HC Deb 21 December 1937 vol 330 cc1887-920

9.32 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The first five Amendments on the Paper are out of order as they are beyond the scope of the Financial Resolution. The first Amendment that I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Lawson

I take it, Captain Bourne, that your Ruling applies to the Amendments dealing with meals. May I submit that they do not imply any extension of the obligations of the Minister since he can now, and in fact does, agree to pay the whole of the cost of meals in different parts of the country. As that is a fact, may I ask on what ground the Amendments are refused?

The Deputy-Chairman

We are governed by paragraph (d) of the Financial Resolution: (d) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums by which the expenses of the Minister under the principal Act or any education grants under any other Act are increased by reason of any power conferred on education authorities by the said Act of the present Session to provide for persons attending courses of instruction provided by such authorities under section seventy-six of the principal Act meals, and in Scotland medical (including surgical and dental) treatment, in like manner as they may be provided for children attending school, or by reason of any power so conferred to provide light refreshment for such persons. I think the hon. Member has overlooked those words, and that is this is governed by the Education Act, 1931.

Mr. Ridley

The Amendment in my name seeks to compel the Minister to do what he now has power to do. In the explanatory Memorandum he will normally make a payment of 75 per cent., but on the Second Reading he said he could in exceptional cases make a grant of 100 per cent. It seems to me, therefore, that he could make a grant of 100 per cent. in every case, and therefore my Amendment would not extend the charge.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the hon. Member has answered the point out of his own mouth. He is seeking to compel the Minister to do something that he cannot do.

Mr. James Griffiths

I understand from the Memorandum that there is no definite charge; it is merely an estimate of the charge. It says that the Exchequer will be empowered to make a grant of 50 per cent. In view of the fact that it is merely an estimate and that the actual charge is not known, are not the Amendments in order?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, I have nothing to do with the Financial Memorandum; it does not concern me. I am concerned with the Financial Resolution.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out from "charge," to the end of the Clause.

I am sorry, Captain Bourne, that you have not called my first Amendment—in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "meals" to the end of the paragraph—because we regard it as being of greater importance than this one.

The Deputy-Chairman

That Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Buchanan

The words which I am now moving to leave out are these: subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister of Labour (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister').

The Amendment, therefore, really means that milk and biscuits should be supplied free of charge without any regulations—in other words, that those unemployed persons who attend courses of training should get these biscuits and should get this milk without any restrictions at all. Members of this Committee will know their own districts best, but I should say that in my district the average person who attends these courses is usually a boy who is unemployed because his parents have no interest in getting him a job. If parents are well-to-do, they usually keep their boys at school. If they are not quite so well off, they usually have some kind of influence through which they can get some kind of work for their boys, and largely this training is confined to children of the poorer sections of the community.

I understand that the Minister is now proposing to make regulations which must involve some difference as between one boy and another, and between one girl and another. We think that in this kind of work there could be nothing worse than differences between one child and another in regard to the supply of milk and biscuits. In the ordinary way the Minister will make certain regulations precluding a boy whose father or whose family has a particular income from getting milk and biscuits free, while other boys will get them free. It may well happen that such a boy may receive nothing with which to purchase milk and biscuits. In my district possibly one boy out of 10, or one out of 20, will be affected in this way, and any boy so affected will have to sit in the training centre and watch everybody else drinking milk and eating biscuits. That is a position which would not be tolerated in ordinary life. All that the Amendment asks is that the principle suggested in the first Amendment, which unfortunately, has been ruled out of order, should be applied, namely, that meals should be given without these obnoxious conditions. Such conditions would be obnoxious to adults, and they are even more obnoxious to a child. The boy whose father or family has a certain income, and who nevertheless receives no money to purchase milk and biscuits, is penalised, not because he himself is wrong or bad, but because someone over whom he has no control has refused to give him enough money for that purpose.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the hon. Member is getting a little wide of his Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the discretion on the matter of light refreshments to the local authority, without any control by the Minister.

Mr. Buchanan

I see the Minister laughing, as if he had caught me out, and I congratulate him, but I do not take that view. I take the view that this provision is for children outside the scope of the education authority.

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the beginning of the Clause, fie will see that this matter comes under the local education authority, and the only question is whether, as regards the provision of milk and biscuits, it shall be, as the Amendment itself suggests, purely at the discretion of the local authority without any interference from the Minister, or whether the Minister of Labour shall have power to make regulations. I am afraid that that is all that the Amendment means.

Mr. Buchanan

I beg to differ. As I read the Clause, paragraph (a) says that meals in such circumstances may be provided by local education authorities for children at public elementary schools, while paragraph (b) says: during the hours during which instruction is being given, milk and biscuits free of charge subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister of Labour (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister'). In this latter case I understand that the Minister has no control.

The Deputy-Chairman

I sympathise with the hon. Member, because I believe he intends his Amendment to be a consequential Amendment, but, if he will be good enough to look at the beginning of the Clause, he will see that it says that the functions of education authorities shall include powers to provide, (a) meals, and (b) during the hours during which instruction is being given, milk and biscuits free of charge. Then follow the conditions which the hon. Member is moving to leave out. The only effect of the Amendment is to remove the conditions subject to which the milk and biscuits could be provided free of charge.

Mr. Buchanan

Yes, but it does not replace them by the education authority.

The Deputy-Chairman

If the hon. Member will be good enough to read the Clause, he will see that it simply places the discretion in the hands of the local education authority. I am afraid he has misunderstood its effect.

9.43 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)

This matter is on a very different basis from the supply of milk without meals. The provision of meals in this case is governed, under the terms of the Financial Resolution, as you, Captain Bourne, have already pointed out, by the provisions of the earlier Act. This, however, is entirely a new basis. It provides that the local education authority shall be empowered, subject to a scheme prepared and approved by the Minister, to provide milk and biscuits free. When proposals are made to the Minister, he makes a scheme, which is governed by the principal Act. It is the way in which co-operation between the local education authority and the Minister is secured for the purpose of general grants by the Minister. It follows precisely the previous provision, but the intention now is to do something that has never been done before. It has arisen because of the experience of the Ministry of Labour with regard to training classes for adults. We have found in the course of those courses that it has been a great advantage to have a break in the morning with milk and biscuits for those who take part in the course.

