EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.

HL Deb 20 November 1906 vol 167 cc1629-69

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Crewe).

*LORD BALFOUR OR BURLEIGH

My Lords, I want to say a word or two before, the House actually resolves itself into Committee. The Bill came on for Second Reading last night, or rather in the small hours of the morning, and we had a most interesting speech from the noble Earl the Lord President in regard to it. I deeply regret that that speech was not delivered to a larger audience, and I still more regret that owing to the lateness of the hour it has not been reproduced in the newspapers. After that speech was made it was agreed that no further debate should take place, but that those of us who had anything to say on the principles involved in this Bill should take the opportunity of doing so before the House actually resolved itself into Committee.

As I have said, the speech which the noble Earl made was in itself extremely interesting. It was most moderate in its tone, and as I listened to it I was almost tempted to think that the noble Earl had made out a plausible case for the Bill. He called the institutions which this Bill proposes to set up "school restaurants."He almost promised us that in every case the authorities would take payment for the meals which are to be supplied, and he told us that this was more likely to be done if public authorities were in charge of these institutions. He told us that, after all, the Bill was only a permissive one, that the provision as to the use of the rates was most carefully guarded, and that only one halfpenny in the £ was to be allowed. We have heard all these promises and all these prophecies before. If I could only believe that in practice they would be carried out, a good deal of my objection to the Bill would be removed.

But it seems to me that in those arguments the noble Earl left out of sight what I regard as really the gravest and the most serious objection to the departure which it is now proposed to make; and although I am not going to move any Motion hostile to the Bill in its application to England, I shall in the course of its passage through Committee move that Scotland be not included in it. Although I feel strongly the dangers involved in the Bill, I do not feel that I know sufficient about the circumstances of England and the English difficulties to make me interfere or put my opinion against that of noble Lords who are more particularly interested in England. I go a long way with much that the noble Earl said last night. I agree with him to the full that there is a great evil in existence, and one which it would be very desirable to remedy. But, my Lords, this proposal, dangerous as I shall endeavour to show to your Lordships it really is in some of its aspects, will not really cure the evils which exist. You do not go to the real roots of the difficulties by any proposal contained in the Bill. They lie much deeper, and that fact is acknowledged by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. In paragraph 4 of their Report the Committee say— It is clear that in many cases no fully effective remedy will be found until an improvement takes place in the habits and surroundings of the parent, but the recognition of this does not absolve us from considering very carefully whether, by legislation or otherwise, some measure of amelioration may not be effected. And in the next paragraph the Committee went on to say— Evidence was laid before the Committee to show that the anæmic or otherwise unhealthy appearance of many children present in school is often erroneously attributed to want of food. It is very difficult to trace the source; it is often due to congenital causes, insanitary surroundings, or work after school hours. Surely that is ample proof that, do what you like under this Bill, give what power is possible under this Bill to the school authorities, you will not get to the real source of the difficulties which undoubtedly exist. You require much more far-reaching and deeper remedies. It seems to me you will incur many dangers. You will discourage the good parents who are struggling hard to fulfil their duties to their children under great difficulties, and you will encourager those who are not discharging their duties because they will put off on to the shoulders of the public the duties which they ought to discharge.

As I understand it, the case under this head for the Bill is that some children go to school insufficiently fed. Inquiry has shown that in many cases that arises from the habits of the parents, who are not really endeavouring to do their duty to their children. If I thought that the meal which you are going to provide would be in addition to that which the child now gets, I would not press this objection so hard; but my fear is that if you give the children what you propose to do and get nothing from the parent for it, as I believe in many cases you will not you will simply encourage the parent who is not doing his duty to trust to what the child will get at school and that he will proceed to leave off what he is now doing for the child. The last stage of those children would then be worse than the present. You will, as I say, discourage the good parents. Those who are really trying to do their duty will feel that those less worthy than themselves are being encouraged to neglect their children, and they will give up the struggle which they have endeavoured to persevere with up to the present time.

I cannot go deeply into the subject, but I think this is one of those measures which will tend to disintegrate family life still further than is the case at the present time. There may not be much of it in the case of these poor children, but it is a dangerous thing to interfere with what there is. After all, it is the mutual service of parent to child and child to parent which maintains the bond of union which we know as family life, and I think we ought to do all we can to preserve it; and if the circumstances are so bad that it is really hopeless, it would then be better to separate the I child from the parent altogether rather than endeavour to keep up the connection I in this sort of way. I appeal also to the lessons of the Poor Law, and to the difficulties which were encountered in England before 1834. I believe that the benefits under this Bill will not go into the family. They will go to the employer of cheap and the worst class of labour. Those who are trembling upon the brink of being submerged will not reallybe benefited. I venture to think you will encourge the very things which have come to a head in the Metropolitan Unions of Poplar and West Ham, and others which are the subject of inquiry at the present time.

Although the noble Lord thinks he will do things better by bringing in the public authority, it is my fear that that will be an aggravation of the difficulties. I think that voluntary agency is better I fitted for carrying on this work than an authority which can draw on the rates. I shall be able, when I come to the Scottish part of the question, to show your Lordships that in Scotland at any rate, voluntary agency is meeting the difficulty at the present time. There are many who in taking relief from public authorities, would not scruple to misrepresent their case, who would cheat public authorities, but who would scruple to do it in the case of private benevolence; and it is much easier for those who are administering private benevolence to make the inquiries which are necessary than for a public authority.

The noble Earl and the Committee, I think, claim as an argument in favour of the system proposed by the Bill that it is better to administer this sort of relief through the education than the Poor Law authority. I hesitate to express a definite opinion on how that may be in England; but when I come to deal with the Scottish part of the case I shall be able to show that that is an entire misapprehension so far as Scotland is concerned. It seems to me that a great part of the argument in favour of the suggestion is cut away by the fact that this Bill, following the Report of the Committee, says that nothing that is done under the Bill is to be part of the teachers' work. I agree with that. The teachers are not the proper persons to do this. They are hard enough worked as it is, and it is not right that these meals should be provided in schools. I agree with all that; but, if the teachers are not to take part in it, you surely destroy the strength of the argument that the education authorities—

*The Earl of CREWE

Teachers are not forbidden to take part; they are neither obliged nor forbidden.

*Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am obliged to the noble Earl for the correction. I was drawing arguments rather from the terms of the Report of the Committee. There is a paragraph in the Report which says distinctly that the teachers ought not to be employed; that they are already hard enough worked, in which I agree; and the Committee also say that meals should not be provided in the school rooms on account of obvious difficulties, such as clearing away, the odour of the cooked food, and so forth. With all that I agree; but I point out that, if this is the case, it does cut away, to a large extent, the argument that education authorities are better than the Poor Law authorities for this work.

Then we are told that this Bill is only permissive. I think that is a fallacious argument, because if one local school authority does it, all the others round about must do it, too, in self-defence. The strength of the chain will be its weakest link. It is not true that in one parish this can be done, and in another it need not be done, What is clone in one will react on all the neighbouring parishes. My plea is that we should have further inquiry and more comprehensive dealing with the subject, but I do not move anything hostile to the whole Bill. I merely place these general observations before the House because I feel strongly that it is a very dangerous and wrong experiment.

