§ Sir JOSEPH LAMBI beg to move, in page 26, line 7, to leave out the word "a" and to insert instead thereof "an independent."
784 If my Amendment is adopted, paragraph 1 will then read,
and shall consist of an independent, chairman.When I first- read this Schedule, I thought there must be a printer's error 785 in this paragraph, and I am moving this Amendment in order to see whether that is the case or not. I do not know of any commission where an independent chairman has not been appointed. The wages board has an independent chairman. Of course, I am aware that much depends on what you call an independent man, but there has been no difficulty in finding independent chairmen for various public boards, and I am sure that we shall be able to find an independent chairman in this case.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think that the request which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has made in moving this Amendment is one which the Minister must necessarily have in mind in making the appointment. The great difficulty is to find out what is actually meant by independent. The Wheat Commission will be a body composed of a great variety of interests and representatives of different methods of production. It is really almost impossible to define what you actually mean by an independent person. Clearly, what we shall aim at in appointing the chairman of such a body is to get somebody who is known to the general public, is respected as being level-headed and independent in mind, and who will preside with a knowledge of affairs over such a body. We may wish to appoint a public man who may have been interested in other businesses than those with which the Commission have to deal, and he might or might not have farmed land in the past. It is very difficult to find a word which will satisfactorily achieve what we all wish. It is our intention to invite someone to preside over the Wheat Commission who shall not be directly or actually connected with the agricultural industry, but our choice would be limited by the words which have been proposed in the Amendment, and I am afraid that I cannot accept this proposal.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThe Minister of Agriculture is particularly hard to please. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is unable to find a form of words which will make it certain that a person will be appointed as chairman who is, broadly speaking, an independent person. The right hon. Gentleman has already given us a number of definitions of what he means by independent. He has told us that the chairman should be someone 786 known to the public, respected, and independent in mind. Why not put those words in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it might suit him to appoint someone not directly connected with the agricultural industry. If that is so, why not put it in the Bill. Whenever we make a suggestion, we are told that we must rely upon the right hon. Gentleman to choose the best methods. This is only another instance of an attempt to fob off a most desirable Amendment, and one which would command the confidence of the public. The public would realise and feel that the chairman was an independent person, and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is shying at in refusing to put in this very obvious word. We shall certainly support the Amendment in the Lobby.
Captain CROOKSHANKIf the chairman is going to be independent, why not say so in the Bill. [Interruption.] All that noise does not impress me at all. Paragraph 2 stipulates who the members of the Commission shall be other than the chairman and vice-chairman, and it provides for the representation of growers, millers, importers of flour, dealers, and the consumers of flour. Therefore, the chairman must be more or less independent, and could not be connected with the growing, milling or importation of wheat. I think we might include the word "independent," which means something to the outside public, and, if paragraph 2 has any meaning at all, it probably covers what the Minister has in mind. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment now, f hope he will reconsider the matter on the Report stage.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWe have any number of Acts of Parliament dealing with industrial disputes in which it is provided that there shall be an independent chairman. Perhaps the term "independent" goes too far, because, whoever the chairman might be, he must be allowed to consume a certain amount of flour, unless he were a Scotsman who lived on oatmeal.
§ Mr. LANSBURYCannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest some other words? This is a very important matter. Here are two of the most loyal supporters of the right hon. Gentleman asking him to do an ordinary, common-place, common sense thing, that is to say, to put in a 787 word to define what he really means. He wants this man to be independent—or it might be a woman for all that I know. He wants an independent person as chairman. What is his reason for not putting that word in? He has given us none. He has said a lot of words, but at the end of them I could not understand what it was that he was driving at. Every other body of this kind has an independent chairman. I have sometimes grumbled about these independent chairmen, because they do not have a workman as an independent chairman when it is a question of settling wages. Why, then, should one of these people be allowed to come in in this case?
If the Schedule goes through as it stands, there will be four growers of home-grown millable wheat. As we do not know what millable wheat is, I do not know how they are going to be appointed. There are to be three members repesenting the interests of millers of flour. I call special attention to the words "representing the interests." They are going to look after their own interests in this business. Then the interests of importers of flour are to be represented. Parliament is doing a fine thing in setting up a commission to look after private interests, the interests of a set of monopolists in the country, and is going to spend £6,000,000 in doing it Surely, the Minister is not going to be so hard-faced as to say that he will not meet this proposal of his hon. Friends behind him, even if he will not listen to my hon. and learned Friend, who has helped to
§ make this Bill a little more workable than it otherwise would be.
§ This is a matter of principle, and I am sorry that there are not more industrialists here to-night. I think that, in discussing a Bill of this kind, and especially on an Amendment like this, we ought to have had the assistance of people who have had experience of bodies of this sort—statutory bodies which have to determine wages, or which have to determine conditions as to traffic and so on in the country—in showing the necessity of insisting, not on some vague promise of the Minister, but on declaring in actual words that the chairman should be independent. I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will agree that throughout the discussions on this Bill my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have helped to make the Bill a little better than it otherwise would have been; why should he be so adamant on this matter? Why not put it in the Bill and have done with it, rather than be such a stickler about something with which he agrees? I hope that the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will both go into the Lobby with us if the Minister does not give way, and will stand for this principle which they think so vital, and which we agree with them in thinking so vital.
§ Question put, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Schedule."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 48.
789| Division No. 132.] | AYES | [7.50 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.) | Boyce, H. Leslie | Cross, R. H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Crossley, A. C. |
| Allen, Lt. -Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.) | Broadbent, Colonel John | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Dickie, John p. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Burghley, Lord | Donner, P. W. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Burnett, John George | Drewe, Cedric |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Butt, Sir Alfred | Duckworth, George A. V. |
| Atkinson, Cyril | Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Eales, John Frederick |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Eastwood, John Francis |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Eden, Robert Anthony |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) | Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Elmley, Viscount |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.) | Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Clarry, Reginald George | Emrys-Evans, P. V. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Clayton, Dr- George C. | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton w.) | Colville, John | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Blindell, James | Conant, R. J. E. | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Borodale, Viscount | Cook, Thomas A. | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Cooper, A. Duff | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Boulton, W. W. | Crooke, J. Smedley | Ford, Sir Patrick J. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Fox, Sir Gifford |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | McKie, John Hamilton | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McLean, Major Alan | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeeton) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Macmillan, Maurice Harold | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Goff, Sir Park | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Goldie, Noel B. | Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Margesaon, Capt. Henry David R. | Salmon, Major Isidore |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Greene, William P. C. | Martin, Thomas B. | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Scone, Lord |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Milne, Charles | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Hales, Harold K. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Hartland, George A. | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n) | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Moreing, Adrian C. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Morgan, Robert H. | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Stones, James |
| Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Morrison, William Shephard | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Moss, Captain H. J. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Hoare, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Munro, Patrick | Templeton, William P. |
| Hornby, Frank | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Howard, Tom Forrest | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Nunn, William | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Palmer, Francis Noel | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Pearson, William G. | Ward, Lt. -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Peat, Charles U. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Kirkpatrick, William M. | Penny, Sir George | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Knebworth, Viscount | Pike, Cecil F. | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Potter, John | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) | Powell, Lieut. -Col. Evelyn G. H. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Leckie, J. A. | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Pybus, Percy John | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Levy, Thomas | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Liddall, Walter S. | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Womersley, Walter James |
| Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Ratcliffe, Arthur | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Llewellin, Major John J. | Rea, Walter Russell | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Held, James S. C. (Stirling) | |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lovat Fraser, James Alexander | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Sir Victor Warrender and Com |
| Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Robinson, John Roland | mander Southby. |
| Mabane, William | Ropner, Colonel L. | |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Groves, Thomas E. | Maxton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grundy, Thomas W. | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, George Henry | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Brown, Brig. -Gon. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Holdsworth, Herbert | Price, Gabriel |
| Cove, William G. | Jenkins, Sir William | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Thorne, William James |
| Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Wragg, Herbert |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | TELLERS FOR THB NOES.— |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) | Sir Joseph Lamb and Mr. Cordon |
| Macdonald. |
Motion made, and Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, he the first Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir J. LAMBI beg to move, I page 26, line 8, to leave out the words "a vice-chairman."
