§ As amended, considered.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)moved the rejection of Clause 1, because he thought that the result of the clause would be not to correct an evil which was supposed to exist, but to create a greater evil than the Bill was supposed to remedy. Moreover he considered that the local education authority was not the proper authority to whom should be entrusted the carrying out of the measure if passed into law. Though there might be some foundation for the allegation that an evil existed, the evil had been greatly exaggerated; and he believed that it could be met by voluntary effort. He knew that that statement would not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but he thought he could prove his argument. If the Bill became law as it now stood it would take away from the parents all sense of responsibility for the care of their children, and would encourage improvident marriages. He pointed out that when the Bill came from the Select Committee only one meal was to be furnished, but it had been altered on the Report Stage to "meals." That was a proof that if it were once admitted on principle that the State should take care of the children in regard to meals, that principle would be extended. The safeguard introduced in another part of the Bill that the meals should be prepaid was altogether illusory. Free education having been conceded there would soon be a demand for free meals; and once a tart was made on the road to provide free meals for other people's children it would weaken the love of parents for their children and their sense of parental responsibility. The result would be that the parents would have more money in their pocket; and human nature being what it was they would become thriftless and extravagant. The extra money would be spent on selfish pleasure. In fact, the Bill would be a direct encouragement to drink, and 723 the money which had been gained not from their own exertions, but provided by the ratepayers, would go rather to the public-house than in any other direction. Of course he acknowledged that in some cases there were individual parents who under certain circumstances were unable to provide sufficient food for their children; but it had to be remembered that up to the present time there had been a fair amount of voluntary money to provide for those cases. The Report of the Select Committee went far to prove that the absolute want of food was really in many cases non-existent. The Committee said that the inadequate feeding of children in some large towns had forced itself into the consideration of people interested, but the evil was more or less spasmodic, and that on a general review of the evidence they thought that the cause of the evils was due to the social condition of the parents of these children, the lack of employment, thriftlessness, and an absence of parental responsibility. That was borne out by the evidence of Mr. J. Parr and Mr. Joseph Brown There was a general disposition in the House to regard the Poor Law guardians as not to be trusted, but in his opinion this Bill, if it became law, should be administered by the Poor Law guardians, who knew all the circumstances of each case, rather than the local education authority. He knew of cases in which people receiving£2 9s. 0d. were yet receiving this class of relief.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.)regretted to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, but wished to point out that no child would be fed under this clause.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that if he was out of order no doubt the Speaker would stop him. There was one case which was disclosed in the course of inquiry which showed that one family, the head of which earned £4 18s. a week, were receiving food and assistance at the expense of the ratepayers or voluntary effort. Mr. John Scott, the headmaster of a London County Council school at Bethnal Green, was asked if he considered the under-feeding of children a serious evil, and he replied that it was very small 724 indeed. Altogether it was quite trivial. He said that after investigation by himself and others. There had been a great deal of exaggeration as to the evils which this Bill proposed to remedy. It was not the want of food which was to be blamed but the neglect of the parent to supply suitable food and to supply washing in regard to clothes, etc., and to take other steps which led to cleanliness. It was unnecessary that the State should give the care of a parent to these children. The local education authority had to furnish the building and the apparatus, but they knew nothing about cooking or the feeding of children or the management of a canteen. Moreover, the teachers themselves had many of them intimated that they did not wish to be associated with the supply or administration of food at all. Therefore the local education authority would have to supply food and administer these canteens themselves. Under these circumstances he regretted that the Poor Law authority was not substituted for the local education authority, because then some of the evils which he had indicated would not ensue; but even if the authority was the Poor Law board it would not remove his objection to the clause, because he believed the principle of it was wrong. In London alone the provision, the cooking, and the service of the food would come to over £1,500,000 a year [cries of "No"]. That was the estimate of Mr. Shepheard, the Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council, and hon. Members seemed to be innocent enough to anticipate that if the meals were provided the parents of children, would not take full advantage of them. Hon. Members did not understand human nature. If there was a good thing going the parents would see that their children got it, and at least £1,500,000 would have to be spent and the ratepayers would have to pay it. He brought forward this objection, as he wished to raise his voice against what he regarded as pure and undiluted Socialism.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)seconded, and said that this clause contained the principle of the whole Bill, and if it was knocked out there would very 725 little of the Bill left; he regarded both the Bill and the clause as extremely dangerous. Of course if they had a hungry child that child had got to be fed, and everybody agreed that the proper person to feed it was the parent. All must agree that where the parent failed to feed his child and carry out his moral obligation a moral obligation was imposed upon relatives to step in and help. Such a state of things constantly happened. If that failed the next thing was that some charitable institution, of which there were many, should step in and help. If the child's parents did not do their duty and there were no relatives or neighbours to step in, then he agreed that public charity in one form or another must necessarily be called in, and the only question was the form in which it should be applied, not only in the interest of the child but in the interest of the parent and of the public generally. It was a question of principle, and it was because this clause proceeded upon no principle at all or upon a highly mischievous principle that he had no hesitation in saying that it ought not to be put on the Statute Book. No excuse could be made for such a parent. If a man could afford to feed his children and yet allowed thorn to run the streets and go to school hungry he was a monstrous scoundrel. If he was in a state of destitution and could not feed his children, then it would be not only his right but his bounden duty to apply to the relieving officer of the district, who was bound to see that immediate relief was given. A parent might not like to apply to the relieving officer, and that dislike was profoundly honourable to the parents. But although he respected a parent who desired to try every possible plan before seeking relief in that way, he still said that a man who, in order to avoid coming on the rates, deliberately connived at the starvation of his children, for that was what it meant, was a man for whom nothing could be said. Every genuine case of a starving child therefore meant a cruel and negligent parent, and if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to grapple with this question in a real and satisfactory manner, it was to the cruel and neglectful parent, and not to the ratepayers, that he must go. The whole case for this clause rested on the 726 assumption that, so long as it was proved that the child was underfed, the conduct of the parent was a secondary matter. That was a detestable and abominable theory. This clause was fundamentally a mischievous clause which would do much harm, and it was because he was persuaded of that, that he felt constrained to take up the time of the House on this Amendment. There was no provision in our law to deal with starvation, because no man need starve in this country. Every man who starved failed in his duty to the country. There was complete machinery to deal with cases of destitution, and if the machinery worked ill then it should be amended. But it had not been proved that it did work ill; therefore let that machinery be used and let them not use novel and unusual machinery which would lead to infinitely greater evils than it sought to cure. It was because he looked at this matter very seriously, and because he thought this proposal might be seriously extended; that it held out that sure and certain promise, not merely to relieve those that were destitute, but to set up, under the cloak of relieving that most pathetic figure the hungry child, nothing less than a vast system of the State feeding of the children of the country, that he would support the Amendment if it went to a division.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'take,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHthought the hon. Baronet had unintentionally, misled the House as to the effect of the clause. The mover and seconder of its omission would readily admit that the great majority of the House did not agree with them. When this clause was read a second time the House unanimously agreed to the proposal and that there was an urgent need for the machinery that this clause provided. Under the clause no child could be fed at the cost of the taxpayers. All it did was to set up a different machinery. It was permissive in its operation, and no local authority need take advantage of it unless, there was the necessity.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)deprecated his hon. friends going to a division on this clause. It effected, no doubt, a very great change in the Bill as it was read a second time, but he thought there was hardly a complete understanding as to the real meaning and value of the machinery provided. He took it they were agreed that a hungry child ought to be fed. Well the first person to feed it was the parent; if he failed then the voluntary agencies came in, and in the last resort there were the guardians of the poor. But in the meantime the child had to be fed. He entirely agreed with all that had been said as to the iniquity of the parent who could pay and would not, but it must be borne in mind that in the meantime the child must not go hungry. There was, it was true, certain machinery already existing, but the difficulty about the present voluntary agencies was that they were sporadic. They were scattered about and were not always in the right place at the right time. He wanted to bring these voluntary agencies and the local authorities, who could institute a system of medical inspection which ought to go hand in hand with a system of feeding, together. He wanted to bring these two sources of supply into harmonious working, so that they should avoid overlapping and ensure that the food should be given when and where it was wanted and not when and where it was not wanted. Where they did work together the system worked exceedingly well. There was no doubt that in some of these poor districts where parents gave their children money to buy food the children spent it on unwholesome food and acquired what doctors called a slum stomach—a taste for pickles, sweets, cigarettes, &C. By this provision such children could get wholesome food, and would also learn to behave at meals. Hungry and destitute children would also be fed. If the clause was properly worked a demand for public money would not arise, except for matters provided for in the clause. Voluntary agencies could provide a very considerable sum, and if there was local patriotism no doubt a local fund would be forthcoming. The number of children whose parents could not pay was comparatively small, so that there ought to be a considerable return to the societies. He felt very strongly the desirability of keeping the provision of food as far as possible 728 out of the hands of the local authorities. They had had quite enough of making the children, and the work in the schools, a counter in the political game, and he should be very sorry to see the question of their meals made a cry at municipal elections. Besides, a voluntary agency could do what a local authority could not. The unwholesome condition of the children did not arise so much from the want of meals as from eating unwholesome food, from insufficient fresh air in their living rooms, lack of cleanliness, and other causes. He was afraid the working classes were apt to think that most evils could be cured by legislation, the grant of public money, and the appointment of an inspector, but such things as he had mentioned could not be cured in this way. Legislation could not ensure that children were sent to bed in good time, that their rooms were properly ventilated or that attention was paid to cleanliness. This could only be done by those voluntary agencies which worked among the poor. It was the life of the poor, which needed improvement, and which could only be reached by means of voluntary agencies, and their association with the local authority would give point and emphasis to their work. In this way-many of our well-to-do and comparatively unoccupied fellow-countrymen would be able to learn something of the life of their poorer neighbours to help poor families over their difficulties and improve the health of their homes.