The Marquess of LONDONDERRY

My Lords, having been privileged to occupy the position of President of the Board of Education in the last Government I shall no doubt be expected to say a few words upon this question, which naturally came very prominently before me when I held that position. I agree to a great extent with what has fallen from my noble friend. I recognise to the full the great difficulties in the way of dealing with this important question. I and my colleagues at the Board of Education came to the conclusion that it did seem a waste of money to spend enormous sums in endeavouring to inculcate into children knowledge, of which from physical incapacity and hunger they were unable to take advantage. That is a problem which opens up a very big field for argument.

When I went into the question I found confronting me various classes of parents whose aims and objects with regard to the feeding of their children were entirely different. There were, in the first place, parents who were absolutely unable to provide food of any sort or kind for their children; then there were parents who were perfectly capable of feeding their children but would not go to the trouble and expense of doing so. I interviewed at the Board of Education before the appointment of the Committee on Physical Deterioration the heads of various schools, and the description they gave led me to the conclusion that many children, though given meals, perhaps, late at night, were yet absolutely starved in the earlier part of the day. As I say, I fully recognise the great difficulties in the matter, and I do not at all blame the Government for bringing in this measure to endeavour to feed the poorest children, so that they should be in a fit physical state to benefit by the education provided for them.

In the debates which have taken place in the other House it appears to me that the opposition to this Bill has come rather from Members of the Party represented by noble Lords opposite, than from Members of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. I rejoice to see that the Bill will encourage so far as possible voluntary aid, because there have been satisfactory arrangements by voluntary contributions made in the past for giving good food to under-fed children. So long as the voluntary associations and the local authorities work together for the common good I cannot but think that great advantage may result. With regard to Clause 2, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council whether the charge to be made under that clause will be simply the cost of the food or whether it will include a proportion of the cost of the administrative machinery. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded to the fact that payment will be required from parents able to pay. I know how difficult it will be to collect this money, and yet if it is not collected it will be very hard on the ratepayers. It was recommended before the Select Committee that there should be a system of prepayment, and I think that should commend itself to the noble Earl. We have heard it stated that if this Bill becomes law and the provisions under it are carried out to any great extent it will impair parental authority over the children. Personally I do not attach any great credence to that objection. I am afraid there are a great many children at the present time who do not look upon their parents with that amount of respect which they should manifest, and I cannot see that if these meals are provided, as proposed under this Bill, that respect will be lessened. The principle contained in the Bill has been in force, I believe, for some years in European countries, and it was approved of by a Committee of the House of Commons on which a valued friend of mine, Sir Francis Powell, occupied a prominent place. The Royal Commission appointed by my predecessor at the Board of Education went very closely into the subject, and I do not think that were I at the Board of Education at the present moment I could have refrained from taking some steps in the direction proposed. I do not for a moment oppose the Bill, but in the administration of it when it becomes an Act I hope great care will be exercised so as to distinguish between parents who are able to pay for their children's meals and those who are not, and that where possible prepayment will be insisted upon.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

My Lords, noble Lords opposite said last night that they considered this an extremely important Bill. I think everyone will agree that it is extremely important for the children. One can only feel some surprise that there should be any shadow of opposition to the Bill from any quarter. I feel convinced that your Lordships are not less anxious to fill the half-starved bodies of the children with bread than to fill their half-formed minds with dogma. If you refer to the evidence given before the Commission on Physical Deterioration you will find that it establishes beyond the possibility of doubt that there is physical deterioration now going on in the nation. Nobody can dispute that that is a fact of the utmost significance, and that it is the duty of Parliament to apply a remedy as soon as possible; and nobody can dispute, I think, that this Bill does apply a remedy and one that is urgently needed. Professor Cunningham, in his evidence, said— To restore the classes in which this physical inferiority exists all that is needed is to improve the standard of living. Sir Shirley Murphy, the London County Council's Medical Officer of Health, said that— Children have to be fed if they are to do the work required of them. The noble Marquess opposite referred to what was done in foreign countries. It is perfectly true that in Paris and in Rome the necessity for the children being fed is recognised, and I feel that your Lordships will desire that we in England should not less recognise this necessity than Frenchmen and Italians. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said you would not cure the evil by this Bill. But he admitted the evil. Is not this emphatically a case where half a loaf is better than no bread?

The objections that are brought against this measure can be summed up under three heads: (1) that it diminishes the responsibility of parents; (2) that it will dry up the springs of charity; and (3) that it will throw an extra burden on the rates. I think that in this matter we have to consider not the parents but the children. The children are the paramount consideration. It may be true—I admit it for the sake of argument—that it will discourage some struggling parents. Yet what does that matter? It is far more important that the children should grow up healthy and strong. In a great many cases the parents are already demoralised owing to having themselves been insufficiently nourished in their youth. Because they suffer from those conditions that is no reason why we should inflict similar conditions on the children. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said it would discourage struggling parents and break the bond of family life. I do not see that those results are likely to follow because children are better fed. On the contrary, experience in this matter shows us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is regarded by the nation as a valuable national asset he himself will think more of his child, for it is a psychological truth that our estimate of the value of anything we possess rises in proportion as other people rate it highly.

We are told that the Bill will dry up charity, but charity does not do all that is required in this matter. We read in the Report of the Committee— No voluntary association could cope with the full extent of the evil. And at this present moment we are told, on authority, that in London there are 122,000 underfed children, or 16 per cent. of the whole, so that, notwithstanding the operations of charity, thousands of children are allowed to starve. Charity is smallest in those districts where the need for it is greatest. Take Lambeth. There are said to be 90 per cent of the children in the schools of Lambeth unable to attend properly to their lessons be cause they are under-fed. That is a case which charity cannot deal with but requires to be supplemented by the State. If it is supplemented by the State I do not believe that charity will be dried up. But even so, charity may bless him that gives, but I question whether it blesses him that takes. The truth is that charity is but the plaster that only partially conceals the wounds in our social system, and sometimes it aggravates rather than palliates them. We know that the best among the working classes do not like to receive charity. They feel humiliated by being put into a position in which they are obliged to receive charity. These men in the working classes do not ask for charity but for justice. They ask for such voluntary effort as will lead to improvement in the social conditions and do away with the necessity to receive charity on the part of the working classes.

It is said that the cost of this Bill will put an undue burden on the rates; but the cost of the measure is trifling compared with the results that are likely to flow from it. I saw it stated in the House of Commons that if the full ½d. rate was extracted it would only amount to £360,000 for the whole of England. Really when it comes to a question of feeding starving children it seems to me beneath the dignity of Parliament to consider the question of so small a sum. The nation is piling up its armaments by £40,000,000 a year, and yet you object to these meals being given to the children because they will throw this trifling burden on the rates. If £10,000,000 out of the £40,000,000 spent on armaments were spent on improving the physique of the nation it would be one of the best investments this country could make. In Paris, where there is no machinery for recovering the cost of the meals from the parent as there is in this Bill, 10,000,000 meals are given to children every year for £40,000. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, startled the House during the debate on the Education Bill by saying— The parents are standing at the Bar of this House. In this case it is the children who are standing at the bar of this House asking to be fed, and I feel convinced your Lordships will not refuse their request.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, as one who has taken a humble part in social reform I desire to thank His Majesty's Government for having brought in this Bill. I hope the reception which it has obtained will prevent noble Lords on the Government Benches from ever saying again, as one noble Lord did the night before last, that there was only one individual on the Conservative Benches who was interested in social reform. The reception which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands is most gratifying, as it shows an immense advance in public opinion on this question in recent years.

