HC Deb 14 December 1922 vol 159 cc3129-31

asked the President of the Board of Education what local authorities besides those of Hull, Portsmouth, and Sunderland exceeded between April and August of this year the limit of expenditure upon school feeding laid down by the Board for the whole of the financial year 1922–23?


The only period of the current financial year for which I have figures of the net expenditure of local education authorities upon provision of meals is the period, 1st April to 30th November. During that period the net expenditure of 47 local education authorities exceeded the sums specified for each of them in the Board's first allocation. The names of the authorities concerned are as follow:

Barrow-in-Furness. Keighley.
Birkenhead. Lancaster.
Bradford. Macclesfield.
Burnley. Stalybridge.
Bury. Taunton.
Chester. Workington.
Derby. Barking Town.
East Ham. Edmonton.
Halifax. Enfield.
Kingston-on-Hull. Erith.
Leicester. Felling.
Portsmouth. Hebburn.
Preston. Kettering.
Reading. Kadcliffe.
Smethwick. Tottenham.
Sunderland. Wood Green.
West Ham. Willesden.
West Hartlepool. Brecon.
York. Monmouthshire.
Ashton-under-Lyne. Cardiff.
Chorley. Abertillery.
Colne. Bath.
Dukinfield. Leigh.


Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means that in 47 districts an extra burden is thrown on the ratepayers, and cannot he give some assistance to these necessitous areas?


It does not necessarily mean entirely that, because, as I have explained, in answer to a previous question, the Board have a small sum still available under the Votes, which we propose to allocate in accordance with the revised Estimates.


further asked the President under what statutory provision the Board is limiting the grant payable to local authorities in respect to the feeding of under-nourished school children; and if he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of such limitations?


With regard to the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 4th December last to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.