§ *MR. BRIDGEMANhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division. The clause was by far the least objectionable in the Bill, and by itself, he thought, it would do an immense amount of good. There had been a great deal of evidence to show the large amount of indiscriminate charity there was in London, and the amount of harm it did. If it did nothing else, this clause would show, at any rate, how to organize that charity in a sensible way so as to make the money go as far as possible. His only objection to the clause was that it did not provide sufficient machinery. He believed it would be very much better if the local authority were given power to enforce upon school managers the duty of forming sub-committees who might also inquire into questions appertaining to the health of the children. he was sure that would 729 have been a simpler way, and he was sorry the committee was to be called a canteen committee and confined to work of this kind. He should not vote for the Amendment, but he felt that the clause might have been made more effective if it had been made an obligatory duty upon the managers to carry it out.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said the promoters of the Bill were very much obliged to the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. There was no new principle in this clause. It was in existence in London and other large towns, although no doubt a keen auditor might bring the local authority to book for allowing buildings, furniture, and apparatus to be used. It was time hon. Members looked at the Bill and realised that not a farthing of public money could be spent in respect of the purchase of food under this clause. The whole thing was hedged round by safeguards against economic abuse, and when they came to the clause dealing with the recovery of the cost of meals he would do all he could to assist hon. Gentlemen. On this very clause, however, last week, after the late Parliamentary Secretary had accepted its principle, hon. Members opposite debated it for eight and a half hours, and it was carried by 128 votes to seventeen. After all the inquiries held on this subject and the evidence taken, it was going rather far to take such a long discussion about that which well-informed Members agreed contained no new principle. Notwithstanding all this, sixteen and a-half hours had been spent, 220 speeches made, and fifteen divisions taken on the Bill in Committee. After the long debate upon this subject they might at any rate as soon as possible get to the two principles which were the only principles in this Bill, and which, of course, the House was entitled to debate at any length.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)said there was nothing in the clause about necessitous children, and therefore he was afraid it would be possible to spend the ratepayers' money on children whose parents were well able to feed them. It ought to be made quite clear that the ratepayers' money should not be used in such circumstances.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)directed attention to the evidence of Mr. Shepheard before the Select Committee to allay the alarm felt by some hon. Members as to the effect of the Bill. Mr. Shepheard was asked—
You estimate that you can meet the necessities of the children with an outlay of about £45,000?And the answer was—That is our estimate. Then we hope and expect that present charitable funds will be continued. There is about £10,000 a year being expended in this direction through various charities, and I should hope this would come off the £45,000.Therefore, the £1,500,000 with which the House was startled dwindled down on examination to £35,000 a year. Remarks had been made about parental responsibility. The Committee reported as follows—It has been often urged that the result of putting the duty on a public authority would undermine parental responsibility, but the Committee are forced to the conclusion that the present practice is by no means free from that danger.That was, he thought, a remarkable and a wise passage. He hoped contributions to charitable funds would continue, but by introducing a public authority the system was given a permanence, and he believed the public authority would watch carefully the action of parents in this matter. Alarmist statements had been made as to the effect this Bill would have, but the evidence could not have been carefully considered by those who made those statements. In deciding to feed her necessitous school children England was but following the example of all the other European nations.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out the words, "on which the authority are represented." He did not think there was any need for these words, and he thought they might be detrimental, because if the object of the promoters of the Bill was really to encourage voluntary effort that would not be achieved by putting on the committee representatives of the local education authority. If it were thought wise that the local education authority should be connected with the committee, arrangements could be made to meet together and consult as to the steps to be taken.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorks, W.E., Barkston Ash)seconded.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words, 'on which the authority are represented."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHagreed that as much freedom as possible should be left to the local education authority in constituting these committees, but the hon. Baronet strained these words a little beyond their real meaning. The words in the clause were that the local education authority might associate with themselves any committee on which the authority were represented. In certain emergencies there might have to be an expenditure of public money, and as the work had to be carried on with great care, subject to the approval of the authorities, it was absolutely necessary that the authorities should be represented.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)said the hon. Gentleman had stated that there were certain cases in which that committee as constituted by section (a) would have to spend public money. Was that so"
§ LORD BALCARRESasked whether this committee, on which the local authority was to be represented, had no function besides that of actually selecting the food and paying the bill for it.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid this committee would have to do more than buy food. They would have to see that the work was properly carried on.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division to provide that the meals supplied to children should be prepaid. This, he said, was an Amendment of considerable substance and well worthy of consideration because it 732 was strongly supported by the Report of the Select Committee and also in the various documents placed before that Committee. A Report was furnished to the Select Committee by the hon. Member for Chippenham in which he said that 10,000 children in Rome attending the schools took advantage of a daily meal and everyone paid a halfpenny punctually on arrival. It must be obvious that the system of prepayment if possible was most satisfactory, because it insured in the first instance that they were dealing with the genuine cases which this Bill was intended to meet. Another excellent effect of the Amendment would be that it would distinctly draw a line which would indicate where pauper relief began in connection with this matter. That was a question which divided hon. Members in dealing with this subject. The objection felt to the giving of meals at the expense of the rates to the children of parents who were able to pay would be removed. Were the Government prepared to give some reason for disagreeing with what apparently was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee? The Committee went thoroughly into the matter, and their opinion was greater than any other that could be cited.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. The only objection he could possibly see to it was that prepayment could not always be obtained if a child was waiting for a meal. That was not a sound objection, because there was a provision later in the Bill which met the case of necessitous children. It was evident that unless prepayment was got, the chances of recovering the money would be very small indeed. It would make the local education authority unpopular, and considerable expense would be entailed in recovering the money if the parents refused to pay. If the Amendment were adopted, all the legal machinery which would be required to recover the money would be avoided. A child might be supplied with meals contrary to the desire of the parent, who might be called upon to pay, although he had been absolutely ignorant of his child having had the food. He saw no good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, provided that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that the wicked parent should pay and that he should not be allowed to escape his parental obligations with impunity.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 20, after the word "charged" to insert the words 'by prepayment."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid it was quite unnecessary for the mover and seconder of the Amendment to say a word in favour of prepayment. Anyone who was engaged in business preferred prepayment. The canteen committees would have to be worked in a business way, and nothing could be so desirable as to secure prepayment in every case. The hon. Member would ask why, while agreeing with him on that principle, he could not accept the Amendment. He would give a perfectly sound reason. A great many of the Amendments on the Paper sprang from the idea that they were setting up canteen committees. That was not what they were doing. They were laying down the constitution for the representative bodies who would afterwards have to make another constitution for the canteen committees who would carryout the work. They could not say in the Bill that there ought to be prepayment for meals, because there must be cases in which it would be impossible to observe that rule, however good it might be, if it were practicable. Reference had been made to the case of Rome. There was provision in the system adopted in Rome for dealing with hard cases. Although they accepted the principle of repayment they felt that the clause should be drawn so as to leave a wide discretion to the local authority.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that in Rome according to the Report laid on the Table of the House, if a child came to school obviously in want of food, the education authority bought a ticket from the feeding committee and gave the child a meal, making certain inquiries afterwards into the reasons why the parents had failed to provide the child with food. That system worked effectively in practice, and the children obtaining a meal without payment did not average more than 3 per cent. of those coming from the poorest districts. He need not say that he was glad the Government were following so good an example. In France there was what was known as the system of can- 734 teens where the children received meals. I The children brought a ticket, which was paid for sometimes by the parent, and sometimes by a charitable institution, but no one knew who had paid for the ticket.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not agree with his hon. friends in regard to the policy of the Government as to prepayment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that prepayment was eminently desirable, but that he did not want to put it into the Bill because it would interfere with the discretion of the local education authority. The Parliamentary Secretary had refused the Amendment on purely administrative grounds. The hon. Gentleman must be the judge on that point; but he hoped that in the Departmental Circular embodying instructions to the local education authorities laying down the views of the Department, the Minister in charge of the Bill would state that in his personal opinion prepayment, wherever possible, should be made.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)moved to insert in line 22, after the word "meal," "the expense attending the serving such meal." He would like to leave the local education authority as free as possible, but at the same time they should not only be relieved of the expense for the actual food supply, but of the cost of cooking and attendance.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that this Amendment meant much the same as one standing in his own name, to leave out of clause 2 the words "determined by the local education authority," and insert "sufficient to cover the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving that meal."
§ MR. HART-DAVIESsaid that his object in moving his Amendment was to leave the matter rather vague.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)seconded the Amendment. He had always understood that the words in the Bill included, not only the cost of food, but of getting the food ready.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In line 22, after the word 'meal,' to insert 'the expense attending the serving of such meal."—(Mr. Hart-Davies).
