Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in
response to research on increased child hunger in schools,
including that published by Chefs in Schools on 18 October, which
found that 83 per cent of primary school teachers said that
children were coming to school hungry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, I thank Chefs in Schools for commissioning this survey.
Under the benefits-related criteria, the Government provide a
free healthy meal in term time to around 1.9 million children.
Eligibility has been extended several times, and to more groups
of children than under any other Government over the past half
century. This has included the introduction of universal infant
free school meals and further education free meals. We continue
to keep eligibility under review.
(Lab)
My Lords, when so many teachers are reporting children coming to
school hungry, with heartbreaking accounts of hungry children in
tears or even stealing food because their parents cannot afford
enough food, something is going very wrong, despite what the
Minister said. Does she accept the evidence that hunger adversely
affects children’s ability to learn and their health and
well-being? Given all the evidence, why do the Government reject
the growing calls for free school meals to be extended to the
800,000 children in families on universal credit who do not
qualify? At the very least, why do they not inflation-proof the
net earnings eligibility limit of £7,400, set in 2018?
(Con)
Well, of course the Government accept that, if children are
hungry, it makes it harder for them to learn. But I point out
that the survey looked at a relatively small number of
teachers—around 520—while there are 250,000 primary school
teachers in our schools. To reiterate my first Answer, the number
of children receiving free school meals is the highest that it
has ever been, and the Government’s strategy has been to support
the disadvantaged in this cost of living crisis. There are ways
of doing that; the noble Baroness is familiar with the energy
support package and other measures that we have taken so that no
child should have to go hungry.
(Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed the appalling rise in the
number of children who are now below the poverty line in the
north-east of England? Up until 2010, there was a decrease in the
number of children who were in that category in the north-east,
but the number has risen more than in any other region and is now
the highest in the country. This is shocking and of course
affects their school performance and future prospects. Along with
going hungry, that is something no Government should accept. What
will the Government do about it?
(Con)
Since day 1, the Government have been clear that our absolute
priority is levelling up opportunity across the country,
including, of course and importantly, in the north-east. I
understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, which are shared by my
ministerial colleagues. But I point her to the £12 billion in
direct support that we are targeting to the most vulnerable
families in 2023-24.
(CB)
The point that more people now have school dinners is actually
wrong because, when I was a young boy in the 1950s and 1960s, we
had free school dinners, olive oil capsules and milk—all the
things that children need now. So could the Minister consider
going back to those old days?
(Con)
The noble Lord reminds a number of us of our schooldays, although
I cannot remember the olive oil capsules—anyway, they sound very
healthy. More seriously, the Government are thinking about this,
not only in term time but in the holidays with our holiday
activities and food programme, making sure that the children who
need it most get the support that they need.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister—not wanting to go back to the
1960s, when people were given free school meals, but looking to
the future—say how schools have expanded the breakfast clubs that
are available? Can she also say a little more about this survey?
Did I hear correctly that she said it was based on 500 teachers
out of about 200,000?
(Con)
We genuinely welcome every bit of research that helps us
understand the issues that families are facing. As my noble
friend picked up on, I was making the point that, in this case,
the survey sample was just over 500 teachers in primary
schools—and, overall, we have about a quarter of a million of
them. In relation to breakfast clubs, we have invested £24
million over the last two years in supporting school breakfast
provision. That again is targeted absolutely at the most
disadvantaged children, making sure that it reaches those who
need it.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in answer to an earlier question that
no child should have to go hungry. I am sure that the whole House
agrees with that, but the truth is that, every day, tens of
thousands of children go hungry because they come from poor
households but are not eligible for free school meals. Unless
eligibility is extended to children from families in receipt of
universal credit, there is no way that, in many cases, children
will be going to school without being hungry. Would the Minister
accept that that is the truth and use it for the basis of future
policy development?
(Con)
I will say two things in response. First, of course we will keep
the policy under review. But I am sure that the noble Lord would
accept that you cannot take funding for free school meals
separately from other elements of support for vulnerable
families. Secondly, the point that I have been making is that the
support for those families, under this Government, has been
targeted and extensive.
(Lab)
My Lords, the food strategy of just this year said that it hoped
it would spark a school food revolution. This has not happened.
The Chefs in Schools report makes for stark reading and includes
shocking revelations about the sheer scale of child hunger. When
will the UK Government follow the Welsh Labour Government’s lead
in providing breakfast clubs and investing in all our
children?
(Con)
I have already referred to the point about breakfast clubs. The
Government are already investing in breakfast clubs and we remain
open to new evidence, but our focus is on the most
vulnerable.
(CB)
The Minister well understands that the children who are hungry at
school may well have other vulnerabilities, and therefore the one
point of contact between the child and the state is their school.
Could the Minister continue to do all that she is doing—I know
she is doing a lot—to make sure that schools are aware of looking
at the whole child and not just thinking about academic subjects,
important though they are?
(Con)
The noble Lord, as ever, makes an important point. We really are
looking at that closely, not just in a school setting but, as
importantly, in relation to early years and nursery settings. He
will be aware that, post Covid, many children are arriving at
school who are not school-ready in the way that we expected, and
we are looking at that.
(Con)
My Lords, locally sourced food could be served in schools and
other local authority institutions such as prisons and hospitals.
If 50% of all the food served in school meals was locally
sourced, would this not reduce the cost of production?
(Con)
I am more than happy to take that back to the department to look
at. We are very focused on the standard of school food and
supporting schools to give children a truly nutritious lunch each
day.
(Lab)
My Lords—
(LD)
My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal () (Con)
If I may, I will point out that we have heard only once from the
Liberal Democrat Benches; others have been heard twice.
(LD)
My Lords, of course no child should go starving. Would the
Minister not consider extending the coalition’s policy of giving
free school meals to all key stage 1 children to key stage 2, and
at secondary school—key stage 3—ensure that every pupil whose
parents are on universal credit gets a free school meal?
(Con)
I think I have tried to answer that question in a couple of ways.
It comes down to: should the Government be funding a number of
separate things to support parents or should the Government be
putting money in the hands of parents so that they can make the
choices that are right for their families? This Government
believe in the latter.