Those who are able to remember the attitude taken by Parliament twenty-five years ago will recognise how impossible it would have been at that time to have brought in any Bill like this with the smallest chance of its being accepted. We are all most thankful to His Majesty's Government for the introduction of this Bill. We feel that it is a question of quite first-class national importance that the children of the country should be properly fed, and we feel that the country cannot maintain its position unless we get in the future generations of strong and stalwart men and women. The only criticism which I wish to make about this Bill is to express regret that the cost has not been wholly thrown on the rates. If you ask for voluntary contributions there will be a certain number of people who will try and place their children on the list of those who are to receive meals and who ought not to do so. If the money was obtained from the rates you would have no hesitation in saying that any parent who could pay but did not do so should be punished. That is the only criticism I have to make, and I hope that even now it will be possible to alter this provision so that the parent who puts his child on the list and can afford to pay shall not get off scot free. With that single criticism I desire to express my most hearty approval of the Bill.

*LORD REAY

My Lords, I rise because I dissent from the opinion expressed by my noble friend on the Cross Benches. There is absolutely nothing which is objectionable in supplying food to children by a voluntary association. I am speaking from personal experience. In the London schools we have had various agencies. Among others we had what was called the London Schools Dinner Association. That body discharged its duty with great discrimination.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour that the evil goes much deeper and cannot be cured merely by supplying a meal to the child in the school. The root of the evil is in the homes of the children, and unless and until you find means to increase the sense of parental responsibility you will do more harm than good. The Bill, however, contains the safeguard that provision of food out of the rates will only be authorised where other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food. I have no doubt that the Board of Education will not allow the rates to be used until voluntary effort has been proved to be inadequate. I certainly consider that voluntary effort should be encouraged and not discouraged and that relief from the rates should be given as a last resource. I was very glad to hear from my noble friend the Lord President of the Council that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent teachers from dealing with the question where they are willing to do so. I do not, of course, desire that there should be the slightest compulsion. The teachers are the best judges of the wants of the children. They are aware of those children who require these meals and whose parents cannot afford to pay for the meals.

With regard to the question of the responsibility of the parent, I would point out that in fifteen cookery centres in London 75 per cent. of the money claimed for meals was repaid by the parents. This shows that there is no unwillingness to make the payment. Another alteration has been made in the Bill which I was very pleased to see. I refer to the word "meals." The original idea, I believe, was to give dinners. Now the meal can be given in the morning. That is a very important alteration in the Bill, for undoubtedly the need is often greater in the morning than in the middle of the day. I think I have said enough to show that the Bill, with the limitations proposed in Clause 3 and with the contents of Clause 1, is of such a nature that we need not fear that in England, at all events, it will lead to a decrease of the sense of parental responsibility; and I agree with what fell from the noble Marquess the late President of the Board of Education that there is, as regards England, un- doubtedly need for the introduction of this Bill.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, during the last few days your Lordships have been expected, in addition to dealing with the education of the country both primary and secondary, to alter materially the law in regard to merchant shipping, workmen's compensation, land tenure, and that relating to trade disputes against the general protests of manufacturers. Yesterday, on almost the last day of the session, and after midnight, we were asked to pass the Second Reading of a Bill permitting, I might say inviting, local authorities to feed the children of the country and to relieve parents from the serious but pleasing duty of doing so.

The question is not quite so simple as Lord Grimthorpe and Lord Meath seem to suppose. This Bill is certainly a great stride in the direction of Socialism. It is a measure to feed not necessitous and starving children but all the children in national schools. The Charity Organisation Society, in an article in their Review for March, 1905, show that even in very poor schools the number of really necessitous children is only about one in 300, and in schools generally not one in 1,000. These cases should, of course, be dealt with. The best plan would I surely be that the cases of children who come insufficiently fed should be reported to the relieving officer and dealt with by the guardians. In an interesting article in the Charity Organisation Review for June,1905, Sir Arthur Clay says— If the report of the visitor inquiring on behalf of the Relief Committee should show that the means of the parent are such as to enable him to maintain the child, and that its distress arises from neglect to do so, they should apply for a summons calling upon the parent to answer for this neglect; the justices would then, on being satisfied as to the means of the parent, make an order for the admission of the child to a day industrial school, and determine the weekly amount he should pay, the alternative to payment being imprisonment. The Relief Committee would provide for the supply of meals (if necessary) to the child pending the result of the hearing of the summons. If the Relief Committee, after hearing the report of their visitor, should consider that the parent is not in a position to maintain the child, they would then consider whether an application to the guardians is desirable, and if this should be their conclusion they would inform the parents, and in the event of refusal to make the application, would take steps to prosecute the parent under the law for the protection of children. The Bill, on the contrary, proposes to feed not only the one necessitous child but the other 999 also. No doubt the Bill is permissive, but I presume the Government consider that some local authorities will adopt it, and in that case probably others will follow. Doubtless we shall be told that the amount is to be recovered, but there will be the same difficulties as arose in the case of fees. Under the Bill local authorities may be running, and I presume many will be running, restaurants all over the country. Take the case of the London County Council, already so much overworked. In the debate on the London Education Bill of 1902, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman spoke of— The overworked London County Council, adding that— The duties are more vast and more trying than those undertaken by any other such body on the face of the earth. In the same debate Sir Edward Grey said— No man could touch the work of education in London and do it properly, and give any attention whatever to the other work falling within the province of the County Council. MR. Birrell said that— It was his belief that the task imposed on the London County Council to superintend the teaching of 750,000 or 800,000 children was a task beyond their power. Yet they are invited to provide thousands of restaurants for 1,000,000 children—with kitchens, cooks, waiters, and all the innumerable necessaries which will be required. The Bill, like all similar arrangements, will tend to lower wages, but this is not all. The child when this Bill passes, may be taught, have his playground, and be nursed and fed, away from home. Meals are a most important part of home and family life—not merely for the body, but for social life. At them parents and children meet, they come to know and love one another, and the part I most regret in this Bill is the effect it will have in weakening home ties and undermining family life.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I may perhaps be allowed to say one or two words upon this question. I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I admit the force of much that he has said. He seemed to imply that this question of the feeding of the children is not a very large one, and he stated that it was less important because there were so many other circumstances affecting the health of the children, such as bad housing, the bad atmosphere which they slept, and many other disadvantageous surroundings. Consequently he implied that it was not much use attempting to improve their condition by simply feeding them in the schools. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he had heard many of my arguments before. I may say that I have heard that argument before and it is an old argument that because you cannot do everything to set matters right therefore it is not worth while to do the thing which you are asked to do at any particular time. It is perfectly true that until the great housing problem is really tackled by Parliament and the country no amount of Bills like this will ensure that all children shall come to school in a healthy condition. I do not think, however, that that is any reason for not dealing with this portion of the question while we can. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh seemed to me to fall into another error, if he will forgive me for saying so. He spoke of the loosening of parental responsibility and the possible breaking up of family life. Now, if all children were given food at home, and there was a proposition to take them all away and feed them somewhere else, there would be much in that argument, but the noble Lord seems to ignore the enormous scale upon which this system of feeding children in schools is carried on at the present time. Perhaps he will remember the figures which I gave upon a former occasion. I may say that the number runs into thousands, and that is the existing state of things. Therefore I think we may dismiss the argument that we shall be undermining parental responsibility by a modest measure of this kind. I think it must be admitted that so far as parental responsibility is concerned it does not greatly matter whether the child is fed out of the pockets of charitable people or out of the rates. There may be a certain amount of demoralisation in both cases, and there may be arguments of other kinds against using the rates; but as far as the parent is concerned, if he can afford to pay, and on that assumption he gets his child fed by charitable people, it seems to me that he is in no sounder position, nor is the fibre of his character likely to be more strengthened, than if the child was fed out of the rates. My noble friend Lord Londonderry spoke, I was glad to hear, of this measure with general approval. He asked me a question about the manner in which the cost of the meals was to be calculated, but as that is an issue which is directly raised by the second Amendment on the Paper, I think I had better postpone dealing with it until we come to that clause. My noble friend the Earl of Meath expressed a desire that all these payments should be made out of the rates if made at all, and that it should be made severely penal for the child of any parent to receive a meal if the parent was in a position to pay. Now, of all things that it is difficult to discover, this question of the ability of the parent to pay is one of the most difficult. The number of circumstances which are brought into play in determining that fact are extremely numerous, as I think we shall find when we come to discuss the clause. It is almost hopeless to attempt to arrive with any degree of certainty at a decision in regard to ability to pay. You may try, and must try, to make the parents pay where you can. That, of course, is exceedingly proper, and you can pursue them by legal process if they are in a position to pay and will not; but to place the whole of this burden upon the rates, making it practically a Poor Law matter, is apparently what the noble Earl means.

