logo
Experts back DfE's claim free school meals plan will lift 100,000 English children out of poverty but say only over time

Experts back DfE's claim free school meals plan will lift 100,000 English children out of poverty but say only over time

The Guardian05-06-2025
Update:
Date: 2025-06-05T08:27:12.000Z
Title: Experts back DfE's claim free school meals plan will lift 100,000 English children out of poverty – but stress only over time
Content: Good morning. Normally child poverty is not at the centre of the national political debate (although it probably should be). But yesterday, at PMQs, Kemi Badenoch did make it a lead talking point by asking Keir Starmer if he would commit to keeping the two-child benefit cap, the Osborne-era benefit cut that is seen as a key driver of child poverty. She was doing this not because she wanted to promote the Tories as supporters of child poverty (although arguably that is one interpretation of her stance), but because she knows the policy is popular with voters who accept George Osborne's argument that it is unfair for the state to pay very poor people to have more than two children when many other parents restrict the number of children they have depending on what they can afford. (Welfare experts say this is a grossly misleading caricature of why people with three or more children end up needing benefits, and that even if it was true it would be unfair to punish children, but in the court of public opinion, the Osborne argument still seems to be winning.) Badenoch was using as a classic 'wedge issue', and her question was designed to force Starmer to choose between siding with Labour MPs (who want the cap to go) and mainstream voters (who want to to stay, by almost two to one, according to some polling).
Badenoch did not get very far because Starmer just dodged the question. (That does not mean she was wrong to identify this as a dilemma for Labour; it just means Starmer avoided it becoming a problem yesterday.) It is still not clear what Starmer will do about the two-child benefit cap. But he told MPs at lunchtime yesterday: 'I believe profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty.'
And, overnight, the government has announced a policy that has been widely welcomed and that will reduce child poverty in England. It is going to extend access to free school meals for poorer children. In a news release the Department for Education says:
Over half a million more children will benefit from a free nutritious meal every school day, as the government puts £500 back into parents' pockets every year by expanding eligibility for free school meals.
From the start of the 2026 school year, every pupil whose household is on Universal Credit will have a new entitlement to free school meals. This will make life easier and more affordable for parents who struggle the most, delivering on the government's Plan for Change to break down barriers to opportunity and give children the best start in life.
The unprecedented expansion will lift 100,000 children across England completely out of poverty.
But not immediately. In an analysis, which is generally positive about the announcement, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, although eventually 100,000 children in England will lifted out of poverty by this measure, in the short term the figure will be much lower.
Christine Farquharson, associate director at IFS, explains:
Offering free school meals to all children whose families receive universal credit will, in the long term, mean free lunches for about 1.7 million additional children. But transitional protections introduced in 2018 have substantially increased the number of children receiving free school meals today - so in the short run, today's announcement will both cost considerably less (around £250m a year) and benefit considerably fewer pupils (the government's estimate is 500,000 children). This also means that today's announcement will not see anything like 100,000 children lifted out of poverty next year.
It is the big announcement this week, linked to next week's spending review, with positive news for Labour MPs and supporters. (Yesterday's was about a £15bn transport infrastructure programme.) Westminster sceptics think the Treasury is trying to buy some goodwill ahead of an actual announcement that will generate grim headlines about spending cuts.
It is also not clear whether today's child poverty story is evidence that the governnment is moving towards the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, which would have a much bigger impact on child poverty reduction, or whether it is just a substitute for it.
The free school meals announcement just covers England. England often lags behind the devolved governments in welfare policy, and it is worth pointing out that they have more generous provision on free school meals anyway. In Scotland all children get them for their first five years in primary schools, in Wales all primary school children get them, and in Northern Ireland a means test applies, but it is more generous than the English one. In Labour-run London all primary school pupils also get free school meals.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Pat McFadden, Cabinet Office minister, takes questions in the Commons.
Morning: Keir Starmer is visiting a school in the south-east of England, where he is due to speak to broadcasters.
After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, leader of the Commons, takes questions from MPs on next week's Commons business.
11am: Mel Stride, shadow chancellor, gives a speech at the RSA thinktank where he will say the Tories will 'never again' risk the economy with unfunded tax cuts like those in Liz Truss's mini-budget.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
And in Scotland people are voting in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse byelection, where the death of an SNP MSP has triggered a byelection.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Guardian view on Trump's tariffs: both a political and an economic threat
The Guardian view on Trump's tariffs: both a political and an economic threat

