moved, "That for the remainder of the session Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that no motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11." He said:— This motion represents the period of the year's proceedings which is generally known as the massacre of the innocents, and I must congratulate the innocents on the fact that they have had a longer and more protracted life than usual, extending almost to the end of the year. I think the best plan I can adopt is to state first the names of those Bills which, if we have this further control of the time of the House, will not be proceeded with further. There is, first of all, the Judicature (Ireland) Bill, the Education of Afflicted Children (Ireland) Bill, the Infectious Diseases (Ireland) Bill, the Dublin Police Bill, the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Consolidation Bill, the Agricultural Holdings Consolidation Bill, the Judicature Bill, the Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment Bill, the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Bill, the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, the Education (Consolidation) Bill, the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill, the Criminal Appeal Bill, the Supply of of Electricity Bill, the Employers' Liability Insurance Companies Bill, and then, with some regret, I must add the Small Holders (Scotland) Bill, which, as the House is aware, we do not intend to proceed with beyond a Second Reading debate; but we have now got to such a narrow limit of time that I think that, as this Bill has been before the country and much discussed at meetings and in the Press, nothing will be gained even if we were to stretch a point and find a day— and a day would not be sufficient for its adequate discussion. There is a Bill also which I will name which my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary was anxious to introduce and pass—namely, the Minerals (Ireland) Bill; but I think the very idea of introducing a new Bill after to-day will not commend itself to the House. The measures which the Government propose to proceed with are these, and they are all of them certainly not of a contentious character in the Party sense:—The Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, the Licensing (Removal of Doubts) Bill, the Burials Bill, the Removal of Offensive Matter Bill, the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill, the Recorders, Stipendiary, Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace Bill, the Telegraph Construction Bill, the Public Trustee Bill—that we are very anxious to pass—the Census of Production Bill, the Workmen's Compensation Bill, the Street Betting Bill—that is another measure to which we attach great importance—the Land Tax Commissioners Bill, the National Galleries of Scotland Bill, and, last, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. These measures, I think, with the assistance of the House, can be passed without any great tax on the time of the House. I need hardly say that if any of them become contentious their lives would be so far endangered; but we do not see any reason to anticipate that, and these are the only Bills to which, if the House gives us the control of the time I am asking for, we shall invite the attention of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That for the remainder of the session government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)

The right hon. Gentleman has just made, on December 7, what is the only attempt which the Government have so far made to give the House a clear view of the remaining work of the session, and the fact that this statement is made on December 7 is surely almost a unique incident in our Parliamentary history. In every session I have ever heard of, even when the session went on later than the autumn, the House has had a clear idea when it rose in August what it was the Government intended to do with the time they were going to take for an autumn session. But it is not until within three weeks of Christmas that we are told what is to be the scheme of the Government as regards the legislation of the session. I must say, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for doing so, that I think the whole procedure of the Government in the course of this session is unsatisfactory as well as unprecedented. Whether it is that ten years exclusion from office has so whetted their appetite for legislation [loud MINISTERIAL cheers] I know not; but judging by these enthusiastic cheers I gather it is the reason, and that so keen-set are the appetites of hon. Gentlemen opposite for legislative food that they are prepared to swallow anything, however crude, that may be cooked for them ["No."] and whatever was the origin of the meal. There never was an occasion in the whole of our history upon which the Government, instead of relying upon their own legislative originality and ingenuity, have depended so largely upon the necessarily amateur efforts of private Members of this House. It is quite right and proper that simple and un-obnoxious Bills brought in by private Members of this House should be taken up by the Government; but I assure the House—and I say this in no Party spirit and with no desire to make any point against the present Government, but in all sincerity and candour—that the attempt to deal with great social problems and with great principles on the basis of private Members' schemes is really destructive of all sound legislation. We have been discussing at great length very important private Members' Bills in regard to land tenure in Great Britain and town holdings in Ireland. We are now asked to deal to-day with a Bill upon which, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, there is no Party division or Party feeling, but which nevertheless does raise principles of real importance, which I do not think the House ought hastily or rashly to adopt, and which it is neither right to bring forward on December 7, at the end of a long session, nor to borrow from the private scheme of any unofficial Member of the House. The danger and the difficulties of an autumn session, about which I will say a word in a moment, are greatly augmented by this new system. Let it be remembered that in previous autumn sessions, when the House was asked to take upon its shoulders the immense additional burden, after a long session ending in August, of a session to last through half October and November and December, it has always been so re-assembled in order to pass some great definite Government measure. Never in my experience have hon. Members been called together to pass a miscellaneous horde of Bills—some Government Bills, some private Members' Bills, of none of which we have had adequate notice—and to pass them through at all cost and hazards under the screw of the abolition of the Eleven o'clock rule, Saturday sittings, and all the other familiar modes of torture which Governments may be, indeed must be, occasionally driven to use, but which they ought only to use in regard to great measures which have already been fully discussed and fully understood. In order that the House may be fully seised of the contrast I will take the example of a Bill which was particularly opposed by Members now on the other side of the House, and which was the occasion of our last great autumn session—the Education Bill of 1902. The House separated that year at nearly the same date in August, and it knew it would have to reassemble for the specific and sole purpose of finishing that Bill. That Bill was discussed until it became evident that if the House was to rise before Christmas the closure by compartments would have to be applied, and it was applied to the enormous relief of everybody. No human being could say that every principle of that Bill was not threshed out ad nauseam in the House. Now compare the conduct of the present session. We shall be sitting about the same number of Parliamentary weeks. We shall be proceeding with an Education Bill, too, as controversial as, and far more open to attack than, the Bill of 1902— a Bill which has excited, and is exciting, the profoundest passion of the community. Had the Government said, "In 1902 a measure on the same subject and exciting like passions, although, on a different side, was brought in and fully discussed, and there was an autumn session devoted to it; we will follow that example, and rather than burke discussion we will have an autumn session, and see the Bill thoroughly dealt with," it would not have been in our power to have criticised the course they pursued. But not at all. They have, in their thirst for hasty and amateur legislation, deliberately deprived the House of time which they could have usefully and properly devoted to the great measure brought in under the auspices of the Government of the day—the only way in which legislation can be properly carried on. I never have denied that under the conditions of modern Parliamentary life it is absolutely necessary for the Government of the day from time to time to use these exceptional measures for concluding debate of which we have had experience in many preceding sessions, but a more frequent experience in this session than in any which the House has yet known. I have never denied that; but the justification for these measures is that the time of the House shall be, as far as possible, given to the Government for the passing of the necessary Supply, and for their own legislation after ample discussion. I should have thought that if there was a Party to whom that principle would be dear, it would be those who are of opinion, as some hon. Members opposite are of opinion, that the Constitution of this country would be improved, and legislative work could be properly and adequately carried on, by a single Chamber. On the shoulders of people who hold that view, above all others, rests the responsibility of seeing that this House is not overburdened with work, and in consequence has to scamp it. The proceeding of the Government is open, as I think, to another objection much less patent and obvious either to hon. Members or the public outside than the evils to which I have ventured to call their attention. The unofficial Members of this House are well aware of the burden upon them. They are conscious of the great strain of the labours which they are asked to undertake; but they probably do not realise how much greater is that burden upon Ministers of the Crown and the officers over which those Ministers preside. The preparation of Bills and Estimates—the consideration of the policy to be pursued in regard to the Army, Navy, and the great services—is a most laborious operation. It taxes the strength of Ministers; it taxes all the resources of the Departments concerned; it throws an immense burden on the Government draughtsmen; and if you take away that period of leisure between October and, roughly speaking, the meeting of Parliament in the next year you deprive the offices and the Ministers of the time which, if the House will believe me, is absolutely necessary for properly dealing with these immensely complicated questions. The Government, I am confident, after their experience of this session will no longer live from hand to mouth on the labour of other people. Though they may not confess the error of their ways, I think they probably know that they have committed a great error in this respect. I do not ask them to stand in a white sheet. I suspect that in their hearts they know that what I say is true. They came in with a long roll of very ambitious pledges with regard to what is called social reforms. We are all, of course, in favour of social reform, but all who consider the question from any point of view except that of making platform speeches must be well aware that it is just those questions of social reform which are the most difficult to embody in law, which require the most circumspect action on the part of those who are responsible for legislation. They are just the questions on which it is least possible and least politic to depend upon a few high-sounding platitudes, which are a very small aid to the real and detailed work of legislative reform. I do not believe it is possible—if the Government are to spend the time from early February to August and then from mid-October to Christmas Day in this work, with from sixty to 100 questions daily, the replies to which the Departments have to assist in supplying, adding an immense load to departmental work —I do not believe it is possible that administrative work can be done. I venture then to express a most earnest hope that we shall not have a repetition of the experience of this session. I am not critical of the distribution of time the Government think best, taking into consideration the time devoted to the sittings of the House for the carrying through of a programme of legislation which—ambitious and well meaning if you like—nevertheless does impose on the House a burden the House is unable to bear and renders good work utterly impossible. I am not anxious to prolong a discussion which on such occasions as this is sometimes continued for hours, and hon. Members will not be impatient with the brief remarks I have made— brief, but dealing with a subject of immense importance. I have abstained from criticising, as I might have done, the number of times the 11 o'clock rule has been suspended under the arrangements of the Government, and from alluding to extreme difficulties that this imposes upon us; these are relatively-small matters, and I do not hope for any satisfactory reply on the present occasion from the right hon. Gentleman who will follow me. But I hope that all Members, official and non-official, will think—if they will do me that honour—of the observations I have made, not in any polemical spirit, but with a sincere desire to see the work of the House carried on under conditions which alone can enable it to deal with the legislative programme of any Government. The principles I recommend are the eternal principles of sound Parliamentary business, and it is because I hold these opinions and hold them strongly—and I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to carry them out when responsible for the conduct of business in this House—and because I desire to see the Government carry them out—it is for that object and that object alone that I venture to call the attention of the House to this question which is vital to their welfare.