I think a vice-chaiman will be unnecessary in this case, and I rather 790 imagine that no vice-chairman has been appointed for any of the other Commissions. If there were, as I had hoped, an independent chairman, it would be his duty to be present when all major busi- 791 ness was being done, and, if it should be necessary at any time that a vice-chairman should take the chair, it would be competent for the Commission themselves to appoint someone temporarily to occupy that position. As I understand that the chairman and vice-chairman may, and probably will, be paid, it seems to be an unnecessary expense to appoint a vice-chairman.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think that, if my hon. Friend considers the kind of position that the vice-chairman will have to occupy, he will realise that it is necessary, in the case of a body of such importance as this, to have a "second string." For instance, the chairman may be ill at some time or other. It is our intention to select for this post some person of outstanding public importance who will in fact be independent, although I do not know how it would be possible to define that. [Interruption.] It is a matter of degree. Both of these gentlemen will be selected with the sole view of making the machinery work as practically and easily as possible. It is essential that there should be 8.0 p.m. a relief for the chairman. This body will work partly in sub-committees at times, and it may be essential for them sometimes to move to some other part of the country in order to hear evidence; and, if that were to happen, it is likely that the vice-chairman would be used for that purpose. I think the idea that there is going to be a great deal of cost in it will not be realised.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWe were very willing to support the last Amendment, which we thought would improve the Bill, but, when it comes to a wrecking Amendment of this sort, we think it would hardly be fair to the hon. Gentleman or to the Minister, and I am afraid we cannot support it.
§ Sir J. LAMBIn view of the view taken on the opposite side, may I have permission to withdraw?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move, in page 26, line 8, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
The original numbers in the Bill are a chairman, a vice-chairman and 12 other 792 persons. The reason it was kept at that number was that we were very anxious not to make this body too large. On the other hand, we have had a considerable number of representations from various quarters asking that their interests should be considered, and on further consideration we have come to the conclusion that we should make this addition, making a commission of 17 all told. There will be the representatives of the farmers, the millers and the importers of flour—and I propose to add a representative of the baking interest—and we increase the number of the consumers, by a subsequent Amendment, from two to four. I hope this will meet certainly the greater part of the representations that have been made to me and to the Ministry since the Bill was published. I think we still keep a reasonable balance and do not make the body unwieldy.
§ Sir J. LAMBOn a point of Order. May I ask whether this will affect the two Amendments down later, one in my name, to leave out "twelve," and insert "sixteen," and one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "eight"?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Question I have to put is, "That the word 'twelve'stand part." If that word is left out, it will then be open to the Committee to decide what shall be put in its place. In other words, I think the proper procedure is to discuss the other alternative numbers on this Amendment, and then, if the Committee desire, they can divide on the other Amendments without discussion. If the first Amendment that is put, to insert one figure in place of twelve, is carried, that is the end of it.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIf we all agree that the word "twelve" shall not stand part, I presume the discussion can be initiated on the Question that the word "fifteen" be inserted?
§ The CHAIRMANIn that case—it has sometimes been done—if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will take the sense of the Committee immediately on the Question, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Schedule."
§ Question, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.
793§ Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' be there inserted."
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWe have a, number of Amendments to substitute for "twelve," among others the word "twenty." It was not because we had a desire unduly to enlarge the numbers, but we wanted to make room for an adequate representation of consumers without reducing to too small a number all the other parties. We felt that, for instance, if you want representation of importers of flour, one is rather a small number. We were working on the number "twenty" as enlarging generally the representation of all classes. We are prepared to accept fifteen provided the number is so split up among the various parties as to give the consumers at least half of the representation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member snorts with indignation at the idea.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEI laughed at the foolish idea. That is all.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI appreciate that to the hon. and gallant Gentleman everything is foolish that is not farming, but I would remind him that the consumer is the gentleman who is going to pay the £6,000,000. Surely he is entitled to at least half the representation on the Wheat Commission, which is to play such a big part both in advising the Minister, in making by-laws and regulations and so on. The Wheat Commission, as I understand it, has two main functions. The first is that of advising the Minister on all the operations under the Bill as regards the general policy, as regards the fixation of prices and quantities and so on, and the second, that of laying down a code by which all the dealings in wheat will be regulated after the passing of the Bill. It is obvious that on such a body you have to have representatives of the various interests with which the Wheat Commission will be dealing. You have to have the farmers, the millers, and the importers represented, but the important question of policy which will have to be decided first is where the majority is to lie. Assume for a, moment that there comes a split on some major question of policy. Do you want the majority inevitably to lie against the consumer or do you not? That seems to us to be an important matter to decide before you come down to deciding details of how the different interests are to be represented.
794 You have what we hope is going to be an independent chairman, and you have your vice-chairman, who, we hope, will also be independent. Therefore, you have your two independent persons, who will act as arbiters, I suppose, in case of any dispute between the two sides. On the Commission itself, unless you give the consumers, including the bakers, half the representation, you will inevitably get the dice loaded against them on every occasion, because the farmer will naturally be out to get the most that he can. He will be out to make the regulations as favourable as possible for himself. The farmers are not impartial persons who happen to be farmers. They are there and it is their job to represent the interests of the growers of home-grown millable wheat. Similarly, the persons who go there as millers are there to represent the interests of the millers. They are not there to make an impartial tribunal, happening to be millers. They may not be millers at all, but their job, as stated in the Schedule, is to represent certain interests, and, inevitably, if they do their job as pointed out in the Schedule, they will have to represent those interests.
Those who represent the interests of the millers, the importers of flour, and the dealers in home-grown millable wheat will all be more likely to favour the farmers' interest than that of the consumers. They will not be concerned in protecting the consumers' interests, and they will inevitably come together to make the best out of the Bill for their specific interests. If the consumers are to be in a permanent minority, so that in no circumstances can they ever get a vote carried against the particular interests that are represented, that will be a very unfortunate state of affairs which will inevitably lead people to be suspicious and to be antagonistic to the Wheat Commission because, however anxious one is that the farmer or the miller or anyone else should get a fair deal, the division on the Commission as constituted will inevitably come between those who have financial interests in operations like farming, milling, importing, and so on, and the general consumer. Unless you can balance those two sides, with your impartial chairman and vice-chairman to act as arbitrators, you will inevitably get the balance loaded against the consumer.
795 It is for that reason that we are so anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should consider very carefully whether it would not be better, instead of having 15, to have an even number so that you can have half of the even number given to the special interests and half to the consuming interests. If you have 15, inevitably one side or the other must have a majority of one, and we are most anxious, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is, that the Commission should not appear to be biased, and should not be accused of being biased, in favour of the vested interests that are represented on it. If he can see his way so to arrange the representation that the consumer gets at least half the representation, we shall be quite satisfied to have a smaller number than 20–16 or 14 or whatever number he thinks right.
§ The CHAIRMANI should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to help me if he will. I want to keep the discussion in order. In the discussion on this Amendment we are, of course, covering the next two, one in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), to insert "twenty," and the other in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to insert "fourteen," and also that in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) to insert "sixteen." I suggest that it would cover also the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member at the bottom of the page—in page 26, line 14, to leave out the word "three" and to insert instead thereof the word "two"—and that of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in line 20, to leave out "two members" and to insert "one member," and that of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), in line 21 to leave out "two" and insert "six," and that in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), to leave out "two" and insert "three." I think the others ought to be taken separately, but I think I am right in saying that all these have to do with the number to be allotted to the consumer.
§ Sir J. LAMBIs it to include the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley).