THE EARL OF MEATH

I suggested placing this matter under the control of the Board of Education.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

In any case the noble Earl's suggestion seems to me unfortunate on other grounds, because after all there is a large mass of voluntary effort involved which it is our object to encourage and continue, and consequently to give up all hopes of voluntary assistance by placing the charge directly upon the rates would be a very uneconomical thing to do. The noble Lord who has just sat down objects to some important provisions in our Bill, and I may add that I think he put his case before the House in a very moderate tone. When we come to his Amendments I am hoping that we may be able to persuade him not to press them.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

When this matter came before the County Councils Association for consideration, they very rightly gave their approval to the general principle of the Bill, but they declined to express any opinion upon what the noble Earl has told us are the debateable portions, viz., Clauses 3 and 4. There was no part of the noble Earl's very admirable speech last night which impressed me more than his argument with regard to the educational necessity of providing these means. It is not, as he said, very rightly, so much in many cases the absence of food as the improper feeding of the children, and therefore there is nothing which comes more under the educational system as a matter of necessity than the provision of these meals. I believe we can do a very great deal by teaching the rising generation what is wholesome and nourishing in food, and what is inexpensive, by a system of this kind. It is also extremely proper that the public should be put to the expense of providing facilities for this very beneficial educational work. The difficulty arises, however, when you begin to provide the actual food which is consumed and provided without any charge to those who receive it. As has already been pointed out, it is this particular point which is apt to destroy the voluntary efforts which are now made, and so successfully made, to supply this great want. I am afraid that if every inducement to keep this matter off the rates is not made, voluntary efforts will slacken, and the expense will be thrown to a very large extent upon the community, to the great detriment of the movement. I think that in Clauses 3 and 4 lies the danger of the Bill. I hope when the Amendments of my noble friend behind me come to be considered they will get the support which I am sure they deserve. If every possible means is not taken to prevent those who avail themselves of this advantage not being also obliged to pay for it, in the course of time I am afraid that private charity and benevolence will become so weak that the entire expense of this very excellent voluntary work will be thrown upon the rates, to the great detriment of the movement and to the great expense of the community.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

(In the Committee).

[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

LORD AVEBUEY

moved an Amendment limiting the provision of meals to children "who upon inquiry at the child's home shall be found to be in need of food."

He said he would not trouble the Committee with any long observations, as they had already listened to his views upon the Motion to go into the Committee. The object of his Amendment was that instead of feeding the whole of the children, only those who really required it should be fed. They all agreed that it was most important that the poor children who required food should be fed. The difference between them lay, in the first place, in the manner in which this should be done, and whether in order to provide for a small number of children they should undertake the enormous organisation of making preparations to feed all the children in the country. The Charity Organisation Society had taken some trouble to ascertain what proportion of the children really required food, with the result that in a very poor school in a poor locality they found on an average that the number of children who were underfed was about 1 in 300. That was in London, but he was inclined to think that taking the schools of the whole country 1 in 1,000 would be nearer the real proportion. For the needs of this very small minority of the children under this Bill they could arrange an enormous organisation which could not help being a very expensive arrangement. But that was not the most important objection. He could not help feeling that this proposal would have the effect not only of weakening parental responsibility, but also of weakening the ties which united the parents to their children. If his Amendment was accepted the children who really required food would all have it There would also be another advantage. As the Bill stood no doubt the children would be fed, but if a proper inquiry was made into the conditions of the home, many other matters which undoubtedly led to the unhealthiness of children could also be discovered, and could be dealt with accordingly. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh had said, in a great many of these cases even where it seemed that the children were anæmic, the real fact was that they were suffering from unhealthy conditions in their homes, and not so much from the want of food, as from the fact that their food was badly cooked, badly prepared, and very unwholesome. If they limited the supplying of food to the children who really required it in the manner he suggested, not only would they save a very large expense which this Bill would involve, not only would they avoid any danger of interfering with parental responsibility in the case of a larger number of children, but as regarded the particular children affected they would do much to remedy those other conditions which were so largely the cause of unhealthiness in the children. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'who upon inquiry at the child's home shall be found to be in need of food.'"—(Lord Avebury.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the house will not accept the noble lord's amendment, although it has been moved in such moderate terms. The Amendment proposes to amend not only this Bill, but also the practice obtaining at the present time in hundreds of schools. At the present time charitable people supply these meals for the children, and they are fed not because anyone has gone to see into their home conditions, but because in the opinion of the teacher they require food. Quite apart from the fact that none of the cost is attempted to be recovered, these funds continue to be supplied by voluntary agency. This Amendment would limit in a singular way the discretion of the people who, at present, apparently are perfectly content to provide these large sums by way of charity, and to trust those in charge of the schools to see that the food is given to those who stand most in need of it. The noble Lord and the Committee will see that this change is proposed to take place not because the authority supplies the cost of the food, but because it merely supplies a room in which the feeding takes place. The mere fact of the authority under this clause setting aside a room for the purpose would not interfere with these charitable people, but this Amendment would make it only possible to feed a child at school after inquiry had been made into the circumstances of the home of the child. The noble Lord pointed out with perfect truth that in a great many cases it was not so much a question of the shortage of food, as the supplying of an improper kind of food, and food being given at the wrong time, that caused the children to be unhealthy. Those are just the children who might most properly be fed at the school, the cost being afterwards recovered from the parents. As I read this Amendment, that class of child is entirely excluded from the purview of the noble Lord's proposal, and it would only be possible in the case of a child who, after inquiry at its home, was discovered to be actually in a semi-starving condition, that any food could be given. That would narrow in a most unfortunate way the operation of the clause, and I trust the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, or, if he does, I hope the Committee will not accept it. It seems to be the opinion of all those who are most competent to judge that the teachers have an extraordinary knowledge of what is needed. They know the children individually, and they are able to judge, as soon as they have had a little experience of the children, whether the incapacity of a child to absorb its lessons to any useful purpose is due to shortness of food or improper feeding, or to something entirely different. I think we may very safely leave this matter in the hands of the teachers.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said the immediate object of this Amendment was to bring the Government's proposals within reasonable limits. He did not gather from the speech of the noble Earl last night whether or not the Government, had contemplated that meals should be afforded only to the children who really required them, or whether they were to be supplied to all children in return for payment. As the Bill stood, all children might have the meals if the intention of the Government was carried out, and the cost, in the case of those who could afford to pay, would be collected from the parents. He took the proposal of the Government on their own showing, and if what he had just stated was the conception of the Government, all he could say was that they were entering upon an enormous organisation from which he would have thought the noble Earl opposite would have shrunk. He did not think the Committee appreciated the difficulties of the enormous organisation which would be required to provide meals for every child. His noble friend Lord Avebury, by his Amendment, proposed to keep it within reasonable bounds by limiting the measure to the children who were actually in need of food, but the Government had refused that proposition. Personally, he held that it was a matter the responsibility for which ought to rest upon the Government. If they really thought they could act successfully as universal food providers, setting up a sort of restaurant for every child in every school, then the responsibility must be upon their shoulders. As his noble friend had already pointed out with such tremendous force, a heavy responsibility would be thrown upon the local education authority. An extract had been quoted from a speech made by the present Minister for Education, showing how heavy were the responsibilities thrown upon the local authorities in London by the Education Act, and the noble Earl now proposed to add to that the further responsibility of feeding every child attending public schools without any investigation as to whether those children required such food or not. He did not propose to ask their Lordships to resist this proposal made by the Government, which was such a remarkable one, but he was none the less very glad that the noble Lord had moved this Amendment.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said the question was not an inquiry into the condition of the home of the child, but whether the child really required to be fed. He thought that some provision was required to limit the Bill to the actual needs of the case unless the Government absolutely intended that restaurants should be provided at which every child who liked to demand a meal could be supplied with one. That was surely not the idea in the noble Earl's mind, because he had told them that it was for the teacher to consider whether a child did or did not stand in need of a meal.