No one can complain—certainly no one on this bench—that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this legitimate opportunity to make a general criticism on the distribution of time during the session, and no exception can be taken to the general tone of his observations. I gladly recognise that; but he has said one or two things which I do not think it is possible that I, without wishing to occupy time or to introduce a controversial spirit, can allow to pass without notice. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman objects to autumn sessions altogether, or whether he would maintain that if we are to have them they ought to be confined to the discussion of a single measure. Let me point out that if we had followed precedent in that respect, and had been occupied with the Education Bill alone, there are two measures I take by way of illustration as to which there is a universal consensus of opinion they ought to be put on the Statute-book, the Merchant Shipping Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill, neither of which would have been passed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about precedents, but I am bold enough to believe that in such a matter a new Parliament and a new Government may have a duty, not merely to follow, but to set precedents. What is the gravamen of the charge against us in. regard to precedent? That we have shown a zeal which the right hon. Gentleman thinks unprecedented and intemperate for legislation. Well, I agree that is a novelty in Parliamentary experience. The right hon. Gentleman has an ill-opinion of our legislative proposals, and much of them he would probably like to schedule under a title which is that of a Bill the Prime Minister has announced his intention of keeping alive—the Removal of Offensive Matter. But that is not our view. And I observed that the right hon. Gentleman studiously refrained from objecting to any of the measures for which the Prime Minister proposes to take time for discussion. He has accused us it is true of the crime of adopting what he calls the amateur efforts of private Members. What does the charge amount to in the light of facts? We passed before we rose for the autumn something like forty measures into law, and before the autumn session comes to an end I hope we shall have increased that number by a dozen or a score more. Out of those fifty or sixty, what number of private Members' Bills have the Government adopted? Precisely four. There is the Musical Copyright Bill, which since its reception early in the session has had general approval in its remaining stages; two Bills have found their way to another place, where they were considered so unobjectionable in principle that they have passed a Second Reading; and the remaining Bill, upon which we are to be occupied this afternoon—Education (Provision of Meals)— is one as to which no Party feeling is excited, and, though introduced by a private Member, has been before a Select Committee, by whom evidence was taken, and the Bill is now recommitted with the advantage of a minutely careful examination, such as few public measures receive, therefore, I trust the House will agree to the Resolution.