§ The CHAIRMANIf the Committee agree, I shall have to take the discussion on all those Amendments together.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEYIncluding the one in my name also?
§ The CHAIRMANYes, I think so, unless the hon. and learned Member can explain that it is entirely different.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI am willing that my Amendment shall also be taken now.
§ The CHAIRMANIf that is the case, the discussion will also cover the Amendment immediately before in the name of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter)—in page 26, line 13, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof, the word two.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI cannot help feeling that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is unduly anxious about the consumer. The consumer has been dealt with mainly by the Bill. I am very anxious, as far as the Members of the Commission are concerned, about the farmer. The farmer is the person who is to bear the whole brunt of the cost of the Commission, and it is vital that for this purpose, as he is the sufferer and most interested in having economical and good management, he should have the largest representation. If the Minister is determined to give the consumer the larger number, I shall have to urge upon him to make the total number larger than the 15 which he is proposing. In order to make good the point which I am making, I would call the attention of the Committee to the deficiency payment. The main duty of the Wheat Commission is to provide for the deficiency payment which is the difference between the average price and the standard price. The standard price is fixed. To arrive at the average price is a more mechanical business. It has to be done by the Minister after consultation with the Wheat Commission it is true, but to define the average price of the sales which have taken place from documents put before it is a matter of accountancy. There is one deduction to be made from the deficiency payment. Clause 1 says:
subject to the deduction to be made under the provisions of this Act relating to administrative expenses.797 The only deduction from the difference between the average price and the standard price is the administrative expenses. It is clearly laid down in Clause 9 that the whole of the expenses of the Wheat Commission are administrative expenses which are to be deducted from the deficiency payment which is to be made to the farmer. I believe that I am right in saying that there is one thing in respect of which there is to be no deduction as administrative expenses, namely, the cost of the Millers' Corporation round about the purchase of the 12½ per cent. of the anticipated supply if they have not bought the full quantity during the cereal year. Beyond that the whole of the expenses fall upon the deficiency payment which is the fixed price I have already mentioned, and which comes under Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which says:The following expenses shall be deemed to form part of the administrative expenses of the Wheat Commission:—The whole of the expenses of the Wheat Commission, the Millers' Corporation, and the expenses the Minister can certify to be due to bringing the Act into operation, or anything to do with the Act, are to be deducted from the deficiency payment paid to the farmer. [Interruption.] The deficiency payment comes from the contribution levied upon the miller. I am not suggesting that the miller has not some interest, but his interest is really slight compared with that of the farmer. It is undoubtedly true that the miller or the dealer has an interest in having the working of the Wheat Commission carried out so as to give the least friction to trade or to the business in which they are concerned. I 798 can see that. Therefore, I am not suggesting that he should not be represented, but that the whole expenses voted for the purpose of this machinery has to come out of what Parliament votes for the deficiency payment to be handed over to the grower. The hon. and learned Gentleman was exaggerating, as far as the working of the Wheat Commission is concerned, the interests of the consumer. I would urge the further point upon him that if under the Measure the quantity of wheat grown exceeds the 27,000,000 cwts. the deficiency payment is to be so much diminished. Therefore, again it is the interest of the farmers which come in and not the interests of the consumers.
- (a) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation;
- (b) any expenditure which may lawfully be incurred by the Commission under this section in paying the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation or of any other corporation;
- (c) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred by any Government Department for the purposes of this Act, and any charge for services certified by the Minister to have been rendered with the consent of the Treasury by any such Department;
- (d) any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred by the committee to be appointed under Subsection (2) of Section two of this Act."
I have sat here many days and have listened to a number of speeches from the benches below in which it has been said that the consumer would have to pay, and that it would be very hard upon the poor. That is all right. It is quite true, but that has been settled by the Bill itself, and by the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not going to be improved by the working of the Wheat Commission. If the Minister intends to make the Wheat Commission really work, the person who will find the money will be the farmer. I am very grateful indeed for the Bill, because I think that it will benefit the corn-growing industry very enormously, much more than the farmers from Bethnal Green and gentlemen of that kind who address the Committee really understand or can appreciate. We are now dealing with the persons who are to control the working of the machine and to decide whether or not this money is to go in expenses. It is perfectly fair that the grower should have larger representation. He is the man who is interested in reducing the expenses and in seeing that the scheme works properly from beginning to end. If the Minister persists in giving larger representation to the consumer, I would urge-him to make the total number larger than 15 so as to give the grower eight representatives. I am not wedded to the number eight, but certainly the grower ought to have the largest representation.
§ Sir J. LAMBI find myself in somewhat of a difficulty. I am not opposing the Minister's Amendment now on the ground of the increased representation, but I do want larger representation to 799 be given to the farmer. I am afraid that by increasing the number to 15, opportunity will not be afforded for giving to the farmer the representation that I would like him to have. On a point of Order, would it be possible for me to move my Amendment in a different form? I have an Amendment, "to leave out 'twelve' and to insert 'sixteen.'" May I substitute 19 instead of 16? If I am allowed to do that, a sufficient number will be appointed to allow of increased representation to the farmer, in addition to the increased representation which the Minister now proposes to give to the consumer.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member gets the opportunity of moving his Amendment, "to leave out 'twelve' and insert 'sixteen,'" he can move to insert 19, but I must point out to him that if the Committee pass the present Amendment, having left out twelve and inserted instead thereof fifteen, the Committee will have decided the number, and the hon. Member will not have an opportunity of moving any further Amendment to substitute any other number.
§ Sir J. LAMBThat confirms the doubt which I had. I shall have to oppose the enlargement of the number to 15 in those circumstances, because I want to be able, later on, to increase the number to 19. My reason for wishing to increase the number to 19 is to give increased representation to the farmers. If the number is not increased to 19, the wheat grower will only have four representatives out of 15 on the committee. Surely, four out of 15 is a very inadequate number. It cannot be said that that is a number adequate for the reasonable interests of the growers of wheat. I have referred previously to the question of finance. When we raised the question of finance earlier we were told that the expenditure would not be excessive, but I would point out that the expenditure in the Bill is not restricted. Although extravagance is not anticipated, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The present representation of the growers—whose money it is from which the expenditure is to be deducted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, why give them a guarantee at all if the money is not theirs? The whole of the expenses will have to come out of 800 money which they believe has been guaranteed to them.
Can we have an assurance that the number will be increased sufficiently to give reasonable representation to the growers on the question of finance. There is a further point, and that is the question of the millable quality of wheat. While it is a fact that those who are dealing with wheat, both the sellers and the buyers, can say immediately what is a millable sample of wheat, it is absolutely impossible for them to put that into words. I believe that the difficulty is going to be much greater than the Minister anticipates. The difficulty which I anticipate the Minister and the Wheat Commission will have with the representation of the growers on the Commission will be with regard to this particular question of the millable quality of wheat. There will be a representation of 4 out of 15 and they will have to say what is the millable quality of wheat. That is another reason why the growers should be given better representation. It is said that the consumers ought to have a majority.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSNot a majority; one-half.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Sir J. LAMBThe hon. and learned Member says "one-half." The producers are not getting fair representation. They are going to be in a hopeless minority if they only have 4 members out of 15. I hope later on that they will get 8 representatives out of 19. The Minister will only be doing justice to those whom this Bill is meant to benefit by giving them reasonable representation on the Wheat Commission. I hope he will give them more adequate representation on the Report stage, if he cannot agree to do it now.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTHI thank the Minister for the Amendment. My name is attached to an Amendment which only asks for 14, and now the number is to be 15. I thought we had reached the heights of generosity, but this is another instance. It is a fair compromise between the different demands made in the various Amendments. There are five specific interests mentioned. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I would say that we have not done badly seeing that the 801 representation of the consumers is increased from two to five. I am not certain that the interests of the dealers and the millers will be always the same. The hon. and learned Member rather assumed that that would be the case. I accept the compromise offered by the Minister and thank him for his generosity.
