HC Deb 17 March 1932 vol 263 cc541-59
Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, at the end, to insert the words: and shall be laid before Parliament. I will address myself to the points that really matter. Clause 8, Sub-section (1) reads as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established under the control and management of the Flour Millers' Corporation a fund called the "Millers' Quota Fund" into which shall be paid all moneys received by the Corporation, and out of which shall be defrayed all expenditure incurred by the Corporation. Now I come to Sub-section (2) upon which my Amendment rests. It reads: (2) The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister. I want to go a stage further than that. With my Amendment inserted the Sub-section will read: (2) The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister, and shall be laid before Parliament. That is the passage upon which my argument will turn for about three or four minutes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) delighted us with a speech lasting for nearly two hours. I have never been guilty of speaking for longer than about half-an-hour or so. After all, this is a very important Clause. If hon. Members will turn to the Memorandum on the front page of the Bill, they will find that the only mention of any accountancy at all in connection with this Bill is to be found on page 2 of the Memorandum which reads as follows: The Wheat Commission will not be a Government Department, but provision is made for audit of their accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and a report by him to Parliament. I want to raise two points. I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell us what is the prescribed form and what type of auditor is to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture. I have had a little experience in the work of accountancy. I have been looking through a list of the Members of the Government, and, although I have found that there are any number of bankers, financiers and lawyers among them, have not found a single person on the Government bench who knows anything about accountancy. I do not know whether they could add two and two correctly. Although the House of Commons includes a large number of solicitors and a goodly number of bankers, while the most enlightened trade unionists in the land, of course, are here, I have not come across anyone who has done any auditing on a large scale, or who claims to know very much about accountancy. I do not myself claim to be an accountant, but, as no one else can deal with the subject, I venture on the task with humility.

While all other items of the State's income and expenditure are to be laid before Parliament under this Bill, it is obvious, from the Bill as it now stands, that the Millers' Quota Fund account will not be laid before Parliament at all. Any transaction upon which the State puts its seal should be presented to Parliament. My experience has been that about 98 per cent. of every section of the community will do the right thing, but the law is always passed in order to secure that the 2 or 3 per cent. who always do wrong shall be brought up to the standard of honour that the others claim for themselves. Therefore, we say that the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament may see, not only how the business works from a political or agricultural point of view, but how the money is expended, how it is collected, and how it is handed over to the farmer.

There is also the consumer's point of view, and we want to know whether the farmers, the Flour Millers' Corporation and the other people connected with the business, are exploiting the consumer. If the right hon. Gentleman is in office—as I hope he will not be for very long—he will have to decide what shall be the prescribed form of accountancy. Is it to be a simple income and expenditure account? Is it to be a debtor and creditor account? Will it include a profit and loss account? Will it show a dividend to be paid to the shareholders? There is a further and more important point. There are in this country several organisations of auditors and accountants, and I can conceive that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to the question of an auditor approved by the Minister, may find himself in a difficulty at once. The oldest and most famous institution of auditors in this country is the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I should imagine that there would be no difficulty about the Minister prescribing at once that a properly qualified chartered accountant should audit the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation. Labour Ministers, Conservative Ministers, and National Government Ministers would all agree that a properly qualified chartered accountant might be an auditor in such a case. But would the right' hon. Gentleman approve of a public accountant as an auditor for this purpose; or would he approve of an incorporated accountant There are people who audit accounts who have no title at all to any claim that they should audit the accounts of some firms, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to bring the science of auditing, in connection with this Bill, up to the highest possible standard that can be secured.

The CHAIRMAN

I have been looking al; the hon. Member's Amendment, and I do not see that the question of auditing comes into it at all. The Amendment merely says that these accounts, which the Bill already says shall be audited, are to be laid before Parliament.

Mr. DAVIES

I bow to your Ruling at once. I would only say that the names of the auditors are always included in the balance sheet of a firm, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman, when he lays these papers before Parliament, as we desire, will not only have to present the accounts themselves, but the name of the auditor will have to be shown at the foot of the balance sheet.

The CHAIRMAN

But that will not be a sufficient peg upon which to hang a discussion as to who may be the auditor.