The Guardian

time12 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on Trump's tariffs: both a political and an economic threat

Donald Trump's 1 August tariffs deadline did what it was always intended to do. It kept the markets and the nations guessing amid last-minute uncertainty. It attempted to reassert the global heft of the United States economy to take on and master all comers. And it placed President Trump at the centre of the media story, where he always insists on being. In the event, there were some last-minute agreements struck this week, few of them fair or rational in trade terms, most of them motivated by the desire to generate some commercial order. Some conflicts are still in the balance. There were 11th-hour court challenges too, disputing the president's very right to play the trade war game in this way. Even now, no one, probably including Mr Trump himself, knows whether this is his administration's last word on US tariffs. Almost certainly not. That's because Mr Trump's love of tariffs is always more about the assertion of political clout rather than economic power. Mr Trump's antipathy towards the European Union drives one example. The pact agreed by Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland last weekend underlines that the EU's aspirations as a global economic superpower exceed its actual clout. The EU could not prevent Mr Trump making European goods 15% more expensive if they sell on US markets. Nor could it stop Mr Trump getting EU tariffs on US goods withdrawn. Equally eloquent about the global balance of economic power is that Mr Trump has not been able to force China to bend the knee in the manner of the EU. China has responded aggressively to Trump's tariff threats, retaliating with tariffs of its own and blocking the sale of commodities, including rare-earth minerals, that the US most covets. Unsurprisingly, this standoff has not produced one of Mr Trump's so-called deals. Friday's deadline has been reset for later in the month. It would be no surprise if it was eventually pushed back further. Mr Trump is not imposing tariffs on the rest of the world in order to promote global trade or even to boost the US economy. He is doing it, in part, because Congress has delegated this power to him, allowing the president to impose or waive tariffs at will. He uses this power for many purposes. These include raising government income without congressional oversight and also, because tariffs are regressive, shifting the tax burden away from the very rich, like Mr Trump himself, on to the middle and working class. But economics also comes way down the field in the list of reasons why Mr Trump is wielding the tariff weapon internationally. US talks with Brazil – with which the US runs a trade surplus, not a deficit – have been hijacked by Mr Trump's grievance over the prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro for trying to overturn his 2022 election defeat. Talks with India are deadlocked because Mr Trump wants to penalise Delhi for buying energy and weapons from Russia. Those with Canada have been hit by Mr Trump's objections to Ottawa's plan to recognise Palestine. The ultimate test of the policy, however, will indeed be economic. For now, financial markets appear to have decided that Mr Trump's tariffs are manageable. If tariffs now raise the cost of goods on US high streets, slowing growth and feeding inflation, as they may, the wider market response could change quickly. In that event, the mood among American voters might even shift too.

Keir Starmer 'listening to hostages' as UK presses on with Palestine state plan
Keir Starmer 'listening to hostages' as UK presses on with Palestine state plan