intervened as a private Member, not for the purpose of discussing the general principles upon which business should be conducted, but with a view to ascertaining what burden the Motion would be likely to throw on the general body of Members of the House. The Prime-Minister, in giving notice on the previous day that he intended to move this Motion, had said that he intended to take the opportunity of giving some general indication of what the course of business was going to be for the remainder of the session. They were entitled to have an indication of the general plan of the Government. The House did not know at present whether the Government proposed to bring the session to an end before Christmas or not, but assuming that they did so intend, fourteen days were left, including three Fridays, of which this was one. Allowing three or four days for the Education Bill, there were three more allotted for the discussion of special subjects—South Africa, Wireless Telegraphy, and Army Reform. [An HON. MEMBER: Three opportunities.] Three opportunities—up to the present they had been spoken of as three days— and he for his part did not see how the House was going to have an efficient discussion either on South Africa or Army Reform without a full Parliamentary day being allowed for the discussion. That made seven days. In the remaining seven days, which might include two Fridays, the Bills mentioned by the Prime Minister to the number of fifteen would have to be disposed of, and many of them must give rise to considerable discussion. What were those Bills? There was the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill; the Public Trustee Bill, a most desirable Bill, but which, judging from Amendments even now upon the Paper, excited a considerable amount of comment. It was a Bill which certainly ought not to be passed without proper discussion. Then there was the Census of Production Bill, a most admirable Bill, but one which would raise a considerable amount of discussion; the Street Betting Bill; the Third Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, which after the two decisions which the House had taken on the preceding day, he certainly could not regard with that favour with which he had previously regarded it, and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That made six highly contentious measures, in addition to which the nine other Bills which the right hon. Gentleman had read out were to be discussed and to be disposed of in seven days. It was under these circumstances that he asked the right hon. Gentleman until what time did he intend to keep the House up. It was all very well for the members of the Government who could and did go home to bed, but there were not too many Members on the Opposition side of the House, and if they desired properly to discharge their duty and subject the measures of the Government to that Parliamentary criticism and that discussion which they ought to receive they could not go to bed. They were entitled therefore to a statement which the House was led to believe it would receive from the right hon. Gentleman as to the plans of Government for the remainder of the session. He asked some member of the Government to supply the statement which had been overlooked, in order that Members might know to what hours they were to be kept up by the suspension of the Rule.

said he had already given the noble Lord the information he required, so far as he could control the future, by stating the Bills the Government intended to proceed with. How long those Bills would take depended as much on the noble Lord as upon the Government. It might happen by good luck that some of the Bills, or some Amendments to one of the Bills, might be of such a nature that the noble Lord would not think it necessary to speak upon them. That would be of itself a change in the procedure of the session, and it would make an immense difference in the hour to which they would be obliged to sit. But really to ask one who was helpless in the matter as against the noble Lord to estimate the time which each Bill might take was surely a little too much. He had done all he could do by naming the Bills the Government intend to proceed with.

said the noble Lord had endeavoured to gain their sympathy by complaining of being kept up all night, but he would remind the House that there had been only one all-night sitting this session, and on that occasion the noble Lord was careful to go home and go to bed early.

said that many hon. Members who were interested in the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, relying on the indications of the course of business which had been given early in the week, had made engagements for to-night which they could not put off. He was sure the Prime Minister would acquit him of any desire either to obstruct or to delay the passages of the Bill, but undoubtedly it did contain matter of great social and pecuniary importance on which there was a great variety of opinion in the House, and as it had been impossible owing to the short notice to cancel engagements into which many of them had already entered, he suggested that the discussion on this Bill should be adjourned at five o'clock and resumed on some other occasion.

said the right hon. Gentleman had named the Bills he proposed to carry through, but he had made no statement with regard to the promised opportunities for the discussions on the Army, the Berlin Conference, and the question of land settlement in South Africa, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply interested. He thought the House should be given some indication of the days when these questions would be raised.

wished to remedy one omission. He had omitted to state that he thought it desirable that they should devote a short time, not to the larger questions of procedure which were the result of the deliberations of the Committee, but to certain rules that the Government had put upon the Paper to legalise, as it were, the new method of taking divisions; This would be a very simple matter, and of course they had no idea of entering on the wider question. The Government would take advantage of the opportunity they would have to-day of proceeding with business, for it would only make the pressure heavier on subsequent days if they abridged their working hours that day. He admitted that there were points in the Provision of Meals Bill of consider- able importance, but he thought four or five hours ought to be ample for their discussion. Then there were one or two other Bills of a perfectly unobjectionable and uncontentious character with which they might occupy a further space of time. As to the discussions on the three subjects mentioned by the noble Lord, he did not see very clearly beyond the discussion of the Education Bill at the beginning of the week. He presumed that would probably take three or four days, and until they got on with that discussion they could not proceed to fix days for other subjects.

urged the Government to proceed with the Criminal Appeal Bill. Surely a Bill the object of which was to keep innocent persons out of prison should have precedence over a measure like the Street Betting Bill.

said it was of some importance to private Members that they should understand as nearly as possible the real effect of the very large powers for which the right hon. Gentleman was asking for the remainder of the session. Was it intended to bring the session to a close before Christmas or was it contemplated to run it over Christmas? The right hon. Gentleman had warned them that if any of the Bills should be treated as very contentious its life might be endangered to that extent, and that seemed to suggest that he had some fixed date in his mind. Did he intend to go on night after night until all the Bills had been passed? Private Members ought to know how they stood in that matter.

hoped that a day or portion of a day would be devoted to the discussion of the Report of the Public; Accounts Committee. Matters of very considerable importance were contained in the Report, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the decision of the last Parliament, and afford an opportunity for a discussion.

was afraid it was impossible at the fag end of the session to give an opportunity for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. It could just as well take place in the early part of next session.

May we understand that a day will be allotted in the early part of the next session?

Sufficient unto the session are the discussions thereof.

remarked that the clause in the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill making it applicable to Scotland was not likely to be reached until a late hour this evening, and he hoped that that would not prevent an adequate consideration of the subject, and that they would have the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland and the law officers.

hoped that if the Prime Minister intended to crush the Opposition with his majority the Leader of the Opposition would do his best to keep the discussion going day after day and night after night.

said the Amendment standing in his name to require the consent of the poor law guardians of any union before the local education authority could take steps to aid in the provision of meals for children was placed by him on the Paper with the object of introducing smoother relations between the two authorities concerned. The one authority had the spending of the money and the other had to provide it. There was almost certain to be borne friction between the authorities, and it was to remove that friction that he framed his Amendment. In view, however, of the statement last night of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, that it was intended to modify the Bill in Committee so as to remove further from the guardians the work which the Bill proposed that they should do in connection with this matter, he did not intend to move his Amendment.

said it was quite evident that great interest was taken in this matter. The Government never regarded the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" as being very essential; they were taken from the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member for North West Ham had stated that he was not going to move a subsequent Amendment, and that he and his friends would be satisfied with regard to the first clause if those words were left out. It was important for the Committee to bear that in mind. His own opinion as to whether or not the words were necessary was not of much value, but the skilled advisers of the Government had looked into the matter and they had come to the conclusion that the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" were not essential and amounted to a surplusage. The Government were still of opinion that all the other features of the clause must be retained. Sub-sections (a) and (b) gave the local authority the powers they intended it to possess without reference to the Board of Education, and they did not think it was desirable to go beyond this clause. The phrase "midday meal" had been subjected to close scrutiny, and the Government felt that it was a little clumsy. Consequently they did not think it necessary to retain the words "midday meal" in the Bill. The Committee should remember that in this Bill they were dealing with meals paid for by the children, and if any child wished to pay for two meals why should they prevent it? They were dealing with meals provided from sources other than from public funds, and why should they object to more than one meal being provided? The Amendment he suggested to meet the case was to leave out the words "with a view to the organisation and direction of" and insert the word "for." The Government would also accept the word "meals." The clause as amended would then read—