§ Mr. D. GRENFELLWe support the Amendment and fall in with the proposition that the number should be 15, on condition that one-half of the Wheat Commission should consist of representatives of the consumers. The total on the Commission will be divided into two classes, those who pay and those who receive. Those who receive will be divided into the wheat growers and the millers. The millers are going to make a good thing out of this Bill. They will benefit very much as a result of the Bill. The only person who is not to benefit in any way is the consumer of flour, and we want to protect his interests. There is the possibility of a good deal of collusion under the Bill and also a good deal of exploitation of the consumer through the operations of the Wheat Commission. Clause 6 says:
For the purposes of this Act there shall be established under the control and management of the Wheat Commission a fund called 'the Wheat Fund'"—These people are to manage a fund. They are not simply to attend meetings and to pass pious resolutions, and then go away. They are to be almost a standing commission, with regular responsibilities and very great powers—into which shall be paid all moneys received by the Commission and out of which shall be defrayed all expenditure incurred by the Commission.Payments into and out of the Wheat Fund, and all other matters relating to the Fund, and moneys standing to the credit of the Fund (including temporary investments thereof) shall, subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act, be made and regulated in accordance with the byelaws of the Commission.They are to supervise this fund and control the expenditure and income. They are to make arrangements for the disposal of considerable sums of money, and, as the Minister has made provision for four members to represent the growers, who are to get the benefits of the Bill and for three millers who are to work with them, it is not asking too 802 much that the remaining eight shall be representatives of the consumers who will be called upon to pay. In Clause 7 provision is made that on the recommendations of the Wheat Commission the Minister is to make certain payments, and in Clause 8 it is provided that the Flour Millers' Corporation shall have the power to do certain things. One of the things which they are empowered to do is thatAny profits shown by the audited accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund to have been earned in any cereal year by the sale or disposal of any such stocks as aforesaid shall be distributed to millers in the same proportion as the output of each miller for that year bears to the aggregate output of all millers for that year.There is the possibility of profit in the operations of the Flour Millers' Corporation and the right hon. Gentleman is not so innocent as to assume that the millers on the Wheat Commission will have no connection with the millers who control the Flour Millers' Corporation. They will be their agents on the Wheat Commission. The farming interests on the Wheat Commission will strive for the highest possible standard price. All their recommendations will be in that direction, and the millers will work with the producers in getting the utmost possible measure of profit from the operations of the Corporation. But there is nobody to look after the consumer, who might just as well be left out of the Bill. As originally drafted they were given two representatives out of 12, but the right hon. Gentleman has now gone a little further and is going to give them five representatives out of 15—one-third. That is very unfair and ill-balanced. I am sure the Minister will realise that the consumer, who has to pay the whole of the expenses and who is the only person who cannot benefit by the operation of this Bill, is entitled to a larger representation and he would be well advised in the interests of the Bill to see that the people who have to pay shall have some voice in calling the tune.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENI have pleasure in supporting the Minister in this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) need not be concerned about the members of the Commission understanding what is and what is not millable wheat, for he will find that four members represented the 803 growers, three the millers, two the dealers, and one representative of the bakers, all of whom understand what is meant by millable wheat. I only want to express my gratitude to the Minister for moving this Amendment because it meets an Amendment I have put down on behalf of the bakers, who asked me to move it. I should also like to thank the Members of the Committee for the kind way in which they have listened to me throughout these Debates.
Mr. HASLAMThose who are asking for a larger representation of the consumers have shown no real ground for it. The position of the various parties is fixed under the Bill, and if the consumers had the whole representation on this Commission it would not give them any more power over price reduction or anything of that sort. This is a technical commission and will have to deal with a large number of technical matters which affect the parties concerned, and most closely of all the farmer. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has laid stress on the fact that the whole expenses of this Commission will fall on the farmer and I have great sympathy with his proposal that they should have a much larger representation so that the expenses might be kept within reasonable limits. If they are not kept within reasonable limits it will not affect the price of bread; it will make no difference at all. The hon. and learned Member read out some of the duties which the Wheat Commission will have to perform, notably duties in connection with payments. Let me draw the attention of the Committee to some other duties of this Commission and ask whether the farmer is not in a better position to carry out these duties than representatives of the consumers. In Clause 4 the duties of the Commission are to decide
that the wheat was home-grown wheat of the claimant's own growing;that the wheat was millable wheat;that the wheat was sold by the claimant;the form of wheat certificates and for the issue thereof to registered growers by persons authorised by the by-laws;What has the consumer to do with that? Then we come to paragraph (e).for securing that wheat certificates shall not be issued to a registered grower in 804 respect of any wheat until that wheat has been despatched by him on delivery to the person named in the certificate;These are all technical details of which the farmer has knowledge and of which the representatives of the millers and bakers will have knowledge, but I do not see how the consumers' representatives will have the necessary knowledge. Therefore, from the point of view of the smooth working of this Commission the best policy is to give the greater representation of the actual growers whose interests it will be to make the Commission work. In the absence of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the biscuit industry will be represented amongst the consumers? I entirely agree that the biscuit industry ought to be considered, because it is a very large consumer of British flour.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now discussing an Amendment which has not yet been reached.
Mr. HASLAMI regret to find that that is so, but I thought that, perhaps, on this Amendment I could ask the Minister, seeing that he is adding three to the consumers, whether these three would be of that nature.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot deal with that subject now.
Mr. HASLAMThen I must wait. I hope I can make the point that on this Commission it would be the right thing to have a representation of one of the largest consumers of British wheat.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIt is extremely interesting to get the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and of the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam), particularly on the question of who pays under this Bill. The hon. Member for Horncastle has the extraordinary idea that somehow or other the farmer has to pay. Let us be quite clear as to what really happens. This money is being taken from the consumers and is being paid to the farmers. It is true that the bakers are accessories and the millers are accessories, and as to the dealers, no doubt something will stick to them, but they are all of them getting it out of the consumer. Let us see what the Wheat Commission has to do.
§ Sir J. LAMBIf something is guaranteed to the hon. Member and something is deducted from it before he receives it, does he pay?
§ Mr. ATTLEEIf the hon. Members for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) pick my pockets and go fifty-fifty, it does not make any difference to the fact that it all comes out of my pocket.
Mr. HASLAMWe are trying merely to get justice for the unfortunate farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy.
§ Mr. ATTLEEOf course it is all right while it is being done under the form of law. The fact is that this money is being extracted from the pockets of the consumers. If it was a Socialist Government that was putting on taxation in this way hon. Members opposite would be going round the country and calling out "Robbery!" It is only the point of view that differs. The fact that this is being done by law does not alter the fact that it means taking someone's goods and giving them to someone else.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYNothing that the Wheat Commission could do could put that money back into the hon. Member's pocket.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI was coming to that point. If the hon. and learned Member will read the Bill more closely he will find that there are certain points at which the Wheat Commission does come in and has to decide how much is to be taken. According to Sub-section (3) of Clause I the Wheat Commission is to make representations with regard to certain classes of wheat and the Minister is going to fix the price at which these ire to be purchased, after consultation with the Commission. And the Commission is to consist of farmers. The Minister will consult the farmers as to what is the price to be paid—to the farmers. The Minister is going to find out, there being no sale of this particular product, what is the price that a willing buyer would pay, and the authority on that subject is to be the farmer, the seller. It is a most remarkable thing.