LORD GRIMTHORPE

said the noble Lord appeared to think that a casual visit from the local authority would meet the case put forward. Under this Amendment a visit would have to be paid to the child's home. Was it intended to pay that visit with or without notice? How were they going to inquire into the internal circumstances and conditions under which a child lived? It would be extremely difficult to carry out the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord In his opinion the provision contained in sub-section (1)of Clause 2 met the case, because if a parent did not pay for the cost of the meal when he was in a position to do so, a compulsory visit could be made by a representative of the local education authority, such as the noble Lord desired to see made in the first-instance.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I must say word in reply to the alarming prospect which has been held out by the noble Marquis opposite.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

I held out no alarming prospect. It is the Government who hold out the prospect.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

In reply to the noble Lord I was trying to deal with the actual matter with which his Amendment dealt when he spoke of children in need of food. It is no doubt true in theory that if a local authority can get the funds to do it charitably there is nothing to prevent them from offering food to all the children in the schools, and erecting buildings which would be appropriate for the purpose. It is also true that we do not contemplate that local authorities will endeavour to embark upon these very large feeding schemes. What we think will probably happen is that a very large number of the underfed children will get food. We hope also that a certain number of children of the kind I have described, who are not so much underfed as wrongly fed, may be regularly fed at the schools. There will no doubt always be a certain number of others who for one reason or another, possibly because their mothers go out to work, or happen to be ill, or because they live at an extreme distance from the school, will often have their meal at school. I do not see anything so monstrously objectionable in that. No doubt there will be a large number who desire their children to come home to their meals. If charitable funds are forthcoming the noble Lord will see in Clause 3 that the raising of a rate is contingent upon the consent of the Board of Education, and that consent is renewable every year. It does not follow that because the Board of Education allows this privilege once it will be compelled to allow it again. If, therefore, the Board of Education think undue extravagance is being used, or that the sum which is raised by this half-penny is being extravagantly expended, they will always have it in their power to refuse their permission to raise the rate. If any check is needed the power exercised by the Board of Education will operate as a practical check upon the local authority.

LORD AVEBURY

thought his noble friend Lord Grimthorpe appeared to think there would be a great difficulty in finding out whether a child wanted food or not. The President of the Council had just told them that the teachers knew pretty well which children required feeding. He asked the Committee to consider the vista which was opened to them. They knew the enormous expense of keeping up the schools. The children could not have these meals in the schools, and if this Bill was adopted they would have to duplicate the whole of the school buildings throughout the country where the meals were to be given. He did not wish to press the actual words of his Amendments if any reason could be shown why they were not applicable. If some other better words were suggested he was quite willing to accept them. The real question was were they to give meals only to the children who really required them, or were they to undertake a gigantic system of feeding the whole of the children in this country.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he could not admit what the noble Earl had stated. This was not a question merely of subscriptions or of rates. He quite realised that the change which his noble friend proposed, unless it was carefully drafted by Government draughtsmen, might have consequences which would upset the whole framework of the Bill, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of advising his noble friend to persist in his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

LORD AVEBURY

moved an Amendment providing that the charge should not be less than the entire cost incurred by the local education authority. He wished to know whether these meals were to be self-supporting, or whether the local education authority was to be allowed to supply them at a nominal cost and charge the difference upon the rates. The principle ought to be that the parents of those children that could pay should pay a reasonable amount for the meals. Of course those who could not afford to pay would come in a different category. A great many of the parents of the children at elementary schools were in receipt of good wages and in other respects were fairly well off, and where they were not necessitous children he thought the parents ought to bear the full cost of the meal.