Mr. DAVIES

Then I am bound to try to find another one. Like yourself, Sir, I have been a member of the Committee on Procedure, and I will keep strictly within the limits of order as prescribed by you. We have had to complain that the accounts of the Beet Sugar Subsidy have never been presented to Parliament except as a whole. It is simply the gross item of the subsidy from the State that go into those accounts. They are audited by a State auditor, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General accepts the fact that they have been audited. Those accounts are laid before Parliament. The accounts of the approved societies of this country, also, are brought before Parliament, and there is an auditor's report once every five years showing the financial situation of every approved society in the country. The Government will not be doing their duty, and will not bring about a proper standard of honour in public affairs, unless they not only lay before Parliament the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation, but give some indication to the House as to how those accounts are assembled from the details. The accounts of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which is the largest miller in the land, can be brought before Parliament at any time without any difficulty, and the Cooperative Wholesale Society will be part of the Flour Millers' Corporation. While, apparently, several of the other accounts mentioned in this Bill will be laid before Parliament, it is not intended, I understand, that these detailed items shall be brought before Parliament at all. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts me, let me say again that the words of the very Sub-section which I am attacking indicate that that is the case. It provides that The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister. But it stops there. I cannot see a word in the Bill anywhere indicating how the operations of this corporation are to be brought to light. The right hon. Gentleman's argument will probably be that the State does not expend any money on this particular corporation. I would say, in reply, that wherever the State sanctions the expenditure of money, or the collection of money from one section of the community and the handing of it over to another section, especially if the accounts are audited by the approval of a Department of State, those accounts ought to be laid before Parliament. There is nothing to prevent this Bill from becoming law, and, when it becomes law, I should like to see that nothing is done in connection with the financial transactions under it that will offend the susceptibilities as regards honour of any section of the community of this country. One of the safeguards, therefore, for securing that everything is done clean and aboveboard in all these transactions is to accept the Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding words, that no one desires that anything should be hidden that ought to he disclosed and that we ought to be very careful in all these transactions to see that proper regard is had to adequate supervision. As far as the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation are paid by the Wheat Commission, they will be part of the expenses of that Commission, and they will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament, so that, as far as regards that side of the problem, every safeguard is provided. The only other account of the Flour Millers' Corporation will be that which is connected with the trading operations which they will carry out at the end of the season, in June and July, purchasing the crops that are left on the farms, which they are bound to do under the obligation which the Minister makes under the Order in Clause 1 (3). That is an ordinary business transaction, and I do not know that there is any public advantage to be gained by requiring the Corporation to say, in the accounts that are laid before Parliament, whether it has made a profit or a loss on that transaction. It really is an ordinary trading operation the results of which will accrue to or become a liability of every miller. As long as they carry out the Order which the Minister imposes, the question whether they make a profit or a loss on the transaction does not really affect anyone except the millers themselves and that is a matter within their own organisation and is an obligation which they have undertaken to observe and, as long as the obligation is carried out, I can see no justification for imposing upon the Government the laying of these special accounts, nor can I see any real advantage from the point of view of the supervision here. All that this House has any reason to be anxious about is whether the Order which the Minister has made for the purchase of those things has been carried out. The accounts for such part of it as comes directly under the Wheat Commission, and for which the Wheat Commission is responsible, will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

We are happy to find that the Minister is in agreement with us that we should be very careful in regard to matters of this kind, and especially in regard to accounts kept for the purposes of the Flour Millers' Corporation. We must always remember who the Flour Millers' Corporation are. It is a body to be set up to consist of a chairman and four other persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies as in his opinion represent the interests of millers. 8.30 p.m.

