HC Deb 20 July 1937 vol 326 cc2094-100

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

9.41 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

Again I desire to ask the Minister for information. It seems to me that under Clause 7 it is possible for the Minister to extend the scheme with regard to registered producers at a reduced price in such a way that it would be possible to sell milk at a reduced price to nursing mothers and mothers of children under five. I rather gathered, from what the Minister said on Clause 1, that that would not be possible under this scheme. He rather suggested that we were bringing in extraneous matter on what was merely a continuation Bill. It seems to me, however, that if under Clause 7 there are to be arrangements for the sale by registered producers, at a reduced price, of any quantity of milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies, it would be quite possible to say that any scheme applies, and that, if the Minister desired to extend the milk scheme so as to include children under five, it would be possible under Clause 7 of the Bill. Have we not, therefore, a right now to ask the Minister whether he suggests that it would be possible to make such an extension? If so, why did he say that this was merely a continuation Bill, and that therefore it could not be done? It seems to me that we have here all the machinery that is necessary to undertake what we asked should be undertaken when we used Clause 1 as the peg on which to make that request.

9.43 P.m.

Mr. Morrison

Clause 7 deals with the machinery by which the Milk Board is enabled to participate in schemes such as those which are in operation in Jarrow, and other parts of the special or distressed areas. These schemes have been in operation for some time, but doubts have been expressed as to the legal position of the Board in relation to these payments, and advantage is being taken of the present opportunity to put that matter beyond doubt, so that the Board will be able to continue these schemes and, if possible, to increase them.

Mr. Jenkins

Does that mean that no further scheme of that kind could be undertaken without fresh legislation?

Mr. Morrison

It does not mean that at all. It means that the present schemes have their legal validity put beyond all doubt so far as regards the payments to them by the Milk Board. As regards the larger question of nutrition policy, as I tried to indicate earlier in the Debate, this would involve a decision as to what form the policy should take and it would have to be dealt with as a separate matter involving far more than agricultural considerations. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the principal Act lays down a limit of money. It states that not more than £1,000,000 in the aggregate shall be expended under the Sub-section, and that provision ties the expenditure down in the meantime to certain schemes.

9.44 P.m.

Miss Wilkinson

Since the only limit is the financial limit, would it not be open to the Government, if sufficient pressure were applied, to extend the operation of Clause 7 by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Morrison

It would not be done by a Supplementary Estimate. The limit which exists in Section 11 of the principal Act could not be got rid of without fresh legislation, amending that Section of the Milk Act, 1934. The question whether this would be the proper and best machinery, if schemes of the character to which the hon. Lady has referred were entered into is, of course, another question.

Mr. Jenkins

Has the whole of the £1,000,000 allowed for this purpose been exhausted or, if not, how much of it?

Mr. Morrison

There are contributions made to these special schemes by the Board and by distributors and so on. I could not say how much money is left.

Mr. Jenkins

The £1,000,000 is provided from Government funds.

Mr. Morrison

I could not give an accurate figure. This Clause is merely to continue the power of the Milk Board to contribute to these schemes.

Miss Wilkinson

The right hon. Gentleman said it is not possible to give us what is the vital thing under these schemes when he has a whole collection of experts there. If under that box they have not the exact figure, someone ought to be sacked. Before we can possibly pass this Clause, to which I have no objection whatever, and which I am most anxious to see passed, we ought to have this information. The Minister has done nothing but evade questions. He has done it in the most charming possible way, but he has evaded them. Will he send his Parliamentary Private Secretary to that box and ask how much of that £1,000,000 has actually been spent?

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

I am very surprised that the Minister cannot give us this information. Someone in that box ought to be able to tell him how much has been spent. It is most amazing that we cannot get accurate information. The Minister has suggested that I should put down a question, but that would he much too late. It is of very considerable importance that we should get the information before the Clause is passed. I hope the House will express its dissatisfaction, perhaps not with the Minister but with those who are here and who cannot supply us with the information.

9.49 P.m.

Mr. T. Williams

At the end of the second year following the operation of the 1934 Act was not some statement made as to the exact proportion of the £1,000,000 actually spent upon cheap milk for elementary school children and the amount devoted to advertisements and expenses and experiments? Some such statement must have been made at the end of the two-yearly period. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have it at his disposal when we are extending the same scheme, so that we should know whether or not the total sum has been called for or whether a less sum would have been necessary.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede

The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) as the Noble Lady. It is evident from the discussion of the last few moments that Kind hearts are more than coronets, And simple faith than Norman blood, because my hon. Friend has shown a touching belief and a simple faith in the capacity of the Government to answer simple arithmetical questions which only a person of the class referred to by Tennyson could possibly have achieved. It is really astounding that this quite simple question, which one imagines the Minister had to take into consideration before he decided to put the Clause into the Bill, should have caused such consternation. I do not call for the dismissal of the Civil Service. They are in the box while the Minister is in the cart. I imagine that two or three of them wish they were in his place, so that they could give us the one figure for which my hon. Friend asks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is himself endeavouring to secure the figure. I can only hope that we shall now receive it. He is not treating the Committee with respect in declining to give us the very simple information for which he has been asked.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Morrison