All the millable wheat that is bought is to be considered as having been 806 bought in the cereal year. Then we go a little further. There is provision enabling payments in advance to be made to registered growers in any cereal year. The Commission has the power to advance money to farmers, so that they get their money earlier. And the Wheat Commission will consist of farmers. Go again a little further. The Commission can require registered growers to keep records and to furnish returns of all wheat bought and sold by them. The Commission consists of farmers. Again, the Commission can make by-laws,
for the manner in which the price of home-grown millable wheat bought from registered growers by the Flour Millers' Corporation in pursuance of the requirements of any order of the Minister shall be determined according to quality and market conditions by reference to the price specified in the order.The price which the farmer is to get is to be decided by a Commission consisting of farmers. It is a preposterous suggestion to give a majority representation to farmers. All minorities claim that it is extraordinarily unjust unless they have a majority on a commission or body. When I was in India we found that out very often. Different communities came to us, and if we worked out the percentages that they all demanded we found that the 100 per cent. had gone up to about 170 per cent. for the whole body. We are not asking anything very extraordinary. We are putting the case for the consumers very mildly. The consumer is going to pay the whole lot, but we do not ask for more than a fifty-fifty representation.The two main interests under this Bill are the consumers, who have to pay, and the farmers, who are to receive. The intermediate interests which will receive something will certainly make something out of it. When sub-divided the proposals are very generous to the farmers, and extremely generous to the millers. There then come in the importers and the dealers, and eventually we get down to the consumers, not merely the poor people who pay the money, but presumably the biscuit people and the bakers. The consumers are coming off extraordinarily badly. Anyone who knows anything of the working of these nixed bodies, on which there are the consumers on the one side and the vested 807 interests on the other, knows that all the vested interests combine against the consumer. It is perfectly clear that, however the Government divide the numbers among the vested interests, the growers, the millers and the importers, the big main division will be between the consumers and the vested interests, and we suggest a fifty-fifty basis, with a chairman holding the balance.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI realise that the question of numbers and representation on any body such as this is always liable to give rise to a great deal of difference of opinion. I have kept before me one guiding fact, that this is a body instituted primarily for the effective working of the machinery of this Measure. It is in my judgment far less essential that there should be any question of majorities of this or that interest, than that we should aim at having a body upon which all interests directly connected with the problem shall have representation. It is clearly important that in dealing with a problem of this kind the numbers should not be so large as to cause undue expense. I have not made any closer estimate of the expense than that which I have already stated. I do not anticipate that a very considerable expense will be involved in dealing with the duties of the Wheat Commission. In the Debate of 9th March, I gave certain figures which I now repeat:
I cannot make any definite estimate but let us assume certain figures for a moment in order that we may see the kind of thing which might take place. If, for example, the cost of administration amounted to £30,000 per annum the deduction from the deficiency payment for an anticipated supply of the full 6,000,000 quarters under the Measure would be one and one-tenth of a penny per qr.; and if the expenses were as high as £40,000 per annum the deduction would be one and three-fifths of a penny per qr."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 9th March, 1932; cols. 1857–1858, Vol. 262.]As regards the anxiety of those who speak for the farmers, it is essential that we should have on the Commission farmers who can speak with knowledge of the wheat industry and can advise on matters pertaining to the industry which they represent, but I am inclined to think that their interest in the expense is going to be met, just in proportion to the cooperation which the farming community as a whole give to the working out of this problem. May I point out that it 808 is less in the central body and more in the localities that expense may arise and that on this side of the problem the farming community have the matter in their own hands, because the closer the co-operation between themselves and the others the less will be the expense. I am constrained to say to my farming and agricultural friends that I think it reasonable that they should have the representation which we have given them, but I do not think that the interest, for example, of the corn merchants in the country districts is going to be antagonistic to the farming interest. Quite the contrary. If that be so, you have four farmers and two representing the purchasers of wheat, making six, and if you turn to the five representatives of the consumers, one of these clearly is going to represent the bakers. I understand that I should be ruled out from making any reference to the subsequent Amendment in regard to biscuit makers, and I shall deal with them later. The truth is that it is impossible to please everyone in this matter. I have tried to the utmost of my abilitiy to take into account all the representations which I have received from a great variety of quarters, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it would be reasonable to increase the number as I am proposing to do. If we are to start OW: with the idea, either that the interests of the consumers on the one hand should be represented in the degree of fifty-fifty, or, on the other hand, that other interests should be in the majority we are going to get nowhere. I shall always listen with the greatest attention to any representations which may be made on this subject, but I think, frankly, that the proposal which I now make on behalf of the Government that we should increase the number in the proportions which I have indicated, from 12 to 15, ought to give proper representation to every kind of interest that is concerned in this problem, and I repeat that the matter is not to be judged from the point of view of getting majorities of one or other of these interests, but from the point of view of getting a machine which will work with the greatest efficiency.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWe are gratified that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to pressure from the Opposition 809 and has increased the number from. 12 to 15 and that increased representation is conceded to the consumer. Before we allow this matter to pass, however, perhaps the First Commissioner of Works on behalf of the Minister would take a note of this suggestion. Including the two independent and impartial persons, namely, the chairman and vice-chairman, the number is now to be increased from 14 to 17 but the interests still retain a majority of that 17. It is conceivable, without making any imputations or charging any person or persons with malpractices, that the impartial members, namely, the chairman and the vice-chairman, with the five representatives of the consumers, might find themselves in a minority on some decision.
I suggest for example a decision upon the definition of "millable wheat." It is to be remembered that the Minister, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, is to define what is or is not "millable wheat." It is conceivable that a division of opinion might arise on that subject and that all the interests might take one point of view upon it and they would then constitute a majority. To that extent the consumers' representation, even though it be increased as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, would still be left in a minority and the interests represented on the Wheat Commission could carry their point. They could make their own definition of mill-able wheat, or their own determination as to price, or have their own way as regards the issuing of certificates and all the various matters which will be placed in the Commission's hands. We think that the right hon. Gentleman might have arranged it so that the two independent and impartial persons—the chairman and vice-chairman—along with the consumers' representation, would have constituted a majority of the 17, that is to say that the consumers should have eight representatives instead of five. After all, as has already been said, the consumer is paying the piper, and he is entitled at least to call some of the tune.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEI very much regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment to increase the representatives of the producers on this Commission. All through 810 these Debates he has shown himself very hard-hearted to any Amendments which have been put forward from this side. He has accepted a few from the other side, but none to improve the Bill from the point of view of the agriculturists. An hon. Member opposite pointed out that the Wheat Commission would deal very largely with the farmers, and by that very fact he showed that the farmers ought to have increased representation on the Commission, because the Commission will deal with them and will not to a great extent affect the consumers. All the expenses of the Commission have to come out of the deficiency payments and thus may be said to come out of the farmers' pockets. After the consumer has once paid the money to the Commission, it does not matter what happens to it, whether the Commission spends £5,000, or £50,000, or £500,000; all the money will be paid by the farmers. We do not ask for a majority of farmers on the Commission, but we do ask for a fair representation, and I very much regret that the Minister has not seen his way to granting it.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment that I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "two."
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIn view of the alteration from 12 to 15, and the fact that the Minister has agreed to increase the representation of the consumers, my hon. Friends do not desire to move any of these intermediate Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in line 13, to leave out "four" and insert "eight."
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI am extremely dissatisfied with the action of the Minister, and—
§ The CHAIRMANOrder. I only select this Amendment to be put to the Committee, not to be discussed.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI was only making a small protest, but I do not wish to move the Amendment.
§ Sir J. LAMBI beg to move, in page 26, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
one of whom shall be representative of agricultural co-operative societies which are dealers in such wheat.In the Schedule there are two representatives of the dealers in home-grown millable wheat, and the Amendment is to the effect that one of them shall be a representative of agricultural co-operative societies. We have been told very often how desirable it is that farmers should avail themselves of the principle of co-operation, and I hope that on this occasion I shall have the full support of hon. Members opposite in this Amendment. This is an opportunity for the Government to say that they will give encouragement to farmers to dispose of their wheat to the Commission through co-operative societies, which will very largely minimise both the expense and the trouble of the transaction. I hope I shall receive more generous treatment from the Government on this Amendment than I have on some other Amendments that I have put forward.
