HC Deb 26 February 1968 vol 759 cc1048-67
Mr. John Lee (Reading)

I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 3, line 7, at end insert: Provided that in no case shall the provisions of this subsection apply to a pupil whose parent or guardian or other responsible person is in receipt of unemployment benefit or has been in such receipt at any time during the past twelve months. About 18 months ago I moved an Amendment to the Finance Bill in a very short speech of two minutes. I hope that I shall be almost as brief in moving the Amendment, because I know that the majority of the Committee wants to get on to the substantive discussion on the Clause. The Amendment is one of a number of attempts to right a situation which many of us regard as indefensible, because it is this Clause, of the whole Bill, which is the most objectionable to my hon. Friends and myself who have been crowding the Notice Paper with Amendments. Indeed, the whole discussion has related to the iniquity of a flat-rate system, of flat-rate contributions, or indiscriminate methods of burdening the contributor.

The Government's decision to withdraw facilities for school milk for secondary schools is offensive to us for many reasons, not least because of the reports in recent years which have come from the Child Poverty Action Group on the amount of adolescent and child poverty. It is quite clear that poverty is not confined to those in primary schools. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to safeguard those who are most likely to be affected adversely by the withdrawal of these facilities.

I must apologise for the somewhat slipshod and imprecise wording of the Amendment. It contains a reference to parent or guardian or other responsible person". I could not think of a more compendious way of embracing what I am trying to say, which is that the deleterious effects of the Clause should at least be spared to the children of those who have fallen into very difficult circumstances, namely, those parents, or those who are responsible for the children, who have become unemployed. The Amendment exempts those whose parents or guardians not only are unemployed at the time but have been unemployed before, since, if one has been unemployed, one's resources are run down. The 12 months is an arbitrary period, but it is an attempt to mitigate at least some of these effects.

I have not had time for much preparation on this, since I have been much more concerned with the fact that my wife has presented me with a baby. Perhaps, in that case, I should declare an interest. I have come post-haste from the hospital to move this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

My Amendment concerns the position in Scotland and would mean that this provision would not apply—

The Chairman (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. His Amendment, No. 5, is to be discussed with Amendment No. 10, which has not yet been called. At the moment we are discussing a separate Amendment, No. 60.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Do I understand that mine will be called later, Sir Eric?

The Chairman

The hon. Member's Amendment, No. 5, is not being called separately but it can be discussed with Amendment No. 10, which is to be called later.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I wish to speak shortly on this Amendment as well, Sir Eric.

One aspect which has not yet been mentioned is the effect on the farming community, and I am surprised that, on a matter of such importance to that community those, who usually speak for its interests know nothing about it. It is, therefore, left to me to say a word for the farmers of England as well as those of Scotland.

This is bound to affect the English milk producers much more than the Scottish. The total likely saving is £5 million, of which £700,000 applies to Scotland and £4,300,000 to England and Wales. This must, of course, affect the farmers, especially when many are trying to recover from the effects of foot-and-mouth disease. Yet those who normally speak for them are missing, and it is left to me, a Scottish Member, to put the point of view of the English dairy producers. I shall develop the Scottish point later.

The saving of £5 million happens to be the cost of running one Polaris submarine for one year. We are cutting off school milk for our children to pay for the running of a Polaris submarine for one year.

I do not wish to develop that point further in respect of the United Kingdom but I shall have a lot to say about it in relation to Scotland. I was once told that the meanest kind of man was the one who would steal milk from a blind kitten. That is what the Government are doing politically by taking away milk from the children in the secondary schools.

Sir C. Osborne

I wanted to make that point on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I represent an agricultural constituency in England, and I support the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I should like to know what effect this provision will have on the Milk Marketing Board and the farmers who produce milk. Will it be a serious effect? Will it involve any special reduction in demand? Will the milk that would normally be sold or given to children in secondary schools go into normal consumption? Can it be absorbed, or will it go into the manufacturing side, from which not so much is received?