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that the words of the Amendment had just the same force as he had tried to explain in regard to the other Amendment. The local education authority must be allowed to expend what they thought right in regard to preparing a meal. In the case of a small town, where it was thought necessary in connection with a public school to open a dining-room, the initial capital expenditure might amount to £15 or £20 a year. But during the first year the dining-room was opened perhaps not-more than a thousand meals would be provided, and only one penny could be charged for each, because otherwise the child would go home. If a charge was made to cover the whole expense it might amount to sixpence or sevenpence a meal; whereas, perhaps a year afterwards the dining-room would be crowded and the initial cost would be covered by a charge of a penny per meal. The difficulty of putting in words such as were suggested in the Amendment would hamper the local education authority, and he hoped that his hon. friend would not press it, because they must have a little confidence in the business tact of the local authority.
§ MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)moved an Amendment with the object of providing that the meals provided should not in cost exceed threepence. He thought it was desirable to limit the discretion of the local education authority. He had no doubt that some school canteen committees would be economical and supply the best possible meal at the least possible cost, but there might be school canteen committees who were extravagant, and it was impossible to say in such an event to what the cost of a meal might run. The parent was to be charged with the price of the meal, and the amount was to be recoverable from him, and he would know, if the Amendment were adopted, that under no circumstances could he be charged more than three- 736 pence. He thought his proposal would help all parties—the education authority, the canteen committee, and the parent, and he considered that the authorities should be guided in some way by a maximum sum being indicated. He did not anticipate that the cost of the meal would, in every case, reach the maximum, but there ought to be one beyond which the charge should not go.
§ Amendment not seconded.
§ *MR. CAVEmoved an Amendment to insert words which would lay it down that the amount charged for the meal should not be less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing, and serving it. He said the Bill gave no guidance as to the principle upon which the local authority should fix the sum to be charged for the meal, and there was nothing to prevent them from providing a meal which cost twopence halfpenny and charging a halfpenny or a farthing, so that they could in substance provide free meals, although making a small nominal charge. They were told that this was not intended, and that no public funds would be applied to the provision of meals under this Bill except in either cases under Clause 3, or where the parent was unable, through no fault of his own, to pay for the meal.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that no public funds would be available for food, but they would be available for machinery.
§ *MR. CAVEsaid that this was the first time he had heard that admitted, but he wished to point out that unless the parent was unable to pay for the meal he ought to be made liable for the cost of it, and some words defining his liability should be inserted. He thought the best way was that the local education authority should fairly estimate the cost of the meal and charge what it cost them. He did not mean to include the capital charges in regard to the buildings and apparatus but merely the estimated cost of providing and serving the meal, his object being to make the whole thing self-supporting in regard to those children whose parents could pay. In the case of necessitous children no provision was made that the cost of the meals could be recovered from any other 737 source, and therefore it must come out of the education rate.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) seconded.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'amount,' to insert the words '(not being less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing and serving such meal.)"—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid he heartily appreciated the courteous and sympathetic words in which the Amendment had been moved, but thought it would be unworkable, and would defeat the object with which it was proposed. It would be exceedingly difficult to estimate the cost, and it would work out perhaps to fractions of a farthing. There must be a round sum, and, as in any business, the loss on one day would be recovered on another. The cost must vary according to the number of children, so that if the Amendment were adopted in a large school it would be much less than in a small school, putting an impossible burden on an auditor. Did the hon. Member say that there was no alternative between an absolutely free meal and one for which the full cost was paid? At present they could get half the money for the meal from the child, and if these words were put in the local authorities would be precluded from taking what might be obtained for a meal. He could not believe the hon. Gentleman intended to do that. But this was one of the practical difficulties that arose with regard to a financial rule of that character. If, again, they asked for a prepayment it must be based upon au estimate and these qualifying words would not got rid of that difficulty. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He congratulated him with having expounded his views with a little more lucidity than he did a few days ago, and was grateful to him for having given his reasons, because this was a question the Committee did not fully understand when it was last discussed. There seemed to be an impression that this 738 clause dealt with necessitous children, but it only dealt with children from whom the money could be recovered. It was only when they came to Clause 3 that they commenced to deal with necessitous children. The hon. Member for St. Helens, on the previous occasion, spoke upon this clause under the total misapprehension that it was to do with free meals for necessitous children. The intention of the clause was in the opposite direction. It was to see that the local authority should not be the loser by giving meals to children, whose parents could afford to pay, merely for the sake of convenience. And that was the Amendment of his hon. friend. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill said the Amendment was unworkable for three reasons. First he said it was impossible to ascertain the cost and whether a profit was being made on a particular meal or not. But a very little experience would enable the local authority to get out of that difficulty. It was perfectly easy to get an estimate of the cost, and that was all that was involved in this Amendment. Then it was said it would necessitate dealing in small fractions. The Amendment did not do that. It simply said there should be no loss. And with regard to the contention that it could not be estimated without going into small fractions, he pointed out that it was not necessary to estimate the cost to a farthing, and if it was estimated at a farthing too much the people who wanted their children to have a meal merely for the sake of convenience were perfectly well able to pay the extra farthing. That would also help the local authority to feed those who could not afford to pay. It was lastly contended that the Amendment would defeat its own object by preventing the local authority receiving part payment or pro-payment. If the cost was estimated he could not see how the Amendment prevented pre-payment, and with regard to part payment the hon. Gentleman had himself made that perfectly safe. If the parents were able to pay part, the voluntary associations would pay the rest, and the part that they paid would go to the local authorities. The Amendment left it open to the local authorities to take part payment of the actual cost of the meal to recoup themselves, yet the hon. Gentleman wished the House to oppose the Amendment. Did 739 he wish the local authority to be a loser when there was no need, or to saddle the rate with more than was necessary, or to make it easy for people able to pay to get a meal for 1d. which cost 2d.? There was no difficulty in this Amendment; it would be easy to administer it if the hon. Gentleman would accept it. He had not been lavish in the concessions he had made, and he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had been rather influenced in that by the fact that so few hon. Members had been present in opposition to discuss the matter. But although only seventeen or eighteen voted in the lobby on Friday it must be borne in mind that they reduced the Government majority to a lower point than almost any before, and he was convinced that many supporters of the Government stayed away in order to avoid the predicament in which they would have been placed in having to oppose the hon. Gentleman.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said it was desirable to keep the various issues quite apart in dealing with this matter. He was astonished to hear the mover of the Amendment say that the principle that the price fixed by the local authority for a meal supplied should not cover the cost of the "machinery" as well as the cost of the food, was new to the House. There was a great weight of authority behind that principle. The Scottish Royal Commission, two Departmental Committees, and the Select Committee had suggested that the cost of the machinery should fall on the local authority and the cost of the materials upon the parents or the voluntary agencies. They had only to refer to the Scottish Commission to find the opinion expressed that in many cases it would be of inestimable advantage if these meals could be supplied, and that the cost of preparing them should be part of the school service. Another circumstance that had been lost sight of was the educational value of a meal supplied under these circumstances. The Report of the Medical Inspector of the Lancet who had recently visited the Indian schools, said it was there recognised that the instruction that could be given at meal times was as necessary as the education given in the schools. He urged the House not to forget the educational value of these meals and contended that experience in London 740 proved that 75 or 80 per cent. of the cost might be recovered from the parents.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)appealed to the Government not to accept this Amendment. In the first place he was a little suspicious that there was a desire to-night not to trust the local authority. If there was one argument more than another used on the Select Committee it was that they should trust the local authority. Those who had been the keenest upon that argument were now the most ready to depart from it. The parent must pay the full estimated cost of the meal, the only alternative being that the child must become a necessitous child. There was no middle course. The proper way to meet the difficulty was to leave more elasticity to the local authority. The local authority might have within its area a district where the better class working men and the middle class resided, and they might be prepared to pay a little more than the bare cost for convenience sake, and in those cases a profit would be made. Another part of the same area might be a poor working class neighbourhood where a number of unskilled labourers resided, and they might not be in a position to pay the full cost of the meals provided for their children. Surely they might leave it to the discretion of the local authority to charge more in the former case and less in the latter, according to the circumstances. If the local authority did not make the whole transaction pay, where would the money come from?
§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)From the rates.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that no public funds were provided. There was no power under this Bill connected with the school canteen system for the rates to be drawn upon in the event of the local authority failing to make this first part of the business pay. But they were not now dealing with necessitous cases. From the arguments which had been advanced he should have thought the reduction of the number of necessitous eases ought to be the chief aim of the hon. Member for Preston than whom no man had done more to prevent this Bill from 741 passing into law. They ought to leave the local authority absolutely free in this matter. For these reasons he sincerely hoped that this Amendment would not be pressed, because it would defeat the object the measure had in view, and it would drive many of the children into a category out of which they ought to do their best to keep them.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)said the hon. Member for Barnard Castle did not appear quite to understand the Amendment. The cost of the food had to be found by voluntary agencies, whilst the cost of its preparation and service had to be provided by the ratepayer, who would not be consulted in the matter at all, and the purpose of this Amendment was to secure that the amount repaid by the parents should go to meet the charge imposed on the ratepayer.