The Deputy-Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman is now going into the merits, which do not arise on this Amendment. All that I was pointing out was that the scope of the Amendment is rather limited.

Mr. Brown

I do not want to transgress your Ruling, but only to say that what is proposed in the Bill, and what the Mover of the Amendment seeks to remove, is that we shall follow the usual procedure. If the scheme is prepared and agreed between the education authority and the Minister that in a particular centre milk and biscuits shall be given, there will be no differentiation between one child and another, and no payment will be made.

Mr. Buchanan

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if this scheme is carried, all children will be treated alike and there will be no charge?

Mr. E. Brownindicated assent.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

The words that are proposed to be deleted give the Minister power to deal with the conditions that are laid down. The final power is being put into his hands. If the Amendment is carried, that power will be taken from the Minister, and one of the purposes of the Amendment is to get from the Minister the conditions that may be laid down by him. We want more information about this matter than we have yet received.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Graham White

I am inclined to support the Amendment, because on the case so far made by the right hon. Gentleman it is difficult to see what regulations he can lay down. The meals are to be free and equal to all the children, but are there to be regulations which will necessitate a medical examination for any child? I think we must ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what the regulations can consist of. We have had a good deal of evidence and experience in the matter of the feeding of children in our elementary schools, and we have seen regulations made which have been so fantastic that they have had to be abandoned.

Mr. Lawson

There is an Amendment coming immediately after this one which will deal definitely with the question of regulations.

Mr. White

What I am saying is that we shall be glad to have more details in regard to this matter, because, having regard to our experience in other directions, if there is any repetition in this connection of regulations such as we have already had, we want to be very careful what we are doing, and after all it is a nice thing for Parliament to be considering regulations dealing with milk and biscuits for children.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown

There seems to be some misunderstanding. This is not a question whether we can make regulations or whether particular children shall or shall not have milk and biscuits, one child paying and the other not paying. Our experience throughout has been that the cooperation of the local education authorities has been full and ample and always helpful, but that conditions have varied locally, and if we had to set out all the conditions in the original scheme under Section 76 of the principal Act, which governs this matter, we should be making a whole lot of details, which might suit in one locality but not in another, as to the amount of milk and biscuits to be given and the time at which they should be given. We have found from our experience that these details vary from district to district, and all that we desire to do now is to have power to continue the practice which has been so successful in the past, and not to make any distinction between child and child or to expose any child to injustice at all.

I have no doubt whatever that this is the most convenient way of doing what the House desired us to do by giving the Bill a Second Reading, namely, of carrying into full effect the advice given by the Advisory Committee, which saw the good effects of giving milk and biscuits in the teaching classes, to do that for the maximum number of children in the junior instruction centres. There is no intention of making any reservations under the scheme or any proposals under any scheme of a restrictive character at all. It is only to meet the varying state of affairs in the varying localities. After this explanation, I am sure the hon. Member will not desire to press his Amendment.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think the Committee will be very much wiser after it than it was before. It may be that I am a little bit dull to-night, but the Minister has been very general in his statements. One thing that I did notice, and that was that he said he had to make regulations about the quantity of milk in different districts. Does he mean that in some districts they are to have smaller rations than in others? I think the Minister when he put this into the Bill to have the power to act as a sort of guardian of all the local education authorities in connection with the provision of milk and biscuits, should have come forward with a more concrete instance of what exactly he was going to do. Everything here is general, and our experience with regard to the working of the Ministry of Labour has been that there are so many regulations made and that the Minister is always there as an authority imposing regulations, so many of which are utterly vexatious. For example, there may be, in connection with these regulations, some limitation with regard to the number of hours that a young person may spend at a course.

Mr. E. Brown

We are only following the general scheme under Section 76 of the principal Act.

Mr. Stephen

That is all very well, but I think the Minister might have given us some instances of the practice already in operation and more details with regard to how many regulations there are to be. I wonder whether the regulations will lay it down that a particular type of biscuit is to be provided. It seems to me that a burden is being laid upon the education authorities in this respect, and we should have more details than we have yet been given. The Minister should give us fuller details with regard to the regulations that he is is going to impose upon education authorities.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

I cannot think that what the Minister called his explanation will satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee. He has made confusion worse confounded. I understood him to say that there would be no distinction between child and child, but on further considera- tion his explanation shows that that is exactly what there is going to be. There is going to be a very unfair distinction between child and child and perhaps between children in one centre as compared with children in another centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he will determine whether the children in one centre shall have milk and biscuits and the children in another centre shall not have milk and biscuits? It seems to me that a diabolical social process is going to be employed to determine whether the children in one group need a glass of milk and the children in another group do not need a glass of milk. The statement of the Minister seemed to suggest that the Government are in grave danger of giving a glass of milk to a child who really is not in desperate need of a glass of milk. Bearing in mind the conditions in my own constituency, I do not think that these conditions ought to be imposed.

There is no comparison between the conditions covered by this Bill in the juvenile training centres and the conditions generally covered by the Education Act of 1921. The Education Act of 1921 in its feeding provisions covers every child in every elementary school, although some of them have no need for solid food and milk. The need of the youngsters in the juvenile unemployment training centres is implicit in the fact that they are unemployed and that many of them come from homes where their parents are unemployed, or living in distressed areas on very low wage standards. The decent thing to do is to sweep away the conditions altogether and to tell the Committee definitely that every child in every juvenile training centre is to be supplied with milk and biscuits.

9.58 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest

I understood from the Minister that two or three of the matters on which regulations are being made are the time and the amount of the meals and, presumably, the amount of milk and biscuits. That is a most important part of the whole business. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the report of the Committee on Nutrition, which was appointed by his own Government, and that in that report it is laid down that a growing child of this age must have about one pint of milk per day. I hope, therefore, that he will assure the Committee that the pint of milk is to be given. Any scientific authority knows quite well and the Government's own committee on nutrition know quite well that nothing can replace milk for these young persons at a growing age. If they do not get the milk at this age—their need, as my hon. Friend has just said, is implicit in the fact that they are unemployed—you can never make it up to them in the future. Incidentally, there are difficulties in the case of growing children as regards dental treatment, and you can avoid grave difficulty and considerable expense in the future only by giving growing children milk. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that the children will get one pint of milk each, a very important thing, together with biscuits. There is a difference in psychology between different educational authorities. Some are less inclined to be kindly disposed than others and some are less informed scientifically than others.