Amendment moved—

"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'provided that such amount shall not be less than the entire cost incurred by the local education authority."—(Lord Avebury.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I admit that this is a question of some considerable difficulty. On the face of it it seems reasonable that the entire cost should be paid in all cases where a parent is able to pay. I desire to point out, however, that this is an extremely difficult thing to secure. The noble Marquess Lord Londonderry put a question as to whether the interest on the outlay mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause 1 included the interest upon the furniture, buildings, and apparatus. Speaking generally, I think it is safe to say that it will not. Your Lordships will be aware that there are a number of secondary day schools where a meal is provided at cost price, and they are attended by children of parents of very much the same class as those who attend some elementary schools. When these meals are to be paid for I do not think any consideration of the capital outlay on the buildings comes into the calculation of those who supply the meal. Consequently I think it is clear that it is not reasonable in this case to say that the cost must include the interest upon these different items. There is a further difficulty more or less involved, and it is that it is exceedingly difficult to say what a particular meal really costs. Take for instance the difference between supplying meals in winter and in summer. In the winter perhaps you might have a very large number of children upon the feeding fund, and then the meal can be provided at a cost, say, of one penny. It might happen in the summer time that an identical meal would cost those who provided it double that amount, say 2d., owing to the fact that only about fifteen or twenty children came upon the feeding fund in the summer. Would it be practical on this account to be continually changing the charge of the meals, the food being identical, on the ground that at one time more children took advantage of the meal than at another time? In considering this matter I think it is important to bear in mind the fact that at the present time a large number of children whose parents might pay for them are receiving these meals under the voluntary system. No attempt is made under the voluntary system to get any money back for the meal, and it is quite erroneous to suppose that all the children being fed at the present time have indigent parents who cannot afford to pay from time to time a 1d. for these meals. If you are going to have a joint fund, partly charitable and partly out of the public funds, those who supply a share of the fund might not even desire that the food should be charged to the parents of the children. There is a still further element in the matter to be considered. You have to look at the question from the point of view of the very poor parents. Some parents if they could do what they liked would not send their children to school at all, but would keep them at home to earn a few pence. That, at present, you forbid the parent to do. We have lately heard a great deal about the rights of parents, but at this stage Parliament interferes and says that the child would be better off at school, although the parent thinks the child would be better occupied earning a few pence instead of learning a number of things which the parent believes will be perfectly useless. You interfere with parental discretion to that extent, and it seems to me reasonable that you should not be absolutely rigorous about these very poor parents returning every fraction of the cost of the meal. I think you will find that if you try to bring this thing to an absolutely rigid mathematical exactitude, it will be found that something of an overcharge will be made, and meals will be provided absolutely at a profit. That would be a most regrettable thing, and I hope the Committee will be content to leave the Bill in the state in which it stands at the present time.

LORD AVEBURY

said he certainly did not intend to imply by his proposal that the charge should cover the interest on capital. He thought the noble Earl had raised many imaginary difficulties as to the possibility of telling what these meals would cost. As a general rule he thought the cost should be fixed at a price sufficient to cover the cost of the food, and he would like to know whether the noble Earl would agree to adopt words which would carry out that suggestion.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sorry I cannot meet my noble friend for one of the reasons which I have already explained. Take for instance; the case of the meal which varies in price owing to the time of the year and the difference in the number of children attending. It seems to the Government only reasonable that the authority should not be compelled to ask for the whole figure, and for that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question. Amendment negatived.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

called attention to the words of Clause 2 which provided— Unless they are satisfied that the parent is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default to pay the amount. Clearly it was impossible to recover if the parent was unable to pay, and whether it arose from his own default or not appeared to him to make no difference. Unless the noble Earl could explain the point he would move to leave out those words.

THE EARL OF CREWE

This point has not been brought to my notice before, and it is purely a lawyer's point. It seems to me in looking at the words that they express what is intended. I should like the opinion of the Chairman on the point.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said in the absence of an explanation he should move that the words be omitted.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'by reason of circumstances other than his own default."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Does the noble Marquess think that the words do any harm or is it merely a question of style?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may, "so that the clause would read 'and such amount shall be recovered summarily as a civil debt.'

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 3, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

The Earl of Crewe.

THE EARL OF CREWE

This is a mere drafting point. I should have been delighted to meet the noble Marquess in reference to the words to which he objects, but they have been put in by lawyers and it would be better not to have them struck out by laymen.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Words are frequently put in by laymen in the House of Commons.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

hoped the noble Lord would not press this Amendment. He did not think the word. 'shall' would be appropriate, because it might be ordering the local authority to do an impossibility.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said if the words to which he objected had been struck out there would have been no question of ability to pay. Had he thought it was a mere drafting point he would not have proposed it, but he was afraid that under the cover of the word "may" the local authority might reserve a right not really to enforce the policy of the Government, but to leave unrecovered these debts incurred by parents who were not indigent and fall back upon the rates to make up the deficiency. That was a substantial point, and not a mere difficulty as to drafting. If the noble Earl assured him that it was nothing but a drafting point he would not press his Amendment.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sure that the word "shall" in Clause 2 on page 1 governs the whole clause. The words are "it shall be the duty of the authority."

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

The word 'may' applies to the process by which this money may be recovered and renders it possible to recover the money summarily as a civil debt.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to,

Clause 3:—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said that the local education authority were entitled to apply to the Board of Education for powers to levy a rate when they had ascertained that funds other that public funds were not available or were insufficient to defray the cost of meals supplied. The clause read— And have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food furnished in meals under this Act. In that event the local education authorities were entitled to apply to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate. He thought there ought to be a further condition in regard to the parent who could not pay. This was almost consequential upon the drafting of Clause 2. He would like to know whether the noble Earl had had the drafting of this clause carefully looked into.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

These clauses have been carefully drafted. There was another Bill on this subject introduced by a private Member in the House of Commons, but all these are Government clauses which we are now considering. There was another Bill which the noble Marquess is thinking of.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the noble Earl would see the force of his point, which appeared to be consequential upon Clause 2. Clause 2 pretended to provide that where the parent was able to pay no cost should fall upon the local education authority, and that authority under Clause 3 was only entitled to raise a rate under certain conditions. One of the circumstances under which the local authority could not raise a rate was where the parent could pay. Therefore he thought the words he proposed should be inserted as well as the other condition as to no other funds being available.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 17, to insert after the word 'act,' the words 'and that the parent is unable to pay the amount."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid it is not possible to accept this Amendment, because it would almost prevent the raising of a rate in many instances, and apparently it would not only do this, but it would also prevent the feeding of a child until this fact had been discovered. The rate will only be raised where it is found by the local authority that there are rather more children than can be fed by the voluntary funds which are available. They will then apply to the Board of Education, and they will have to show in the first place that there are a certain number of children who are not able to get the benefits of education owing to lack of food, and they will have to make it clear to the Board of Education that funds other than public funds are not available. They can then ask the Board of Education to allow them to raise such a sum as will supply the deficiency. If it was necessary at any given moment to prove that no child had been gratuitously fed whose parents might conceivably be in a position to pay for the meal it would hamper the operation of the whole clause to such an extent that it might easily prevent the authority from ever being able to raise a rate at all. The local authority must have the funds before they supply the meals, and they cannot recover from the parents until the meals are supplied. Therefore the Amendment might prevent them from supplying meals at all. It does not seem to me a very practical proposal, and although I have not had time to consider it very carefully, I am afraid I cannot accept it.

LORD AVEBURY

said he did not see how the suggestion of the noble Marquess would prevent the local authority front raising a rate under the conditions laid down.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said the local education authority would have to look into each individual case, because they would have to satisfy themselves that a particular child was not fit to be taught. Whilst the authority was making that investigation, surely inquiries might be made whether the parent was unable to pay, and after those conditions had been satisfied the local authority could apply to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not see the object of adding these words. I think the danger would be that somebody might say the authority had not really tried to recover the money, that the parents might have paid after all, and it would therefore be improper to have a rate raised. I hope that the noble Marquess will not press this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked if the noble Earl would consent to the words he had proposed being inserted now. If it was ascertained by the Report stage that the words ought to come out he would not resist that course being taken.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid we must get this Bill through all its stages to-night, so there is not much time to spare. If the insertion of the words would do anything which the clause does not do already it would be quite another matter. I do not wish to repeat myself, but the normal operation of this transaction is surely governed by the words that the children "are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them." That discovery has to be made in the first instance.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he would not press his point. The difficulty they were in illustrated the extreme inconvenience of legislating under this kind of coercion. Although he had been unable to extract any satisfactory reply from the Government why the words he proposed should not be inserted, they would not allow them to be put in because a mistake might be made, and there would be no opportunity of setting it right. They were asked to pass this Bill through all its stages, at this sitting, but if the legislation suffered in consequence it would be entirely the fault of the Government.

