_Ibid._, evidence of Mr. Scott, Head Teacher of Wood Close School, Bethnal Green, Q. 2641. _Cf._ evidence of Dr. Kerr (Q. 2984), Miss Horn (Qs. 1321-2), and Mr. Ferguson (Q. 2739). Footnote 159: _Ibid._, Qs. 1287-1290. During the Parliamentary debates, for the first time, much emphasis was laid on the educational value of the meals if served under proper conditions. Mr. Birrell "could conceive no greater service to posterity than to raise the standard of living in the children of the present day."[160] "It was desired that this work should be not a work of relief, but a work of education," declared Mr. Lough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. "They wanted wholesome food given to the children and they wanted the children taught how to eat it, which was a most useful lesson."[161] "This was not merely a question of providing the meals," said Mr. John Burns, "it was also one of teaching better habits and manners."[162] For this work the Local Education Authorities were better fitted than the Guardians, for they "would attract, in a way which Boards of Guardians would not, the services of voluntary agencies, of leisured people ... and of managers and teachers, whose assistance was absolutely essential."[163] For these reasons it was essential that the Local Education Authorities should have power to provide meals, not only for necessitous children but also, on receipt of payment, for the children of all parents who desired it.[164] Footnote 160: _Hansard_, March 2, 1906, Vol. 152, p. 1441. Footnote 161: _Ibid._, December 6, 1906, Vol. 166, p. 1280. Footnote 162: _Ibid._, p. 1285. Footnote 163: _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.) Footnote 164: 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.)