Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) I beg to move, That this
House has considered eligibility criteria for free school meals. It
is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. There is
nothing more grotesque than a Government who not only preside over
thousands of children going hungry but who actively pursue policies
that plunge them into hunger and poverty. As we debate the issue,
nearly 4 million children in Britain are living in poverty, more
than...Request free trial
(South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered eligibility criteria for free
school meals.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. There is
nothing more grotesque than a Government who not only preside
over thousands of children going hungry but who actively pursue
policies that plunge them into hunger and poverty. As we debate
the issue, nearly 4 million children in Britain are living in
poverty, more than 800,000 are missing out on free school meals
and hundreds of thousands are missing out on school
breakfasts.
In my part of the world—the north-east—such figures are not
decreasing but rising rapidly. Just this morning, the North East
Child Poverty Commission revealed that our region now has the
highest rate of child poverty in the UK, with 38% of our children
now living in poverty. In South Shields, that rises to over 42%.
It is clear that levelling up, just like the northern powerhouse
before it, is a vacuous, empty phrase that was never intended to,
and never will, do anything to improve the life chances of
children in my area.
Hungry children, no matter how talented they are or how dedicated
their teachers are, simply do not learn. When children spend
their day worrying about where their next meal will come from, or
about when their mams, dads and siblings will be able to eat
again, their learning will inevitably be hindered.
The impacts of child hunger are well documented. Numerous studies
have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development.
Hungry children suffer developmental impairment, language delays
and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and
emotional impacts that can range from withdrawn and depressive
behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.
Pre-pandemic, we even saw rising numbers of hospital admissions
for children through malnutrition and a resurgence of Victorian
diseases such as scurvy and rickets. If it was not for the nearly
200,000 food banks in the UK—those are the ones we know of—as
well as kind neighbours, faith groups and charities, many more
children would simply have gone without.
When I was a child protection social worker, it was the children
suffering from severe neglect who would be going without on such
a scale, but now we have a generation of children for whom hunger
and grinding poverty have become the norm. Back in 2019, the
United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human
rights visited the UK and found that the driving force of that
Government was not an economic goal but rather a commitment to
achieving radical social re-engineering and sending messages
about lifestyles. His well-evidenced and thorough assessment was
rejected outright and his recommendations were ignored.
When it comes to free school meals, what support the Government
have put in place has been hard-fought for by charities, faith
groups, Opposition MPs and celebrities.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the
excellent remarks that she is making. Over 40,000 children in the
city of Manchester are now eligible for free school meals. As the
summer holidays loom, thousands of families in my constituency
face the prospect of choosing between eating and paying rocketing
utility and fuel bills. Does she agree that it is high time that
the Government ensured that councils have the funding they need
to support children and families during the school holidays?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It should come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with my hon.
Friend completely; indeed, I will echo some of his comments later
in my speech.
Let us just consider the Government’s abysmal record throughout
covid. First, we had the ridiculously chaotic voucher scheme
being contracted out to a private company; then the Government
tried to withdraw support in the half-term and Easter holidays;
and then when it came to the summer holidays, Tory MPs voted to
withdraw support for free school meals, only to have their votes
overturned when footballer Marcus Rashford shamed the Prime
Minster into a U-turn. That was followed by meagre food parcels
containing—for 10 days—a loaf of bread, half a cucumber, one
pepper, a few potatoes, a block of cheese, four pieces of fruit
and some salty snacks.
The holiday activities and food programme was again hard fought
for from 2017 onwards, but it was not until 2021 that the
Government decided to roll the programme out. Even now, the
overriding focus of the programme is on activities, with a vast
amount of money being spent on admin, bureaucracy and
communications. If it had not been for the crowdfunding of my
big-hearted constituents in South Shields, alongside Feeding
Britain, KEY2Life, the North East Combined Authority and
Hospitality & Hope coming together over those summers,
children in South Shields would have gone without.
My fully costed school breakfast Bill would have seen nearly 2
million children start the day with full stomachs. Instead, the
Government introduced a scheme that provides support to only
2,500 out of the 8,700 schools they have identified as eligible.
Hungry children never have been and never will be a priority for
the Government. If the political will was there, they would
listen to the myriad voices from charities, organisations, faith
groups, Opposition MPs, a few Members on their own side and Henry
Dimbleby, who they appointed to lead the national food strategy.