I hope that we shall be given an explanation. Finally, I would not like the statement of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—that he alone speaks for the farmers—to go unchallenged.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell)

I shall endeavour to address myself to the Amendment, which, I regret to say, has nothing to do with the Milk Marketing Board, or even to the considerations raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), which are more appropriate to be dealt with on the next Amendment, or on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) kindly contained his remarks and I shall try to follow his good example.

I am sure that the Committee would wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend on adding to the educational problems of my Department by producing an offspring for whom we shall endeavour to do our best. Whatever quarrels he may have with us about school milk, at least he will be delighted to know that welfare foods remain inviolate and intact. Since his child will now be able to obtain welfare foods until 5 years of age and will still enjoy milk in primary school until the age of 11, my hon. Friend will not personally be worried for the moment.

The Amendment is deficient in many respects. First, of all the people who could lay claim to be dealt with in this way it singles out one category, namely, the unemployed.

Mr. John Lee

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but does he realise that other Amendments which have not been called would have widened the scope of the discussion?

Mr. Howell

It is not for me to say what Amendments should be called; I can only address myself to the Amendment that is before us. In trying to assess and meet a need the Amendment is far less generous than the normal scales which are applied within the Department of Education, and which apply not merely to unemployed persons but to all kinds of other persons on supplementary benefits, especially the sick and pensioners. This is the system adopted in the schools meals service.

In practice, it is also open to gross abuse and, therefore, could not be accepted by the Government. It provides that if a person is unemployed at any time during a period of 12 months his children should obtain free milk, presumably for the period of 12 months. That would mean that if a person were unemployed for one day or one week his children would automatically be eligible to obtain free milk for 12 months. That is what we presume the Amendment means.

If it does not mean that but means that a child should get free milk for the period of unemployment, it would be even more ludicrous. We should have to set up a considerable organisation within the Ministry of Labour in order to provide milk when a father was unemployed and to withdraw its supply when he was employed. This could be an alternating practice, which would place a considerable burden on the administrative machine. In the schools—quite apart from our administrative difficulties—the teachers, having regard to their recent expression on the whole school meals service, would find great difficulty in working it.

Mr. John Lee

My hon. Friend is advancing cogent arguments about the difficulty of exempting certain categories. Are we to take it that those arguments will be advanced in respect of any categories of people we may discuss later?

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend must not anticipate future speeches of mine which may deal with arguments yet to be put before the Committee.

Even more important than the arguments I have advanced against the Amendment, if my hon. Friend's proposal were approved the effect in the schools would be extremely embarrassing, because it would mean that ordinary secondary school children would not receive free milk, while free milk would have to be given to the children of people who were unemployed. This would immediately create problems of embarrassment and sensitivity which the Government have spent the last 12 months, I believe with success, trying to eliminate. In November of last year my right hon. Friend sent circular 12/67 to all local education authorities on the subject of school meals. That circular made it plain that we did not intend to tolerate any system for the collection of money for school meals which made it possible to identify children who were receiving free meals.

I am happy to say that we have achieved a large measure of success with that campaign, both in terms of improving the take-up, to which we will come later, and also in getting almost every local education authority to review its system for the collection of school meals money. New arrangements have in many cases been made for collecting this money, which is now often done by the collection taking place outside the classroom and by a variety of other means so that it is not possible to identify those children receiving free meals. We have high hopes that it will not be possible for much longer, if it is possible even now, for children receiving help by way of free meals to be identified in this way. If that policy commends itself to the Committee, it would be a grave mistake to depart from it in the radical manner set out in the Amendment. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment or, if he will not, for the Committee to reject it.