They appear very often in the Bill. They come in, first of all, in Clause 1. They come in on the ground floor and they appear in subsequent Clauses one by one until the very end. In Clause 1 they are to be given power to buy certain wheat. The Minister made light of that, but the amount of trading to, be done by them is not negligible. They are entitled to buy as much as 12½ per cent. of the annual crop and to pay the full standard price if they deem it necessary. The purchase price of the full quantity may well run to nearly £2,000,000 in a year. In Clause 3 the Wheat Commission is to lay down by-laws to regulate the manner in which the price of home-grown millable wheat brought from registered growers by the Flour Millers' Corporation shall be determined according to quality and market conditions by reference to the price specified in the Order. After getting general directions from the Wheat Commission, these people set themselves up as a responsible trading authority and buy and sell in their own sweet way—these four jolly millers, doing what they jolly well like so long as they are more or less working on the general lines submitted by the Wheat Commission. Again, we find that the Wheat Commission can make certain payments with the consent of the Flour Millers' Corporation. I find that in Clause 4 (3), the Flour Millers' Corporation giving its consent, being set up as a body superior to the Wheat Commission itself. This consent is to be given for the payment of such sums by that Corporation on behalf of registered millers and, if the Commission are satisfied that there is at any time a Corporation representative of the importers of flour, the like provision may, with the consent of that Corporation, be made with respect to the payment of such sums by that Corporation on behalf of importers of flour. They have very extensive functions and all we ask is that, when this body has very large trading accounts—there is a large amount of trade being done, involving the carrying out of very delicate responsibilities—it is not sufficient that the fund should be audited by an auditor approved by the Minister. It is important enough that its accounts shall be presented at the end of the year. They may not necessarily be debated in the House but there will be an opportunity, if the accounts are submitted, for debating and checking the work done by the Flour Millers' Corporation, a body responsible only to millers, who are only representative of the millers and have no other interest in their mind and no responsibility to anyone else except the Flour Millers' Corporation. I think the Minister ought to come to an agreement with us on the Amendment, because there will be a great deal of suspicion. The farmers will be suspicious. The millers have looked after themselves, because they are strong enough. They tied the Minister up before the Bill was introduced. They have got their terms. Other interests have not been so influential. We hope the Minister will see to it that an annual statement of accounts, with details of the expenditure and income of the Millers' Quota Fund, shall be presented to the House and that we shall be privileged to see from time to time how this body performs its duties.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

May I put one point which seems to me of some importance? I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says there is no public advantage achieved by the submission of these accounts to Parliament. I think it will be agreed that the general public is very deeply concerned in the matter and, after all, the House of Commons is not here to look after millers or wheat producers or any special section or interest of that sort. It is here mainly to look after the interests of the general public. It seems to me that the general public's interest, from the point of view of the Wheat Commission, is amply safeguarded. Their accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. As I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), the Wheat Commission in certain respects will operate under the guidance or instructions of the Flour Millers' Corporation. Let us assume that the Auditor-General in due time comes before the Public Accounts Committee in order to give explanations for which the Public Accounts Committee may ask concerning his audit. A question may be asked of him by a member of the committee as to why this, that or the other thing was done, and the reply will be, "Oh, it was done under the advice or the instruction of the Flour Millers' Corporation." Surely, it is not an adequate answer to give to a Committee of this House that something was done under the instruction of this organisation, and that, having given that reply, there was nothing more to be said.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as the Committee know, there will be vast operations conducted by this corporation, and everyone knows that from time to time the House is presented with a volume dealing with trading accounts. I do not see why accounts ranging over such vast sums of money as £1,000,000 or 2,000,000 should not in the ordinary course of things be brought for review before the Committee specially set up by the House every year in order to review the expenditure of money authorised by the House, and in regard to a portion of which, indirectly anyhow, the House is specially concerned. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a very strong case for a review of the work of the Wheat Commission, and that the work of the Wheat Commission cannot be complete or entirely satisfactory unless you also have an adequate review, if possible, of the work of the Flour Millers' Corporation. If we could get that proposal accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, I think that we should thereby be safeguarding for the House complete control of the whole of the operations involved in the work both of the Wheat Commission and of the Flour Millers' Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman from that point of view ought to recon Sider the answer which he has already given.

Sir J. GILMOUR

We must have clearly in our minds how this thing will operate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, when these accounts are laid before Parliament, shall be in a position to give the fullest information upon everything which is material. I do not think that there is any doubt that that will be the case because the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation, as far as they are linked with the Wheat Commission—any transactions which are controlled indirectly between those two bodies—in every respect will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Let us assume that they are subject to review. Who in due time, therefore, will appear before the Public Accounts Committee to give an account supplementary to that of the Auditor-General?