The Deputy-Chairman

That subject is raised in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Ritson), which raises the point of the local authorities more explicitly. If the discussion is to be taken now, it cannot be taken on that Amendment.

Dr. Guest

I will not pursue the matter further but will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that all the children will receive their pint of milk and biscuits.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown

I cannot give that assurance. The whole scheme is in these terms, that proposals will be received from the local education authority, who know the precise conditions in their own area, for the working of the whole course. They will put forward their proposals and the Minister will make his scheme, and inside that scheme—there will be one for England and Wales and one for Scotland—we shall be able to make our regulations approving the details, which will fit the particular authority. With regard to free milk and biscuits, that is the whole meaning of the Sub-section to which this Amendment has been moved. We desire that every child attending a junior instruction centre shall have milk and biscuits and shall have them at a given time, to be determined after consultation with the local authority. It may so happen that in the area of a particular authority it will be necessary to give more. I notice that several hon. Members are smiling. At any rate, that will be the proposal of the local educational authority, which knows the requirements of its own district.

Most of these junior training centres are in the heavy employment districts, and the authorities there are for the most part extremely sympathetic to this point of view and will be glad to make proposals in order that the scheme shall work as we desire, without restriction. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) spoke of the type of biscuit. That question may arise. There is one juvenile instruction centre in a Special Area, which is worked not through a grant from the Ministry of Labour but by a grant from the Special Area Commissioner, and in that centre they give milk and scones, not biscuits. Other authorities may prefer, having regard to their own local habits, to provide scones rather than biscuits. It would be futile to put this kind of detail into a general scheme. Therefore, we seek to meet the situation by regulations made within the general scheme. I am sure that those Members of the Committee who, like the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall), have followed closely the workings of juvenile instruction centres in the terms of the Act of 1935, will accept my assurance that we are at one on this question. We all desire that the children attending the centres should get milk and biscuits, and that schemes should be set up, but at the same time we desire that the local authorities should put forward the proposals which are necessary in order to meet the necessities of their particular areas.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. White

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance on one specific point, and that is whether the regulations of the scheme, whatever they may be, will apply equally to whole-time centres and to part-time centres. Will there be any differentiation between one and the other? Some centres are only on a part-time basis, and if they were to be excluded the benefits of the scheme will be cut out straight away so far as they are concerned.

Mr. E. Brown

That is not the intention.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins

I thought from the earlier statement of the right hon. Gentle- man that the matter was more definite than I now understand it to be. The Minister does not give us the assurance that we need, that all the children in these juvenile instruction centres will get milk and biscuits. That is precisely the assurance that he will not give to us. According to his last statement it will depend upon the recommendations of the local education authorities. He knows perfectly well that there are many educational authorities—

The Deputy-Chairman

That is a point that can be raised on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham City. I hope that hon. Members will not pursue that point now; otherwise I shall not select that Amendment.

Mr. Jenkins

I will not pursue that subject any further, but I will put a definite question to the Minister, and I think we are entitled to an answer. Can he give the Committee a definite guarantee that all the children now in junior instruction centres and all who will go to them after the Bill becomes an Act will get milk and biscuits or scones free?

Mr. E. Brown

In every case where an education authority exercises its power under this Clause all children at those centres will get milk and biscuits, and get them free.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood

We are not getting to the fundamental question. The point is that, through the Clause, the power is given to local authorities, but we all know that local authorities do not always exercise their powers so generously. We are aware that powers are given to the local authorities.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is exactly the point of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Ritson). If this discussion continued, the Amendment would not be called.

Mr. Greenwood

With respect, Captain Bourne, the next Amendment, if I may say so, deals with how this is to be carried out, whether by regulation or in any other way. What I was dealing with is the substantive part of Clause 1 (b). The right hon. Gentleman has said that juveniles will get this milk and biscuits. That may or may not be so. We are not sure, and the object of the Amendment is to try to find out what is in his mind. How is he going to find out that all these children do get free milk and biscuits? The right hon. Gentleman has gone round and round, and has given the Committee no specific indication that all these children will get their milk and biscuits. The mere fact that he is giving power to local authorities to provide them does not mean anything.

10.9 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

The juveniles who will be attending these instruction centres will be coming from homes which are already badly depressed, and, therefore, is it not legitimate to assume that, coming into these centres, they will need this sustenance, and is it not in the national interest that a few pounds should not be saved and the health of these children reduced as a result? Does the Minister not think that in the long run it will cost him more if that happens, because, after the children have been in these centres, the idea is to make them fit for work. That is the whole idea of the Bill, so what is the good of cheeseparing in this way?

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

The speeches that are being made on this Amendment indicate that the right hon. Gentleman has not made the position clear, and I am in the same position as everybody else. We did not put down this Amendment in any controversial spirit, and we are not approaching the Committee discussion on the Bill in a controversial spirit. We want the youngsters to get milk and biscuits, even if the biscuits are scones. I should have thought it desirable, if it were proposed to give something wider in the way of nourishment, to make it clear. Could not the Bill have said "milk and other nourishment"? We would have been prepared to agree, but the Minister now says the education authorities have power. They have not had that up to now, but this confers the power. Then the Bill, after having given that power to do this, goes on, in Clause 1, to say: Provided that the said power shall not be exercised. … As the Minister explains the thing, he wants to frame regulations to make the authorities do more than they might otherwise do, but these words, as I read them, do not give him power to compel reluctant authorities. They seem to give him power to restrain over-enthusiastic and over-generous authorities. The Clause gives him absolute power to provide meals—admittedly. The meals are restricted by the Education Act, but the milk and biscuits, which are free of charge, are not restricted, except in so far as the Minister produces regulations to restrict them. I can imagine a very generous local authority making proposals. They might be prepared even to provide biscuits twice a day, and then the Minister has not the power to say, "Go ahead and do more"; he has only the power to say, "You are doing too much."