§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)The Minister is very anxious not to dictate in the decision as to who shall represent particular categories, and I think that that is strictly right. It may be that if the agricultural co-operative societies are doing a considerable proportion of the wheat business, as purchasers and sellers of wheat, they will get one of the two representatives, and no doubt a day may come when that will be so, but as things are to-day the work done by the agricultural co-operative societies in actually dealing with wheat is very small compared with that done by the corn merchants. The Government certainly hope that it will grow, but they do not wish to be tied here, and now, at the commencement of this Measure, and to laying down exactly to which categories the dealers' representatives should belong.
There are many categories of co-operative societies which are purchasers of wheat and which deal with wheat on the wheat market, and it is very undesirable to lay down that a single one of these organisations must have representation. Accordingly, it is undesirable to accept the Amendment, though I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when he comes 812 to make his choice, will give every consideration, if a suitable name is put forward connected with co-operative societies, to that name, and probably he will not only be connected with that work but will be dealing in other matters as well; but a statutory limitation such as is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) is, in the opinion of the Minister, most undesirable to include in the fixed letter of the Statute.
§ Sir J. LAMBThe Minister has himself put down a later Amendment to do that.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREOnly in regard to bakers, and that is one out of five, but I would point out that this would limit this representation to one out of two. Regard must be had to the volume of trade being done. If the Act goes on for some considerable time, as I hope it will, the personnel of the Commission can and will be changed, but we think that, at any rate to start with, it is very undesirable to lay down rigidly particular categories. If I may repeat what the Minister said just now, the whole conception of the working of this Commission as if it was a sort of miniature House of Commons divided into parties, is out of the question. The Commission will obviously work the scheme with mutual give and take. We all know the work of this kind of Commission. It is not a question of a majority here and a minority there. People with different technical experience, because that is what it comes to, concerned in the wheat business, whether as growers, distributors, or users, will come together to work an Act of Parliament, and they will work as a team. It is unlikely that there will be this sort of clear-cut divisions, and we must not be so egocentric as to think that the Wheat Commission will work as we do in this House of Commons.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThe right hon. Gentleman has made a speech on the necessity of not naming any of these representatives, and he has convinced me that that is the right policy. Indeed, I do not think there is anything to be said on the other side. In the circumstances, would it not be the fairest and wisest thing—fairest from the point of view of argument, and wisest from the point of view of economy of time—if we had this Amendment withdrawn and the Minister's later Amendment also withdrawn? 813 If that were done, the Minister would be in a completely logical position. He almost contradicts himself by introducing this principle in a later Amendment. I do not want the names of any particular persons to be mentioned, but to see the Minister free in his choice. Would it not be wise, if my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment, for the Minister to withdraw his, for it is not right for the Minister to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment when he himself is to move a similar Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§ In page 26, line 13, at the end, to insert the words: "one of whom shall represent growers of wheat in Scotland."—[Mr. McKie.]
Mr. McKIEMay I ask if the Amendment which stands in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends is out of order, as it has not been called?
§ The CHAIRMANIt was not selected.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that that will be in order. The hon. Member can try when the time comes.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI beg to move, in page 26, line 21, to leave out the word "two," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
§ This Amendment is consequential on the statement which the Minister made on the initiation of this discussion.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI beg to move, in page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
of whom one at least shall be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread.I admit that this Amendment is not strictly logical, but it was considered, after discussion, very desirable that the Wheat Commission should be ensured of having a technical baker as one of its members, that is to say, that they should have the assistance of somebody who could put before them various points that arise in connection with the really 814 technical processes of producing bread. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) made a very long speech on the Second Reading, and told us all about the machine making of loaves. If I may be forgiven a personal reference, I would say that I think sometimes that a machine-made loaf is not nearly so good as the home-made loaf which you get in the country districts, but that is entirely a matter of taste. It has been impressed upon my right hon. Friend that it is important that the technical aspects of baking bread should be brought from time to time before the Wheat Commission.It is true that last year only a comparatively small proportion of British-grown wheat found itself in bread. On the other hand, that has not been the experience of previous years. The amount of British-grown wheat that finds its way into bread and into other forms of user of flour varies very much in different years; it varies partly according to seasonal quality, and partly to alternative wheats offering. That makes an additional reason why it is desirable for the successful working of this scheme that there should be a baker on the Commission as a liaison, as it were, with the baking trade. A good many of us hope that in future years a higher proportion of British wheat will be included in bread. It is desirable that that should become a habit. We do not desire to have those terrific quotas that they have in foreign countries where they insist on the physical admixture of a very high proportion of home-grown flour. It is fully recognised that British wheat is used for all kinds of other purposes, such as biscuits, to great advantage, but it is important for the nation and the future of our bread supply that some proportion of British wheat should find its way into the household supplies of all the citizens of the land. For that reason, there seems to be a special case why one out of the five consumers should be a technically qualified baker.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this proposal of ours in regard to a member of the baking industry being one of the consumers, because we think that it will be useful.
§ Sir WILFRID SUGDENI would like my right hon. Friend to help us in a certain position that may arise in regard to the proportion of British wheat in bread. We know that the percentage of moisture—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot raise that matter on this Amendment.
§ Sir W. SUGDENI want to safeguard provincial bakers having some say in the arrangement. The Minister might appoint London bakers, but we want the provincial bakers to be represented.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member should have put down an Amendment on that point. We cannot discuss it on this Amendment.
§ Mr. MANDERI should like also to thank the Minister for accepting our Amendment. I want to resist the argument of logicality, because there is nothing an Englishman hates more than seeming to be logical. I was asked by some of my constituents to put down an Amendment for two bakers, but the Minister has gone a long way to meet us, and has left open the possibility of adding another baker. It would, therefore, be impossible to ask for anything more satisfactory.
§ Sir W. SUGDENLet the other one be a provincial baker.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI can well understand that this Amendment is bad enough to be proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Just now I said how much I regretted seeing the Minister backsliding from the perfect path which he was pursuing, and I should like to point out how bad the Amendment is. If you read it you will see it says that one, at least, shall be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread. There are a large number of people who bake bread, farmers' wives, and so on, and therefore this is a very wide Amendment, and, technically, the Minister may be put in a rather difficult position if he accepts it.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is, of course, quite right in what he said, and I should make it clear 816 that, although one baker is specifically referred to here, the Board of Trade, which will be the Department consulted in this matter, would not prevent the Minister of Agriculture from appointing representatives of users of flour or of the consumers. It may happen that more than one baker may get on, one perhaps as a technical baker and the other as a consumer. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that one, at least, would be appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread. That does not mean that the individual selected is necessarily the sort of person he thinks of or for which every baker in the country, provincial and London, and farmers' wives would necessarily vote. It means somebody who can bring to the Wheat Commission a really valuable and useful knowledge of the particular trade.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words: "(f) of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits."—[Dr. Howitt.]
§ The CHAIRMANDr. Howitt.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSOn a point of Order. Are not there already 15 in all to be appointed under the various paragraphs that we have passed and can there be another representative?
§ The CHAIRMANI have not counted them up so I am not quite sure whether there would be room for the biscuit representatives to come in among any of the other classes.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSSeveral of the representatives under paragraph (e) are not named, so that you could name another.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSOn a point of Order. This is a new paragraph.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSIt could come under paragraph (e) and that would be quite simple.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is right. I do not think there is room to put in another Member here. This Amendment would be shut out by the fact that the total number has now been limited to 15, and all those 817 15 have been dealt with under the Amendments we have disposed of and the paragraphs of the Schedule which we have reached.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI agree that if you put it under paragraph (f) it would be wrong, but suppose that the hon. Member omits the prefix "(f)" and makes it read:
of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits,would not that be in order?
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member were to move it, leaving out the distinguishing (f) at the beginning, it would be an addition to paragraph (e) and would then read:
as representing the interests of consumers of flour, five members, of whom one shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits.If he moves it in that form, it will be in order.