§ *MR. HAROLD COXmaintained that parents who liked the convenience of their children dining at school ought to pay for chat convenience. These parents had no right to compel the ratepayers to pay for the convenience they secured. It had been said that the matter could be settled by leaving it to the local authority. They had had experience of the manner in which local authorities had acted. In the case of London, the London County Council was the local education authority, and when the education of London was handed over to them there were a number of schools in which fees were willingly paid. Those fees brought in a revenue of £20,000 a year, but the London County Council, wantonly abolished them. That council apparently thought that it was more democratic to compel the ratepayer to pay for other people's children than to permit the parent to pay for his own children. If this clause passed it would authorise the London County Council to sot up a system of restaurants all over London at the cost of the ratepayers. We wanted better education in this country, more teachers, and higher salaries for the teachers, but we could not get any of these things if the rate-payers were to be plundered for things 742 that parents really did not want. he therefore hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
MR. GWYNX (Galway)thought the object of this Bill was being misrepresented by the Opposition. There were two principal objects, one of which was primary and the other only secondary. In London and in England generally they had enacted that all children must go to school. The question was whether the children should be forced to go to school in a starving condition. If that was not the wish of hon. Members they would have to provide meals for a certain number of the children. It was in the interests of the ratepayers as well as in the interests of education generally that meals should be provided for necessitous children. The Amendment under consideration raised the question whether other children should be allowed to profit by the existence of the machinery which would be provided under this Bill. It also suggested that a charge should be made which would cover not only the food supplied but also the capital value of the building, machinery, and attendance. It appeared to him that the House was being asked to put the cost of the whole business upon a section of the community.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would recognise that they had been very moderate in their opposition to it. [Cries of "Divide,"] Hon. Members below the gangway who were so impatient made statements which would give a false impression in the country and the House, and therefore it was necessary to deal with them. The one argument appeared to be that the necessitous child should have his meal free, but this Amendment did not touch that point; it provided only that a charge should be made for the cost of the meal to a particular child. The charge would not cover the cost of the building and the providing and serving of the meal.
§ Question put
744§ The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 251. (Division List No. 495.)
745| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Starkey, John R. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bertram, Julius | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hunt, Rowland | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Younger, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Cave and Mr. Harold Cox. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Alden, Percy | Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jenkins, J. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dillon, John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Joyce,.Michael |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Erskine, David C. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Barnard, E. B. | Essex, R. W. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Evans, Samuel T. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lamont, Norman |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham | Farrell, James Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Fenwick, Charles | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Ferens, T. R. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Benn,Sir J. Williams (Devonport | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford | Ffrench, Peter | Levy, Maurice |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Findlay, Alexander | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Billson, Alfred | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lough, Thomas |
| Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Fullerton, Hugh | Lundon, W. |
| Boland, John | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Gilhooly, James | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs |
| Brace, William | Ginnell, L. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Glover, Thomas | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Branch, James | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macpherson. J. T. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gooch, George Peabody | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Gulland, John W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Callum, John M. |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | M'Crae, George |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hall, Frederick | M'Kean, John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | M'Laren,,Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Laren,H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harrington, Timothy | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Cairns, Thomas | Hart-Davies, T. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harwood, George | Marnham, F. J. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Massie, J. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Meagher, Michael |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hayden, John Patrick | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Helme, Norval Watson | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras,W. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Higham, John Sharp | Murnaghan, George |
| Crean, Eugene | Hobart, Sir Robert | Murphy, John |
| Cremer, William Randal | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Myer, Horatio |
| Crombie, John William | Hogan, Michael | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Crooks, William | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Horniman, Emslie John | Nuttall, Harry |
| Delany, William | Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Walters, John Tudor |
| O'Doberty, Philip | Russell, T. W. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Sears, J. E. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Seaverns, J. H. | Watt, H. Anderson |
| O'Malley, William | Seely, Major J. B. | Wedgwood, Josiah. C. |
| O'Mara, James | Shackleton, David James | Whitbread, Howard |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sherwell, Arthur James | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Paul, Herbert | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Snowden, P. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Soares, Ernest J. | Williams, J (Glamorgan) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Steadman, W. C. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Stewart, Halley (Greenoel) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Rees, J. D. | Stewart-Smith, D. Kendal) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Sullivan, Donal | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Robert, G. H. (Norwich) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E). | |
| Robertson, Sir G, Scott (Bradf'rd | Thorne, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Toulmin, George | |
| Robinson, S. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Roche, Augstine (Cork) | Verney, F. W. |
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the word such."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to provide that a parent should receive a statement of account for every meal furnished to his child "within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority." He thought this Amendment was absolutely necessary if justice was to be done to the parents in this matter. The clause gave the local education authority enormous powers in regard to the recovery of the cost of meals, and it seemed to him reasonable that a parent should know within what time he was expected to pay before proceedings would be taken against him. He supposed that an account would have to be rendered to every parent, and he suggested that the account should state the time after which the powers of the local education authority to recover payment would begin to run. This was one of the many gaps in the machinery of the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Secretary to the Board of Education who had not been very lavish in concessions to Members of the Opposition.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, because it only gave the parent a chance of knowing what he had to pay within a prescribed period. A parent might not know that meals were supplied to his child, but he was to be liable for the charge, even though he was in ignorance of what had been done. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that they must leave all these things to the local authorities, but different local authorities would probably make different rules on this extremely important point. He appealed to the good sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite in order that some rule might be laid down ensuring that there should be some uniformity in the regulations made by different authorities. He hoped that he had made himself clear, and having gone so far to give elasticity to the local education authority, he invited the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 1, line 23, after the word 'parent,' to insert the words 'within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority and set forth by them on the statement of account."—(Mr. Bowles.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"
747§ MR. LOUGHsaid he gladly recognised the spirit in which the Amendment had been moved. The hon. Member had said that there were many gaps in the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into effect; but it was the business of the local education authority to fill in these gaps. The hon. Baronet had suggested that at the foot of the accounts sent to the parents it should be stated that if payment was not made in seven days the matter would be put into the hands of the solicitor of the local education authority. He thought that it would be ridiculous to make such a claim, and to put it into the Bill; and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. BOWLESsaid that this clause went beyond machinery, for it empowered every local education authority throughout the country to supply meals to the children, and laid the duty on that authority to recover payment for them. He thought that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see that the clause would impose a very grave injustice on some parents. He wished to move an Amendment to provide that the parents should not be forced to pay unless the meal had been supplied to his child with his authority or consent.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 2, after the word 'amount' to insert the words, 'or that the meal has been furnished without his authority and consent."—(Mr. Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a broad principle was involved in the clause; in I fact it embodied the most definite principle in the Bill. The intention of the Bill was to enforce the duty of the parent to send his child to school properly fed and fit to receive instruction; and this clause had its root in the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that he objected to the children being scarified. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that this was a question purely of administra- 748 tion, and he hoped the Government would not allow the clause to pass without further consideration. He himself wanted the clause to work satisfactorily in regard to parents and children who were not necessitous. It seemed to him that such parents ought at least have some notice where a charge was to be made for the meals. He was sincerely anxious that the Bill should go to another place without any gap in it.
*MR. HERBERT (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe)said he hoped the Government would give serious attention to this Amendment which seemed to him to be perfectly reasonable The clause did not deal entirely with necessitous children, nor with neglectful parents, and it might happen that a parent who did his duty by his children might provide them with money to get dinner day by clay, and the child might spend that money on sweets or cigarettes and, having no dinner otherwise, might be provided with dinner at school. Then, at an indefinite period afterwards, the local authority would send in a bill for meals of which the parent had no knowledge. That he thought would be a monstrous proceeding, and therefore there ought to be an obligation, upon the local authority to give notice at once of what they were doing to both the neglectful parent and the good parent.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had no doubt the same object in view as they had, but he had failed to grasp the point under discussion. The hon. Gentleman had said that where the parent did not provide his child with sufficent food, the object of the clause was to scarify the parent. The Amendment of his hon. friend was not to prevent the scarifying of the parent, who showed cruelty to his z J, but to protect him in doing his u. / If a parent gave his child a sufficient breakfast, and the child went down to school and found a very excellent breakfast for the other children being provided by the local education authority, he might be tempted to take a second breakfast. That was a very likely thing to occur. If the parent exercised cruelty towards his child a cheaper remedy than that proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be to invoke the intervention 749 of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. [Cries of "Divide."] By this Bill they were carrying legislation further than it had ever been carried before, and at all events hon. Members should put themselves to a little inconvenience to see that the provisions of the Bill were such that they could be administered without difficulty.
§ *DR. MACNAMARAsaid his hon. friend had stated that they were passing a Bill the like of which they had never passed before. Quite true. And they ought to have done it long ago. What would happen under this clause? The local education authority gave a meal and it was to be given freely under the Bill unless one of two things happened; either the local education authority were to be satisfied that owing to the necessitous character of the area, funds other than public funds were not available or were insufficient in amount to defray the cost of meals, or that the parent was unable to pay. Now it was desired to insert another provision under which the parent should come forward and say that the meal was given to his child without his authority. Did not hon. Members who supported this proposal see that they were defeating their own object, because thriftless parents would always come forward and say that. They were giving them indeed the best excuse not to pay. A more stupid Amendment he could not remember.