I have had experience of this before. In the City of Glasgow the education authority were very reluctant to set up these unemployment centres. The Minister finally agreed to finance them to the extent of 100 per cent. of the cost. The Glasgow education authorities thought that this was a great triumph, and that they could put up first-class unemployment centres and get the whole cost from the Treasury. But in every direction, whenever they put forward a proposal which was going to make a model centre, the Minister came forward and said, "We will give 100 per cent. of all expenditure that we approve, but we are not going to approve this expenditure." As I see it, that is exactly the power the Minister wants to retain now—the power to restrict expenditure on free milk and biscuits. He wants to be able to say, "One glass of milk but not two," or perhaps "One and a-half biscuits instead of two whole biscuits," or perhaps, "We will allow margarine with the scones, but not butter." I can remember that as a child a favourite way of spending a penny was on what were known as broken biscuits—the refuse of the biscuit tins. The Minister may make regulations to say that the biscuits must be of that commercial variety known as broken biscuits. The point that I am making, not jocularly, is that the powers of the Minister, as I read the Clause, are restricted. He has no power under the Clause to drive a recalcitrant or reluctant authority, but he has the power to restrict and limit the expenditure of an authority which wishes to be generous.

Mr. E. Brown

I have no power to compel any authorities to do that. It is the whole scheme of the Bill which the House has passed, and I should be out of order if I attempted to go into the question. Any suspicion in the minds of any hon. Members in any part of the Committee that the Minister of Labour does not desire to see the maximum number of children get the milk and biscuits necessary for them in the course of their morning's work and physical training, is not borne out by the facts. These experimental provisions arise out of work done under the powers of the Minister of Labour in similar regulations made in connection with another Act. I can assure the Committee that I can do no more. While I have no power under the scheme of the Bill to compel any authority to do this, I have no doubt whatever that the overwhelming majority will desire to do it, and there will not be the slightest difficulty in making regulations with sufficient elasticity to meet the varying needs of the various areas so that the maximum number of young people get the advantage of the scheme under the Bill. That is why we are doing it, and there is no suggestion that these regulations are of a restrictive character at all. We think that it is best to get the co-operation of the local authority.

Mr. Davidson

In view of the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to ask whether, if local authorities in future submit definite schemes, with recommendations as to the number of biscuits and the amount of milk to be given under those schemes, will their recommendations be accepted fully by the Minister?

Mr. Edmund Harvey

The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. White), that there was nothing in the Bill distinguishing between full-time and half-time centres. There is a fear in the minds of some hon. Members that the Bill might make a distinction and cut out the part-time centres, and will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that that is not the intention?

Mr. E. Brown

There is no such intention at all.

Mr. Lawson

Are we discussing the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Ritson)?

The Deputy-Chairman

We are discussing the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Buchanan

There is no need for the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to think that I am going to take away some of his thunder. I put down this Amendment in good faith without any object of stealing either his thunder or that of anybody else. I put it down because I take as much interest in the problem as the hon. Member and not with the object of spiting the Labour party by getting in first. I was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to give the children their biscuits and milk, but I accept his assurance in the spirit in which it has been given. I shall watch the experiment with a great deal of sympathy in the future, and if the right hon. Gentleman carries out what he has said here, I shall be grateful. I am prepared to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust he will carry it out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Leslie

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "with", to "with", in line 13, and to insert "regulations to be made by the Minister."

The Amendment is not to be taken as any reflection on the Minister, but surely it is only right that this House should have some knowledge of the proposals under the scheme, and that the regulations should be submitted to this House. It is not necessary for me to elaborate the wisdom of this course, which, I hope, will meet with the approval of the Committee, and that the Minister will accept it.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown

If hon. Members will think over the Bill, I believe they will agree that the scheme of the Bill is preferable to that suggested by the Amendment. We are by the Bill merely extending the present machinery which is working satisfactorily. The education authorities, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education have been doing good work in the matter of juvenile instruction centres, and it may be said that the more the education authorities know the Ministry of Labour, the better they like us. The hon. Member desires that instead of our being able to make regulations under the scheme, instead of having the same power under the Bill as we have for every other purpose connected with the Bill, that on this small point we should have to come down to the House, table the regulations and have them discussed by the House. I think the Committee will not disagree that for this one comparatively small purpose this would be a most wasteful and cumbrous machinery. It is not the kind of thing which the House wants to discuss in detail. As I have said, there will be one main scheme for England and Wales and another for Scotland, and we shall give our approval to the propositions put up by local authorities to fit their conditions. We do not want to have to hold up the whole of our administration by bringing forward regulations to cover every single detail. That would be most cumbrous.

Dr. Guest

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter. What will be the minimum amount of milk he will consider satisfactory as a milk meal for a child? Will the Minister say that? It is not a question of administration, but a question of nutrition.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

I gather that if this Amendment is carried, it will mean that the Minister will have to do in this case as he does in the case of all other regulations, that is to say, to lay them on the Table of the House. Within 21 days of their being laid upon the Table of the House, any hon. Member may pray against them. But during the period that the regulations were on the Table of the House, they would be in operation, because they would not need an affirmative Resolution. Secondly, I understand that the regulations would be submitted to the Statutory Committee presided over by Sir William Beveridge, and that Committee would have to pronounce upon them. If that is the position, I am not over-enthusiastic about it. First of all, the regulations would operate when they were lying on the Table of the House. Let it be remembered that if the Amendment is accepted, it will not prevent the Minister from operating the regulations during the 21 days that they are lying on the Table. My experience is that once the Government have started to operate regulations, they stand by them, and I think in this case we ought to have the right to stop them from being operated before they begin.