Mr. John Lee

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from ' duty ' to ' be ' in line 11 and to insert: ' or, in certain circumstances, confers a power on education authorities to provide, or to make arrangements for the provision of, milk for pupils and others) shall, so far as it relates to pupils in attendance at public schools, junior colleges or other educational establishments,'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Victor Yates)

I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Ross

That will be convenient, Mr. Yates, because these are drafting Amendments to the provisions in the Clause dealing with the Scottish position. The first two represent a more explicit statement of the confinement of free milk to children receiving primary education and, in the next two Amendments, we put right an omission; that is, we do not intend to remove the free school milk from any children in special schools, being handicapped children and the like. The result is that this is at once a more explicit statement of the position in primary education and at the same time follows what has already been done for schools south of the Border. Be they children of 15, 16 or whatever age, so long as they are at special schools, the milk will be free.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I welcome, of course, the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The fact that he has had to make it shows what little thought was given to this Measure before it appeared.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 12, after ' duty ' insert: ' or, as the case may be, conferring such a power,'; In line 13, after ' education ', insert ' or special educational treatment'; In line 16, at end insert 'or special educational treatment '.—[Mr. Ross.]

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 26, leave out from "Wales" to end of Clause and add: or as regards Scotland, until the national food survey has conducted an up-to-date report on the nutritional value of the provision of school milk in secondary schools, and until Parliament in the light of its findings has decided to make this section operative by affirmative order".

The Temporary Chairman

With this Amendment we can consider Amendment No. 5: In line 8, leave out subsection 2.

Mr. Jackson

I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment. Its gist is that the provisions of this Clause will become operative when hon. Members have satisfied themselves that the provisions have been justified. I begin my statement of the reasons for adopting this Amendment by referring to what was said in justification of this Clause by Front Bench spokesmen on 20th February.

The Chief Secretary addressed himself to this problem and noted that there had been a decline in the inception of school milk in secondary schools. He said that this had dropped to 60 per cent. last year and to 58 per cent. this year. He also said: it would perhaps be going too far to say that the evidence on nutritional grounds is at present conclusive against the need for continuing the present policy, it certainly points that way, and we are advised that one could not base a case for retention on nutritional evidence. That was a rather qualified statement, not a fulsome assertion in support of the provisions of this Clause. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) he went further. He said: My hon. Friend referred to a demonstrable need for milk. But that is not a case he can demonstrate. He cannot demonstrate the need on nutritional grounds at the ages of those attending normal secondary schools. We have been into that position most carefully, and it is because that case cannot be demonstrated and for that alone that we have been able to put forward this proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 252, 255.] That statement goes very much further than the earlier one.

When he summed up the debate, the First Secretary referred to the proposal in a somewhat more qualified form. He said: it cannot be said with certainty that this is medically necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 357.] The logic of that is that it cannot be said with certainty that school milk is unnecessary. That proposition logically follows. It is only right and proper that the House should be informed about the advice that the Minister has received on this matter. I have spent some time today going through the literature available to me, and all the evidence that I can find in the Library indicates that there is no support for the proposition that I have just read out.

I begin by drawing the attention of the Secretary of State to a Report published by the Ministry of Health in 1937, that of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, referring to milk. A great deal of work was done by that Committee. It said: Milk is of such outstanding value that the consumption of a sufficient quantity of it may be regarded as the key to proper nutrition. Every one of the constituents of milk possesses high nutritive value and it is, therefore, most desirable that all of these should be utilised for human nutrition, more especially because the diets of many people are deficient in the nutrients supplied by milk and certain of its products. Paragraph 24 of that Report was headed: Recommended increase of milk consumption. It went on to suggest that the desirable amount of milk for children is from one to two pints per day. It might be said in reply that "That was 1937 and we now have the advantages of 30 years' knowledge. Perhaps the views of scientists then have been modified." Therefore, I draw the attention of the Committee to more recent work. I understand that one of the standard texts in this field is that of Davidson and Passmore, "Human Nutrition and Dietetics". It concludes: All nutritionists would agree that a regular intake of milk is beneficial to growing children. In addition, I quote from an American authority named Sherman. He says: milk greatly favours growth and development in youth, confers health and vigour throughout adult life and postpones old age. In no other way can the food habits now prevailing, especially in our cities, be so certainly and so economically improved as by a more liberal use of good milk. In those quotations I have talked about children. If I understand the argument that we had on Tuesday, young people cease to be children at the age of 11. We know that this is nonsense. Young people grow—there is a volume of evidence to suggest this—not only till the age of 16 or 17 but till the age of 19. So I think it is very regrettable that there should be this cut-off of milk consumption in our schools at the age of 11.