§ Dr. HOWITTI beg to move, in page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
and one of whom shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits.9.30 p.m.During this Debate we have often heard of the importance of the manufacture of biscuits in this country, and though perhaps very few of us knew before, everybody in this House to-day knows that biscuits are made with between 90 and 100 per cent. of flour which has been milled from home-grown wheat. That is partly why I suggest this Amendment. The town which I have the honour to represent is famous throughout the world for its excellent biscuits, and consequently the manufacture of biscuits with this high percentage of home-grown English milled flour does give a tremendous amount of employment to the farmers. I am therefore very anxious that the Minister should consider this Amendment, The fashion in food changes, and I trust that after the knowledge which has been gained from the Debates in this House of what a very British thing the biscuit is more biscuits will be consumed, and therefore there will be still more people employed by the manufacturers and by the farmers. I should like also to bring to the Minister's attention the importance of the export trade in biscuits. Biscuits are, as far as I know, the only form in which our flour is exported from this country. I there- 818 fore hope the Minister will realise the importance of this Amendment and accept the suggestion that one of the commissioners should represent the manufacturers of biscuits.
§ Brigadier-General SPEARSI beg to support the Amendment that has been moved by nay hon. Friend. It is a, very modest request. Other Members representing other interests have asked for a second in command for their representative, and they suggested that the representative of a particular industry might suffer from a cold and should have somebody to replace him. We are only asking for a single representative of this most important industry. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the biscuit manufacturers of this country buy about 60 per cent. of the flour milled from British wheat. My hon. Friend alluded to the importance of the export trade in biscuits. I would remind the Minister that somewhere about 50,000 people are employed in the biscuit industry in this country, and I think I am right in saying that the capital invested in the industry amounts to about £14,000,000. Again, 90 to 100 per cent. of the flour used by the biscuit manufacturers of this country is milled from British wheat. I support the Amendment most earnestly, and hope the Minister will accede to our request.
§ Mr. SKELTONI have great sympathy with what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). We all fully appreciate the valuable character of the biscuit trade, the large proportion of British flour which it uses and the large proportion of its products which are exported, and nobody would wish that anything should be done, by Act of Parliament or otherwise, which would inflict any injury upon it. Indeed, we are happy to think that nothing of that sort will be done by this Bill. The only question in connection with the industry which arises at this point in the Schedule is whether or not one of the five representatives of the consumers shall represent the manufacturers of biscuits. On that point I would only venture to repeat what the Minister said a moment ago, that it is very undesirable to earmark a member or members of the Commission as specially attached to special trades. When there are only five members definitely repre- 819 senting consumers, to earmark one, as we have done already in the case of the bakers, is probably a sufficient restriction of the free area of choice.
I think my hon. Friends may rest satisfied with the present situation, by reason of the very important character of the biscuit industry. Its importance will undoubtedly turn the Minister and the Board of Trade to the consideration of whether so important a flour-consuming industry should not naturally be represented on the Wheat Commission. I do not propose to give, nor could I give, any assurance that there will always be a representative of the biscuit manufacturers on the Commission, but, knowing what we do, one can hardly imagine any one category of flour consumers more likely to be on the Commission. Still, that is a very different matter from earmarking yet another of the five representatives of the consumers. The Government are extremely glad that the matter has been brought before the attention of the Committee, but, keeping the considerations to which I have referred in view, we think the Committee may well rest contented with the situation as it is, and I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment if he can see his way to do so.
§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNI would like to support the plea which has been put forward for giving representations to so important an industry as that of biscuit making. At the same time that I say how very grateful I am to the Under-Secretary for the sympathetic answer he has given to the representations which have been made, I would like to remind him that this industry is important from the point of view of national defence. There is no doubt that in the South African War and in the late War we should not have been able to supply our troops with biscuits, which are the only food which the soldiers can carry in all countries, if it had not been for the great predominance of the British biscuit-making trade. It really is an industry of very great importance from the point of view of defence. The Government have promised representation to the bakers and I think they ought to treat the biscuit manufacturers in the same way.
§ Amendment negatived.
820§ Mr. ATTLEEI beg to move, in page 26, line 23, to leave out from the word "person," to the word "the" in line 26.
This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with the following Amendment—in page 26, line 27, to leave out the words "that class," and to insert instead thereof the words:
the various classes of persons."—which is consequential on it. These two Amendments would make the sentence read,and before appointing any person the Minister shall consult such bodies as in his opinion represent the various classes of persons.I do not know why the Minister proposes two separate methods of appointing the representatives of the various interests. In the case of the consumers of flour he is to consult the Board of Trade. In the other cases he consults,such bodies as, in his opinion, represent that class.I see that the Minister has put down an Amendment with reference to a special consultation as regards the interests of bakers, and I ask him to consider whether it would not simplify his task if he took this form of words, which would leave him free to consult such bodies as are representative of the different classes of persons.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI do not think there is very much in what the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has said. We all know that in practice when the Minister makes up a commission of this kind, composed of people of different types of experience and knowledge, it has always been the custom to consult the appropriate organisations. Undoubtedly, the concluding words proposed by the Minister do give a certain amount of satisfaction to all those who were consulted in the drawing up of the terms of the Bill. The provisions in this Measure were very carefully gone into by those representing the millers, and undoubtedly there was an understanding that the Millers' Organisation should be consulted without the Minister being tied down to accepting everything that they proposed.
I notice that another hon. Friend of mine is going to raise a question of the representation of Scotland, but I think it is obvious that Scotland should be represented on this Commission, and no doubt the hon. Member will approach the appro- 821 priate Scottish organisation. It is true that we are accustomed to what we call the tautological use of the same words, using them in two senses. When we provide that the Minister shall consult the Board of Trade it means that the Board of Trade has the nomination, and that those interests who wish to be represented as principal users and consumers of flour will make their representations to the Board of Trade. If it is intended to appoint a miller or a flour importer, the Minister will consult the Millers' Organisation or the Flour Importers' Organisation with a view to getting names from which he can select representatives. On the whole, I see no advantage in leaving out the words as suggested in the Amendment.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWhy does the right hon. Gentleman say that he cannot consult any organisation except through the Board of Trade?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREThe Board of Trade is the proper Department to deal with industrial interests, and the interests of the consumers and biscuit manufacturers. The whole Council operates in connection with the Board of Trade, and that is the proper organisation which is in touch with those bodies. If you try to select one body representative of all domestic consumers, you cannot do it, because the only body which represents all domestic consumers is the House of Commons. To consult the House of Commons in selecting a representative of the domestic consumers is not a practical suggestion. I think the words which are in the Schedule will give every satisfaction.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendments made: In page 26, line 24, after the word "shall," insert the words:
(except in the case of a person appointed as representing the interests of bakers of bread).
§
In line 25, after the word "representing," insert the words:
bakers of bread or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§
The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RHY5 DAVIES:
In page 26, line 28, to leave out the words "Every member," and to insert instead thereof the words "The members.
§ In line 29, after the word "such," to insert the word "uniform."
§ To leave out the words "have been," and to insert instead thereof the word "be."
§ In line 30, to leave out the words "before his appointment."
§ In line 31, to leave out from the word "remuneration," to the end of the paragraph.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI beg to move, in page 26, line 28, to leave out the words "Every member" and to insert instead thereof the words "The members.
I hope the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes while I deal with several Amendments standing in my name.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAm I right in assuming that the five Amendments standing in the hon. Member's name are practically one?
