HC Deb 20 January 1971 vol 809 cc1236-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

Before I embark on putting my case this evening I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on his appointment. We are political opponents of long standing. We have agreed on occasions, but on the vast majority of occasions we have had to differ. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman's appointment has been obtained by virtue of the fact that he has been extremely industrious in relation to education matters, and I wish him every success in his appointment. I hope that at the end of what I have to say and what he has to say the score on agreements and disagreements will be altered in favour of agreements.

The subject that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the proposal of the Birmingham education authority to make a charge on those children who eat sandwiches at school instead of having a cooked meal. The proposal, though I must admit that it has not been finally decided upon, is that a child will pay about 1s. per week should he eat sandwiches. In my opinion, this is a proposal which the whole House will wish to condemn. Only last week, it was condemned by the National Union of Teachers, who have asked their members not to collect.

In addition, the proposal has been condemned by Professor John Yudkin, head of the department of nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College of London University, a man of immense authority in this field, who has suggested that a section of children could end up with a "coke and doughnut" substitute for a hot meal at the middle of the day. I gather from the letters which I have received and the publicity which the proposals have gained that it has been condemned by everyone who cares for the health and welfare of our children. The root cause of this proposal is the Government's action. It is a direct result of their proposal to increase school meals charges.

To support what I say I would quote the Birmingham Evening Mail of Tuesday, 24th November, after the Chairman of the Education Committee, Alderman Dawes, made public discussions which had been held within the committee: It was said, and it has not been denied, that the review is being made in the light of the Government's proposal to increase the school meals charge and the likelihood that many more parents will want to send their children with sandwiches as a result. Alderman Dawes was merely taking off at a point already reached by the Wolverhampton Education Committee, which for some months now has levied a charge of £1 per term on those children who eat sandwiches at school.

After that piece of publicity, I was contacted as the Member for Birmingham, Northfield by a number of parents who were very concerned at the proposals. As a result, I put down a Question and in an early reply to me and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) the Secretary of State said that the charge was not illegal. I was very disturbed at that reply, because I should have liked the Secretary of State to say that she was not in favour of its being levied, but nothing of the kind came forth. The right hon. Lady also said that the matter would be referred to a working party.

On the question of illegality, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, when the proposal was recently debated by Birmingham Education Committee, the Clerk to the Council said—once again I quote from a newspaper report— … that he did not believe that it would be possible and within the law for the Education Authority to make this charge. I should like some reassurance on this point.

In my opinion, the charge is the bitter harvest which some sections of the community are now reaping as a result of the Government's economic measures last year, and it is up to the Government to remedy the situation. I would urge the Minister to request Birmingham and other education authorities to reconsider, and, further, that all schools, within Birming- ham and every other education authority, should make it possible for children to eat sandwiches at school. Apart from the fact that some authorities are proposing to levy a charge, many schools will not allow children to eat sandwiches at school.

I am not suggesting that the Government are responsible for every child who wants to eat sandwiches. That is not so. Some children prefer sandwiches. Only last week, I had a number of letters from parents who were less concerned about the charge than about the fact that some head teachers would not allow the children to eat sandwiches at school at all. This whole subject of school meals could be tackled through the working party and advice could be offered to local education authorities.

I make this appeal on behalf of a great many parents and children, but particularly on behalf of those who, for economic reasons, cannot afford a cooked meal. The Minister may say that no child need go without a cooked meal because those who cannot afford it can claim the money back via the education authority. However, as we know, many parents are reluctant to claim free meals. In any event, it is divisive that some children should be asked to pay and others not.

The ideal situation would be a free school meal for all, but we do not live in an ideal world. In the absence of that element of idealism, at least children who cannot afford school meals should be allowed to eat their sandwiches in the places that they would normally occupy when eating school meals, and should not have to pay as a result.

In the economic debate at the beginning of this Parliament the Prime Minister said that he believed in one nation. The vast majority of my constituents believe in one nation, too, but when issues like this crop up, one tends to see divisions created which nobody likes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will indicate tonight that this iniquitous proposal will be dropped.