I quote further evidence. Sir Wilfred Fish, the former President of the General Dental Council, had a good deal to say about the contribution of free milk in combating the prevalence and ugliness of hypoplastic teeth among children. The work which is being done by him is also confirmed by a nutritionist whom I presume all hon. Members will know, Professor Yudkin, the Professor of Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, London. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is familiar with the more recent work of Professor Yudkin. However, I draw his attention to some of Professor Yudkin's findings. But I notice my right hon. Friend nodding; I am very pleased at that. Professor Yudkin is in the process of undertaking a study of school children in London. I do not have details of the specific point of the study, but I understand that his study is not in educationally under-privileged areas. His interim finding came as something of a surprise to me, as, I am sure, it will to many hon. and right hon. Members. He stated that, of those children, about a quarter of the boys and a third of the girls receive no solid food from their afternoon tea to next day's lunch, a matter of 18 hours. Without the intake of milk in the morning at half-past 10 or 11 o'clock, these children would, in fact, go hungry.

I come now to a general statement which Professor Yudkin has made about the nutrient value of milk: There are many ways in which children can obtain the diet necessary to promote health and promote growth, but the simplest and most economic way of ensuring this is to make certain that they have a good deal of milk each day. My personal view is that the Government's investment in school milk is paying excellent dividends. He did not say that he was referring only to young children. He has not qualified that statement with any reference to children up to the age of 11. Has my right hon. Friend or his Ministry received any advice on this matter from Professor Yudkin? If so, what was it?

I turn next to the Plowden Report. All of us on both sides agree that our edu- cation welfare services are provided to assist poorer children to make more effective use of the education system. The Plowden Committee considered this matter in some detail, and I draw attention to various passages in its report. In Appendix 14 it was said: The proportion receiving milk was correlated with bad social conditions". Table 6 lists the positive and negative correlations between certain social variables, on the one hand, and the take-up of school milk, school dinners and so on, on the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) made the point well when he spoke about the importance of school milk for the children of unemployed workers. The positive correlations in Table 6 are these: between the children of semi-skilled and unskilled workers and the intake of school milk; between children experiencing overcrowding in their housing conditions and the consumption of school milk; between children in low-value dwellings and the take-up of school milk; between family size and the take-up of school milk; between the children of widows aged 35 to 39 and the take-up of school milk. It is obvious that this section of the community will be much harder hit by the Clause than other sections.

I drew attention now to an excellent article written by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) which appeared in theGuardianof 20th January. He summed up the objections to this Clause very well, quoting further evidence in his article: The National Food Survey has demonstrated that in families with one child an average of 27 per cent. of the milk consumed per head is obtained through the welfare and school milk schemes. That is a small percentage, only 27 per cent. through welfare or the schools. However, In families of two, three and four children, the figures are 36, 40 and 47 per cent. For many poorer families the welfare and school milk scheme undoubtedly provides much higher percentages of their total consumption and the National Food Survey also provides statistical proof of the vital importance of milk as a source of protein and calcium to families with three or four children where, as in so many cases, the nutritional value of their diet falls below the recommended allowances. We have been assured that such families will receive additional sums in family allowance, but many of my hon. Friends will join me in expressing some scepticism as whether the additional amount of family allowance will be spent on school milk. That line of argument does not convince me.

9.30 p.m.

The gist of our case is that, as a result of the Clause, many poorer children will suffer preventable hardships and permanent ill health. My hon. Friends and I cannot accept such consequences. I have some specific questions to ask. First, I have read statements to the effect that the Ministry has received advice; in other words, there must be a volume—I would hope a considerable volume—of evidence to counter the evidence I have presented. It behoves my right hon. Friend to give us some of this evidence so that people like Professor Yudkin and others can state whether they think it is satisfactory.