Sir J. GILMOUR

The provision is that the account will be laid, and I have no doubt that if anything further from the Auditor-General is required—and as it is the Department and the Minister who are responsible for certain orders in connection with this matter, and for the orders which are brought before the House—no doubt in the ordinary way the Department will be there to answer such questions as may be asked. As I understand it, the only thing which is not dealt with in this matter is the transaction which takes place at the close of the year, when, not through the Wheat Commission, but by a direct order of the Minister, the remaining stocks of wheat upon the farm up to 12½ per cent. are directed to be purchased at a price which is to be determined. Those transactions will have nothing to do with the Wheat Commission. They are responsibilities taken on under agreement by the millers. It is a transaction which they have taken upon themselves and are bound to carry out, and it is entirely a question between individual millers who have given that undertaking and really does not concern anything which touches or impinges upon the levies upon flour.

Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no real anxiety from the point of view of Parliament. It is true, of course, that our anxiety will be to see that the order of the Minister is carried out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I will look at this side of the problem very carefully between now and the Report stage. Frankly, I do not want to impose upon an outside body which is taking on this responsibility, the repercussion of which, whether it is profit or loss, is no concern of mine as long as the order is carried out, an unnecessary further liability, nor de I think that the Houses of Parliament are concerned with anything other than seeing that the order is carried out. But I repeat, I will go into the question very carefully between now and the Report stage.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there is no public money whatever involved in the flour millers' quota fund?

Sir J. GILMOUR

No, Sir, not in this transaction. It is the latter part of the year transaction. Any accounts concerned with the funds of the quota under the Wheat Commission will come before the Auditor-General. The only thing which is not so provided for is that at the end of the season, which has no connection with the matter, which is clear of the Wheat Fund and purely a matter of profit and loss between the millers in the country and which is for themselves internally to settle.

Mr. ATKINSON

Suppose the Auditor-General finds something wrong and something, which, if it had to do with an employer, it would be his duty to report upon. There is nothing that I can see here which imposes any duty upon him to report to the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps was not in the Chamber at the time, but I have already pointed out that the question of the auditor and his duties does not arise on the Amendment. It is merely a question of whether the accounts shall be laid before Parliament or not.

Mr. ATKINSON

It is particularly in connection with that point that I am asking the question. If they are not laid before Parliament, how is anybody to know whether anything is wrong with the accounts? If there were a provision somewhere that the auditor should report to the Minister, the Minister himself could see the accounts. I am pointing out that there is no provision, anywhere for anyone to see the accounts except the auditor, and there is no duty imposed upon the auditor to report if there is anything wrong. It seems, therefore, that unless some provision of that sort is made, there is a case for saying that the accounts ought to come before us.

Mr. LOGAN

I am pretty well satisfied with the statement made by the Minister, but I am not satisfied that we ought to withdraw the Amendment. The full particulars of the new venture ought to be placed before the House of Commons. There is much to be said in favour of the audit, but it is proposed practically to give plenary powers to the Flour Millers' Corporation, and, if they carry them out in conformity with the regulations laid down, there will be duly audited accounts which, according to the Flour Millers' Corporation, may be considered to be true accounts. But, with all due respect, I do not think that we ought to give to the Flour Millers' Corporation plenary powers to deal with something that is in the nature of a national experiment. If the Flour Millers' Corporation were a Department of this House it would be a different matter, but this scheme is something Which the Government have brought forward and in which the nation is vitally interested. We have the right to insist on the acceptance of our Amendment; otherwise, we ought to go to a vote.

We ask that these matters should be laid before Parliament. To whom would representations be made if there were defalcations? There is no corporation in the country that would have their accounts certified in the mariner in which the Government are asking that these accounts should be certified, and without being brought before the notice of the House. We ought to carry the Amendment. The Government have nothing to be afraid of in bringing before Parliament a detailed statement of accounts. There ought not to be any secrecy. Difficulties may arise with the farmers. Details ought to be given to the House of Commons, especially when we are dealing with things of such colossal magnitude. I am sure that the Audit Department will do the thing in a proper manner, and that the certification will be accurate, but that certification will be only a certification according to the power that is vested in a particular body to carry out its duties, and when it has carried out those duties it will have been made a close corporation, and we shall have no power to go into the question of details. Secrecy ought to go by the board. No one knows what this venture will mean. No one knows anything about the finance of it. There is no data to go upon. The Minister will be well advised to lay all the particulars before the House. The National Government seem to be making a close corporation of the Flour Millers' Corporation. We only ask that reasonable methods should be adopted for acquainting Parliament and the country with the facts.