§ *MR. CAVEappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment and was sure that he did not quite see what the effect of it was. Take the case of a man who was well able to pay for his child's food, but for selfish reasons refused either to give his child a proper meal at home or to consent to its being properly fed at school. In such a case the school authority out of humanity would have to give a meal to that child but would be unable, if this Amendment were carried, to recover from the father the twopence which it cost. He would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'represents,' and insert the words 'may be determined by the authority to represent."
750§ "In page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert the words 'less a reasonable deduction in respect of the expenses of recovering the same."—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out Clause 3. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that there were gaps in it. Clause 3 as it was at present drawn constituted a very big gap, and he proposed to fill it up by omitting the clause altogether. This clause provided that the local education authority might raise an amount not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound in order to provide food for the children. This was not the clause which invited the local authority to cooperate with any voluntary authority, or to provide any other machinery of a voluntary character. It was a clause simply to enable the local authority to levy a halfpenny rate for the purpose of providing food. He thought that this was an extremely bad clause and that the result of it would be that the local education authority would be empowered to provide food for the children which the parents of the child ought to provide themselves. All these provisions for affording certain meals or education to children at less than the actual cost had always been safeguarded by anxiously thought out provisions to the effect that there should be a limit put in the Bill. But in how many cases had that limit been maintained? If safeguards or limit of the rate were not put into this Bill what would be the result at the next election of any local education authority? In nine cases out of ten in the case of an election for the county council or the local education authority the cry would be "Vote for Smith and free meals for children." The result would be that the candidate who was prepared to give free meals to children would be returned. [Loud cries of "No."] Well, he was not quite so sure about that, and he thought it was for that very reason that there were so few hon. Members who were contesting the passage of this Bill. It was because they were afraid of the consequences that they were supporting it. Personally, he was not afraid of the use of any public money for this purpose whether it was the money of the State or from the rates, but if hon. Members 751 would have the courage of their opinion and say that they believed it was necessary for the lives of those people who were going to inhabit this country that they should be properly fed and educated at the cost of the State he should say he did not agree with them, but he admired their courage. When, however, they came down and said that there were going to be certain safeguards in regard to such a policy, and that only a certain amount was going to be spent upon a certain number of necessitous children, he had to ask the question "What would happen if there were more necessitous children than the halfpenny rate would provide for?"
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 2, line 9, to leave out Clause 3."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'resolve,' in line 9, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHrecognised the good example which the hon. Member had set by moving his Amendment very briefly, and said he would imitate him in his reply. He would like to remove certain misconceptions which appeared to prevail. Everything that was inserted in Clauses 1 and 2 would apply to Clause 3, which would be covered by the provisions of the earlier clauses. The hon. Member seemed to think that a popular cry at an election would be "Vote for Smith and free meals." But he did not think so. He thought it would be a most unpopular thing for anybody to advocate increased taxation at the present time.
§ They had had enough of that, and he thought the people were in favour of economy. He thought what they wanted to do could be done without the clause being in the Bill at all, but on the whole he considered it was safer to insert these provisions. The clause was surrounded with safeguards, in fact with every safeguard which they could devise.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that with his hon. friend he felt very strongly that this clause carried certain dangers, but he would urge him not to go to a division. They had accepted the proposal that children who were absolutely in want and could not get the full advantage of the system of education provided, should in some form or another be provided with meals. It might be proper that the locality should raise a limited sum for this purpose, but what they had to consider was not the application of the clause in particular, but the safeguards which were put upon the local education authority in spending the ratepayers' money in providing meals for children whose parents could pay. Under the circumstances, although he was not altogether satisfied that the safeguards were sufficient and would press one or two Amendments on the Parliamentary Secretary later, he thought this Bill was one of which they had accepted the principle and therefore should not press this Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 496.)
755| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Benn, W (T'w'r H'mlets,S. Geo.) | Byles, William Pollard |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Alden, Percy | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Billson, Alfred | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Cleland, J. W. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Boland, John | Clough, William |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. | Brace, William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W |
| Barnard, E. B. | Branch, James | Cooper, G. J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brigg, John | Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Brodie, H. C. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham | Brooke, Stopford | Cowan, W. H. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crean, Eugene |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cremer, William Randal |
| Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Crombie, John William |
| Crooks, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamont, Norman | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Delany, William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Robinson, S. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Dillon, John | Levy, Maurice | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lewis, John Herbert | Russell, T. W. |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lough, Thomas | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lundon, W. | Sears, J. E. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Erskine, David C. | Lynch, H. B. | Shackleton, David James |
| Essex, R. W. | Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sileock, Thomas Ball |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Macpherson, J. T. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Fenwick, Charles | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Callum, John M. | Smith, F. E.(Liverpool Walton) |
| Ferguson, B. C. Munro | M'Crae, George | Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Kean, John | Snowden, P. |
| Findlay, Alexander | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Micking, Major G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gilhooly, James | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal) |
| Gill, A. H. | Marnham, F. J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Ginnell, L. | Massie, J. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Glover, Thomas | Meagher, Michael | Summerbell, T. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Meehan, Patrick A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Micklem, Nathaniel | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gulland, John W. | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Murnaghan, George | Thorne, William |
| Hall, Frederick | Murphy, John | Tomkinson, James |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Nicholls, George | Toulmin, George |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Norman, Sir Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Harrington, Timothy | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Verney, F. W. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Nuttall, Harry | Walters, John Tudor |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Doherty, Philip | Wardle, George J. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Hedges, A. Paget | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Grady, J. | Whitbread, Howard |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Hare, Patrick | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Malley, William | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. | O'Mara, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Whitehead, Rowland) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Paul, Herbert | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Hogan, Michael | Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pollard, Dr. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hudson, Walter | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Jenkins, J. | Reddy, M. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Jowett, F. W. | Rees, J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Joyce, Michael | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | |
| Kelley, George D. | Rickett, J. Compton | |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Ridsdale, E. |
| NOES. | ||
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hamilton, Marquess Of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Craik, SIR Henry | Lane-Foz, G. R. | Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Bridgeman. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert | |
| Du Cros, Harvey | Starkey, John R. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Valentia Viscount |
§ MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to children in town areas. He could certainly claim to have a distinct mandate for this Amendment, for every single rural district council in his constitutency had petitioned him to oppose the clause. There was a good deal to be said for this Amendment, because the evil which this Bill was intended to cure had not arisen in rural districts. The rural councils distinctly objected to the machinery of this Bill being brought in. They objected to overlapping, and he thought their argument was sound. He did not think they ought to disestablish the existing authorities by a side wind, because in the urban districts there might be a problem which did not exist in rural districts. He appealed to hon. Members to be careful before they adopted a clause which might be necessary to the urban districts, but in the rural districts would have the effect of drying up the voluntary agencies which existed, and went far to mitigate the evil. In Hull this relief was carried on effectively at a cost of £900 a year, £300 of which was provided by two brothers, Mr. Wilson and Lord Nunburnholme.
§ MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'authority' to insert the words 'in an urban area."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHagreed that there was little demand for the Bill in rural districts. But the Bill was permissive, and it need not be put into operation if not required. The County Councils Association passed a resolution that so long as the Bill was permissive they had no objection to it. There might be individual parishes in which crises might occur, and it would be well to have
§ machinery to cope with its existence. If all went well in rural districts then the Act would never be put into operation.
§ *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the argument which had been put forward that the clause was inserted to meet the case of a crisis was absolutely worthless. In a rural parish with a rateable value of £2,000 a ½d. rate would raise about £4, and with five meals a week at 2d. each, a ½d. rate would only feed five children for twenty weeks.
§ MR. S. COLLINS (Lambeth, Kensington)said that those who had spoken on behalf of the Opposition had constantly expressed themselves in entire sympathy with the objects of this Bill. He found upon looking at the numerous Amendments which had been put on the, Paper, that the Bill contained eight clauses, and hon. Members above the gangway were opposing five clauses out of the eight.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
§ MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes)hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment. One of the strongest arguments against it was that they had not got in the rural districts the voluntary agencies which they had in the towns. He had some knowledge of a local authority which had no less than 350 schools under its control, and he did not believe that in one of those schools they received any voluntary assistance at all. He was sure that if they accepted an Amendment of this kind they would do a very great injustice to rural districts. The agricultural labourers were amongt the worst paid of industrial workers, and consequently there was sure to be a certain number of very poor children, and in order to deal with them it was very desirable that the local authority should have the power which this clause provided. He was not so sure that the last words of this clause were at all wise, and if the 757 right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to make this a charge on the general county rate instead of upon the parish concern it would very materially assist the poor parishes.