They are all pleading with the Government to at least expand free
school meal eligibility to all families receiving universal
credit or equivalent benefits. That would mean that a further 1.3
million children living in poverty would at least get a free
school meal, and would also be eligible for the holiday food
programmes.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group, that expansion would
cost the Government an additional £550 million a year. The
Minister knows as well as I do that that is small in terms of
Government spending. Just look at the billions wasted on faulty
personal protective equipment and gifted to Tory friends and
donors for inadequate contracts throughout the pandemic, as well
as the billions written off in covid fraud.
Furthermore, alongside that reform, the Government could
introduce an automatic registration scheme for free school meals.
At present, more than 200,000 children miss out because of the
overly bureaucratic nature of the registration process. Those
measures should then be followed by a move to universal free
school meals for all children, as in Labour-led Wales, because no
child should ever feel stigmatised or singled out.
(Liverpool, West Derby)
(Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for the
incredible work she has done campaigning on this issue for many
years. Does she agree that the bureaucracy and means testing for
free school meals only increases stigma and also means that many
children fall through the cracks and go hungry? Does she agree
that the Government should look at providing universal free
school breakfasts and lunches for all children in schools as a
matter of urgency? The difference that investment would make to
the education and lives of children in Liverpool, West Derby and
beyond cannot be stressed enough. I have made that point to the
Minister.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing on his Right to
Food campaign, and all the work he does in his patch raising
money for local food banks. He is right that there is another
factor: means testing costs more. Universality is cheaper, and
that is where the Government should be heading.
The hungry children are the children of key workers. Those key
workers are working for their poverty. They are the key workers
who kept us going and cared for our loved ones throughout the
pandemic—they risked their lives for us. What chance do those
children have when the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State
for Education, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (), along with his
colleagues, voted during the pandemic to deny children free
school meals in the holidays, and has said he believes that free
school meals amount to “nationalising children”? He also went on
to add that it was simply not true that people cannot afford to
buy food on a regular basis, saying
“If you keep saying to people that you’re going to give stuff
away, then you’re going to have an increase I’m afraid”.
I have a feeling that in his response the Minister will regale us
with details of the cost of living support packages that the
Government have put in place through previous support grants. The
reality is that they are all one-offs; they are piecemeal, they
are sticking plasters and they do little to address the root
causes of child poverty. It should be to the utter shame of every
MP in this Government that in a country as rich as ours, children
are going to bed hungry and waking up hungry. I look forward to
the Minister letting us know in his response what he intends to
do to remedy that, because our children need and deserve
better.
11.10am
The Minister of State, Department for Education ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs
Lewell-Buck) on securing a debate on this important subject. I
echo the comments of other colleagues about her tireless work to
raise awareness of the challenges that our most disadvantaged
children face. Indeed, she raised this issue as recently with me
as last Monday at Education questions, although it feels almost a
lifetime ago.
Let me also put on record how pleased I am to be back at the
Department for Education, after a 24-hour interlude. The hon.
Lady knows how passionate I am about this work and how delighted
I am to be able to continue it. She also knows of my
long-standing interest in this issue, both in the past 10 months
as Minister at the Department for Education and over the previous
two and a half years as a Minister at the Department for Work and
Pensions.
This Government are committed to supporting those on low incomes
and continue to do so through many measures, such as spending
over £108 billion a year on working-age benefit support and by
recently taking wide-ranging action, to which the hon. Lady
rightly pointed, to directly address cost of living pressures.
She specifically referenced free school meals, and I will focus
my comments on that area.
The Government and I are committed to providing free school meals
to children from households who are out of work or on low
incomes. This is of the utmost importance, both to me personally
and the Government. Under the current criteria, there are around
1.9 million pupils who are eligible for and claiming a free
school meal at lunchtime, which saves families hundreds of pounds
per year per child. This number equates to approximately 22.5% of
all pupils and is up from around 15% of pupils in 2015. The
increases are due in part to the protections during the roll-out
of universal credit. In making sure that these children receive a
healthy, nutritious meal, we are helping to ensure they are well
nourished, develop healthy eating habits, and can concentrate and
learn—points that the hon. Lady rightly raised.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister will be aware that lots of school food providers
have said that, because of the cost of living crisis, nutritional
standards are going to go down and they will have to substitute
food for something else. What will he do about that?
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I have heard the call
from the sector. We have increased funding for the universal
infant free school meals rate to reflect this. Also, the core
schools budget is increasing. I am acutely aware of the global
inflation pressures. Schools are not immune to that. I will
continue to work with the sector and with schools to ensure that
schools are able to provide healthy, balanced and nutritious
meals.