"A local authority under Part III. of the Education Act, 1902, may take such steps as they think fit for the provision of meals for children in attendance. …."

said that would meet his point, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

thought a little more time ought to be given to the consideration of the Amendment. As the clause at present stood, it provided only for the organisation and direction, but the provision of food was a matter of a very different character. The Amendment appeared to him to give a general authority something in the nature of a roving commission to the local authority. But any hon. Member who would refer to Clause 3 would find that local authorities could only act when they were satisfied as to the necessitous conditions of the district. That was a different thing from giving them a general power to act under all circumstances and in all seasons. Before adopting the Amendment the Committee should have some assurance from the Government that the provision of food was not dealt with under the amended clause. When they came to deal with food, then they would be entering upon the question of relief which was far wider in its range and far more difficult and delicate. He felt that he was only doing right in calling attention to this difficulty. The Amendment had been accepted now without any previous indication that it would be so accepted. It raised a very wide issue. It was not a question merely of drafting, but went to the whole root of the matter. Therefore it required most careful investigation and the very best attention that could be given to it, in order that the Committee might feel sure that there was no danger that the supplying of food was included in the Amendment.

said the local authority could not spend money on food for the children, but what they could do was to take steps for the provision of meals by association with a committee and by providing plant, furniture, and other things which he did not understand his hon. friend to object to. That was the meaning of the acceptance of this Amendment. He believed the hon. Member for North West Ham was prepared to fall in with that. He agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary and the draughtsman that the words, "with a view to the organisation and direction of" were valueless. The words which the Government now proposed were important. There was some difference of medical opinion as to whether, if only one meal was given, it should be breakfast or dinner. If there were funds for two meals well and good. If a child could only have one meal, why should not the local authority have the guidance of expert opinion in order to enable them to decide which one it should be? Therefore the first part of the Amendment which proposed to leave out the words "a midday meal" appeared to him to be harmless.

said he was sure hon. Members were all perfectly agreed as to the necessity for some provision being made for the feeding of hungry children; but, at the same time, they were anxious that nothing should be done which would unduly relieve parents from the obligation which naturally rested upon them to give proper food to their children, or would pauperise those people who were given help. His own idea of the kind of meal that should be provided was food that might he accessible at any time. For this purpose he would suggest that there should be some place about the school building where dry bread and good milk should be available. This food would be sufficient to nourish the child, but at the same time no child would prefer this fare if it could get better food at home. At certain hours of the day the food should be accessible to all children who required it irrespective of whether their parents were poor or well-to-do. He felt himself that his suggestion would meet the case, for while it would provide that sufficient food was given to children it would not have the effect of pauperising them. He was in favour of the Amendment, but he would wish to give a wider meaning to the term meal. In his opinion the kind of meal to be provided should be left to the discretion of the local authority.

said he could not accept with equanimity the omission of these words. The original suggestion appeared in the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training. They went into that point with very great care, and what they urged was that steps should be taken for the provision of meals, but that the organisation of these meals, and that alone, should be part of the work of the education authority. On that point he thought all the members of the Commission were agreed. This clause defined the necessary work which would fall upon the education authority. In the forefront of that they should put organisation and direction. What might come afterwards as to the provision of meals ought surely to be regulated by the subsequent clauses as indicated by the words "as hereinafter provided" at the end of Clause 1. If they dropped out the very important and ruling words at the beginning of the clause, the ordinary reader would think that the first and chief work of the education authority was to provide meals. Ordinary laymen and even draughtsmen might differ, and the interpretation which the Courts of law would put on particular words might not always be easy to predict. The ordinary laymen would understand that if they empowered the local authority to take steps for the provision of meals that was to be interpreted in the ordinary sense of the words, and that it meant, as everyone thought, that they should provide not only the kitchen and the cooking utensils, but also the food which was to be cooked. There was no use minimising the effect of the omission of these words. He must dissociate himself from what was said by his hon. friend the Member for the University of Oxford. He did not think his hon. friend had followed what was done by the Select Committee on this important point. The omission of the words "a midday meal" would give a very useful discretion in the matter; and personally he thought that a morning meal of a simple kind would be at once more useful and much less liable to abuse. This clause dealt with the duty which would lie on the local authority not only in particular cases where poverty was proved, but in every case. It was of the highest importance that they should got in these limiting words, and that they should not be dropped in the easy way the Secretary to the Board of Education proposed.

asked whether there was not a general understanding that the discussion should take place on both proposals now. He thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee that they should have the whole discussion together.

I think, owing to the course of the discussion, hitherto we ought to take the discussion on both points at one time, and then they can be decided one after the other without another debate.

said there was a great difference between the question of organising the work of providing meals and the question whether there should be midday meals.

There is a distinction between the two points, but if hon. Members discuss the two points, as they are entitled to do on this Amendment, then we shall not want to enter again on the discussion of the second point.

said the Committee was quite unnecessarily frightening itself as to the effect of this Amendment. The Bill ran along two lines. The scheme of the first clause was to set up school canteens, in regard to which the local authority would be associated with voluntary agencies in making provision for meals for which the parents must pay. They must not, except as provided in Clause 3, spend any public money on these meals. That was the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Physical Training to which the hon. Member for Glasgow University referred. The proposed alteration in the words would not allow under Clause 1 any local authority to spend any money on the provision of meals. But Clause 3 proposed to enable local authorities power, in rare cases of real hardship, to spend money out of the rates on the provision of meals. That was a separate scheme altogether. There was only one big question in the Bill, and that was whether any public money should be spent on the provision of meals. He hoped that they might soon come to the discussion of that question. That was the grave and novel proposition which had to be decided in this Committee, but it did not arise on the present Amendment.

said the Amendment was in direct contradiction to the recommendation of the Committee on the mid-day meal. He would be glad to support the hon. Member in excluding the words "organisation and direction," but it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman was not acting in harmony, not merely with the Committee of which he was chairman, but with the provisions of the sub-section which followed that now under discussion. The local education authority was to organise and direct the machinery, and for that purpose they could associate themselves with the voluntary committee who would undertake to provide the food. The provision was not mandatory, he admitted; but the local education authority might aid the voluntary Committee—

"By furnishing such land, buildings, furniture, and apparatus, and such officers and servants as may be necessary for the preparation and service of such meals."