One of my earlier Amendments had as its object to prevent the Minister from making any regulations. Now I propose that he should be given power to make them, which may seem rather contradictory. I think that in this matter the Minister ought not to have power either to make regulations or to interfere in any way. I think that all that should be contained in the Bill is the simple power for the Minister and the education authorities to give milk and biscuits to these children without there being any regulations or interference. Once this Amendment is accepted, we have to take into account the fact that the Minister would have some power to interfere, and I do not feel very anxious to give him that power. I would prefer that each child should be given milk and biscuits without there being any regulations.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood

I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on this matter. As the Clause is, the suspicion which was expressed on this side remains, and we feel that the right hon. Gentleman is not strengthening his own hand. He can limit the powers of the local education authorities. The case which was made on the last Amendment was that although this Bill empowers local education authorities to provide milk and biscuits to children at the instructional centres, there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that all children who are so engaged shall receive that sort of sustenance. Under the proviso which we are now discussing the local authority puts up its proposals and the right hon. Gentleman approves of them. If thereafter we challenge the scheme here, the right hon. Gentleman will say that it is the local authority's scheme, that it seemed good to him and that he accepted it. I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should escape the responsibility which ought to lie upon him, to establish regulations setting out what, in his view, are proper standards in the provision of milk and biscuits for these children.

It is no use pretending that circumstances vary from local authority to local authority. The child in Middlesex can be as hungry as the child in Durham. I presume that their nutritional needs are much the same. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to ride off from his responsibility, leaving it to be divided among all the local education authorities. But as has been pointed out, the issue is really nutritional and has nothing to do with the question of where a child lives. It ought to be the responsibility of the Minister to set out by regulation what, in his view, are the proper standards to be provided by the local authorities. The idea of regulations being made by the Minister is to put the responsibility where it can be challenged in the House of Commons. If it is left to the local authorities we have no means of raising the question effectively here. If the Minister is responsible to the House of Commons at least we can have the right hon. Gentleman's head on a charger, if his regulations establish standards which we regard as inadequate. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman with his courage and his boldness of conception, would have been willing to take the final responsibility for establishing these standards, but I am bound to say that the statements which have been made confirm the suspicion that he is now trying to wriggle out of his due responsibility. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will stand to his guns and take this Amendment to a Division.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

The Minister of Labour is putting forward a unique contention. I agree whole-heartily with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that if this matter could be left so that the Minister would not be able to impose any means test on local authorities, it would be desirable, but here we have the Minister saying that when schemes are submitted to him, he is not going to take any responsibility. In the future, we may have local authorities refusing to take action, or taking what we regard as inadequate; action and Members of this Committee, who are ultimately responsible, should be able to interrogate the Minister and if necessary censure him with regard to the regulations governing the supply of milk and biscuits to these children. If from past experience we knew that we had a generous Minister of Labour; if we could forget the means test imposition and the Unemployment Assistance Board's scales of relief; if we could forget the efforts of the present Minister to keep the parents of these children in the lowest form of poverty, then we might have some trust in the Minister for the future. It is perfectly logical and only right that the House should have the opportunity of discussing the regulations and making any recommendations to the Minister.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. White

The nature of this discussion fills me with despair. If we could concentrate our minds on the actual nature of the problem of the young people in the schools, we might get on a little faster. All that we want is, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that those who are qualified to attend the schools should also be qualified to get the benefits of this Bill. I am in favour of the Minister having responsibility, but if regulations are to be made, and there are in a school 21 boys or girls who require nutrition, they may be held up for 21 days while Parliament is making up its mind whether to pray about it or not. These boys and girls are going into school one week and out the next week. It is a continually moving population. This is not an ordinary problem, but a very difficult one, and there is grave apprehension in the minds of people at the rumours as to the nature of the regulations that are to be made. I hope that we shall have some light on that point later. In the present Amendment we are getting a little wide of the mark.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

I do not think this Amendment will give us any greater powers to deal with this matter. It appears that the Minister is determined to build a barricade round the powers to be given to education authorities, and we should put ourselves in a wrong position if we encouraged him to make regulations. He has to make a scheme and he will be responsible to the House of Commons for it. Hon. Members above the Gangway are in a more fortunate position than our small party, because they are always able to get an opportunity of discussing the responsibility of a Minister, whereas we, because of our limited numbers, cannot exercise that privilege. I agree with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) that the Minister is beginning this scheme very badly by the way in which he has put in all these provisos for hindering the provision of meals for these young people. He is laying down safeguards and putting checks upon education authorities, and it is shameful that this part of the Clause should have been drafted as it is. It is scarcely intelligible, and the Minister in his explanation has not made it clearer. Certainly, I would not agree to vote for giving powers to that man.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

I must express my surprise that the two hon. Members below the Gangway should oppose this Amendment. It gives at least one guarantee, and that is that we shall then be in a position to satisfy ourselves that all the boys and girls who are in the junior instruction centres will get what is provided for in this Bill. Apart from this Amendment we have not that guarantee, but are dependent entirely upon the education authorities. It may be that a certain education authority will not agree to the provision of milk and food in these centres, and if they do not no scheme is put up to the Minister, but we should have no opportunity of raising the matter in this House. By adopting this Amendment we should get an opportunity for dealing with the matter.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan

I just want—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. We think this is a very important matter. We have sat here discussing foreign affairs from 4 o'clock until half-past 9, and it is sheer impertinence of hon. Members to interrupt when we are considering a matter which we think is as important as affairs in any other part of the world. I would say to the hon. Member that he has not got what he wants in the Amendment. If an education authority do not want to adopt this scheme no regulations can make them do so. Let that be clear. Then there is the point that when the regulations are drawn up they will, as I expect, provide milk and biscuits for the children. It may be a large or small provision, we shall not know until we see them. The only course then will be to wait until after 11 o'clock some night in order to raise the question. I have had experience of regulations, I have seen them in connection with the anomalies Act, and it is my experience that in effect nothing can be done. It is only on the rarest occasions that we ever see them effectively challenged. In effect there is really no Parliamentary control at all, and every politician knows it. All that will happen when the regulations are issued is that they will lie on the Table for 21 days, and we shall have no power to amend them but only to reject them, and that we shall be unable to do because we cannot expect anybody to walk into the Lobby to vote against children getting biscuits and milk. The regulations may provide milk for the Gorbals district and for Poplar and may leave out Middlesex. What can be done? The only power we should have would be to vote against them, and that would mean voting against the Gorbals district and the Poplar district getting the milk and biscuits.