THE MARQUESS Of RIPON

I remember an occasion during the last session of Parliament upon which the Aliens Bill introduced by the late Government was before the House, and then the Government did not venture to move even their own drafting Amendments because they were afraid they might lose the Bill if they did.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4:—

LORD AVEBURY

moved an Amendment to leave out the words "and the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded under this Act in respect of a meal."He thought their Lordships would agree that this was an important matter. Clause 4 provided that— The provision of any meal under this Act to a child and the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded under this Act in respect of a meal shall not deprive the parent of any franchise, right, or privilege, or subject him to any disability, As far as the first part was concerned, which merely applied to the provision of any meal, they would all be agreed, but surely the second part which provided that the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded from him under this Act should not deprive him of his right to the franchise was a far more serious proposal. The idea of the Bill and of the Lord President of the Council was that the parents would generally pay, and therefore the expense would not be very heavy. If, however, they told the parents that whether they paid or not they were not going to be deprived of any right, privilege, or the franchise, that would be a great encouragement not to pay. If they did not pay he did not think they ought to have a voice in reference to the expenditure of rates and taxes to which they did not contribute. He was very anxious to encourage the very honourable feeling which existed so strongly among the people of this country against being dependent upon rates and taxes. The words he proposed to omit appeared to him to destroy the independence of our countrymen, and for these reasons he begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 2, line 27, to leave out from the word child,' to the word 'shall,' in line 29."—(Lord Avebury.)

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

supported the Amendment for the reason he had previously given. He did not wish, to take away any impediment which stood in the way of persons neglecting to pay for these meals. The effect of parents neglecting to pay would dry up the funds of private charity, and would tend to throw the whole expense upon the rates. The noble Lord opposite had reminded them that this was a question of the child and not of the parent. He was in favour of doing everything he could for the child, but he was ready to put every difficulty in the way of parents shirking their responsibility and throwing the cost of feeding their children upon the rates.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the Committee will think twice before it accepts the Amendment of the noble Lord. This is by no means an isolated proposal. If it had always been the rule for people who came on public funds to be disfranchised your Lordships might very naturally say that we were now establishing a dangerous precedent, but as your Lordships know perfectly well that is by no means the case. Only last year the Government passed the Unemployed Act, and it was carefully provided that those who took advantage of it should not be disfranchised. There are other cases more germane to this measure. The various Medical Relief Acts embody the principle that if a mangets medical or surgical relief for his child he is not to be disfranchised, and even if a child goes into the infirmary it is treated there and fed at the public expense and the parent does not lose his vote. If there is no disqualification in those cases I cannot conceive why there should be in this instance. Going back to the Education Act of 1870, your Lordships will remember that when a parent could not pay the school fees he did not lose his vote. Under the hospitals of the Asylums Board dealing with infectious diseases, people are admitted at the public expense, and those admitted do not lose their votes. Therefore I think it rests with the noble Lord opposite to prove that this extremely small measure which takes a trfling amount from the public funds ought to carry this exceedingly serious disqualification. It is perfectly true that we do not say, although I should have been rather glad if we could have done so, that the child must be fed although the parent may not wish it. But take the case of a child coming to school obviously underfed, and he or she is asked to have dinner. Perhaps the father and mother may insist upon the child going home, and then nobody knows whether the child gets a meal or not. Suppose the same child comes afterwards to school still obviously under-fed. A case of this sort is certain to be taken up by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the refusal to allow the child to take advantage of the meal would undoubtedly lead to the prosecution of the parent. So that indirectly you positively compel the parent, if the child is obviously underfed, to allow his child to have the meal, and if you put that compulsion, which is the only kind of indirect compulsion that you can venture to put, it certainly seems to me unreasonable to disfranchise a parent if he is unable to pay for the meal.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that this difficulty showed the extreme inconvenience of the course which had been followed by the Government. It was obviously impossible for their Lordships to consider this Bill in the way which it ought to be considered. Its principles were very important and its details were equally important, and yet the Committee had been told that the Bill must be read a third time to-night. The noble Marquess opposite had retorted that the late Government had done the same thing, but surely that did not make the case any better, although the noble Marquess seemed to think he had given a perfect answer. He protested against important measures of this kind being brought up not one or two at a time, but in shoals, during the last three or four weeks, and this House being requested to consider and pass them. He wished to enter his protest against the way the Government had been conducting public business of late.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:—

