§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now give any information as to the working of the Local Government Board Order of 679 May, 1905, respecting the co-operation of boards of guardians in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools, suffering from lack of food.
(Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board obtained from their inspectors some information on this subject in March last, from which it appeared that in some populous districts, such as the large Lancashire and Yorkshire unions, a good deal of work has been done under the Order, but that elsewhere the cases relieved under the Order had not been very numerous. In the Eastern Counties no relief under the Order had been found necessary, except at Norwich. In Birmingham, shortly after the Order came into force, the guardians wore informed by the local education committee that there were 2,600 underfed children in the parish, and that they were being supplied with free meals. Numerous applications were made by the head teachers to the relieving officers on behalf of children under their care, but when inquiries were made as to the circumstances of the parents of these children, it was found that in many cases the guardians would not be justified in granting relief under the Order. The largest number of children on any one day to whom meals have been supplied by the guardians under the Order was 482. At Bristol the guardians made arrangements with the local education authority to obtain the assistance of a local society interested in the welfare of children. The first list sent in by the teachers specified seventy-four children as being underfed by reason of parental neglect, but inquiry by the relieving officers showed that only in one case would the guardians be justified in giving relief. Up to the end of January the names of fifty-five children were submitted as coming within the Order, but in only eleven cases was relief given. Thus out of 129 applications only in twelve instances did the guardians feel justified in giving relief. In Cheshire, Salop, etc., twenty-seven cases were relieved, viz., two at Birkenhead, three at Bucklow, eight at Congleton, four at Stoke-on-Trent, and ten at Wolstanton and Burslem, In several unions, however, voluntary funds were started, and thus children were relieved and kept off the rates. At Derby there were 127 applica- 680 tions, and seventeen children were found to be underfed. In Nottingham there were 107 applications and fifty-one relieved. In Leicester there were over 400 applications, but in no case was relief found to be necessary. In the township of Manchester 120 cases were relieved, about 380 in Chorlton, and many in Prestwich. The operation of the Order in Lancashire was mainly restricted to the neighbourhood of Manchester and Bolton. As regards the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, there were 2,586 cases in Bradford, 375 parents of 1,073 children were notified that relief was given on loan, and fifty parents were proceeded against fox—recovevy of the cost. Of the 2,586 cases, 1,513 were fed by the guardians on behalf of the education authority who administered a fund raised by the Mayor. In Leeds 500 cases were fed at the cost of a voluntary fund. 110 cases were fed at first in Hunslet, but the number was afterwards reduced to thirty. In Bramley the guardians fed 291, and a voluntary fund 2,523 cases. In London, generally speaking, very few cases were relieved under the Order, but in some ordinary poor relief was granted, and in others food was provided by school children's meals associations from moneys voluntarily contributed.