§ MR. LANE FOXasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved an Amendment requiring the local authority to furnish to the Board of Education a report by a medical inspector in making application for power to spend money out of the rates for food, such report certifying that there were children within their area unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them. He thought it was desirable that the Board of Education, which would have thrown upon it the responsibility of deciding whether this rate should be levied or not, should have the material facts before it for determining whether there was real need for such a step. It was not sufficient that the local authority should simply say that some of the children were underfed. It would be impossible for the Board of Education to make special inquiries in every locality, and it was not desirable that such a heavy strain should be placed upon the officials of the Board of Education. To avoid this he thought the local authority should be instructed to supply the Board of Education with such facts as would enable them to make an order at once. He thought the Board of Education ought to have some assurance from a medical authority that there were children unable to profit by the instruction offered because they were underfed and because no funds were available for the provision of meals. The information supplied by the local inspector would be sufficient for the Board of Education to act upon if they were satisfied that no voluntary agencies existed. He asked the House to give this Amendment serious consideration because it would relieve the Board of Education of a very serious responsibility and would give a great stimulus to the appointment of medical inspectors.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 9, after the word, 'authority,' to insert, the words 'after receiving the 758 report of a medical inspection."—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHregretted he could not accept this Amendment as it might prove a formidable barrier to the operation of the clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that it was undoubtedly in the power of the local education authorities to have a medical inspection. He doubted that, and, at any rate, he was not sure that the local authorities would exercise the power. The Education Bill was not yet passed and there was no means of ensuring that there should be medical inspection.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELLwas sorry the Amendment had not been accepted. The medical inspection of children had been adopted in Manchester and many of the great towns. He did not think they could leave entirely out of view the opinion expressed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament within the last few weeks. A clause had been adopted in the Education Bill which made it the duty of the local education authority to provide for the medical inspection of children before or at the time of their admission to a public elementary school.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAsuggested that the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University should use his influence with his friends in the House of Lords to pass the Education Bill. He would then have his medical inspection.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the Report of the Departmental Committee stated that a definite system of medical inspection had been established in a large number of school areas. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have read the Report. In view of the statement it contained the hon. Gentleman's reply was absurd.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'have ascertained that."
759§ "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word such."
§ "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'meals,' to insert the words 'provided under this Act."—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved an Amendment requiring the consent of the local board of guardians before the Board of Education authorises expenditure out of the rates for the provision of food for necessitous children. The guardians were conversant with relief work; the education authority were not. The guardians were able to ascertain whether or not people were necessitous, but the local education authority had no machinery for doing that work. He thought the Amendment would go far to carry out the object which the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had in view, namely, that only necessitous people should be fed out of public funds.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 15, after the second 'Board,' to insert the words 'subject to the consent of the local board of guardians."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid this had already been fully discussed, and for reasons given he could not accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to insert after "rate" the words "during such period of time as the Board may direct." It was not desirable that because there occurred a period of distress the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent rate. He felt sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would see the necessity of imposing some limit of time for the duration of this privilege unless he wished to produce the result that the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent halfpenny rate instead of only in a temporary period of distress.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 17, after the words 'out of the rates,' to insert the words 'during 760 such a period of time as the Board may direct."—(Sir William Anson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that the Government had given very careful consideration to this Amendment, but they had come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary. The provisions of the clause were very elastic. The local authority would apply to the Board, and the Board might authorise such expenditure as was considered necessary; it was not a question of a continual rate of a halfpenny. The object the hon. Baronet had in view would be secured by the Interpretation Act, 1899, in which it was provided that the board, unless an Act expressly ordered otherwise, could withraw an order.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked who was to call the attention of the Board to the fact that a halfpenny rate was not necessary?
§ Mr LOUGHsaid that that might be done in many ways. A question might be asked and it would be fully considered.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. HUNTmoved an Amendment to insert after the word "sum," the words "for necessitous children only." He wanted to make it quite clear that the rates should only be used for necessitous children.
§ MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment. He had an Amendment on the Paper which raised the same point in other form. The point was of great importance. They had been told over and over again by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that they need lot alarm themselves as to the effect of this Bill, because in the vast majority of cases the meals would be paid for, and that the rates would only be used in very exceptional circumstances, and only in any case where the child was necessitous and the parents were unable to pay for the meals. This Amendment had the effect of carrying out those repeated assurances. The question was whether such victuals 761 as were paid for out; of the rates were to be given to necessitous children or to the children generally. He hoped they would receive an explicit answer from the Government on that point.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 16, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words 'for necessitous children only."—(Mr. Hunt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid that the object of the Amendment came very near to another which had been discussed an hour before. The restrictions in the Amendment differed from those in the Bill in regard to the use of the money which might be raised from the rates. The hon. Gentleman said that that money should not be used except for necessitous children. They must stick to the provisions and the restrictions which they had put into the Bill, and, as he had pointed out before, this clause must be interpreted in connection with Clauses 2 and 1 and could not be separated from them. It was an integral part of the Bill, but it could not be used without falling back upon Clauses 1 and 2. The safeguards which were provided were that there should be no charge upon the rates unless the parent said that he was unable to pay. That was the one broad restriction imposed by the Bill. Another restriction was that the local authority should pass a resolution to the effect that some of the children in the district could not take advantage of the system of education provided for them unless they were provided with food. Those were the safeguards which were imposed, and they were the best they could invent, and whatever hon. Gentleman might think of them they must stick to them.
§ *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that whatever difficulties there were in regard to the consideration of this clause the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had brought upon himself by accepting an Amendment to the clause. As the clause originally stood it referred to necessitous areas, and in regard to them the whole area was to provide a halfpenny rate. But the Amendment 762 accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary altered the clause materially, and it no longer dealt alone with the necessitous area, but with individual children who were alleged to be underfed. He was bound to say that after the way in which his Amendment, limiting to some period of time the operation of this clause had been dealt with, they were bound to look very carefully upon the necessary limitations to be imposed in regard to the operation of the clause. It was not the area which it was important to consider but the children. A local education authority might find that certain of the children attending the elementary schools were unable from lack of food to take advantage of the educational facilities which were supplied in those schools. The schools were unable to find money for the purpose of the provision of meals, and they had to go to the local education authority and ask for an order under which they might provide those meals. As the Bill at present stood that order might run for all time in that particular area. Under those circumstances he thought they should have to press this Amendment on the Government in order to insure that the benefits of the clause were not applied to purposes for which they were never intended, and that the children whom it was intended to benefit should receive all that they were entitled to. He urged the Government to accept the Amendment which would make it impossible so far to alter the character of the schools as to enable this halfpenny rate to be shared in by people who were perfectly well able to pay for the feeding of their own children.
§ *MR. CAVEsaid he did not wish to pledge himself to the words of the Amendment. In fact he preferred words which appeared later on the Paper and which were intended to produce the same result as this Amendment. But he was strongly in favour of the principle of this Amendment. Let them take the case of an area of an ordinary character where there were two or three children who were necessitous but no funds other than public funds were available for feeding such children. In such a case the clause as it stood appeared to empower the education authority to apply to the Board of Education for an order which would justify the authority in 763 providing food out of the rates, not only for the few necessitous children, but for all the children in the education area. Was it the desire of the House that in a case where there were only two or three poor children the whole of Clause 3 should be brought into operation and the cost of the food for children in the whole of the area paid for out of the rates?
§ *MR. CAVEsaid he had not forgotten Clause 2, and he was going on to refer to it. He was obliged for the interruption because it enabled him to deal with the question. As he understood it, what that clause meant was that the authority could charge the parent of a child who was able to pay a price for the meal.
§ *MR. CAVEsaid he agreed that they must charge for the meals, but they need not charge the cost of the meal. They were only bound to make some charge, and the amount charged might be only a fraction of the cost. That strengthened the argument in favour of the principle of this Amendment. It had been suggested that power could not be given to an authority to raise a rate to feed a few poor children. But that was the Paris system, where the parents who were able to pay paid, and the children whose prrents wera unable to pay got tickets which enabled them to get the meal. He had not made this speech in any spirit of interfering with the passing of the Bill, but he felt that a case in which there were only two or three children to be fed should receive further consideration.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, because he had given him a fair indication of what he meant was safeguarded by it. He understood that one of the safeguards was that the cost of the provision of meals should be recovered from those parents who could pay, and that those who could not pay should receive the price of the meal out of the public 764 funds. That was an important admission, because up to the present the hon. Member had always stated that he was not going to apply this provision to all children. Now, however, the hon. Member clearly stated that meals were to be provided for all children. In other words, every child in the school was to be provided with a meal which was to be paid for out of public funds unless its parents could pay. The ratepayers would have to provide for the rest. The sum would have to come out of the rates. [Cries of "No."] If that was not so, surely there was no sense in not accepting the Amendment, because they all understood that it was really the desire of hon. Members opposite to provide meals for everybody, to recover the amount of those meals if they could, and if they could not to let it fall upon the rates.