I have put the case in an unemotional way because it is not a subject about which we should get heated. However, I have received a tremendous response from people not only in Birmingham but from many parts of the country as a result of the interest that this subject has aroused. In this connection, I praise the Sun newspaper for giving prominent publicity to this issue.

I urge the Minister to weigh up my remarks carefully and to give an indication that this proposal will not be carried out in Birmingham and that elsewhere this charge will be withdrawn wherever it is applied.

11.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee)

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) began his speech, which I gladly acknowledge was made with a careful lack of emotion, with a kind and courteous reference to myself and, on a personal note, I warmly reciprocate. I am not sure whether he is still one of my constituents, but I have always hoped that one day I should learn that he had voted for me in a General Election, which shows that I am full of hope.

I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving the hon. Gentleman time in which to raise this matter because, as there have been some misapprehensions and misunderstandings about the position, I welcome this opportunity to get the record clear.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that in recent years there have been certain factors which have tended to lead to an increase in the number of children being provided with sandwiches at school. Perhaps I might remind him of a very recent factor which has not been often commented on. I am advised that, for example, one of the results of the local government manual workers' strike which, unfortunately, in some parts of the country led to the withdrawal of school meal facilities, was that, understandably, children were forced into the sandwich habit and that a number of them have stayed with it. It illustrates, I think, how in a strike situation like that people will change their habits, first because they have to and then because they find that they like to.

It is also perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a small number of local education authorities have been considering making a charge for this facility. I should not be exaggerating at all if I said that it is only a handful. As far as I am aware, none is actually making a charge. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wolverhampton. I understand the present position there to be that Wolverhampton is leaving this decision to the school governors and headmasters and that none is actually making a charge.

The hon. Gentleman referred, and quite fairly, to Birmingham. Again I am advised, not being in any way personally responsible, that this was an idea being floated in one of the authority's recent sub-committee meetings. There was no firm proposal concerning it, and I am told that Birmingham has decided that nothing should be done pending receipt of advice from the Secretary of State and from the associations. It is on that that I can, perhaps, help the hon. Gentleman.

I must just make a reference to the legality of the charge. I do so with some reluctance as a lawyer myself, but particularly so in the sense that I think it very unfortunate in a warmly human matter like school meals to give an appearance that all one is concerned with is legality or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman raised the question perfectly fairly, but I feel that some commentators and some organs of the Press have been very unfair to my right hon. Friend. All that my right hon. Friend did on 17th December was to give a direct answer to a direct question. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the former Secretary of State, asked my right hon. Friend a direct question and that she gave him a direct answer.

The situation here—I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman a very clear answer—is that the advice given to my right hon. Friend on the question of legality is that if an authority provides facilities for pupils to consume their own food it may charge for them. The legality of the charge, however, is a matter for the authority which intends to impose it, and my right hon. Friend has no power to give an authoritative ruling on the matter. The situation on 17th December was that my right hon. Friend was asked to express an opinion, and she accordingly informed the House of the advice that she had received. That is, as accurately as I can give it, the present legal position, but, as I have said, I should be very reluctant to feel, and I know that my right hon. Friend would be very reluctant to feel, that we were giving the impression of looking at this matter only from a cold, legalistic point of view.

The fact is that the authorities themselves, the governors, managers, headmasters and headmistresses and the teaching profession as a whole are very much against the practice of the bringing of sandwiches to school, and for my own part I put myself in their camp. Their reasons have nothing to do with cost. The sort of reasons they adduce I would put in this way. I do not think I know of any well-run school—and such schools are in the vast majority—where the midday meal is not an integral part of the educational process in the widest sense. I believe that it is so regarded by the majority of the teaching profession. Of course, in addition to that, for a great many children it is of important nutritional value.

I know that if at this point the hon. Gentleman were to interrupt, he would say, "That is all very well so far as it goes, but you are increasing charges" that is true—"and as a result you will increase the likelihood of families providing sandwiches for children." He and I clearly look at this from differing points of view. It was for the reason that the statement which announced the increase in charges was a package that it included the provision that the point at which remission of charges would be allowed would be increased. I remind the hon. Gentleman that families now drawing supplementary benefit will continue to qualify before and after the increase.