A little confusion has arisen because of the reference in the Clause to Section 11 of the principal Act, which permitted contributions from the Exchequer towards the expenses of the Milk Marketing Board. The figure of £1,000,000 was inserted as a maximum which must not be exceeded—a contribution for the milk-in-schools and other schemes at the rate of £500,000 a year. The money that has been voted for that purpose in the past will have been spent by the end of the present year, and we are providing in the Bill for £500,000 to carry on that assistance at the same rate for the 12 months ahead of us. With regard to the other schemes of assistance for cheap milk for Jarrow and Rhondda, that is a matter that lies to some extent outside my purview, except in so far as the Milk Board has contributed towards the expenses. In these cases there is no Government money properly so called at all. The funds for these schemes are made up from three sources, the Milk Board, the distributors, who accept a lower margin of cost for distribution and, thirdly, assistance from the Commissioner for Special Areas. It is Government money indirectly, but it has nothing to do with the £1,000,000 in Section 11 of the 1934 Act. That refers to the expenditure for milk in schools, etc., at the rate of £500,000 a year for the two years over which it was to run originally.

9.54 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

Surely the Minister has now made things worse. He referred earlier to the rigid limit of £1,000,000 and, when we asked him how far we could possibly extend the scheme and the arrangements that were being made, he said the limit was the £1,000,000 granted under Section 11 of the original Act. Now he says that will all be spent by the end of the year. That is connected with the school scheme, and there is some unspecified amount, which he says he does not know, which deals with the Jarrow and Rhondda schemes. When he says that the Government have nothing to do with that, and they are not Government schemes, I would ask, have not the Government everything on earth to do with the Milk Marketing Board? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Really, this Government spend their time in pumping life into the Milk Marketing Board and in providing subsidies for them, and what on earth is the object of this Bill, if it is not to give more life to the Milk Marketing Board? Does the Minister say, in respect of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, that the money upon which he operates is not actually Government money? To whom has the Commissioner to look for money but the Government, except to a few charitable arrangements like the Nuffield Trust?

This is not good enough. This House is the custodian of the public purse and has a right to know how much money is being spent from Government sources on the Rhondda and the Jarrow schemes, and to what extent it is possible to extend the scheme under Clause 7. I would like the Minister to reconcile his previous statement that the £1,000,000 for two years was a rigid limit, with his statement now, that there is an unspecified amount. What we are anxious to get at is to what extent it is possible to extend Clause 7 to other areas than Jarrow and the Rhondda. Even in my own constituency Jarrow is not the only area. There are pockets of poverty, even worse than Jarrow, and I am determined that the House shall know something about them. We want to know to what extent the Clause can be extended. May I for the third time to-night, as the Minister has been across to that Box and obtained one alteration of the original statement that he made, suggest that he should ask his Parliamentary Private Secretary to go and find out the further information?

The Minister shakes his head, but I must appeal to him. We really have a right to know, and the Minister knows perfectly well that the figures can be obtained. The Minister says that if we put down a question, he will give the answer, and that means that the figures are available in his Department. I have been a Parliamentary Private Secretary myself and I know that every figure that can conceivably be asked for in this Debate is in the hands of the civil servant. I was not really suggesting that one of them should be sacked, but that the sacking should come nearer home than that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures of these schemes so that we may know to what extent they can be extended? Surely that is a most reasonable request.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I hope that the Committee will not think that I am unreasonable. As I explained, the schemes in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested are the schemes in the Special Areas, and it is to these areas that she is directing the attention of the Committee. I told her that Clause 11 contained the limit of the £1,000,000 provided in the original Act, and that that is for assistance for milk for schoolchildren. As I have already explained to the Committee, the moneys for the Special Areas schemes are derived from three sources. I am not responsible for the Commissioner for the Special Areas. I do not carry his expenditure in my head, nor is it in my Department, and if information is desired from the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the hon. Lady should address her question to the proper source.

Mr. Jenkins

Can the Minister tell us what amount of the £1,000,000 for milk in schools has been spent?

Mr. Morrison

I told the hon. Member that the money that was voted last year for this scheme will be spent by the end of this year. It is being spent at the rate of £500,000 per annum, and that is the reason why we are asking for authority to spend another £500,000 during the time ahead of us. The actual state of the fund must vary from day to day, and I do not know what the hon. Member wishes more than that. The funds of the Milk Board are their own concern. The funds of the Milk Board are of the value of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 a year, and the milk they handle comes from the producers for whom they are administering this matter. As regards any other source, the distributors contribute towards it in their own particular areas. If the hon. Lady wishes for information concerning the funds at the disposal of the Special Commissioner she should ask my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Jagger

Who audits the accounts of the Board?

Mr. Morrison

A firm of auditors.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.