Secondly, for how long has this matter been under review? As I understand it, the argument is not that we must save a miserly £5 million. It is that children over 11 are not terribly interested in drinking this milk; this is not an economy measure; this milk is not needed. Over what period has this study taken place?

Thirdly, was this a detailed study? Anyone who thinks carefully about this will not be convinced by the argument that only 58 per cent. of children in secondary schools drink school milk. It will probably be found that in middle class areas the percentage take-up will be small but in educationally underprivileged areas the figure might be very high. Have the studies been comparative studies—that is, comparing schools in economically under-privileged areas with those in middle class areas?

Finally, it is claimed that £5 million will be saved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the claim by the National Farmers' Union that farmers will lose about £2 million as a result of this exclusion and the Unions' statement that it will insist on this cutback in farmers' income being made good at the Annual Price Review. This milk will be sold to buttermakers and to cheesemakers for 1s. 6d. a gallon instead of 4s. a gallon. The sum which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have to make good, if it is to compensate farmers for their loss of income, is £1,875,000. If the National Farmers' Union is successful in its negotiation, the real saving may well be, not £5 million, but nearer £3 million.

Sir C. Osborne

I should like to support the plea made so excellently by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) for the retention of milk in secondary schools. I want to look at the financial side which to me is of equal importance. Before doing so I would say that this is the meanest Clause in a thoroughly bad Bill. How mean can a Government get to do a thing like this? Had hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite been on these benches they would have howled with anger if we had done this kind of thing. The language would have been unprintable if we, as a Tory Government, had proposed this. I cannot understand for the life of me hon. Gentlemen, who I know have the interests of the school children at heart, agreeing to a mean, miserable proposal of this kind.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is really dealing with the Clause. This is an Amendment. Perhaps he will confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne

With great respect to the Chair, and of course I shall bow to your Ruling, the hon. Member for The High Peak was allowed to deal with the matter from the very widest aspect, and I thought that I could do the same. If you rule me out of order, I cannot continue.

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Member for The High Peak was careful to relate his remarks to a survey, and I am asking the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment on the Notice Paper.

Sir C. Osborne

If I am confined by the Chair, which I think is rather unfair—[Interruption.]—I withdraw that. If I am to be confined in this way, with your permission and that of the Committee, I will wait until the debate on Clause stand part, and then I will say what I have to say, like it or not.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

We listened to a very interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), dealing with the nutritional aspects of this Clause. He has asked some very pertinent questions and I should like to ask some equally pertinent ones about the position in Scotland. He has quoted many eminent authorities on the subject of nutrition but I believe that the pioneer and the greatest expert of all in this subject was John Boyd Orr, when he was Director of the Rowatt Institute of Aberdeen.

I am quite sure that when this Bill reaches another place, if Lord Boyd-Orr is able, he will descend upon the House of Lords and make a speech. I hope that this Measure will be rejected there. The classic book on milk nutrition was written by John Boyd Orr 30 years ago. This Measure is retrogressive and we should have some definite evidence as to whether the Government have carried out any inquiry on purely dietetic and nutritional grounds. Have they carried out any inquiry at the Rowatt Institute at Aberdeen? Have they come to any conclusions at all about nutrition or is this merely a piece of economy—a miserable piece of economy brought in at the last minute?

I have made some inquiries about what this decision means to Scotland. In the part of the County of Ayrshire which I represent, £24,000 a year will be saved. Curiously enough, the people who have become interested in this matter are the farmers of Kilmarnock. who promptly sent a telegram to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointing out what effect this will have on the dairy industry of the county.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I bet he did not reply.

Mr. Hughes

I should like to know whether an inquiry was carried out in Ayrshire, which has a very good and long record in providing milk for school children. One of the pioneers of it was the late Mrs. Clarice McNab Shaw, a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. I am sure that if she had been a Member now she would have been opposing the Clause and arguing on the same lines as I am arguing. In Lanarkshire, £81,000 will be saved; in Glasgow, £150,000; and in Edinburgh, £53,000. I should like to know whether any inquiry was carried out by the education authorities in Scotland before the decision was made to cut off milk for the secondary schools. If not, why not? Surely the local authorities, which have experience in this matter, are entitled to some consideration. If no inquiry was made, it should have been made.