said that, having sat on the Committee upstairs, he recognised cordially the assistance given by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigan and the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. He desired to emphasise the great distinction to be drawn between the provision of machinery and the provision of food; and he held that the latter should be safeguarded more than the former. He understood that if the Amendment were accepted and the concluding words of the clause were retained, the power to provide the meal minus the power to pay for the food practically amounted to the same thing as giving the power, organisation and direction to the local authority. If he thought it was otherwise, he should be inclined to agree with the criticisms which had been made. He was glad that due recognition would be given to the important voluntary agencies. In London alone £10,000 a year had been provided from voluntary sources for the provision of meals for school children. At present, without any objection from the Board of Education or the auditor, the first clause of the Bill was virtually carried out in some fifteen London school centres. The food provided had been paid for by the parents and by voluntary agencies, the former contributing 75 per cent. of the cost and the latter 25 per cent.

said that the apparatus had been provided for, but that did not touch the provision of food.

said that the local education authority in London had utilised the materials which had be9n used in cookery centres without any cost to the rates, in fifteen schools, and that had been conducted with great advantage to the children. He was satisfied that there was a need in the primary as well as in the secondary schools for the provision of an early or a mid-day meal at cost price to the parents. With the restrictions contained in the last three lines of the clause he saw no harm in accepting the Amendment, fully understanding that payment for food out of public funds would be fenced by adequate safeguards.

said that having an Amendment on the paper to-leave out the midday meal, he felt bound to say a word by way of apology for his departure from the recommendation in the Report of the Committee, which gave information of the most valuable character as to the procedure of foreign countries and in this country. He confessed that on more careful examination of that Report he had come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to limit the provision of food to the mid-day meal. He found that in France and Belgium there was a midday meal, but when they went further east the meals provided were sometimes breakfast, sometimes a mid-day meal, and sometimes a supper. He therefore thought they would be acting more in accordance with convenience if they gave the local authority power to deal with the various circumstances which might arise. He had some apprehension as to giving more than one meal, because he was most anxious not to impair the sense of parental responsibility. He did not intend to carry the operation of this reform further than the necessity of the case demanded. He thought the case for a single meal had been clearly proved, but some discretion ought to be given to the local education authority. He had confidence in such bodies, and he would be content to remove the restriction that the local authority was not to provide more than one meal, and allow them to fix the time at which the meal should be given. He believed that the local authority would administer the Act with great care, because they had a desire to maintain the sense of parental responsibility, and he believed that they would act on that principle in the administration of this Bill when it became law.

said he had been a supporter of this Bill in all its different phases in the Select Committee because he believed that the machinery proposed in it would go a long way towards diminishing that lack of parental responsibility about which so much had been said. As to the provision of one meal only, he hoped that that would not lead in the future to interference with the operation of Clause 3. The omission of the words "organisation and direction" seemed to him to be merely a verbal alteration. The concluding words of the paragraph controlled the whole clause and made it perfectly clear that it only provided that the machinery should be supplied by the local education authority, and that it had nothing whatever to do with providing the food.

thought that nearly every one in the Committee would agree with the omission of the word "mid-day" before the word "meal," and he would be glad to see the word struck out. He would also like to see greater elasticity in regard to giving more than one meal if it was wanted. But that was altogether a different matter from leaving out the words "organisation and direction" of the provision of the meal. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had suggested that the word "organisation" had no significance at all, and that it did not matter whether they put it in or left it out. If that was so, why alter it? Again, why did the hon. Gentleman move to insert this very word in sub-section (b). If it had no significance why should it be left out here, and why waste the time of the House in introducing it in sub-section (b). The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as a reason for rushing this Bill through that it had been carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs. That would be all very well if the Government were proceeding upon the understanding arrived at in the Select Committee, but they were going to upset it. His contention was that the Government were departing from a distinct understanding arrived at in the Committee upstairs, who distinctly put these words in the forefront in the clause in order to make it clear that what they wanted to aim at was the organisation and direction of this provision, and not the buying of food out of public money, to which some of them objected altogether and which ought only to be resorted to in most exceptional circumstances. If the words were omitted the intention of the Committee would be entirely obscured to anybody reading the Bill, and to any local authority who might have to administer it. Therefore he strongly protested against leaving out the words, as such a course would destroy entirely the working basis upon which they went through the Committee. If the Government were going to destroy that working basis they should have to fight the Bill afresh at the present stage in order to put right what the Government had put wrong.

said that the hon. Member for North Camberwell, who addressed the House with the utmost confidence in this behalf, stated that this Amendment would not involve any financial obligation either in regard to a mid-day meal or meals. But when hon. Members looked at Clause 3, they found there provision for the payment of such meals. The words "such meals" of that section would refer back to Clause 1, and it appeared to him that under cover of this Amendment, which was being treated as a question of organisation and direction in regard to the provision of meals, they would find when they got to Clause 3 that the important point of this Bill had been concluded if the Amendment under consideration was already passed. He did not dispute the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's description of the framework of the Bill. What he did dispute was his description of the effect of this Amendment. He thought it right to call attention to this matter, in order that the Secretary to the Board of Education might deal with it and if possible settle it at once. He thought the House should see exactly where it was going, and not find it had given away in the earlier clauses questions which properly fell to be considered later on. He did not think this the proper place to discuss the merits of this Amendment, which in his opinion altogether altered the scope of the Bill, and made it far wider and of a more far-reaching character than the Bill hon. Members had had before them.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs that the Amendment, although moved by his hon. friend opposite in an argument tending to show that it was really one of small importance, was an extremely far reaching and important one. The Amendment proposed that it should be in the power of the local education authority not merely, as the Bill proposed, to organise and direct the provision of meals, but absolutely to provide the meals. There was a very great and real difference between organisation and direction of the provision of a meal and the actual providing of it. It was a vital and fundamental difference, and he was astonished that the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Amendment should not have seen, as apparently he had not, the extremely serious character of the Amendment. He had stated that the object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to consolidate and unify all the different charities by which at present this work was being carried on, and as he believed, very satisfactorily carried on. In other words, the hon. Member believed that the charities, the private enterprise, and the benevolence which was being exerted in connection with the feeding of children would be consolidated and unified under the municipal authority, and it was with that opinion that he moved this Amendment that raised in a direct fashion the whole principle with which they had to deal. An Amendment which would have such an effect could not be dismissed as a mere matter of verbal alteration. The hon. Member for North Camberwell, whose authority on these matters everybody admitted, had said that there was no harm in the Amendment, because the clause was already enormously safeguarded by certain provisions in the Bill. For instance, he said that they need not be in the least afraid, because it was provided in the clause that the local education authority should not incur any expense in the provision of food. That would be perfectly true if Clause 1 stood alone, and was, in fact, the Bill, but they had to look at it in relation to the other clauses and the whole Bill as it would stand when it was amended and passed. Every provision of the Bill rested on Clause 1, and it was idle to say that because no money was going to be spent under Clause 1 they were justified in making the large alterations in the clause which were proposed. As to the second part of the Amendment, which dealt with the question whether or not the meal was to be a mid-day one, he would have liked to say a few words, but it seemed that the whole matter was disposed of by the extraordinary statement of the Financial Secretary to the Board of Education, that "mid-day" might mean half past ten in the morning or any other hour convenient to the district. If midday meant half-past ten it might mean half-past eight or any other hour, and it was perfectly idle of them to waste their time in discussing the matter. It was, however, an important matter that the local education authority should be empowered to give an indefinite and indeterminate number of meals, and under this provision they might have any number of children fed at other people's expense. [Ironical LABOUR Cheers.] No doubt that was a prospect with which hon. Gentleman below the gangway were very much enamoured, but it was one which he thought was insulting to the independent working man. It was indeed a very serious proposal, and would very greatly extend the ambit of the Bill, and for his part he was sorry that it should have been made upon the responsibility of a member of the Government. But these were minor matters as compared with the first part of the Amendment. He thought there was a very serious difference between authorising a local authority to organise and direct, and allowing them to provide food, and because he thought the Amendment was a mischievous one he should vote against it.

