
Free school meals for more children in England is a positive thing, but there's a catch
Food matters. Hungry children can't learn, and many miss school to avoid the public embarrassment of no dinner money and no packed lunch, according to CPAG's Priced Out of School report. Strong evidence shows a rise in attainment and attendance if you feed children. The Feed the Future campaign finds not just academic achievement but health, happiness, reduced obesity and lifetime earnings improve if children don't go hungry. Surely that can't surprise anyone.
The universal breakfast clubs being rolled out now represent real progress. Strict rules stopping schools from demanding absurdly expensive uniforms, sometimes a not-so-subtle way to exclude poorer families, is another part of a developing anti-poverty strategy.
But it's complicated. Nothing in poverty numbers is easy. So while celebrating more meals for more children, we should question the total number of children lifted out of poverty. The government says it's 100,000 and the IFS agrees. But look what happens when you factor in the dire effect of the upcoming £5bn disability and Pip cuts. Turn to the government's own paper on the impact. Look at Annex B: 'It is estimated that there will be an additional 250,000 people (including 50,000 children) in relative poverty after housing costs in financial year ending 2030 as a result of the modelled changes to social security.'
As those receiving support from sources such as Pip lose their benefit, the family gets poorer. Some may find this offset by the addition of free school meals, but not all will qualify, and many families will still find themselves worse off once what they gain from having free school meals is set against benefit losses.
The vote on disability benefit cuts is coming up shortly, with up to 170 Labour MPs reportedly ready to rebel. As the Department for Work and Pensions scurries to amend the proposal in time for the vote, it needs to take into account the danger of sending more children below the poverty threshold.
Of the many severe critiques of the government's Pathways to Work plan for these disability cuts, one of the most authoritative is the Citizens Advice response, Pathways to Poverty. It opens: 'By refusing to properly consult on its plan to cut billions from disability benefits, the government is choosing not to ask questions it doesn't want the answers to. The cuts will have a devastating impact on disabled people (and their children), sending hundreds of thousands into poverty, and many more into deeper poverty. This will result from a series of arbitrary reforms that have been designed around savings targets rather than improving outcomes, inflicting hardship on people in ways that the government doesn't yet fully understand.'
Few would doubt the need for the government to take action on the growing numbers of working-age people off sick with mental and physical ailments. Good plans to provide work coaches to help, not bully, them back into working life with an array of supports are unfolding. But the dash for cash suddenly and unexpectedly imposed on the DWP at the last moment when the Office for Budget Responsibility found a gap in Reeves's proposed £5bn in savings has thrust more brutal cuts forward, regardless of circumstance. In 1997, New Labour's New Deal to help people into work was a great success: money saved came from finding people jobs, not cutting their benefits in advance, something that was likely to reduce their work capability.
The welcome new free school meals policy shines a light on the depths of poverty. How could the appallingly low family income of £7,400 have been the qualifier until now? In Northern Ireland the benchmark is twice as high. Wales and London have universal free meals for primary children; in Scotland, all pupils are eligible for the first five years of primary school. Labour inherited a tax and benefits system that had, since 2010, cut entitlements among families with children by £2,200 a year on average, with those out-of-work losing £5,500 a year, reports the IFS. Reversing that is an uphill task.
Many children now getting free meals won't be lifted out of poverty: it would take a lot more than £500 a year. Lifting the two-child cap would cost less than meals, in terms of freeing children from poverty. That estimated £3.5bn to abolish it will have to be found by Liz Kendall and Bridget Phillipson's child poverty taskforce, which will report at budget time in the autumn. There just is no way round it for a government that pledged to take more children out of poverty. Note that they call this free school meals announcement just a 'down payment'. The best had better be yet to come.
A final thought: for all the panic about disability claims, total working-age benefits as a proportion of government spending have not risen in the past 20 years. What has happened is cuts for children have been offset by increases for triple-locked pensioners.
Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Angela Rayner slashes right-to-buy discounts in ‘attack on aspiration'
Discounts for council tenants seeking to buy their homes are to be drastically cut by Angela Rayner. As a result of the move, which will impose stringent restrictions on the right-to-buy scheme, the Deputy Prime Minister was accused of an 'attack on aspiration'. Under the new scheme, the discount will be cut to between five and 15 per cent, depending on how long the tenant has lived there, down from 35 per cent at present. Ms Rayner also announced that tenants must have lived in a council house for 10 years – up from the current three – to be able to qualify. People who have previously benefitted from the scheme will be barred from trying again, and newly built council houses will be exempt from the right to buy for 35 years. Kevin Hollinrake, shadow housing secretary, called Ms Rayner a 'hypocrite' as she had benefitted from right to buy herself. In 2007, Ms Rayner bought her former council house in Stockport, Greater Manchester, for £79,000 after claiming a 25 per cent discount. She later sold the property for £48,500 more than she paid for it. 'Today, Labour has chosen to quietly bury bad news, slipping out a policy that slashes right-to-buy eligibility and discounts,' Mr Hollinrake said. 'This is nothing short of an attack on aspiration. Labour is turning its back on the very families who work hard and want a stake in their future.' He added: 'For decades, right to buy has helped millions take their first step onto the housing ladder. Now, this Government is making it harder than ever to own a home. It is increasingly clear that the only guaranteed route to housing in this country is to arrive on a small boat. 'And the hypocrisy is staggering, Angela Rayner has personally benefitted from right to buy. Yet under her party's watch, that opportunity is being stripped away from others. Labour's message to aspiring homeowners is clear.' Right to Buy was the totemic policy of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, helping to propel her to her first general election victory. Sir Keir Starmer promised wholesale reform to restrict access, saying it had too dramatically refused the number of social houses available to people who needed them. Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government department announced the changes on Wednesday night, saying it would bring forward legislation to increase the eligibility requirement from three to 10 years. The department said this would allow councils to rebuild their stock and to better ensure that only tenants who have paid rent on their homes for many years are able to benefit from the scheme. The changes will prevent existing property owners, or those who have previously benefitted from the scheme, from exercising the right to buy unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as being the victim of domestic abuse. Newly built social and affordable housing will be exempt from the right to buy for 35 years, making it more financially viable for the council to build new homes. This is much higher than the 10 or 20 years envisioned in a recent consultation document. Labour promised at the last election to build 1.5 million more homes over the course of the Parliament. It says many of these will be social and affordable homes.


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Currys reveals stronger profits amid boost from ‘resilient' UK shoppers
Currys has reported stronger sales and profits for the past year as it hailed 'resilient' demand from UK shoppers. The technology retailer said slower inflation and falling interest rates helped support sales from shoppers in the UK. The London company also resumed dividend payments following the upbeat update to shareholders. Group sales grew by 3% to £8.7 billion for the year to May 3, driven by 6% growth in the UK. The retailer, which runs 708 stores, said its UK business benefited from growth in its iD Mobile business, as well as positive computing sales, with 'AI technology sales building momentum'. Meanwhile, sales dropped 2% in its Nordics region, where it said profitability was knocked by 'tough' market conditions. The company said it has traded in line with expectations over the past two months but is 'facing into several headwinds' in the new financial year, including cost increases linked to the Government budget, cost inflation and currency weakness. Alex Baldock, group chief executive, said: 'Currys' performance continues to strengthen and the business has real momentum. 'A stronger Currys is good for colleagues, customers, shareholders and society, and we're doing a better job for all of them. 'We're pleased with our progress, but even more excited about the opportunities ahead of us.' Meanwhile, the group also revealed a 37% increase in adjusted pre-tax profits to £162 million for the year. It also announced a dividend of 1.5p per share for the year after suspending dividend payments in 2023 amid efforts to turn around its Nordics operation.


Sky News
24 minutes ago
- Sky News
What's really going on with Rachel Reeves?
👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne's on your podcast app👈 Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy serve up their essential guide to the day in British politics. After Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen visibly sobbing at PMQs, the prime minister last night confirmed she would be chancellor for a long time to come - but will that be enough to calm fears in the markets? And what do we think is really going on with the chancellor? Sam and Anne discuss. And what about Keir Starmer's fate - are some in his own party questioning his longevity? Also, the NHS 10-year plan includes the creation of 200 new neighbourhood health centres as well as improvements to the NHS app - but does it improve the fundamentals?