I have conducted an inquiry of my own. I live in an area in Ayrshire in which there is a fairly large secondary school and a small Roman Catholic school. This weekend, I had conversations with the Rector of Cumnock Academy. He told me—and these are the latest figures—that 705 pupils, or 62.2 per cent., get milk. If the Clause is passed, 705 pupils in this school will have their milk cut off. There is a smaller school, a Roman Catholic school, called St. Conval's near my house. I have no brief for this school, because the children of it sometimes come along and steal my apples. But, because they steal my apples, that is no reason why I should steal their milk.

Suppose that some intelligent school child, or even somebody in a brains trust of the Young Socialists, asked what was the reason for this. It is said that the country is in difficulties, that we must find money for the Polaris submarines, for the "Britannia" and other things. It may be asked, "What is the economic reason?". The answer may be, "The country is in a bad way. We need more exports". But how will this decision help exports? Will the farmers who are engaged in producing the milk go into the factories to help to increase exports? Perhaps they will be needed in Johnnie Walker's factory at Kilmarnock. Will there be any economic advantage if the people who may be displaced from the farms of Ayrshire manufacture one liquid instead of another?

It would be difficult to put up an answer to an intelligent question asked by an intelligent pupil when told one day by his teacher, "No milk today." When asked why, the teacher would have to reply," That was the decision of a Labour Government. I am thoroughly ashamed of this."

Sir C. Osborne

Say it again.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hughes

I do not need to say it again. It has probably gone home. That position is typical of Scotland.

If there is no economic argument, what possible case is there? The financial argument is simply superficial and trivial. There is, however, the argument of whether the children take the milk. I have made inquiries and I discover that 705 pupils at the big secondary school take it. It can, therefore, be said that if 62 per cent. of the children in a big secondary school like Cumnock Academy take the milk, there is justification for continuing it.

I have asked whether there can be waste, and I made inquiries from a friend of mine who is the janitor at the school. He said, "Yes, there is waste. Some children do not take the milk. Some bottles go back partly empty." When I asked whether he was in favour of cutting off the children's school milk, however, he replied, "Definitely, no." Every school teacher, every official and everybody connected with supplying milk to the schools of Ayrshire whom I have been able to consult has agreed that this is a retrograde action and educationally is completely unjustifiable.

I turn to the economic case. I believe that the farmers have a case. At the weekend, I was able to consult one of the best known farmers who lives in Ayrshire, Mr. William Young, of Skerrington Mains, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He expressed to me in forceful terms the position of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. He pointed out that the cut will mean that in Scotland the supply of 2 million gallons which is consumed in secondary schools will be lost to the farmer. This means that in Ayrshire many small dairy producers will feel the loss as a result of the cutting down of school milk.

I have a wealth of statistics, but I do not propose to go further in this matter than to say that the farming community regards this as a very bad step from the viewpoint of the milk producer. Every person who is interested in the economics of the milk industry thoroughly agrees. It is not as bad as in England—we have not had foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland—but at a time when we are being told that we need to grow more food at home, this is how the farmer is being encouraged.

I had a statement from a farmer who supplies a local school. The economics are that if the vans which take out the school milk do not have to deliver to the school, overhead charges will be such that that farmer will probably have to increase the price of milk to the consumer. Instead of treating the dairy industry in that way, we should be encouraging it. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak pointed out the implication that when the Price Review comes, the farmers will say that the loss must be made up in the Price Review. If the price goes up, where is the economic sense of it?

I think I have stated the case very clearly and very concisely from the point of view of the schoolchildren and that of the farmers and that of the dairy industry, and I hope we shall get some modification of the Government's attitude and that this will be welcome in the county which I represent.

Mr. Stan Newens (Epping)

My hon. Friends the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) have made out a very strong case and I entirely concur with what they have said. I utterly deplore the proposal to abolish school milk in secondary schools. I say this as a teacher and one who has had a number of years' experience teaching in secondary schools.