Mr. JENNINGS

As a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, I would say that if any outside auditor was appointed in these circumstances and anything was wrong, he would be bound to do his duty. If any public money was involved, he would certainly bring it to the notice of the Minister, who would feel that he would be justified in bringing it to the attention of Parliament.

Mr. LOGAN

Perhaps the hon. Member does not know of companies where they have not done that.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. In moving this Amendment, we cast no reflection upon any auditor or association of auditors. The right hon. Gentleman is not too certain of the actual application of the words in the Bill or of the words in the Amendment. Therefore, we think it will be much better if we give him an opportunity between now and the Report stage to re-examine the whole question in the light of the discussion. As he is willing to do that, we are willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, after the word "stocks," to insert the words: (including administrative expenses incurred by the corporation in connection therewith). The object of the Amendment is to provide that any administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in the purchase and disposal of the end-of-season stock by an Order made by the Minister under Clause 1 (3), shall be shown in a separate account, and, by consequential Amendments to Clause 9, shall not be paid by the Wheat Commission. As the administrative expenses will fall to be borne by the millers and will not be deducted from the deficiency payments to the growers, that emphasises the fact that the later period charges are being entirely borne by the millers.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of the Amendment is to make it quite certain that the whole of these administrative expenses will fall entirely upon the Flour Millers' Corporation and not upon the administrative expenses, under Clause 9 (1), which are to be paid by the Wheat Commission. I am not certain how the administrative expenses are to be distinguished. This Amendment refers to the administrative expenses incurred in connection with the purchase and disposal of end-of-season stock. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the administrative expenses for that particular item are to be distinguished from the general administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation? I presume that the same people will be administering it. Is it intended to have some separate allocation?

Sir J. GILMOUR

It will be simple for those who are dealing with this matter to keep the accounts separately. There will be the operations that will take place under an Order made by the Minister to deal with the 12½. per cent. It will be well known by those who are dealing with the matter that all these operations will have to be kept separate. They will be kept in separate accounts.

Mr. ATKINSON

This Amendment deserves very serious consideration. This Clause has troubled me more than any other clause in the Bill. My difficulty is to see how the Millers' Corporation are to pay these administration expenses. The Bill, as drawn, is quite clear in Clause 9. The words there are wide enough to cover all the administration expenses including the expenses of buying and selling, but the Amendment provides that part of the administration expenses, which were intended to be borne by the Wheat Commission, should fall on the Millers' Corporation. If we look at the history of this fund we shall see if there is ever going to be any money in it. The Corporation is to consist of five persons, and starts without a penny. There is no provision for bringing any money into the fund. The first words you have are in Clause 8, Sub-section (3) which says that they shall have the power to borrow money; but it is a very limited power of borrowing. It is a power to borrow: such sums as may be required by them for the purchase of any stocks of wheat which they are required by an order made by the Minister to buy. That cannot happen at the earliest until June, 1933, because no order can be made for them to buy anything until then, and it is only a power to borrow sufficient money for the purchase of any stocks of wheat. Look what they will have to do. The price they will have to pay is obviously going to be the top price, because it is a purchase between a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is going to be the top market price because you assume that they are going to buy; and the money they will have to borrow and pay will be on the highest scale. Having borrowed the money they pay it away in the purchase of the wheat, and then they have to undertake the selling of the wheat. They will be selling in an overbought market, because this is wheat which has not been absorbed by the market, otherwise it would not be there for purchase. Therefore, there are no willing buyers and they will have to sell at something less than the market price in order to induce unwilling purchasers to buy. Any business man will see that there is not the smallest prospect of their selling at a profit. There is the moral certainty that they will sell at a loss, and having realised the best price they possibly can and got a sum of money into their account their first duty is to repay the money that has been borrowed; and there will not be enough to do this. Certainly there will be nothing left with which to pay administration expenses. Those who originally drafted this Clause realised that probably there would be a loss because at the end of Sub-section (4) it is provided that: any loss shown by it the said accounts to have been incurred in any cereal year upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable from millers in the like proportion. 9.0 p.m.

