I appreciate that this week's vote on free school meals has caused a great deal of anger, though I am afraid I believe much of that anger is based on misleading information about what those voting on this motion were actually voting for. Let me be clear – this was not a vote to scrap free school meals and it was not a vote to allow children of families on benefits to go hungry. It was not even a binding vote; nothing would legally have changed today had the vote gone the other way.
Instead, it was a vote on the process of how welfare is delivered to the children of families who are most in need. I fully respect the views of those who believe that extending free school meals was the best way to go about this, I simply disagree. I think that this support – the necessity of which I fully understand – is best delivered through the existing welfare system that has already been expanded due to Covid-19. I explain my reasoning below.
Free school meals have been available for over a century and are now provided to the children of families on benefits below a certain threshold. Until this year, it has always and only been provided during term time, the idea being that this was an effective way to help children who were already attending a state school five days a week. During weekends, holidays, or for students not at school because they are too young or home-schooled, the welfare system is designed to help parents who cannot otherwise feed their children. This is how it has always previously worked, including during other economic crises like the global financial crash in 2008.
Free school meals are a poor vehicle for out-of-school welfare support. School leaders have worked incredibly hard during this pandemic and it is not reasonable or sustainable to also ask them to provide food or undertake additional action when they are closed for the holidays. Such action would bring an additional cost of around £20 million for each school holiday week and create new and significant organisational workforce burdens on the vast majority of schools.
One alternative is to use vouchers, as happened earlier this year. This was not, however, what the Labour motion called for. Leaving that to one side, vouchers are also an imperfect method of support. This instead provides parents with a small amount to spend at supermarkets, but numerous groups have raised concerns that this does not result in children receiving balanced and nutritious meals like those we might hope for in schools.
Instead, families in need are supported by Universal Credit (UC). During this difficult year, UC has been increased by £1,000 per year. This change alone has represented a 10% increase in the Government’s welfare spending through UC – way above inflation, meaning parents should be receiving enough to feed their children. This increased funding will be available during term time, this coming half term, over the Christmas holidays, through the February half term and over the Easter holidays, too. UC has also been expanded quickly and largely without incident to help all those people who have sadly fallen out of work due to the global pandemic.
Given this funding is in place, the extension of free school meals proposed this week is not required. I understand that some of the confusion arises from the fact that – again despite this UC expansion – free school meal vouchers were provided earlier in the year, resulting in over £380 million being redeemed at shops. This is because during the summer term, schools were closed. This meant that parents were suddenly faced with providing five extra meals per week. In those circumstances, it was only right that additional support be provided. This was then extended through the summer holidays, reflecting uncertainty about how long this pandemic would last, the impact it would have on the economy and the amount of support that would be needed.
Now, students are back in school, receiving free school meals during the week, meaning that additional burden is removed from the parents. Those pupils who need to be at home because they are self-isolating will also continue to receive free school meals. Non-UK nationals who might usually have no recourse to public funds are also, for the first time, receiving free school meals.
During the short holidays over the next 6 months, parents will be required to feed their children, as has always previously been the case. In doing so, as I have said, they will be supported if necessary by increased UC payments, as well as by the wide range of funding in place to help businesses and households stay afloat during this pandemic. This includes over £63 million given to local councils to help with emergency welfare payments, as well as mortgage holidays, £1 billion of support for renters and a generous job support scheme. £53 billion has been spent on the furlough scheme, which runs to the end of October half term and has protected 12 million jobs.
I am proud that this Government has put so much support in place for families and children. In addition to the welfare support reference above, over £650 million has been made available in 2020/21 to schools across England to help support children who have fallen behind due to school closure or self-isolating. An additional £350 million is going to high-quality extra tuition for the most disadvantaged children. Over £550 million a year is made available in England to ensure that disadvantaged children receive not only free school meals, but a world class education that will give them the skills to succeed in their future careers.
I appreciate that this is an emotive topic – of course, we all want to see children properly fed and cared for. I hope this has helped explain why I believe that provision is already in place and why the extension of this particular support scheme is unnecessary.
When we all agree on the same fundamental goal, that children should not go hungry, I think it is disappointing to see in some quarters the vilification of those who, as I have said, simply disagree about the means through which this goal should be achieved. This will harm our public discourse in the long run and make important legislative debate all the more difficult.