Daily Mirror

time15 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

Keir Starmer 'listening to hostages' as UK presses on with Palestine state plan

Keir Starmer said the UK was committed to getting hostages released by Hamas as well as doing 'everything we can to alleviate the human catastrophe in Gaza' Keir Starmer has said the UK is 'steadfast' in its commitment to getting Hamas to release the remaining hostages after coming under pressure over his pledge to recognise a Palestinian state. ‌ The Prime Minister said he was listening to concerns from hostages, including British Israeli woman Emily Damari, who was held captive by Hamas, who accused him of "moral failure". But he said the UK must "do everything we can to alleviate the human catastrophe in Gaza". ‌ On Tuesday, Mr Starmer said the UK would recognise Palestine before the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel agreed to certain conditions, including taking steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and committing to a ceasefire. It comes as Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'completely lost it' with angry response to Keir Starmer. ‌ The significant shift in the UK's position came after intense pressure from MPs and his own Cabinet amid public revulsion at scenes of starvation and suffering in Gaza. But the decision triggered alarm from hostage families over whether the UK would recognise Palestine while Hamas is still holding people captive. Speaking to reporters in Swindon, Mr Starmer said: "I particularly listen to the hostages, Emily Damari, who I have spoken to - I've met her mother a number of times, and they've been through the most awful, awful experience for Emily and for her mother. ‌ "And that's why I've been absolutely clear and steadfast that we must have the remaining hostages released. That's been our position throughout and I absolutely understand the unimaginable horror that Emily went through. "Alongside that, we do need to do everything we can to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where we are seeing the children and babies starving for want of aid which could be delivered. ‌ "That is why I've said unless things materially change on the ground, we'll have to assess this in September, we will recognise Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly in September." Nearly 150 of the UN's 193 members have already recognised Palestinian state, and Canadian PM Mark Carney said that his government plans to take the step in September. But a group of top lawyers warned it could break international law. In a letter to Attorney General Lord Hermer, some 40 cross-party peers said Palestine did not meet the legal criteria for recognition under a 1933 treaty known as the Montevideo Convention. ‌ It says that under international law, a state must have a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the ability to conduct diplomatic relations with other states. The peers argued that there is no certainty over the borders of Palestine and no single government. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds hit back, saying they must "look at the levers the UK has" to deliver peace. "I think to be honest, with respect to those colleagues, that is missing the point somewhat," he said. Mr Reynolds said no conditions had been placed on Hamas as the UK does not negotiate with terrorist groups. He said: "We've been absolutely clear: it's our longstanding position that the hostages have to be released. "It's also our longstanding position that Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza or any Palestinian state. So those are our absolute conditions, but we will never be willing to negotiate with Hamas because they are a terrorist organisation."

Corbyn's new party and the menace of populism
Corbyn's new party and the menace of populism

The Guardian

time15 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Corbyn's new party and the menace of populism

The upcoming launch of a new party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana (Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana agree to launch leftwing party, 24 July) will inevitably prompt questions about whether this will divide the progressive vote or offer a genuine alternative to Labour's centrist drift, especially as the Green party continues to grow as a principled voice for environmental and social justice. Although these projects are potential rivals, they need not be. If the disturbing rise of rightwing populism is to be successfully confronted, the left must overcome fragmentation and find ways to coexist and collaborate. The Corbyn-Sultana initiative and the Greens share much common ground: a rejection of austerity, commitment to democratic reform and a belief in economic and ecological justice. Their differences in emphasis, tone and priorities are real but not irreconcilable. There has to be scope for a non-aggression pact at the next general election, with each party standing aside in constituencies where the other has a better chance of success. Joint campaigning on core issues – such as proportional representation, protest rights, wealth taxes and a green new deal – could amplify their impact, and framing climate action as central to economic justice, not separate from it, could provide a unifying narrative for both. This is not about merging or blurring identities. It is about strategic and political maturity. If the left cannot cooperate when so much is at stake, it will surrender the field to those who thrive on division and fear. Unity does not require uniformity; it requires courage and purpose. The worse case, of a public war of words and clashing candidacies between the Greens and Corbynites, would demoralise voters and hand the initiative to the populist CosgroveChapel Lawn, Shropshire Your report quotes Labour party sources who are dismissive of the threat from Jeremy Corbyn and then bluntly states that Corbyn 'lost the 2017 and 2019 elections as party leader'. It would have provided a fairer context if you had pointed out that in 2017, the Corbyn-led Labour party achieved 2.5m more votes (and a 6% higher vote share) than Keir Starmer did in 2024. Even in 2019, 500,000 more people voted for Corbyn's party than Starmer's. Dr Chris MorrisKidderminster, Worcestershire In the winter election of 2019 I spent hours leafleting for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party. The sensation of cold and wet letterboxes still lingers on my fingertips when I think of what he said in an Observer article just after the election – that Labour had lost the election but won the argument. This is all Mr Corbyn is interested in doing – winning the argument – and indeed I think he will find that is all he ever will ArmstrongChester Thank you to Jeremy Corbyn for still caring enough and having the humanity to rally the 99% to join together and put 40 years of neoliberal theft and exploitation behind us. I support all his domestic policies, but the realpolitik of foreign policy bothers me. How would he deal with Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu?Pamela HopeKingston upon Thames, London Oh, Jeremy Corbyn, why splinter the left further by creating a new party when the Greens already actively stand and work for all you want to fight for?Sushila DhallOxford Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store