What is it that is recoverable from the millers? It is not the administration expenses. It is the amount of the loss incurred by the sale of the stock. Think what that means. We have heard large sums mentioned, but what ever the loss is it has to be divided amongst some hundreds of millers and recovered from them. What is going to be the expense of recovering vast numbers of small sums from a great number of millers all over the country? Someone will have to make up the accounts and send them out, and do the collecting, and it is a very ex- pensive matter; yet all these expenses are thrown upon a Corporation which has no means whatever of paying. Even if they recover from the millers the loss incurred in buying and selling they have no power of recovering administration expenses. As far as I can see this Corporation is bound to be insolvent from the start. They cannot realise sufficient to pay the amount borrowed, and if they are successful in recovering the loss in buying and selling from the millers there is no provision to enable them to recover their administration expenses, which will have to be borne by a Corporation which has nothing. Who is going to loan money to the Corporation in these circumstances? And on what terms will they be able to borrow money? They have no resources. They have no Government guarantee behind them; and I cannot see where they are going to borrow the money. At what rate of interest will they be able to borrow money? The question of the solvency of this fund needs far more serious consideration than it has received. It is a step in the wrong direction to take part of the expenses which were to be borne by the Wheat Commission and throw them upon an insolvent fund which can never be in a position to pay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I quite appreciate the argument submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) and there seems to be no reply to it. But despite that fact we welcome the Amendment. Originally the consumer was to meet all the expenses of the Wheat Commission and the Millers' Corporation, and we agree that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a slight casement of the burden on the consumer. The millers will have to pay their own expenses of buying and selling. I do not agree that the interpretation submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham is the only interpretation that can be read into this Clause. If the Flour Millers' Corporation have the power to borrow such sums as they may require for the purchase of any stocks of wheat there is nothing in the Clause to confine them to the month of June in which to exercise these borrowing powers. I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member that this may not include administration expenses but I am quite certain that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) could argue that it would include administration expenses in the buying and selling of this stock.

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I thought his point was that the Millers' Corporation would start the year with no funds available; that, as the first Order could not be made until the end of the cereal year, they would be for 12 months without any funds at all, and, that, when the end of the cereal year arrived, and the Minister issued an Order insisting upon the Millers' Corporation purchasing 12½ per cent. of the surplus output, then and only then, their borrowing powers would come into operation. The hon. and learned Member suggests that they will be able to borrow such sums as will be necessary to cover the buying and selling, but not to provide administrative expenses. That I understood to be the hon. and learned Member's point but I submit that the words "shall have power to borrow such sums as may be required" are all-inclusive and would cover the point referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I submit that those words would permit the Millers' Corporation to borhow all such sums as may be required at the end of the cereal year, provided that the Minister has embodied in one of his regulations permission for the Corporation to obtain the sums necessary for administrative purposes.

We recognise that this Amendment is well-intentioned, and we readily support it. We see no reason why a Millers' Corporation who have been brought together to perform for themselves a real lucrative piece of business should invite the consumers of bread to pay their administrative expenses. The Minister may be charged by some of his colleagues in days to come with being responsible for forming this fund. We have heard about a certain political party being no longer a party but a fund. It may be argued in future that the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill formed a fund out of which came the co-operative organsation which was the starting point of the nationalisation of the milling industry and so forth. From that point of view we see value in the Clause and in the Amendment. We have no apprehensions as to the Millers' Corporation being able to carry on their good work. We welcome the Amendment of the Minister as at least enabling the Corporation to pay some part of the administrative expenses during the time they are carrying out their duties. Since the millers will be in a national combine and will be called upon annully to purchase a certain amount of wheat which they know they can always dispose of, whether in poultry food, or wheat meal, or cattle food or for some other purpose, I am sure they will not buy that wheat at a price which they know is going to result in a loss to themselves. Their profits over a long period of time indicate that they know how to conduct their business. They have been conducting their business profitably on individual lines for such a long period that I am convinced, that when they are brought together as a Millers' Corporation, and are co-operating, there will be no doubt about the profitable nature of the business which this Bill will enable them to do.

Amendment agreed to.