We have been told in connection with other Acts under which regulations are issued that we can do this and that, but everybody knows that in effect our powers in this matter have little force. I would sooner leave things in the position where the Opposition can say, "The Minister has introduced a scheme which we do not think is far-reaching enough, but is niggardly; the Minister is doing a mean thing." They could then get time to discuss the matter and censure the Minister in the House for his miserable and mean action. That is the way to tackle the Minister. This subject is too important for us to wait until after 11 o'clock some night to snatch half-an-hour for its discussion. Feeding is a most important matter, and one should not insult the children by taking such a subject after 11 o'clock. The Opposition should see that the Minister answers on these matters in Parliamentary time, and not upon a scratch vote in the Committee. I say quite frankly that I do not like the Amendment.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

We are dealing with a section of people to-night and I do not know whether we should call them workmen now or scholars. The fact is that the boys were taken out of the schools and they have not had the benefit of education; nor have they had the advantage of being employed. Everybody agrees that these boys have fallen between two stools and are not receiving effective care from anybody in particular. The right hon. Gentleman based his case upon the statement that these boys were mainly in the depressed areas, and local authorities would therefore exercise their powers for feeding them. He will not deny that some local authorities might have to be severely handled before they would exercise their powers in this matter. I cannot understand why my hon. Friends, and particularly the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) have objected to debating this matter. He admits that it is possible under the regulations.

Mr. Buchanan

The regulations deal not only with milk but with meals, and the Minister of Labour has power under the regulations to interfere with education authorities. I was merely saying that the Opposition should regard this matter as of more importance and should demand time from the Minister so that it might be properly discussed.

Mr. Lawson

The hon. Member for Gorbals knows quite well that we very often desire time for discussing matters but cannot get it because of the complexity of the business arrangements. This regulation will make sure that we have an opportunity of discussing not merely the milk but the kind of meal that the boys should have. On the other point, I would remind the hon. Member that some of the best Debates that have ever taken place

in this House have been after 11 o'clock. That is one opportunity that we have of keeping a firm grip upon these matters. I plead with the Minister, for the sake of his own reputation and in the best interests of these boys, which I know he has at heart, to accept our suggestion that the whole matter relating to the way in which these boys are to be fed should be submitted to the House, so that he could carry the House with him in the matter. This is rather a serious matter, because here you have growing boys at an age when they need meals, and they are not getting them in many cases. Milk and biscuits in themselves are not sufficient. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, because there is nothing in it that is alien to the object he has in mind. I am certain that in the long run he will find it more effective than the proposals that he has put before us to-night.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 108.

Division No. 73.] AYES. [10.51 p.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cross, R. H. Goldie, N. B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Crowder, J. F. E. Gower, Sir R. V.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Davidson, Viscountess Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Gridley, Sir A. B.
Aske, Sir R. W. De Chair, S. S. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) De la Bère, R. Grimston, R. V.
Atholl, Duchess of Denman, Hon. R. D. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Denville, Alfred Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Balniel, Lord Dodd, J. S. Hannah, I. C.
Barrie, Sir C. C. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmth) Dugdale, Captain T. L. Harbord, A.
Beechman, N. A. Duggan, H. J. Harris, Sir P. A.
Bernays, R. H. Duncan, J. A. L. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Bossom, A. C. Eastwood, J. F. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Boulton, W. W. Eckerstey, P. T. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Edmondson, Major Sir J. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Bracken, B. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Ellis, Sir G. Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Elmley, Viscount Higgs, W. F.
Bull, B. B. Emery, J. F. Holdsworth, H.
Bullock, Capt. M. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Hopkinson, A.
Burghley, Lord Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Butcher, H. W. Errington, E. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Butler, R. A. Erskine-Hill, A. G. Hunter, T.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Hutchinson, G. C.
Cartland, J. R. H. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Carver, Major W. H. Everard, W. L. James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Fildes, Sir H. Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Channon, H. Findlay, Sir E. Keeling, E. H.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Fleming, E. L. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Fool, D. M. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Fox, Sir G. W. G. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Furness, S. N. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Fyfe, D. P. M. Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Cox, H. B. Trevor Ganzoni, Sir J. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Cranborne, Viscount George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Levy, T.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Lewis, O.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C Gledhill, G. Liddall, W. S.
Croom-Johnson, R P. Gluckstein, L. H. Lipson, D. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col, J. J. Pilkington, R. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Loftus, P. C. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Lyons, A. M. Procter, Major H. A. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Radford, E. A. Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.
McCorquodale, M. S. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Ramsden, Sir E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Thomas, J. P. L.
McKie, J. H. Rayner, Major R. H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. P. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Titchfield, Marquess of
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Turton, R. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Wakefield, W. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ropner, Colonel L. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Markham, S. F. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Marsden, Commander A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Rowlands, G. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Royds, Admiral P. M. R. Warrender, Sir V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Salmon, Sir I. Wells, S. R.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Salt, E. W. White, H. Graham
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Samuel, M. R. A. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Moreing, A. C. Savery, Sir Servington Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Scott, Lord William Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Muirhead, U.-Col. A. J. Selley, H. R. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Munro, P. Shakespeare, G. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Nall, Sir J. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Wise, A. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Wragg, H.
Palmer, G. E. H. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Patrick, C. M. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Peat, C. U. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Peters, Dr. S. J. Spens. W. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Petherick, M. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel
Kerr.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Grenfell, D. R. Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Adamson, W. M. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Naylor, T. E.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Ammon, C. G. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Oliver, G. H.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hall, G. H. (Abordare) Paling, W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parker. J.
Banfield, J. W. Hardie, Agnes Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Barnes, A. J. Hayday, A. Quibell, D. J. K.
Batey, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ridley, G.
Bellenger, F. J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Ritson, J.
Bevan, A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Broad, F. A. Hicks, E. G. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hills, A. (Pontefract) Sexton. T. M.
Burke, W. A. Hollins, A. Silverman, S. S.
Cape, T. Hopkin, D. Simpson, F. B.
Cassells, T. Jagger, J. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Chater, D. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cocks, F. S. Kelly, W. T. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cove, W. G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Taylor, R. J. (Merpeth)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirby, B. V. Tinker, J. J.
Daggar, G. Lathan, G. Walkden, A. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lawson, J. J. Walker, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leach, W. Watkins, F. C.
Day, H. Lee, F. Westwood, J.
Dobbie, W. Leonard, W. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Leslie, J. R. Wilkinson, Ellen
Ede, J. C. Logan, D. G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McEntee, V. La T. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGhee, H. G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Maclean, N. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Mander, G. le M. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Garro Jones, G. M. Marshall, F.
Gibbins, J. Messer, F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Milner, Major J. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I do not feel that the Committee should let this Clause go without attention being drawn to the unsatis- factory condition in which it is left as a result of the discussion this evening. The main argument between this side of the Committee and the Minister, in principle, is as to whether this should be a duty of the local authority or merely, a power. If it had been made a duty, practically all the objections to the Clause that we have raised from this side would have vanished. I have listened to the whole of the discussion, and your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Dennis, ruled that owing to the limiting nature of the Financial Resolution it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) to move the Amendments that would have given effect to the principle which I have just laid down.

