per gallon.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

We appreciate that it will be impossible for the Minister to give close details of a scheme which is more or less in the air. We do not expect him to tell us all about what may happen six months hence, but perhaps he will answer a question. It is recognised that the 900,000 children who are now receiving milk, and are paying at the rate of 2s. per gallon, will welcome the announcement that in future they will receive the milk at the rate of 1s. per gallon, but, so far as we understand, the unfortunate families who are unable to pay anything, either because the incomes are absurdly small or the families absurdly large, will be excluded from the scheme altogether. We should like to know how they are covered.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, his question is as to whether we can allow the milk to go for even a lower sum than one halfpenny. I do not think that a flat rate of a halfpenny per day is an extravagant charge. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the distribution of the milk in the schools has rather been in those in connection with which certain interests have taken up and pressed forward a scheme rather than in districts whether the stress of poverty is greater or less. It is the energetic organisation of schemes under these general proposals that is necessary, because, however poor the circumstances of the family, there are many hundreds of thousands more than already drink milk to-day who will be able to make the not very exaggerated contribution of ½d. towards a drink of milk for their children.

Captain HEILGERS

Would the Minister consider ear-marking for rural areas say one-seventh of this sum which is to be devoted to school children, because under the present system of distribution it seems likely that the rural areas will get hardly any of this money when it comes to be distributed, and, from my own experience of managing milk schemes for school children, the rural areas will need special consideration?

Mr. ELLIOT

I do not think I could undertake to ear-mark a portion of the sum for one locality or another. When the scheme is formulated it will be seen that it will be possible for all sections of the community to take advantage of it, and it will be up to any section to organise and press forward with a scheme. In that way we shall bring the benefit of these proposals to the rural as well as the urban areas, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be those who will. be willing to ensure that the rural areas do organise and press forward with schemes.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.