I mentioned the 1.9 million eligible pupils. A further 1.25
million infants are supported through the universal infant free
school meal policy, as I just referenced. Already the greatest
proportion ever of school children—around 37.5%—are provided with
a free school meal at lunchtime, at a cost of over £1 billion a
year. However, we do not stop there. Last year, more than 600,000
children were provided with healthy food and enriching activities
through the holiday activities and food programme, which is
provided in all the major holidays, including over the summer. We
have committed to spending an extra £200,000 per year throughout
the spending review period, and I am pleased to say that all 152
local authorities across England are delivering this
programme.
We then have our £24 million national schools breakfast
programme, which means thousands of pupils are benefitting from a
healthy, nutritious breakfast. There are also 2.2 million key
stage 1 pupils provided with a free portion of fruit or
vegetables every day. For the youngest in our society, we have
the healthy start voucher scheme, which provides a vital safety
net for hundreds of thousands of lower-income pregnant women and
families with children under the age of four.
I understand that the hon. Lady wants us to go further and extend
free school meal eligibility. I will come to some of the points
she raised in a moment, but I will start by setting out what we
have already done in this area. Under this Government,
eligibility for free school meals has been extended several times
and to more groups of children than under any other Government
over the past half a century. That includes the introduction of
universal infant free school meals and the further education
entitlement.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Will the Minister give way?
I will give way in a moment. I want to mention a piece of work in
which I have been specifically involved, both in my previous role
at the Department for Work and Pensions and in my current role:
permanently extending eligibility to children from families with
no recourse to public funds, which is hugely important but
subject to income thresholds. That came into effect at
Easter.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does he not accept
that eligibility has had to be extended repeatedly because there
are more and more children in poverty? When are this Government
going to get to grips with the root causes of the endemic poverty
that children in this country are suffering from?
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I have always said to her that I
continue to keep eligibility under review for the reasons she has
mentioned. We could have a separate debate on the root causes of
poverty, and I could talk about the work undertaken in my
previous role by the Department for Work and Pensions over the
past two and a half years to support people and empower them into
work, but that is a debate for another day.
I shall focus on free school meals in particular, although I will
touch on universal credit because the protections in place as we
roll it out are important. All children eligible for a free
school meal at the point at which the threshold was introduced
and all those who become eligible as universal credit is rolled
out will continue to receive free school meals, even if their
household circumstances change dramatically. For example, if
those circumstances improve and move them above the earnings
threshold, they will not lose that eligibility, which they
otherwise would. Even after protections end, if they are still in
school, those children will continue to be protected until the
end of their phase of education, whether primary or
secondary.
Let me turn specifically to the points that the hon. Member for
South Shields made about the universal credit threshold. Free
school meal eligibility has long been governed by an earnings
threshold. That was the same under the legacy benefits system
under the previous Government. In April 2018, we updated our
eligibility criteria to include the earnings threshold of £7,400
for families on universal credit. That was forecast at the time
to increase the number of eligible pupils when compared with the
legacy benefits system. That was a direct comparison, and it was
designed to increase the number.
It is absolutely right that our provision is aimed at supporting
the most disadvantaged—those out of work or on the lowest
incomes. The current household earnings threshold is a bit
misleading: we put it at £7,400, but that does not include
benefit receipt, which means that total household income could be
considerably higher than that while someone is receiving a free
meal.
Where are we now in society? Come September or October, we will
see further rises in the cost of heating a home. We have seen
exponential price rises, as prices have moved massively and
become totally unaffordable. Is it not time for the Minister to
acknowledge that so many people who are above the threshold for
universal credit are struggling, and to look to other nations in
Europe that have implemented universal free school meals for data
on the advancement of and the benefits to those societies, both
economic and educational? I name Norway and Portugal.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will continue to look
at European and other comparators, and at eligibility.
In relation to what the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, the hon.
Member for South Shields—proposes as an in-work and out-of-work
benefit, it is important to reference the fact of those on
universal credit having that £7,400 earnings threshold. There
will be people whose income exceeds £40,000 a year. I know there
are people struggling across the country, even on what many would
consider a reasonable income, because there is an inflationary
shock for many people, and they have outgoings that reflect their
earnings.
I will come to that, but while it is right that those families
continue to receive a small amount of universal credit, which
tapers as their earnings increase, not least to encourage and
incentivise work, we have to recognise more
broadly—notwithstanding the current inflationary pressures and
cost of living pressures—that these are not the most
disadvantaged households, which we want to target, or arguably
should target, with support in this specific way.