I want merely to draw attention to the fact that this Financial Resolution was introduced as late as 2nd December of this year, after the report of the Select Committee on the effect of Money Resolutions, and it is very disappointing to find that on the first occasion after that report has been received the Committee should find itself hampered in the way in which it has been hampered to-day. I am not in any way disputing your predecessor's Ruling, but it is a matter of great disappointment to find that on this important matter we have in fact been precluded from discussing the principle of the Clause by the way in which the Resolution has been drawn.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

I should like to ask the Minister for a little more information. I take it to be the desire of the Committee that every young person in a juvenile training centre who needs either a meal or milk will get a meal or milk, or both. In fact, in an earlier discussion, the Minister said that it was his hope that a maximum number of children would be fed under the provisions of the Bill, and I am really very anxious to know how the Minister is going to make certain that his own objective is really secured. The powers under the Bill for the provision of meals are derived from the Education Act, 1921, and if the Minister will be good enough to inquire as to the effective operation of that Act, he will get information of its complete irregularity, from locality to locality, from authority to authority, from medical officer of health to medical officer of health, and he will find that there are children in an area not getting a meal which, if they were in an adjoining area, they would in fact be getting.

How is the Minister going to make really certain that every young person in a juvenile training centre who needs a meal gets a meal, even though the local authority does not shoulder its responsibility by making recommendations and asking the right hon. Gentleman for power and authority in the matter? This, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said on the Second Reading, is a very important Measure indeed. It is, as I have already said, an almost diabolically social distinction that one child should be given a meal and that not the least needy child should be deprived of a meal, and that, at an age when food is as important to them as ever it has been or will be. I do not believe that any satisfactory uniformity can be secured except by the application of compulsory powers, and by making certain that every juvenile in every juvenile employment centre has a meal and milk. If in the absence of these compulsory powers, the Minister really desires to make certain that every child that really needs milk or biscuits, or both, shall get it, I beg him to tell us how he is going to secure that his own purpose will be made effective.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. White

A certain amount of doubt exists as to this Clause. The discussion that we have had has been really provoked by anxiety as to the nature of the regulations or schemes that may be promoted under the Clause. There is a fear that the Ministry of Labour will not be prepared to sanction a scheme which will allow all the children within the centres of any age and on the basis of poverty, to get the nourishment that they need. It is felt that there may be: a medical examination required before any child is allowed to have milk and biscuits. Further, it is feared that there may be frequent provisional surveys and that a child may be on the scheme one week and off a week later. In the early days of the milk and meals in schools regulations under the Board of Education there was valuable experience, and I regret that the Ministry of Labour has come into this business at all. We have had a prolonged discussion and we have been and are unhappy and apprehensive about the Clause. That is because there is great fear that by a whole network of provisions, medical examinations, provisional surveys, etc., and difficulties with regard to the calculation of the amount of grant, the matter will be made so difficult that the heart will be taken out of local authorities before the Bill comes into operation.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

There has been a great deal of confusion in regard to what is really being done under this Clause, and I certainly do not envy the Minister when the Clause comes into operation. It is a very limited Clause, because only those are going to obtain meals in the juvenile instruction centres who are on the necessitous basis. That means to say that right away in connection with these training centres we are going to bring in a division among the young people attending them, and at that stage the distinction will be much worse than it is in the elementary schools. Only some education authorities will carry it out, because it is not made obligatory upon them to provide meals. You will have one authority providing meals in these centres, and another authority, possibly in a neighbouring district, not providing them. I can imagine what an outcry there will be in the country at this differentiation. The money is going to be provided partly out of the national Exchequer. Some of it is coming out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, so that insured people in one part of the country will be called on to pay for meals for certain young people in another part of the country, while in their own district the young people are being denied meals. In every part of the House there is the utmost misgiving with regard to the way this is being done. Hon. Members on the Minister's own side have said to me that the whole difficulty would have been solved, as far as they were concerned, if it had been made obligatory on all education authorities.

The Minister is going to try to put it across that here is another big experiment in connection with the adolescents of the nation, but it is absolutely misleading the House to try to persuade us that there is any great reform here. It is treating those unemployed adolescents in a most shameful way to make this distinction between them, and to stigmatise some as being the most poverty-stricken of the adolescents in the community. The same thing is being done with regard to children, but children do not know so much about that; when they reach the age of 15 they begin to realise that, in our civilisation, poverty is regarded as the greatest crime, just as it was long ago. I do not remember much Latin since my University days, but I remember that Tacitus once described a noble Roman and spoke of his many qualities, but then said that he believed that poverty was the greatest crime. The effect of this Clause will be to make many difficulties among the young people of the country. I am certain it will have the effect of accentuating the class struggle, and I hope the Minister of Labour will be paid for this Clause at the next General Election by being driven out of Leith because of the shocking way he is treating the young unemployed people.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Sexton

Like many other Members on this side of the Committee, I feel entirely dissatisfied with the present position. It is a very sad commentary to think that with regard to the condition of these children we are considering whether the community should feed them at a time of prosperity. We are discussing ways and means whereby boys and girls at that important age in life should have a square meal and also milk and biscuits. It would have been far better if they could have been well fed at home. When I look at the first Clause it reminds me of the poem "If," because the first thing that I notice is that in the Act of 1921 if the child needs food and undergoes a medical examination, it is not certain that he will receive it. It applies only if the education authority formulate and presents a scheme. Even if they do we may not be sure that the child will be fed because if the education authority formulates and presents a scheme it relies upon whether the Minister approves the scheme. That is not the final word either, because if the Minister approves the scheme, it is only if the Treasury approves the scheme that the child may be fed, the last word remaining with the Treasury.