§ Mr. DAVIESYes, Sir. Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule contains these words:
Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate office in accordance with such conditions as may have been determined by the Minister before his appointment.We are raising this question in order to get some more information from the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will see his way to accept our Amendment after we have explained why we think the changes we suggest will make the Bill more clear. As the paragraph now stands it is quite possible for the Minister to appoint one section of representatives for one year, another section for two years, another for three, four or five years. We are appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to insert words to secure uniformity, and we wish to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman intends doing in regard to these appointments. Will he appoint all the members of the Commission for a period of three or five years, or will he appoint some for one period and the remainder for one, two, three or four years. Will he arrange for them to retire in rotation I have had some experience in connection with one or two Government Departments, and, as a rule, retirements have been arranged to take place in rotation after a period of two or three years. The point raised in the last of these Amend- 823 ments with regard to remuneration should, perhaps, be dealt with separately, and I will now confine myself to the question of uniformity in the appointment of these gentlemen. It would seem to be a very cumbersome way of handling the problem to say that the Minister will appoint every member of the Commission in accordance with such conditions as may have been determined by the Minister. That seems to suggest that every one of the 15 is to have separate consideration from the Minister before appointment. Our Amendments would tend to secure uniformity, instead of separate treatment as is suggested in this paragraph.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThis problem of tenure of office is one upon which different views may be held, but I think I am right in saying that it would be undesirable that the whole of the members of this body should be appointed at one time and should retire all at the same time. I think it is desirable that there should be a variation in the periods when the members should be appointed. As the Measure is drawn, we are not so circumscribed that we should have to appoint a certain number of people to this body in order that there might be continuity, but members would come in from time to time, and, at any rate, there would not be a complete hiatus in the management of the body. That seems to me to be the practical course to take.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSWe are a little concerned as to the form of this paragraph, which appears to allow the Minister to make special conditions with regard to each individual member before that member is appointed, and conditions which will apply only to that member. I appreciate the point that one does not want them all to retire at the same time, so that there would be a break in continuity, but it is possible to provide for that and still have uniform conditions of service. We are anxious, for instance, that the farmers' representatives should not be serving on certain terms and the consumers' representatives on other terms, or that one individual should not be picked out and serve on some specific terms. We want a general rule which will apply to them all. Whether these words are convenient or not does not matter, but we want some general rule, 824 so that they will all be on an equality. If they have to retire at different periods, it will be easy so to arrange. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look into this matter, and see if he can frame words on Report which will show that all the members of the commission will be treated alike, although their terms may end at different times, we should be quite happy so far as these words are concerned.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI could not accept the Amendment in this form, but am quite willing to look into the matter very carefully between now and Report.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESThat being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI beg to move, in page 26, line 31, to leave out from the word "remuneration" to the end of the paragraph.
10.0 p.m.
This Amendment refers to the point that the chairman and vice-chairman are to be paid remuneration for their services, but no remuneration is to be paid to the other members of the Commission. We are not at all happy about the situation; there are two or three considerations in regard to it that ought to be borne in mind by the Government. In the first place, unless the members of the Commission are paid some remuneration, the whole of the work will naturally devolve upon the chairman and vice-chairman. It seems to me, from my rather long experience of committee work, that the tendency will naturally be for the duties devolving upon the committee to fall into the hands of the chairman and vice-chairman anyhow, and especially if they are paid remuneration and the other members are not. I do not know whether the Minister is proposing not to pay the members of the Commission for reasons of economy, but it is obvious that this Commission will not function as efficiently if they are paid nothing except out-of-pocket expenses. I should say that it is the experience of everyone that men work better and more efficiently if they are properly remunerated. Therefore, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the members of the Commission are omitted from the provision as to remuneration.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI have consulted very carefully with all the interests concerned and it was put to me strongly by those interests that, while it might be necessary to pay remuneration to the chairman and vice-chairman, those whom I have consulted would desire that actual salaries should not be paid to other members of the Commission. On the other hand, it is provided by the terms of Clause 11 (1, f) that the Minister by regulation can provide for the scales of travelling and other allowances, including allowances by way of compensation for loss of time, which may be paid to the members of the Commission. I think that that method of dealing with the problem is, perhaps, the most effective, and it is in accord with the practice followed in other circumstances of a similar nature. It is for that reason, and because of the views of those whom I have consulted, that this line has been taken.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about Clause 11 (1, f), but we are very nervous least the third paragraph of this Schedule might override that provision. The third paragraph of the Schedule is the one which controls the constitution of the Commission, and, if it is specifically laid down that the conditions may not provide for the payment of remuneration in the case of any other person than the chairman or vice-chairman, it might well be held that compensation for loss of time was remuneration—which, of course, it is, though another ward happens to be used—and that the paragraph dealing with the constitution of the Commission might override Clause 11 (1, f). For that reason we thought that, if these words were left out, and the power was given to provide for payment of remuneration at large, there would then be that general power controlled by Clause 11 (1, f), and there would be an indication that that general remuneration was to be in the form laid down in Clause 11 (1, f). We are afraid that, if it is done the other way, it may be said that, in spite of Clause 11 (1, f), nobody can be paid except the chairman or vice-chairman. Therefore, we would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider these words.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI hope that the Minister will not accept anything in the shape of this Amendment. We are already 826 setting up here a fully paid chairman and vice-chairman, and we have already inserted in the Bill a, provision as to travelling expenses and allowances for loss of time. That would seem to be a sufficient cost to set up under the administration of the Bill at present. If you accept the Amendment, sooner or later the whole of the members will be paid. One will have an adequate and a reasonable excuse, and then another will have to be paid. Then in 10 or 15 years we shall get a change of Government and they will all be paid automatically. I have been long enough in the House to see how these salaried posts creep up. When you have an Amendment of this kind, every supporter of the Government ought to urge the Government with all his power to resist it, because it has a hidden meaning all the time. Hon. Members On my right intend to set up the largest bureaucracy they possibly can. The Minister is much sharper and more acute than many people realise, but I do not want to leave any stone unturned. The Government have tripped once very badly to-night, and some influence may come along in a minute or two and persuade the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the strong position that he has taken up. If he does, I should most certainly have to do my best to oppose him. I do not think he will, and I urge him on no consideration to accept any Amendment coming from that quarter.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment made: In page 27, line 1, leave out the word "seven," and insert instead thereof the word "nine."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI beg to move, in page 27, line 23, at the end, to add the words:
and any member who fails to disclose such interest or votes upon any question relating to a contract in which he has an interest shall be disqualified for membership of the Commission and be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.It is usual in these cases to lay down some penalty if persons do not disclose those matters that they are required to disclose when they have an interest. As it stands, the only punishment for a person who is interested voting is that his 827 vote does not count, and that does not hurt him very much, whereas, if a Member of Parliament does a similar thing, he is liable to a fine of £500 a day. In all these cases there has always been a penalty of some sort or another in order to make sure that a person who is obliged to disclose his interest in contracts and so on shall do so and, if he does not, some penalty shall be placed upon him. The penalty that we have put down is a quite ordinary penalty and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either accept it in this form or tell us that he will look into the matter and see that some sort of protection is inserted.
§ Sir J. GILMOURI think this is really rather an unnecessary step to take. I should imagine that the members of the Commission will be chosen because of their reputable character. I think anything approaching this kind of penalty is not really called for, but I will have a careful look at the subject.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI hope the right hon. Gentleman has not got at all scared by the interposition of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who addressed him rather like a maiden aunt threatening to give him a terribly sharp slap if he was not a good boy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take it to heart.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI should not have intervened except for the not very virile speech that we have just heard. The Amendment goes rather a long way. I represent a very large number of cooperators, and I am afraid if the Amendment was carried it might have a very severe effect on certain co-operative people on the Committee. I always stand up for every section of my community when attacked by one or other section of the Socialist party, and I must certainly point out how very foolish the Amendment is, because it might conceivably injure the position of co-operators on such a committee. It is necessary to warn the Government to look very closely at the words of the Opposition, because, though they are not very good, they sometimes have a hidden meaning.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSIn view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will look into the matter, I hope he will consider the provisions of Sec- 828 tion 149 of the Companies Act, 1929, which deals with the matter in a very much better way than that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ Amendment negatived.