That does not mean we should not be helping those people with
specific, targeted support in other ways, which I will come to,
but extending free school meal eligibility to all families on
universal credit would, without question, carry a significant
financial cost—one that I think would be much higher than that
which the hon. Member for South Shields has referenced, although
we can discuss that another day. It would quickly run into
billions of pounds over a spending review and result in around
half of all pupils becoming eligible for a free meal, which would
have substantial knock-on effects for the affordability of linked
provision—for example, the pupil premium, which is linked to
eligibility for free school meals.
Having said all that, I understand and appreciate—I have a
constituency myself and I speak with people every weekend—that
many families are finding it tough, given the global inflationary
pressures that affect the cost of living. The question is whether
a permanent change to the eligibility criteria for free school
meals is the right thing to do now—whether it is affordable and
sufficiently targeted, and whether it could be delivered quickly
enough if we wanted to operationalise it. My answer to all those
points at the moment is no. As I say, the Government understand
the pressures people face with the cost of living. These are
global challenges, and that is why the Government are providing
over £15 billion of further support, targeted particularly at
those with the greatest need. We should not forget that this
package is in addition to the over £22 billion that was announced
previously, with Government support for the cost of living over
the course of this year totalling over £37 billion.
The Minister says his answer is no. In Manchester, Gorton, a
survey has shown that 80% of families are cutting back on food.
Does he not agree that every young child deserves a good start in
life and that food is one of the basics?
Of course, I agree. I do not want to see any child in this
country going hungry or a single family in poverty. The hon.
Gentleman raised support for councils in his intervention on the
hon. Member for South Shields, and that is important. I
referenced the £37 billion. I am biased because I originally set
up the covid winter grant scheme, which has turned into the
household support fund, and I am proud of the support it has
provided to councils. That £37 billion includes an additional
£500 million to help households with food and essential items.
That is on top of what we have already provided since October
2021, and brings total funding for the household support fund to
£1.5 billion. We did so because I genuinely believe that local
authorities know their communities and those who are in need best
and how to target them. There is another £421 million of
additional support, which will run until March next year, with
the devolved Administrations receiving an extra £79 million.
Let me turn to funding, which the hon. Lady also raised. In order
to deliver the free school meal provision, we have increased the
core funding for schools with the FSM factor—that is a bit of a
mouthful—in the national funding formula. It has increased to
£470 per eligible pupil this year to recognise rising inflation
and the associated cost pressures, and from speaking with the
sector and knowing the challenge that schools face. That was
after the NFF rates were set, and we provided core funding
through a schools supplementary grant. As a result, core
mainstream schools funding will increase by £2.5 billion in
2022-23 compared with last year.
As I say, we already spend around £600 million on universal
infant free school meals each year. The per meal rate, which I
referenced earlier, was increased to £2.41, because I recognised
that that needed to be done, and importantly I backdated that to
1 April this year, which represents an extra £18 million, in
recognition of recent cost pressures.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is doing as I expected and listing some of the
things the Government have done, but what about the 800,000
children who are missing out? There will be more of them as the
year continues. What support is there for them? Clearly, the
support at the moment is not enough because they are still going
to foodbanks, so what will he do for those children?
Of course, I work with colleagues and counterparts across
Government to ensure that we are supporting people as much as we
possibly can, and it is vital that that support is targeted. I
referenced the £37 billion. Much of that is yet to come, such as
the grants specifically for families and support via the
household support fund. One thing I would say, having worked with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Education Secretary,
as well as with the previous Chancellor, is that they take an
evidence-based approach, and if there is need out there, the
Government will step up. I found that to be the case at the
Department for Work and Pensions throughout the course of the
pandemic. The Chancellor consistently stepped up to support the
poorest and the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our country,
and I have no doubt that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister
will continue to do so.
As I said, this is a hugely important issue, and I know how it
affects some of the most disadvantaged children across our
country. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. It is important
that the Government continue to be push to see how much further
and faster we can go on these issues. Of course, as I said, I
will keep all free school meal eligibility under review to ensure
that these meals support those who need them most. As I have
said, extending eligibility would be extremely costly, especially
if the link between free school meals and other funding is
included, such as the pupil premium. A threshold has to be set
somewhere, and the current funding is targeted at those who need
it most.
Question put and agreed to.
|