Instead of arguing merely about financial results what we have done in proposing this Amendment is to give my right hon. Friends an opportunity of testing the validity of their argument on nutritional grounds. Let us postpone the implementation of this proposal till the nutritional value of the provision of school milk to secondary schoolchildren is investigated. That, surely, is an eminently reasonable proposal? If, as a result of a survey, it is proved that no nutritional value of any significance is provided by this means there will be a very strong argument for abolishing the provision of school milk in secondary schools, but surely my right hon. Friend would not insist on going ahead with a proposal of this sort if he believed it would cause serious damage to the nutrition of even a small section of our children in the secondary schools? Therefore, what we ask by this Amendment is that investigation be made before a decision is taken, before the damage is done.

There is today a widespread assumption, which is quite false, that the milk is no longer necessary, that we have completely conquered the consequences of insufficient consumption of milk. There was up to a few years ago a widespread assumption that we had completely conquered poverty in this country, and then the child poverty group and other people got to work and they showed that there is a great deal of poverty here in our midst, and on a scale which none of us believed to be possible. It is true today—is it not?—that there are hundreds of thousands of children living in homes in which the wage earners do not receive wages equivalent to what they would receive from the Ministry of Social Security if they were unemployed. There are, therefore, many children in families up and down the country relying on incomes which are below Ministry of Social Security standards. The Government's surveys of family expenditure have repeatedly shown up on what low incomes some people have to sustain their families. Let us remember that the cost of living index does not fully reveal the state of poverty in our country because it over-estimates the consumer durables, and in many families, still to this day, there are not that number of consumer durables which there are assumed to be, on average, up and down the land.

In my view, school milk is particularly necessary for the children of large families in the lower income groups, especially where, because of the disgraceful conditions of unemployment, those families are found in the development areas. I represent an area which is regarded as a very prosperous one, but I am extremely concerned about the children of families living in other parts of the country, so I am in no way advancing the selfish point of view of my constituents alone.

Even if it is proved that milk is not necessary for children of secondary school age who come from the homes of higher-paid workers—and I do not concede that point, though I am prepared to accept it for the sake of argument—there is still an overwhelming case for the retention of school milk for the children of lower-paid workers. If the milk is not provided free, it will not be drunk on anything like the scale by children who are in need. We must remember that there is not a completely straight correlation between income and nutritional standards. Many people do not provide themselves or their children with a balanced diet; indeed, in many cases, children from poorer homes tend to get a less unbalanced diet. If parents provide their children with the money and it is possible to buy milk at school, the children may prefer to buy pop, but that does not indicate that the children's judgment in this respect is one of which we can approve as responsible Members of Parliament. Quite often, parents will allow their children to buy what they choose. As a teacher, I have pleaded with children to spend their money on school meals which provide a balanced diet, rather than yield to the attractions of the chip shop or the pie and mash shop up the road.

The Government's proposal will do a great deal of damage to the nutritional standards which our children have enjoyed for a good number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak has stolen some of my thunder, but I have before me the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Education for 1939 to 1945 on the Health of the School Child. According to that Report, in 1935 over 11 per cent. of our children were classified as having slightly subnormal nutrition or bad nutrition. Even in 1945, over 9 per cent. were in that same category. One matter about which the Chief Medical Officer was very proud was the way in which the provision of school milk had been increased until 80 per cent. of children were thought to be taking it.

How many hon. Members doubt that the provision of school milk is one of the factors which have provided the better standards of health enjoyed by our children since then? How have we the temerity to take it away now? Do we have to wait for proof of malnutrition and the dire effects of this sort of policy before we restore the provision of milk?

In support of the case for the Government's proposals, I know that some people will quote the attitude of school teachers who are not enthusiastic about secondary school children having school milk. Many teachers take that view not because they object in principle to school milk, but to the disorganisation which it causes in the classroom. This is a problem of proper school organisation. In the school in which I used to teach it never caused any disorganisation in the classroom. So I ask my hon. Friends—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.