Conisborough Council – Feeding of Children – “Demand” Becomes “Request”

November 1926

Mexborough and Swinton Times November 12, 1926

Conisborough Council
Feeding of Children
“Demand” Becomes “Request”

The Conisborough Urban Council on Wednesday spent some time discussing the “demand” that the District Education Committee put into operation, the feeling of the children, and finally agreed to the proposal after changing the “demand” into “request.”

The Council in committee had interviewed Mr McGibbon, the manager of the Mexborough and Swinton tramways, on the Order which the Company or promoting for the extension of the trolley bus service from Low Road to Brooke Square, Conisborough. The Council approved the proposal and undertook support of the Bill, providing the terminus in Brooke Square satisfied all the requirements of the Ministry of Transport.

In a letter to the Council the Denaby Labour Party asked that the local Education Sub Committee at once put into operation their powers for feeding the children. The letter was signed by J Gough, Secretary.

Mr Richard Gillott asked if the letter was from the official Labour Party.

The Reduced Relief

Mr JWE Collins said it was. The instruction to send it was made at the meeting of the Party the previous Saturday. He supported the application. At the last meeting of the Council and at a special meeting on this subject, recommendations had been passed requesting the Education Subcommittee to proceed with the feeding of the children.

Relief was reduced last Saturday by the Guardians, and even before that they contended the relief was insufficient to enable people to live properly. He moved again that they not only recommended, but demanded that the subcommittee got on with the feeding of the children.

The Chairman: I thought such a resolution had already gone to the Sub- committee?

Mr Collins: Two, Mr Chairman.

Mr Gillett said any resolution from them ought to go from the Council as a body, without party considerations.

Mr G Gregory supported Mr Collins resolution. As a father he knew the feeding of the children at the school was now essential.

Not Legal

Mr J Brocklesby – who is the chairman of the Education Subcommittee – said Mr Collins knew their difficulty. They were advised that they could not legally free the children of parents who were receiving Poor Law relief. He called a special meeting undertook all necessary steps then to feed the children if the guardians relieve ceased.

They adopted a resolution proposed by Mr Roberts, which are borne some fruit; relief had been continued at half the former rate. That might not be sufficient to maintain a family, but the responsibility rested on the Guardians. The Subcommittee did not need to be convinced of the necessity for doing their duty. They were prepared to do it at the earliest possible moment, when the way was clear. But it was not clear at present.

Under any circumstances he did not think it possible to give three meals a day for seven days a week. Previously they are given one meal. Moreover they could only deal with children attending school. He did not think they could go beyond one meal a day for the five school days of the week.

Mr Gregor asked Mr Brocklesby if he had been called to a school in the district to see a child what fainted in school from malnutrition.

Mr Brocklesby said he had not. He had inspected the schools and made enquiries, and always met with the answer that the children were well nourished. Where there were need the teachers themselves are made provision. He had often been told that boots were more urgently needed than food. He suggested that if the workers were really concerned about the children they would make desperate efforts to “get this business settled.”

Mr Gregory said he had been given to understand that Mr Brocklesby had been called to a child who had fainted in school. Had any such case being called to his notice? He had Mr Brocklesby said, but not recently. There had been one some two months ago, which he mentioned at the time, but that was dealt with at once.

“The Primary Duty”

Mr Roberts said in some districts the children were being fed. The question of feeding was to him the most important. Practical persons knew a woman could not keep the house going, even with one child, at nine shillings a week. He was not so very much concerned with the question whether the parents signed a form or not; their primary duty was to see that the children were fed. What the precise regulations were he do not know, but he did think that the authority which had power to enforce a child’s attendances at school should also be compelled to feed that child if, through circumstances over which he had no control, he was unable to do so. He agreed there were difficulties but did not see there were insurmountable. The Guardians themselves had agreed that even the highest scale was only sufficient for the barest necessities of the recipients. Now that the relief was reduced there was an additional reason why the Education Subcommittee Sean should go on with the feeding.

As for the organisation, the felt sure they would find plenty of voluntary workers drove out the staff of the schools if they found they could not do the work alone.

Mr Brocklesby said they supplied meals in a previous dispute and when the request for repayment of the cost by the parents was made, hundreds of persons said they knew nothing about having to repay the money and would not have had the meals is they had known. This time they were simply reaching that situation by asking each parent to sign an agreement. He should vote against the resolution not because it was against the children, but on the principle they should not whip a willing horse.

Mr J Maxfield said the Subcommittee had shown willingness to do whatever was legal. It was not fair to awesome them to do anything not legal.

At Mrs Kaye’s request the Clerk read a circular issued by the Education Department of the West Riding County Council, which Mr Collins produced. The circular drew attention to the issue by certain Subcommittees this of a form requesting parent signature to a form of agreement to the feeding of children. That form was not authorised and, the circular emphasised, the signing of an agreement that was not a condition of children being fed. The only condition was that attendance at school.

“Request” to Subcommittee

After some further discussion the “demand” formulation by Mr Collins in his resolution was toned down to a “request,” and the resolution was carried without dissent.

Further discussion on footpaths, a dismissal, rents and the new Rating and valuation Bill, followed.