§ 46. Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Education the present average cost of school dinners; and what changes are to be made in the charges to parents.
§ Miss HorsbrughThe present average cost of school dinners is 1s. 5½d. After a full review of all the circumstances I have decided to increase the normal charge for school dinners from 7d. to 9d. with effect from 1st March next.
Proposals for adjustments in income scales, where considered necessary to avoid hardship to parents, will be considered on their merits. A circular to local education authorities is being issued today.
§ Mr. PeytonCan my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any difference in the contribution made by the Exchequer?
§ Miss HorsbrughThe present cost is 1s. 5½d. It would have been 1s. had I not arranged for certain economies in overhead charges. That is the amount. All the rest of the cost is met from the Exchequer—not from the rates, but from the Exchequer. The parents' contribution will now be 9d. As I said, there can be adjustments in relation to income scales in order to avoid hardship.
Miss LeeDoes the right hon. Lady not realise that this is a most cruel and, indeed, contemptible decision? If she cannot persuade her colleagues to restore the food subsidies in whole, would she not make the strongest representations that, at least, the children should not be the first victims of the Government's policy?
§ Miss HorsbrughThe children will not be victims at all. I think the hon. Lady will agree that many of the people who send their children to maintained schools will be able to afford this amount of 3s. 9d. a week. For those who cannot we already have arrangements whereby some children are getting free meals, while some are getting meals at reduced prices; and, as I have said, arrangements will be made to avoid hardship to parents.
§ Mr. MarloweIs it not the case that the extra cost can be met by giving up one cigarette a day?
§ Mr. H. HyndCan the Minister say how many unfortunate parents voted Conservative in the hope that the cost of living would go down?
§ Miss HorsbrughI can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am sure they are thankful that they did vote Conservative.
§ Sir W. DarlingCan my right hon. Friend say whether her statement applies to Scotland as well?
§ Miss HorsbrughThere is already a Question down about that, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making a similar statement in reply to it.
§ At the end of Questions
Mr. McNeilOn a point of order. The right hon. Lady the Minister of Education indicated, in reply to a question, that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was making a statement on the cost of school dinners. Are we not to have it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have had no notice of that; and it is not on the Order Paper.
Mr. McNeilI submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we had not had such an assurance offered to us I, and many of my hon. Friends, would have wanted to press the matter. We are told that parallel action is being taken which will affect Scotland, but the responsible Minister has not made a statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe are too late for that now. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to ascertain the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his policy on educational matters he must put down a Question. There was no Question down today, and there is no business of that sort on the Order Paper.
Mr. McNeilThe hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) addressed a supplementary question to the right hon. Lady. There is an unstarred Question on the paper, and the right hon. Lady, I am sure in the best faith, assured the House that she understood her right hon. Friend was making a statement. If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make that statement—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I really cannot allow this to go on. In answer to a supplementary question the right hon. Lady said—and I heard her say so—words to the effect that she understood that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be making a statement on this matter. That did not mean it was to be made today; there was no question of that. I cannot allow a statement to be made today if I have not had notice of it.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart)I do not know whether it might help to clarify the situation if I say that there is an unstarred Question on the Order Paper, the answer to which will appear in HANSARD. It states in very similar terms the decision regarding Scotland which has already been taken with regard to England.
§ Mr. HamiltonOn a point of order. Is it not a gross discourtesy to the House that when a statement is made by an English Minister about raising the price of school meals, and a similar policy is to be followed in Scotland, English Members get the opportunity of asking supplementary questions about the position in England but Scottish Members are denied that opportunity with regard to Scotland?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no discourtesy in the matter at all. It is only the way that the order of Questions has turned out. Had the Secretary of State for Scotland been answering Questions earlier than the Minister of Education there might have been an equal grievance on the other side.
Mr. McNeilI respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second occasion upon which we have been treated in this fashion. I further submit that it is not a matter of Scottish Questions being earlier on the Order Paper. 407 There never can be a day upon which the two Ministers are answering Questions on the same subject which are likely to be reached. It is, therefore. a matter of arrangement—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman must make some arrangement about it. We must proceed with the business of the House which is on the Order Paper.