45. Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the decision of the Government that the cost of the feeding of school children, in excess of £300,000 during the current year, must not be borne by the Board of Education, but by the boards of guardians, will involve a charge on local rates which has hitherto been borne to the extent of 5 per cent, by the Treasury, and that, if the necessity for school feeding is no greater this year than last, this will mean an additional cost of £365,000 on already 1993 overburdened ratepayers; and, under these circumstances, will the Government make a contribution from the National Exchequer to local authorities equivalent to the amount which would have been paid by the Treasury had this responsibility remained with the local education authorities as has been the case since 1906?
§ 51. Mr. MILLSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the decision of the Board of Education to cease feeding certain children will lead to still further burdens being placed on local ratepayers throughout the realm; and what steps, if any, are proposed to ensure that Governmental economies do not divert expenditure in this manner?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)Provision has been made in the Board of Education Estimates for aiding such expenditure as the Government consider can properly be incurred under the Provision of Meals Act, and the Government are not prepared to make any further contribution from the Exchequer towards the expenditure of local authorities for this purpose.
Mr. THOMSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will mean an added burden of over £350,000 to the ratepayers this year which was borne by the Treasury last year, and by what means are they to raise that money?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThat is an assertion which the hon. Gentleman has made more than once. Indeed, he has put his question more than once, and I hope I am now answering it for the last time, but I do not agree with the assertion. The expenditure last year was wholly abnormal, and the sum provided this year is equal to the expenditure in, I think, each of the three preceding years. It is clearly not proper to charge the education rates with large sums in relief of the poor rates, and though that was done last year it is not a thing that in fairness to the taxpayer should be repeated.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs it suggested that the unemployment will be less this year than it was last year and that therefore there will be less likelihood of children requiring food?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThere were peculiar circumstances last year, which have often been referred to, which led to 1994 an immense increase—I think, a larger increase than there should have been.