_Hansard_, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1441.
_Ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, p. 1280.
_Ibid._ See also the speeches of Mr. Jowett (_ibid._, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1412), Mr. Claude Hay (_ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, p. 1288) and the Earl of Crewe (_ibid._, December 19, 1906, Vol. 167, p. 1478). An amendment to substitute the Poor Law Guardians for the Local Education Authority as the authority for the administration of the Act was defeated by an overwhelming majority, the voting being 290 to 36. (_Ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, pp. 1274-1288.) The Local Government Board did not, in fact, desire to have the duty imposed on them. (Mr. John Burns, _ibid._, p. 1285.)
An amendment to limit the provision of meals to underfed children only was defeated by 230 votes to 39. Mr. Lough declared the amendment would strike at the root of one of the objects of the Bill. (_Ibid._, December 7, 1906, Vol. 166, pp. 1339-40, 1350.)
The new attitude of Society towards the child and the family was brought out by Lord Grimthorpe during the debates in the House of Lords. "The children are the paramount consideration.... 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 there is no reason why we should inflict similar conditions on the children.... 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."[165]
_Ibid._, December 20, 1906, Vol. 167, p. 1637.
The Bill received the Royal assent on December 21, 1906.[166] It provided that the Local Education Authority might associate with themselves any committee (called a School Canteen Committee) on which the Authority was represented, who would undertake to provide food, and might aid that committee by furnishing buildings and apparatus and the officers and servants necessary for the organisation, preparation and service of the meals.[167] The parents were to be charged such an amount as might be determined by the Local Education Authority, and, in the event of non-payment, the Local Authority, unless satisfied that the parent was unable to pay, should recover the amount summarily as a civil debt.[168] Failure on the part of the parent to pay was not, however, to involve disfranchisement.[169] Where the Education Authority resolved "that any of the children attending an elementary school within their area are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food," they might, with the sanction of the Board of Education, provide for food out of the rates, the amount thus spent being, however, limited to what would be produced by a halfpenny rate.[170] The teachers might, if they desired, assist in the provision of meals but they were not to be required as part of their duties to do so.[171]