I was thinking more of 1906. Liberal and Conservative.
Various sections from Hansard:
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
<snip>
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
<snip>
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
<snip>
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
<snip>
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
<the hon. Baronet suggested he should support the Amendment. There was a very grave danger of impairing parental responsibility>