said that Labour Members were quite satisfied with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and if there had been any wavering on their part as to the way in which they should vote, the question would have been decided for them by the ridiculous arguments of the hon. Member for Norwood. He appealed to the Committee not to reiterate arguments, but to come to a decision on the point. So far as they were concerned they did not care if they sat till two o'clock to-morrow afternoon, but other hon. Members wanted to get away, and therefore he hoped that they might now come to a decision.

said that instead of appealing to them to come to a decision, the hon. Gentleman ought to have appealed to the Prime Minister not to put down a Bill of this sort to be, discussed in the short time at their disposal. The Bill would change the practice which had existed in this country for hundreds of years. The other night hon. Members discussed a measure long after the hour when they had agreed to terminate it, and it was absurd that they should be told that they must not discuss this measure because hon. Members wanted to go home. As another illustration of the harmonious manner in which the discussions on this Bill were conducted upstairs he might mention, having the proceedings of that Committee before him, that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill introduced an Amendment couched in these very words, and having succeeded in carrying it upstairs he now came down to the House and reversed his principles. It was another exemplification of the phrase on the knee" and apparently it did not apply to the Government only but to every member of the Party opposite. He quite agreed that the omission of the words "organisation and direction" might be safeguarded in later portions of the Bill, but, supposing hon. Gentleman below the Gangway gave the command, what guarantee had they that the Government would not go down "on the knee" and vote against Amendments in that direction? These words "organisation and direction" were of great importance, because the local education authority might combine with voluntary effort to do certain things. If these words were taken out it might be held that there was a provision in the Bill that the local education Authority should combine with those who were engaged in voluntary effort, but how many in this House really and sincerely believed in their hearts that after this Bill was passed there would be any voluntary effort? The burden would be put upon the State or upon the rates. Then as to the provision of more than one meal, he was against the provision of any meal at all. Would the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that the principle of the Bill was not to be extended? [Mr. LOUGH: "Hear, hear."] Then would the hon. Gentleman vote against the omission of the words "organisation and direction"; [Mr. LOUGH; "No."] The hon. Gentleman had changed his mind again. It seemed to him that by the Bill and the Amendment they were embarking upon a very dangerous course, because if they put the word in the plural it stood to reason that more than one meal would be given He quite agreed that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. The hon. Member had a warm heart, and no doubt there was a certain amount of misery, although he himself did not think there was so much distress as was represented. But people like the hon. Member, whose heart has warmer than his head was cool, desired to see that misery alleviated, but for himself he believed he was saying the kindest thing possible when he said that if they encouraged parents in the belief that they might have any number of children and someone would provide for them they would be doing injury both to the child and the parents. He felt very strongly about this measure, and to substitute "meals" for "meal" would increase the burden upon the taxpayer and ratepayer which in any case must be great.

said that unless he had assurances, which he thought they had. that the Amendment would not extend the clause in the direction indicated by the hon. Baronet, he would be compelled to vote against it. He agreed that if they did anything to undermine parental control, it would do harm to the children, and if this proposal meant universal maintenance or indiscriminate giving of food, he should oppose the Bill. But it was because he did not see those things in it that he could support it, although he regretted very much that the Government had accepted the Amendment. He preferred the clause as it stood, but as they had assurances that it did not open the door in the wide way the hon. Baronet suggested he should support the Amendment. There was a very grave danger of impairing parental responsibility and the Government should be very careful what they did in that way, otherwise they would find some Members on their own side who could not support them. He thought, however, that hon. Members opposite were wrong, because in his opinion the governing words at the end of the clause did away with any such fear as had been expressed.

said that, as a Member of the Committee which considered this matter upstairs, he regretted that in this discussion in a full House the Parliamentary Secretary should have lent himself to this arbitrary proceeding in connection with the measure. The discussions upstairs had proceeded most harmoniously, and had the hon. Member started in the way he had proceeded upstairs a great deal of time might have beer, saved. The two parts of the Amendment now under discussion had very divergent bearings on the Bill. There was no question whatever that the draft of the Report which came down from the Committee, and which included the words mid-day meal, did not for a moment suggest that the Committee was in favour of a mid-day meal, but it showed the care with which they went into the matter. The vote of the majority of the Committee showed that the balance of opinion was in its favour. But he did not think anybody objected in any way to its commission and if the hon. Gentleman had moved to omit "mid-day" the Amendment would have been accepted. But the hon. Gentleman did not do so. He waited for the Amendment to be moved casually by a private Member, and then accepted it instead of indicating, as he should have done, what the desire of the Government was. He (Captain Craig) however, placed more importance on the additional "s" which appeared in the Amendment. The point was thoroughly threshed out in the Committee, where it was intended that a meal should be given to such children as were found, on attending at school, to be in such a condition as not to be able to benefit by the education given until they had been fed, and it was agreed that machinery should be provided for giving a meal. The hon. Member, by the Amendments he had put down at short notice, had introduced into the measure an aspect which certainly the Bill never had before, and he-regretted that such Amendments should be sprung upon the Committee and accepted. The question whether there should be a midday meal or whether those children who required it should be given a meal when they attended school raised large issues such as the question of parental authority, which would have been better raised later on. The question of parental authority was a very wide one and it would be very difficult to deal with it at the present time. It was a pity the hon. Gentleman had departed from the wording to which he agreed upstairs, because when they acceded to his desire to discuss the matter again in Committee of the whole House they tried to come to an agreement upon points which the hon. Gentleman; was now trying to raise afresh with regard to the question of whether the word should be "meals" or "meal;" as it stood now he heartily supported what had been said by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member had said earlier in the debate that these were charitable funds, and that children when they came could demand a meal. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that one child could demand a breakfast, and another a midday dinner, and another a meal at some other time? The purpose of the measure was to give the children a meal to enable them to do the strenuous work imposed upon them during school hours, and the object of the State was to enable the voluntary effort to be made as in the past. The last part of the Amendment, although it did not effect so sweeping a change in the Bill, departed at the outset from the wording which the hon. Member himself asked the Committee to accept as being the most ready means of arriving at the object of the Bill. Clause 1 was to provide machinery to enable a school to set aside a class room and a kitchen and the necessary utensils to provide the children with meals. The clause had already met with approval from all sides of the House; it was a provision to enable the local education authority to do what in many cases was done "through a back door." This Amendment placed an entirely different aspect on the clause. He thought it would have been better to insert these words in another place, and unless the hon. Gentleman changed his whole methods of conducting this discussion he could not depend on that harmonious cooperation which had been extended to him in the Committee upstairs in the endeavour to meet a growing evil.