§ *DR. MACNAMARApointed out that the intention was not to provide meals for all the children out of the public rates or other public funds and get the money back when they could. The genius of this clause was to provide for the necessitous child, and to make those pay who could afford to do so. He had great sympathy with that object, but if hon. Members would look at the early parts of Clause 6they would see that the Bill was really meant for the relief of necessitous children. It was laid down in the Bill that, where the local authority decided that there were children in their area who were unable by reason of lack of food to take advantage of the system of education provided, they should have food provided for them. Those were the necessitous children who were entitled to take advantage of the system provided. And if the funds, either charitable or otherwise, were not sufficient the local authority was given power to raise a halfpenny rate. If the words of the Amendment were put in they would be surplusage. Knowing what he did of the mysteries of the law he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would find in the end, if his Amendment was carried, that he had put words into the Bill which would have an effect entirely different from that which he intended to bring about. For the rest, this clause was so hedged round with safeguards that public money could only 765 be spent upon the children who really were suffering from want. He thought that with all the safeguards which had been applied, not only in this case, but in the case of Clause 2, they might dispose of this Amendment and proceed to the consideration of the others on the Paper.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)thought that the hon. Member's argument was very much in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment, because during his argument he had used the very words which his hon. friend wished to put in. He used the words "necessitous children" and those were the words which they wished to have inserted They wished to have it made perfectly clear that the funds which were to be raised from the rates should only be used for the purpose of assisting necessitous children. That they had always understood was the intension of the Government, but from the recent declarations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he understood that the intention of the Government was not to provide for necessitous children, but to provide meals for all children whose parents, whether they could pay or not, would like those meals to be provided. That was a very different thing from what they understood before. He had very considerable doubt about the advisability of putting a charge of this kind upon the rates at all, particularly after reading the evidence given before the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill. He would refer to the evidence of the gentleman who came from Bethnal Green, who said there was no difficulty at all in feeding the necessitous children, and that there was ample money in London and to spare for that purpose. Then the witness who came from West Ham said that voluntary subscriptions had met all their difficulties in feeding necessitous children in that place, and that they had no difficulty whatever in getting voluntary subscriptions. The very least the Government could do was to make their meaning quite clear by inserting words of the nature proposed, and confining the section entirely to the case of necessitous children. It was all very well to say that in the case of other people who were not necessitous the local authorities would recover the money, 766 but if the evidence were looked at it would be found that one witness after another stated that it was very difficult to get the money out of the parents. One witness was asked in plain terms whether the game was worth the candle, and he said that it was not, that the sum recovered was so small that it was not worth while spending money on its recovery.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTappealed to the Solicitor-General to explain to the House what in his view would be the effect of this Amendment upon the clause.
§ *SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that having served on the Committee upstairs he wished to say that if he shared the fears of hon. Members opposite that under Clause 3 public funds would be resorted to for other than necessitous children he would support the Amendment; but he was quite satisfied that that would not be possible under the Bill, inasmuch as the provisions of Clause 2 applied in these cases also.
MR. HERBERTsaid everyone agreed that the meals which had to be provided out of the rates should only be given to necessitous children, but he thought there was no necessity as the Bill stood for a local authority to recover the whole amount of the cost of the food given to children of parents who were not really necessitous. Probably the difficulty arose owing to Amendments made in Committee, and the wording of Clause 3 did not very well express the meaning. He would suggest that the words "in such meals" should be left out and the words "to such children" should be substituted.
MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the House required some legal advice on the point, for he failed to understand why the Government could not accept the Amendment.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)was surprised that hon. Members should be so inconsistent as to expect him to explain the effect of an Amendment which they were moving. He had not had the advantage of following the debate, but he was bound to say that he did not think any prolonged or skilful inspection was necessary to see that these 767 words were superfluous. The word "such," especially from a legal point of view, was one of the most valuable words in the English language, and used in the clause as qualifying the word "food" it met the purpose of the Amendment. The words of the Amendment would add somewhat needlessly to the complication of the section.
§ *MR. CAVEsuggested that in place of "such meals" the words "the food required for providing meals for such children" should be inserted.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 497.)
769| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Courthope, G. Loyd | Nield, Herbert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Craik, Sir Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fletcher, J. S. | Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bertram, Julius | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Younger, George |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Hunt. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Clough, William | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gill, A. H. |
| Alden, Percy | Cogan, Denis J. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Gulland, John W. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Cooper, G. J. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Astbury, John Meir | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hall, Frederick |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Cowan, W. H. | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Crean, Eugene | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cremer, William Randal | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Crooks, William | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crosfield, A. H. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Delany, William | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Dewar, John A. (Inversness-sh. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'd | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) | Dillon, John | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Boland, John | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Hogan, Michael |
| Brace, William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Hudson, Walter |
| Branch, James | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Brigg, John | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Jackson, R. S. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Evans, Samuel T. | Jenkins, J. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Everett, R. Lacey | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Farrell, James Patrick | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Burns, Rt. Hn. John | Fenwick, Charles | Jowett, F. W. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Ferens, T. R. | Joyce, Michael |
| Byles, William Pollard | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Ffrench, Peter | Kelley, George D. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Findlay, Alexander | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Fuller, John Michael F. | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | O'Malley, William | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Levy, Maurice | O'Mara, James | Steadman, W. C. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lough, Thomas | Paul, Herbert | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Summerbell, T. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pirie, Duncan V. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Pollard, Dr. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Radford, G. H. | Thorne, William |
| Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Tomkinson, James |
| M'Callum, John M. | Reddy, M. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Crae, George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Verney, F. W. |
| M'Killop, W. | Redmond, William (Clare) | Walsh, Stephen |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th | Walters, John Tudor |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Rickett, J. Compton | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Ridsdale, E. A. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Massie, J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wardle, George J. |
| Meagher, Michael | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Robinson, S. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Whitbread, Howard |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Roe, Sir Thomas | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Murnaghan, George | Runciman, Walter | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Murphy, John | Russell, T. W. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Nicholls, George | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sears, J. E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Nuttall, Harry | Seaverns, J. H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Seely, Major J. B. | Williamson, A. |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Milkenny) | Shackleton, David James | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Simon, John Allsebrook | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| O'Donnell, T. Kerry, W) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| O'Grady, J. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ *MR. CAVEmoved to leave out the word "section" in line 18, and insert the word "Act." Under the clause as it stood the local authority could not spend more than a halfpenny rate for the provision of food, but they could spend more upon providing the meal and serving it, and this was what he wished to limit The original intention of this Bill was to limit the entire expenditure under it to a halfpenny rate, and that was the object of his proposal. The insertion of limits of this kind very often produced economy and prevented extravagance. He begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'section' and to insert the word 'Act."—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid it was impossible to accept this Amendment. The Government wished the machinery provided in Clauses 1 and 2 to stand quite apart from Section 3, which dealt with the amount of the rate the local authority might impose. The effect of the Amendment would be that no machinery could be provided, and that no canteen could be opened on what might be called 771 voluntary principles. The local authority would have to levy the halfpenny rate before effect could be given to Clause 1 if they adopted the Amendment.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid the Committee recommended that the local authority might have recourse to the rates for the provision of the cost of the actual food, the local rate for this purpose in no case to exceed a halfpenny in the pound.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendments proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, line 19, after the first word 'any,' to insert the words 'local financial."
§ "In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word 'year,' to the word 'shall,' in line 21."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to omit line 27, the effect of which Amendment would be to disfranchise parents who did not pay for meals with which their children had been provided. He believed that disability should be put on a parent if he did not pay. Whatever might be said to the contrary, a parent became a pauper if he did not pay. The Amendment would not disfranchise a parent who paid for the meals supplied to his child.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH,in seconding the Motion, said if parents who did not pay for the meals were not disfranchised a real injustice would be inflicted on those who did pay. Under the Transvaal Constitution which had just been published it was proposed that people who had received relief within six months before the election were to be disfranchised. It seemed to him that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 2, to leave out line 27."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LOUGHsaid it was the intention of the Government that disfranchisement 772 should not take place for the supplying of meals under the Act. The tendency in Acts of this kind, for many years past, had been not to impose the heavy penalty of disfranchisement under circumstances such as this Bill would set up. He might mention that under the Vaccination Act of 1867, the Elementary Education Act of 1870, the Medical Relief Act of 1885, and the Public Health Act of 1891, those who accepted relief were not disqualified from voting. They lectured a parent who had not paid, they sent him a bill, they tried to make him pay, and, in the last resort, they could send him to gaol. If they did all these things for the price of a meal, he thought they might say they had done enough.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might have given the House one more instance. Last year the late Government in the Unemployed Bill specially laid it down that no disfranchisement would follow on receipt of relief in regard to employment.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments proposed—
§ "In page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word 'disability,' to end of clause."—(Mr. Lough.)