The local authorities under this Bill, as under the Blind Persons Act, will vary very much. In some parts of the country the blind people are well looked after, and in other parts they are not. If this Bill goes through, in some parts of the country the boys and girls will be well looked after, and in other parts they will not. I should like something more certain than so many ifs, conditions and provisions. I should like to know how much milk the children are to get and how many and what size the biscuits are to be. Are they going to be small biscuits such as we see advertised, or full-size squares like the biscuits we had as children? We do not know this. If a boy is at a centre for a full day, will he be given milk at each session? There are other questions which are left unanswered and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, like other hon. Members, are dissatisfied with the Clause.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

I was rather surprised to hear that the hon. Member below the Gangway, who on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," rather opposed the matter being left in the hands of the education authority should now take the opposite line. The difficulty will be that the conditions in two education authorities will not be alike. You may have two county education authorities with the instructional centre in each of them. You may have feeding in one and not in the other. There is another "if" in addition to the "if" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) referred. There is the "if" as to whether or not the education authority will formulate a scheme of feeding. For years past the Board of Education has experienced no end of difficulty in connection with the feeding in elementary schools. It is true that they have adopted a more generous attitude lately, but there is a substantial difference between the income scale which permits of food. In some areas you get an income scale of £2, and in another £2 5s., and this income test will be applied in the case of these schools.

I think the Minister is making substantial difficulties for himself for the future. In some schools you will have 40 or 50 children, some of whom with an income which will entitle them to be fed, and perhaps some with an income 1s. or 6d. above the scale who will be excluded. You will have all these distinctions in a school of that kind. I think that is entirely wrong. These children are taken into these schools ostensibly for the purpose of improving their physique. As a matter of fact that standard of education is not high. It should be under the Board of Education. But the point to be stressed is that there will be no uniformity at all as far as feeding is concerned, and the Minister can give the Committee no assurance that these boys and girls will be fed at all. It is entirely in the hands of the education authority. They have to put up schemes, and the Minister has no power to compel them to put up schemes. Therefore, it will only be the progressive authorities who will do so. It is most unfortunate that the children in these schools should be left in this plight.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Harvey

I regret that it is not possible to impose the duty on all education authorities in this important matter, but after all, that is a defect in the principal Act and not in the Bill, which is only an amendment of the principal Act. Everything depends on the good will of the Minister and the way in which he exercises the powers which the Bill confers upon him. I hope he will give an assurance that he will use his powers to persuade the backward authorities to come up to the level of the most progressive, and that the schemes which he will approve will be of a simple character. There is a fear that some of the regulations may make the working of this admirable proposal difficult. There is the question of the medical inspection. If schemes are held up by the arrangements for medical inspections it would be a serious defect. If persons are to be first passed and then reinspected and then rejected, the result would be most unsatisfactory. We must assume that those who are attending these centres are in need of adequate nutrition, and I hope that the Minister will see that they get it. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Minister that he proposes to use his powers in that spirit. I feel sure that in all parts of the House hon. Members would welcome an assurance from the Minister that he will use his powers under the Bill in that spirit.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

We shall not divide against this Clause, although we regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in framing the Clause, has missed a first-class opportunity of doing a good job. There is really a long history behind the whole of this Clause. There have been penalties and handicaps in connection with this matter, and when the right hon. Gentleman took upon himself to draft this Clause and to go as far as he has done, it is a great pity that he kept the Clause so narrow and handicapped himself. I am sure that in a short time every hon. Member will realise that the right hon. Gentleman has penalised not only the youngsters, but handicapped hon. Members in carrying out what they want to do.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown

One might have gathered from the whole of this Debate that somehow it is a question of putting on new restrictions, whereas the fact is that this Clause, which I am asking the Committee to pass, for the first time gives power to the education authorities to give young people attending the junior instructional centres milk free and without any test. A difference of opinion exists not only in the Committee, but outside, in regard to the feeding of these young persons as proposed here, some holding that all of them ought to be fed and others holding that some ought to be fed.

I would like to remind hon. Members of the genesis of the proposals. For nearly 12 months a whole series of questions was addressed to me from the Front Opposition Bench asking me when I intended to implement the reports of the National Advisory Council for juvenile unemployment in England and Wales, and Scotland. We are doing that in this Bill. This Bill is based on the recommendations of that Council, a body of very able and devoted men and women who have given a large portion of their time in helping in this matter. They surveyed the whole field twice, and there are in the Vote Office two reports in which they give their conclusions and the reasons for them. They came to the conclusion that this was the right way to deal with the matter, and the structure of the Bill is based on their recommendations. I have been at the Ministry of Labour for some time now. We are not able to do all the things which hon. Members want us to do, but we are able to do some of those things, and this is one of them.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

While it is true that the Minister was asked by the Opposition to bring forward proposals such as we are discussing, we never asked him to bring forward any proposal which would involve different treatment of children in different areas. This is not a question of different circumstances applying to the children in different areas. The Committee is now dealing with children whose parents are unemployed and in difficulties. It is a simple, general problem and we are asking the Government to take powers to deal with it as a general problem. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that in dealing with these children he is dealing with an important factor in the nation's life. These children are expected to take an active part in industry in the future, and if the Government leave this matter to local education authorities, it means that the children in certain areas will be denied a fair and reasonable chance of participating in the benefits proposed by the Bill. That is our objection to the Clause. Certain local authorities have, openly and continually, opposed the provision of food for children and resent any public expenditure for the sustenance of children. This Bill allows those authorities to continue to do nothing. They will say, "If we do nothing, the Minister cannot interfere." Only those authorities who decide to deal with the children in their areas will submit schemes. The Clause enables local authorities to impose on the children the means test which is so well-known and so closely connected with the name of the Minister of Labour.