said it was true that the proceedings upstairs had been most harmonious, and the hon. Member who had just sat down had himself given great assistance to the Committee in putting the Bill into shape. The hon. Member

said he only desired to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would be kind enough to explain exactly the bearing of the alteration. In point of view of drafting the words themselves did not appear to be very different, but there was some difference in the intention implied. It implied in the one case a larger measure than in the other The logical consequences might be the same in both cases, but the Committee had the right to consider what was meant by the Bill.

said the Opposition regarded this matter as so important that they must again divide the Committee upon it.

said he could not accept the Amendment which would strike at the root of one of the objects of the Bill. If a child could pay for his lunch, why should he not get it? One set of schools in London had been authorised by statute to provide meals, and the power was being taken advantage of to an enormous extent. Indeed Parliament had allowed another set of the schools to set up canteens, and the object of the Bill was to enable the same thing to be done in connection with other schools where the local authority thought fit. Every precaution was taken that no charge should fall on the ratepayers as it could be undertaken by voluntary association, and Clause 2 also provided stringent powers for the recovery of the cost of meals from parents. Further than that, if the hon. Member would look at Clause 3, he would see special provision was inserted for dealing with underfed children.

was very glad to hear that the Amendment would not be accepted, as there were other children whose cases required consideration besides the underfed. There were those who were misfed, and those who were not gifted by nature with a strong constitution, and who did not assimilate their food easily. They required careful treatment, and if the clause was confined to underfed children, they and also misfed children would be excluded.

said the Amendment was originally down in his name, but he withdrew it in order that they might get on with more important business. He thought the question would be better raised on Clause 3, which dealt with the power of the local authority to spend money out of the rates.

pointed out that the Bill as originally introduced and backed by a round dozen Labour Members was strictly confined to underfed children.

did not agree with the argument that under Clause 1 they were not pledging public funds. The clause declared that certain things should be done and that private subscriptions were to be brought in if possible; but no one could suppose that if the Bill was passed private subscriptions would go on. Why should people subscribe for charity money which after all would merely go in relief of the rates? Hon. Members who thought that possible showed much ingenuousness. It was suggested that his hon. friend's proposal was provided for in Clause 3, which limited the rate to ½d. But what would happen when, the limit was reached? Did they imagine for one moment that the ½d. limit would be maintained? It was not done in the case of the education rate. The hon. Member for West Ham had publicly avowed that his object was to get children fed when their fathers were out on strike, so that they might not have the anguish of thinking that their children were not properly fed. Therefore they knew what the object of the dominant section of the House was.

The noble Lord is travelling very wide indeed of the Amendment.

said he was, of course, obliged to abide by the Chairman's ruling, but it was impossible for him to reply to the arguments of hon. Members opposite if he could not deal with the subjects they had themselves discussed. He could not in the least accept the principle that some such limitation was not required.

suggested that perhaps the Government would be prepared to accept the word "necessitous" instead of "underfed." This was a very important matter. The Bill was recommended to the country and put forward by the Socialist Party as a means of providing for necessitous children.

said that was not the case. The Bill was introduced to enable the education authority to make provision from the rates for underfed children and for such other children as it thought fit.

said he ought to have stated that the arguments in support of the Bill were almost always based upon the fact that hungry children were sent to school. The Socialist Party had pressed the Bill upon the Government because they were in favour of the State maintenance of school children. That of course was their ideal, and the Government had taken it up as a step towards that ideal. Many people had been led to support the Bill because of the pictures that were drawn of starving children going to school. But the object of this measure, if they took the interpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary, was that the Board of Education was apparently to turn every local authority into a refreshment contractor. He objected to that being done. The insertion of the word "necessitous" would very greatly limit the amount of the burden thrown upon the ratepayer. Sub-section (b) provided that the education authority should provide for the preparation and service of the meals. It was obvious that if they had to provide for other children as well as those that were necessitous, the cost to be borne by the ratepayer would be greatly increased. The clause as it stood would require the local authority to set up a great machinery for the feeding of thousands of children. He therefore sincerely hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would accept his proposal to insert the word "necessitous."

was extremely glad that his hon. friend had brought forward the Amendment, because there seemed to be some little misunderstanding as to why the Bill was brought in, and what was its object. He had come to the conclusion that they ought to divide on this Amendment, because, if the word "underfed" were rejected, it would shew clearly to the country that the object of hon. Members in bringing in the Bill was to provide for something else than underfed children. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had repeated the argument that the Board of Education should be a refreshment department, but the Board of Education was never started with that object. The hon. Member had said there would be no charge upon the rates, because the parents would pay. Would the Board of Education get the money for the meals in advance, because if they put it "on the slate" it was very doubtful if they would ever get the money at all, and the cost involved in Collecting these small sums from a large number of people would be enormous. The word "underfed" would undoubtedly limit the application of the Bill and the expense involved. In London alone if all the children in the council schools were given only one meal a day the expense would be something between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000 a year. The limitation of the meals to underfed children might at least be taken as an instalment to see how the system worked. It was said that the children often wanted tender care, but surely they were not going to introduce a nursing department at the Board of Education as well. It was a beautiful sentiment from a kind heart, but they had to look at the matter from a practical point of view.

said the hon. Baronet had placed the issue unfairly before the Committee when he said the division would show whether they were in favour of a great scheme of feeding children at the public expense. That was not the issue at all. The hon. Gentleman did not understand the scheme of the Bill in the least. That scheme was to set up school canteens, and people in good positions who wanted to pay for the meal would find it an economy of time at home to let their children use the canteens where they would get a better meal. In the first clause provision was made that not a single farthing of public money should be spent upon that meal. In Paris the working classes to-day found the system a great convenience. Thus there was no public money — no "million and a half "— [Sir FREDERICK BANBURY dissented.] Would the hon. Gentleman read the words of the Bill—