§ "In page 3, line 12, at the end, to add the words 'or in the collection of the cost therefore."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ *SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said he must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order to raise a very important question in moving the rejection of Clause 7. Two Bills were originally introduced, one dealing with England and the other with Scotland. The English Bill was discussed at considerable length, and the Scottish Bill was passed at eleven o'clock without the slightest discussion. The latter Bill 773 was cast in a very different form from when it came down from the Select Committee. The Select Committee heard ample evidence. Those who on that Committee were acting with him had nothing to do with the summoning of the four witnesses from Scotland who were examined. Everyone of those witnesses unhesitatingly condemned this Bill, and indicated that there was no general opinion in Scotland in favour of it. Their evidence also showed that there were resources of private charity in the large towns and cities and also in the country districts which were amply sufficient to meet all necessitous cases. The Bill was based on English conditions and on English statute law and altogether disregarded the position in Scotland. He had had to do with the administration of education in Scotland as permanent head of the Education Department for over twenty years, and during the whole of that time he had urged that Scotland should be dealt with by separate Acts of Parliament if it was to be dealt with at all satisfactorily in the interest of the public service. One instance he would give where that course had not been followed, and where Scotland had been compelled to accept a Bill which dealt primarily with England. He meant the Teachers' Superannuation Act. He know from his own experience that that Act had worked untold hardships on the teaching profession in Scotland, and had seriously interfered with the work of education in Scotland. He did not think that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and the hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs, who were both intimately acquainted with the administration of education in Scotland, would be inclined to differ from him in his argument that separate Acts in regard to education were absolutely necessary if the work of education in Scotland was to be conducted satisfactorily. He asked the House to consider whether it was a fair way to deal with Scotland to introduce this clause, which implied a very large change in the social and economic condition of one kingdom on principles which were applicable solely to another. The Bill had received absolutely no discussion on the Second Reading, and only four witnesses from Scotland had been examined in regard to it before the 774 Select Committee, all of whom were opposed to its provisions. It was passed in that Committee in spite of the hostile attitude of many Members, including many hon. Members opposite. It was he himself who moved that hostile Motion, and as he had said, many Ministerialists supported him, and the Scottish application was passed by one vote only. He would ask hon. Members what would have happened if in a Select Committee dealing with a Bill relating to England a proposal was carried in the teeth of a unanimous body of adverse evidence against the Bill. The Bill might be a good one or it might be a bad one. It might have points in it which were for the advantage of Scotland; but Scotland had a right to be consulted and to have a separate Bill laid before the country so that Scottish Members could obtain a distinct expression of opinion from their constituents. What was the evidence from Scotland beyond the evidence which came from that country? [Cries of "The Royal Commission."] In regard to the Royal Commission no one was more responsible for getting it appointed than he was himself. he sat upon it, and he was prepared to adhere to every word of the Report of that Commission. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite if he was prepared to adhere to the Report of that Commission? If he had so adhered they would have had a very different Bill from that which they were now discussing. But they were not confined to the evidence of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, because before the Select Committee they had the evidence from all the great Boards in Scotland, including witnessess from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Govan, and they all spoke against this proposal. Indeed he knew of no evidence in its favour from any school board or any body in connection with them. None of them had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. It was only that day that he heard that the Association of School Boards, representing the whole of the School Boards of Scotland, came to a resolution adverse to this Bill. He would quote one opinion which he was sure would have some weight. It was that of Miss Flora Stevenson, who had carried on a very useful work in connection with school boards in Scotland. Miss Stevenson had been 775 removed from their midst, but it was only a short time ago that she received the very fitting honour of being admitted to the freedom of the city of Edinburgh. On that occasion she spoke some words which in his opinion were prophetic. She said that they had in Edinburgh for thirty years tried to solve the problem of dealing with destitute children, and she thought that it would be an evil day for Scotland if the Legislature put upon the school boards the duty of providing meals for underfed children. He wished to ask this question. Was this Bill fit for Scotland, and did it take into account the conditions under which Scotsmen lived? In conversation the other day with the Secretary for Scotland he pointed ont that he felt some difficulty about the exclusion of voluntary schools from the aid which was given under the Bill. The Bill was drawn for schools under educational authorities in England, but it entirely disregarded the position of Scotland, in which there were voluntary as well as rate aided schools. He had pointed that out to the Secretary for Scotland and alluded to the difficulty which he felt. The conversation took place at one o'clock, and afterwards, between one and three o'clock, Amendments were put upon the Paper without being entered upon the votes which completely changed the system in Scotland. That motion was made by the Secretary for Scotland with scarcely a word of explanation, and it provided that these voluntary schools should be aided from the rates. he was very glad to find such a thing done, but he was surprised to find that it had been received with such ready assent from hon. Members opposite. He thought however that hon. Members would agree that a momentous change of that sort ought not to be made by such methods and by an Amendment put down at two or three o'clock on a Saturday morning. Did hon. Members understand what this meant? These institutions had no connection with municipal bodies, and yet they were to receive assist- 776 ance from the rates in regard to the furnishing of lands, buildings, officers, and other services. They would have to build additional rooms and furnish them, and in this way they would incur great expense. Another objection was that while under the Education Act medical inspection was given in England no such provision was given in Scotland, but this Bill ought to be based on a previous medical inspection. All ill health and all mal-nutrition were not due to a failure to provide food, and the Government had not adopted as part of the Bill a provision for medical inspection in the case of Scotland. He thought it was only fair that a similar provision should be made for Scotland as was made for England. Not only that, but in England they had local education authorities which were municipal bodies. These bodies dealt with a large range of population and dealt with it in a variety of aspects. What was the case in Scotland? The school boards were nearly a thousand in number, and many of these were small boards scattered over small areas in the country. They were told that the Bill was optional. That in Scotland would be one of its chief disadvantages, because some small school board might adopt it and so force the hands of their neighbours all over the length and breadth of Scotland. Was that a fair way of conducting legislation? He asked that they should be given a Bill of their own based upon their statute law and suitable specially to the needs of Scotland. It was for these reasons that he, apart from any objection to the Bill, asked that Scotland should have the opportunity of dealing with the measure in her own way after the chief authorities of the country had been consulted. Therefore he begged to move the omission of the clause.
§ MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)seconded.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 3, line B, to leave out Clause 7."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
777§ Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said that a great service had been rendered to the cause of education in Scotland by the hon. Member who had just spoken, and he congratulated him on his speech, which was national rather than imperial in tone, and he was not sure that his broadness of doctrine would be appreciated upon the side of the House upon which he sat. He had yet to learn, however, why this Bill should not be applied to Scotland? It was said that it was not necessary in Scotland, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that from official inquiries that had been made by the Royal Commission there was great need for this Bill in Scotland, and he went so far as to say that if Scotland was excluded from the operation of the Bill it would be a great injustice to that portion of the Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to have a separate Act for Scotland, and no doubt in many cases a separate Act was advisable. But this Bill was so simple that he really did not think it was necessary to bring forward a separate measure When hon. Members talked at length on the clauses of a small Bill such as this, if the case of Scotland was not considered on a Saturday morning till three o'clock, he was afraid that the responsibility for that condition of affairs rested upon hon. Members around him, but it was not encouraging to them to bring in a separate Bill for Scotland. The hon. Member seemed to think that Scotland was not in favour of this Bill, but at a meeting held in Edinburgh they were unanimously of opinion that this clause should apply to Scotland. The hon. Member had referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He said that they would not go the length of recommending State aid for the feeding of children. But the Royal Commission of which the hon. Member was a distinguished member said, and in doing so went beyond their remit, 778 that food should be given at schools in certain cases and that the charge should fall upon the rates. He quite agreed that the Royal Commission did not recommend that the meal should be provided by the local education authority, but they did advise that in certain cases the expense should fall upon the rates. Did the hon. Gentleman remember the the evidence put before the Royal Commission by the Member for Oswestry, who was chairman of the Physical Training Sub-committee of the London School Board? The hon. Member told them that all these things could be done by voluntary effort. He said he was quite sure that there were no children really underfed now in the London Board Schools. The Commission accepted his evidence as to be relied upon, but he was afraid that the evidence they had got since showed that that opinion was not accurate, and he was sure the hon. Member himself would bear him out in this sense, that if it had been pointed out to the Royal Commission that the state of affairs in London had been as it now was they would have found that it could not be met by voluntary effort. He did not hesitate to say that the Royal Commission, feeling the great importance of this question, and recognising the necessities of large towns like Edinburgh and Glasgow, went outside their remit and recommended that something should be done. He would say, moreover, that not only in the towns but in the rural districts there was great necessity for these provisions, and he could not imagine how any Member from Scotland could advocate that that country should be denied of her share of the privileges of the Act.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said the Government could not accede to the Amendment. He did not share the hon. Baronet's opinions as to the feelings of Scotland with regard to the Bill. The real answer to the opposition was that it was open to local authorities to apply the Bill if they wished. There was 779 evidence of physical deterioration in Scotland as in England, as there was evidence of the existence of parents who were unable to fulfil their parental obligations. He did not see how it would be possible or proper to pass this Bill without extending its provisions to Scotland. The small Amendments made at his instance in the Bill during the Committee stage were not proposed without full consideration. Under the Education Acts for Scotland, while the school boards had no obligations to the voluntary schools, they had obligations to the children, and it was a short but perfectly legitimate stop that the obligation should be extended in respect of this matter, and that the children of all schools should be treated alike.
§ MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)agreed that Scotland should be treated by separate Acts, if they could get them; but during the long life of the late Government no fewer than three Education Bills were introduced for Scotland andall throe failed to pass, and in a matter such as this where they could get a Scottish reform in a general Bill they should have it. The opposition was by no means so strong as it was before the inquiry of the Select Committee.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIKThe Edinburgh School Board petitioned since this Bill passed through Committee.
§ MR. GULLANDadmitted that the majority on the Edinburgh School Board was at first eleven to two, and on the amended Bill nine to five, showing that opinion was changing. The inquiry that had recently taken place in the poorest parts of Edinburgh in respect to the children had shown the great necessity 780 for work of this kind. The voluntary funds in Edinburgh often ran short and the meals had to be stopped. This Bill was required not only in the large cities, but in the country districts of Scotland, where children came long distances to school, often in bad weather.
§ MR. C. E. PRICE (Edinburgh, Central)said the opposition of the hon. Baronet came ill from one representing a body of men so far removed from poverty. He (Mr. Price) represented a district largely composed of people who would benefit by the passing of the Bill, and where it was urgently needed. The Bill need not apply to Scotland unless the people liked it, and in that sense it was truly Home Rule. The treatment this measure had received from the point of view of Scotland showed the necessity of having a Parliament to settle their own affairs.
§ Question put.
§ Tha House proceeded to a division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
§ Adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Twelve o'clock.