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

in moving to leave out Clause 7 (application of the Act to Scotland), said several noble Lords had protested against the way the Government were dealing with this Bill, but his protest was against the way Scotland had been treated during the whole session. The question whether or not Scotland should be included in the Bill had never been discussed in the House of Commons. The Bill was brought in as a private Member's Bill applying to England, and was sent to a Select Committee. Another Bill referring to Scotland was brought in, and referred to the same Committee. On this Committee of fifteen Members eleven belonged to the Party opposite and four to the Unionist Party. Amongst the whole fifteen there was only one Scottish Member. Four witnesses from Scotland were called before this Committee, and not a single Scottish witness was in favour of applying the Bill to Scotland, and not a single public authority, so far as he knew, had passed a resolution in favour of the Bill. The Bill was only applied to Scotland by one vote—seven to six—the single Scottish Member voting against it. How would England like to have a Bill applied to it by the votes of seven Scotsmen? Such treatment was absolutely without precedent. No public body in Scotland was in favour of the Bill. The Edinburgh and Glasgow School Boards had condemned the Bill. The Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board said that at the last election the question was before the constituents. Twenty-one candidates stood for fifteen places, and nineteen of them condemned the proposals to feed school children out of the rates instead of relying upon voluntary agencies. He told the Committee that he had addressed meeting after meeting attended by the class of people in a position to judge, and his objections to this Bill were received with acclamation. The School Board for Edinburgh had condemned the Bill, and the Glasgow School Board delegated two witnesses to appear before the Select Committee and they also condemned it. Miss Flora Stevenson, who had spent most of her life working as a philanthropist and educationist, stated in a speech that it would be an evil day for Scotland when the legislature put upon school boards the duty of providing meals out of the public funds for school children. His apprehension was that if the Bill was carried it would dry up the resources of voluntary agencies and they would be thrown back upon the public authority to carry on this work of feeding the children, and he did not think it would then be done so well as it was being done at the present time. Quite recently there had been an educational meeting in Edinburgh at which the toast of "The Houses of Parliament" was proposed by a MR. Leishman who was far from being a supporter of the political faith to which he (Lord Balfour) adhered. He did not think he should offend that gentleman if he said that he was on the verge of belonging to the Socialist party. He was a well known public man in Edinburgh. In his speech he asked "by what marvellous change had MR. Gulland altered his opinion and been a party to conferring on Scotland what Scotland did not want." That was a pretty strong criticism to make, but MR. Gulland's reply to it was equally significant. MR. Gulland said, "He believed that all over Scotland there was a duty owing to these poor children. It was an optional Bill and had MR. Leishman been in the House of Commons he would not have refused to apply that option to Scotland."That was all MR. Gulland could say in answer to the suggestion that although during the time he was a member of the school board he condemned this Bill, he now made no resistance in the House of Commons against its application to Scotland. He would not take up their Lordships' time by further developing this argument. There was one thing which, though it night be applicable to England and might have weight with their Lordships, was certainly inapplicable to Scotland, and that was the part of the Report of the Select Committee which said that the education authorities were better than the poor Law authorities for this purpose. It might be so in England—he expressed no opinion on the point—but it was certainly not so in Scotland, because the school board authorities there had no knowledge of the voluntary schools. They could do nothing for those schools, whereas the Poor Law authorities knew he circumstances of all the people in their district. He honestly believed that they in Scotland were too sensible to make a sectarian quarrel out of this matter, and he pressed upon their Lordships most strongly from his knowledge of the circumstances that they could not do a thing more likely to cause sectarian difficulties than to require the school boards to decide whether the children in the voluntary schools, almost all of whom belonged either to the Roman Catholic Church or the Scottish Episcopalian Church, were fit subjects to be fed. How was it to be done? The feeding was not to be done in the schools but in other buildings. Were the school boards of Scotland to be asked to put up annexes or additions to the voluntary schools in order that the children might have meals? If they did not do this it would be treating the children in the voluntary schools unfairly. If they did it, it would be a novel departure to allow the public rates to be spent on these buildings. He did not like to say much about his own knowledge or experience, but for eight out of the last eleven years it had been his duty to administer both the educational and Poor Law of Scotland, and he ventured to say there was not a single school board in any of the larger cities or a parish council or county council in any of the country areas of Scotland with whom even now he could not communicate as a personal friend, and he could say from his knowledge that this Bill was neither required nor asked for in Scotland, At any rate, they ought to allow Scotland to make the request before they took up a Private Member's Bill and imposed upon the people of Scotland something they did not require. He regretted the Bill had been hurried through Parliament in this way, and that he could not raise the question in a fuller House, but whatever chance he ran he could not go back to Scotland with the responsibility upon his shoulders of not having done all he could to prevent this improper extension to Scotland of a measure which they did not want.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

sincerely hoped their Lordships would not agree to the omission of the clause. He thought, in spite of the dictum they heard last night, their Lordships would agree there were certain matters of principle on which a stand must be made, and it seemed to him to be clear that if it was a sound principle to feed hungry school children in England, it must be an equally sound principle to do the same thing in Scotland. [Opposition cries of "No."] The only reason to his mind which could do away with that principle would be if it could be proved there were no hungry children to feed. But he submitted that that had not been proved. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill had alluded to the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training which sat under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Mansfield, whose death, he was sure, all their Lordships, and especially those who were interested in Scottish affairs, deeply deplored. That Commission in its Report clearly said that there were many children attending Scottish schools who suffered from insufficient nourishment, and it also clearly suggested that some such principle as was embodied in this Bill should be adopted for the purpose of dealing with that question. The Report certainly had a rider added to it in which it said that no charge should thereby be made upon the rates. That was an opinion which no doubt carried great weight, but it was not an opinion which applied more to Scotland than to any other part of the Kingdom, and he again submitted that if this Bill was a sound and good measure to apply to England it must be equally sound to apply to Scotland. The noble Lord who had just sat down naturally spoke with great weight on everything connected with Scottish business, and it was therefore very difficult to combat him when he said that the school boards were not a good authority to deal with the matter, but personally he could not agree to that view. The difficulty of the voluntary schools might be very easily got over. It was not a matter of the schools but of the children to be dealt with. The noble Lord had also said the Bill had been condemned by several local authorities including the School Boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It seemed to him the answer to that lay in the words of MR. Gulland that the Bill was permissive, and if the School Boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow did not wish to adopt it they need not do so.

THE MARQUESS OR LANSDOWNE

I venture to suggest we have had no answer to the extremely strong case put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. There is abundant evidence to show that some legislation of this kind is called for by a great body of public opinion in England, but my noble friend has shown that, far as Scotland is concerned, the evidence is all the other way. I will not go over the ground he has traversed, but it seems to me that my noble friend was able to show convincingly that most of the public bodies of Scotland and the whole of the Scottish witnesses before the Select Committee strongly deprecated this change. I should like to know whether any Scottish Peer opposite will assert that public opinion in Scotland is in favour of the change. I should be very much surprised if he did. A great deal has been said of the inconvenience to which this House is put by having to deal hurriedly with important measures. I feel that very strongly, and it is one of the reasons which disposes me—assuming that we do not reject the Bill altogether—to be extremely careful to avoid any attempt to tamper with its machinery. We have no time to discuss the details of the measure, and therefore the responsibility for those details must rest with His Majesty's Government. But whilst I should hesitate to touch the machinery of the Bill I do not feel the same hesitation in accepting my noble friend's suggestion that its scope should be narrowed by omitting its application to Scotland. It is clear that supposing it should prove to be the case that there really is a demand for such legislation, and in Scotland, there will be plenty of time to produce the evidence which at the present time is wanting to establish that proposition as a preliminary to legislation by which the operation of this Bill, when it has become an Act of Parliament, can be extended to Scotland also. If therefore my noble friend thinks well to press his Amendment I shall vote with him.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think ought to say one word in reply, although it will be exceedingly brief. As regards the complaint made from the other side of the House with regard to the date at which this important measure has come before the House, I have only to say that we sincerely regret that it should have appeared so late. I am afraid these things happen under all Governments, and all we can say is that we use and shall use our best efforts to see that so far as possible measures come up in time to be conveniently discussed in your Lordships' House. But in dealing with that point I think that regard ought to be had to something besides the importance of measures, namely, their complexity. It is exceedingly undesirable, no doubt, that a very complicated measure should come before your Lordships' House at a late date. But I think no one can say that this is a complicated Bill. Its provisions may be in the eyes of some noble Lords objectionable, but they are simplicity itself, and I think that to some extent detracts from the weight of the charge which has been brought against us. As regards this particular point, in one respect I confess I find myself with some sympathy with the noble Lord opposite. I do not like seeing social legislation dealing with England and Scotland in one Bill. I think as general rule it is distinctly preferable that they should be dealt with in separate measures; and, of course, I am obliged, also to some extent to admit the difference of circumstances which the noble Lord forcibly brought out as existing between the two countries in this matter. But, at the same time, we have regard to the fact that, as I am informed, the very large majority of Scottish Members of Parliament are in favour, of this measure, even though I believe noble Lords opposite do not always admit that the other House is representative, and we are also disposed to have special regard to the fact that, as my noble friend behind me pointed out, this measure is purely of a permissive character; we are bound therefore to take the sense of the Committee against the Amendment of the noble Lord.

On Question "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships

Consequential Amendment made in the title of the Bill.

Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Amendments reported: Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.