As an illustration of the way in which the new scale will work I take the example of a family with three children at school. If after income tax, National Insurance, rent and rates and certain other outgoings detailed in the regulations the breadwinner is left with £16 a week net, the family would qualify for remission for all three children. In my view, so it should. That calculation probably represents a gross income of between £22 and £23 a week.

I appreciate the difference between the hon. Member and myself, but I hope that more parents who might well benefit and be entitled to remission in whole or in part will make inquiries before the increased charges come into force. The hon. Member gave this part of his case away when he conceded, very fairly, that we did not live in a perfect world. If we do not and if we cannot have free school meals for all, about which principle I do not in any way comment, it seems that the right way in which to proceed is to have careful and generous scales of remission for the families we want to help, and this is directly relevant to families who might otherwise, for what they would think to be economic reasons, provide the children with sandwiches instead.

I realise, of course, having said that, that it is the people next up the scale, that is to say, those who do not get any kind of remission, who might be tempted. However, I do not believe—and here I agree with the hon. Member—that by any means all those who exercise the practice of bringing sandwiches to school are doing so for economic reasons. First, there are children who simply do not like institutional food of any kind. This is a slightly old-fashioned view. Some parents are a little weak on this. I suppose that I take this view because I was brought up always to eat what was put before me—the results are for all to see—but personally I still think in principle that that is a good procedure.

Secondly, there are young people who simply prefer it that way. I was the chairman of the governors of a voluntary-aided school in South London, not a plush part of London, and there were always a significant number of boys who brought sandwiches every day, for no reason connected with economics. I used to look at this with some care and attention in case that was the reason. But they frankly preferred it that way. Curiously enough, they happened to be the rather intellectual boys, although I think that it had grown into a certain amount of "clubbery".

Mr. Carter

But it is in the band just above those who qualify for free school meals that we hit the problem. It is because of that that the chairman of the education authority issued the statement that, with the increase in school meal charges, the numbers taking sandwiches would increase in that band.

Mr. van Straubenzee

That is quite fair. Incidentally, if they believe that it is economically beneficial, they would be wise to think about it. I have not time to give the full quotation, but in an article in the Teacher of 8th January doubts are cast on whether it is economically or significantly cheaper to provide school children with sandwiches.

I do not think that the bringing of sandwiches can be compared with school meals. But it must be reasonable that, if there are parents who wish their children to bring sandwiches, they should be free to do so. In this country, we do not seek to impose this kind of condition upon parents.

If they wish to do so, is it not reasonable that, within the resources available to schools, authorities provide conditions as nearly approximating as possible for the eating of sandwiches as are provided for those taking school dinners? That could mean supervision, a place at a table; it might mean glasses and cutlery; and there are circumstances in which the provision of these conditions could involve a local authority in additional expense, at any rate if the practice became very widespread.

The hon. Gentleman reminded me that, on 17th November, my right hon. Friend said that she would consult local authority associations to see whether any general guidance could usefully be given to local education authorities about charging for the facilities needed to ensure the conditions that I have described; in other words, the conditions similar to the child who is having the school dinner.

I am able to announce, which is why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, that there have now been discussions with representatives of the associations and, in the light of those discussions, my right hon. Friend will shortly be advising authorities not to impose a charge of this kind in present circumstances.

The significance of my words "in present circumstances" is that, for reasons that I have explained, if the practice were to become very widespread, it is possible that some local authorities might find themselves with a significant rise in expenditure. If that were so, it might be necessary at that time to review what I have just said.

I have made clear my personal view and the importance which I attach to the school dinner. In this, I speak with the authority of my right hon. Friend. But, in present circumstances, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to give the advice referred to because the consultations have now taken place.

In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that this has been a profitable evening.

Mr. Carter

I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I am sure that it will give a great deal of reassurance to those parents and children in Birmingham who might have suffered had the charge been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.