"Save as hereinafter provided the authority shall not incur any expense in respect of the provision of food."

said he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—if he were the authorised interpreter of the Bill on behalf of the Government—whether it was the case that the parents of non-necessitous children would pay for the expenditure under this clause. He did not think that if that was the intention it was carried out in the clause. The education authority were to supply kitchen, dining-room, cooks, and attendants. Was the charge which parents were to pay sufficient to cover not merely the cost of the food, but also these capital charges? If that was clearly understood, and if the clause was so altered in its wording as to make it clear that this was the policy, there was force in the observation that it was not on this clause, but later on, that the question as to necessitous children should be raised. But had they got that assurance? Would the words necessary to make the understanding clear be introduced into Clause 2?

said the policy of the Bill was certainly to make the parents pay wherever that could be done; and there was an Amendment to Clause 2 covering the point raised. He could not enter" into the discussion now without being out of order.

said the Government ought clearly to tell the Committee what their policy was, because it would be on the faith of what they now told the Committee that they would vote on the Amendment.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not been present during the whole of the debate. He would repeat what he had said. The Bill was not confined exclusively to necessitous children, and the points raised would be relevant to Clause 2.

said as some doubt had been cast on a statement of the hon. baronet the Member for the City of London he would draw attention to the evidence given before the Committee. According to the statement of Mr. Alfred James Shepheard, if every child in London were provided with a meal the food would cost £937,627 reckoning the cost at 1½d. per head. Including the cost of cooking, etc. it meant an expenditure of £1,500,000.

said it had been stated that this scheme would not cost a farthing to the ratepayers, but there were in London between 400 and 500 schools, and it would be difficult to provide kitchen and other accommodation under £1,000 a school, or even double that amount, so that to begin with the expenditure on capital account would be between £500,000 and £1,000,000. The education authorities were to be barred by the Bill from using ordinary class rooms for the meals, so that the necessary accommodation would have to be provided. He allowed there was much to be said in favour of providing food for underfed school children, but he protested against the view with which many Members supported the Bill that it was the duty of the State to maintain all children. There were council schools in prosperous London suburbs attended by children of well-to-do parents, and were the ratepayers to pay any part of the cost of supplying meals to such children? Many hon. Members were putting forward the Bill in the first place in order to introduce the principle that it was the duty of the State to maintain all children whether rich or poor, and for that reason he opposed this clause.

thought this was a matter on which his hon. friend who moved the Amendment was entitled to some more explicit Answer than had been given by the Parliamentary Secretary. If he understood their plan rightly, they contemplated two classes of children—the necessitous children whose parents either could not or would not pay for their feeding, and the children whose parents were willing to pay for the meals. The local authority was to provide the plant, service, and so on out of the rates. The only chance which the ratepayer had of getting any return for his outlay was from the paying child, and therefore it was extremely important to know whether the charge for the meal would cover not merely the cost of the food, which on the Government plan was supplied by voluntary agencies, but also the cost of the plant for which the ratepayers paid. The ratepayer was entitled to know whether he would be recouped by the paying children for the money which he had expended for the plant and service and not merely the voluntary society repaid for the money which it had expended on the food. That important point was left perfectly obscure by Clause 2. He thought the cost to the ratepayers should be limited to the case of the children who were really necessitous.

I reminded the Committee that the clause was not compulsory or mandatory. It only provided that the local authority "may" do certain things, and the local authority might be left to protect its rates.

said the provision of food by the local authority would, in country districts, be a great boon to children who lived a long distance from school and were absent from home for nine hours. He contemplated under this clause that the local education authorities in country districts would have power, with the assistance and co-operation of voluntary agencies, of providing hot milk for children who arrived at school in wet clothes after a long walk. He would like to see that, done, always provided the cost above the money found by voluntary agencies was paid for by the parents. He did not think there would be any difficulty in recovering the cost from working-class parents. The great majority of working-class parents in country districts would be only too glad to avail themselves of a system for the better feeding of their children. The payment should cover the whole cost, but in many rural schools the appliances for cooking existed, and in such a case it would be unreasonable to charge the parent with the capital cost of the apparatus. He did not look upon this proposal as either socialistic or pauperising. It was a very usual thing in middle-class schools for parents to buy dinner tickets for their children. In adopting this proposal the State would be showing the same regard for the physical welfare of the children as had been shown for a good many years for their mental and moral welfare.

said a certain number of hon. Members would take quite a different attitude towards this Bill if the word "necessitous" or "underfed" were inserted. What they asked for was a statement whether the Government intended that the charge to paying parents should be sufficient to recoup all the expense the ratepayers were put to. The Opposition were fully alive to the point raised by the last speaker. They all desired to meet extreme cases, but if they did not insert the word "necessitous" they did not approach the difficulty, for they applied the provision to the whole of the children in the country, and they would turn the schools into feeding centres for all children, which was a totally different matter from meeting the necessitous cases during a hard winter. He wished the Government to state clearly whether this enormous procedure of building dining halls i and supplying waiters and cooks would be paid for by the parents of the children, or would the local authority be recouped not only for the cost of the food but for the extensive machinery and the cost of putting up large halls out of a sinking fund. This was not a question which could be deferred. It was not merely a matter of the wording of the Amendment, but of what policy was in the mind of the Government. Were the taxes and the poor rates of the country to be wasted in putting up these enormous buildings and costly machinery?

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question."

said he would have loyally supported the Bill in its present form and resisted the Amendment had it not been that the understanding reached by common consent in the Select Committee had been set aside. His experience of schools led him to think that it was not only expedient but almost a necessity that in certain localities there should be the means of providing food for the children. The children in many cases came from long distances, and local authorities ought to be provided with some machinery for carrying out this object. But since the Bill was settled amicably in Select Committee it had been seriously altered, and the intentions of the Government had not been explained.

said he had already stated that the Government intended to adhere to the other provisions contained in the clause. The local authority would be quite at liberty to charge a sum which would cover the cost.

said the hon. Member had not yet told them what the action of the Government would be in regard to this matter. There were difficulties in deciding what an underfed child was. In several schools in Scotland he knew cases where elaborate schemes had been established under which the school board lent its voluntary aid, and where voluntary coadjutors were admitted who found the money, and provided for poor and rich alike a meal, charging a certain sum to those who could afford to pay, and giving the meal to those who could not. The difficulty was that the Bill had been seriously altered by the action of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and in regard to future safeguards the Parliamentary Secretary maintained an impenetrable obscurity as to his action.

agreed that it was necessary to provide for the hungry children in the schools, but if they were going to

The hon. Member is not in order in discussing suggestions as to what steps ought to be taken. The only point is as to the insertion of the word "underfed."