Starmer describes free school meal expansion as ‘down payment' on child poverty
Charities and campaigners have urged the Government to axe the two-child benefit cap to ease child poverty as ministers set out plans to expand free school meals to all pupils in England in families on universal credit.
Asked whether he would go further and abolish the welfare limit, Sir Keir Starmer said: 'I would say this is a down payment on child poverty.'
The government just gave half a million kids the nutrition they need to learn, grow and thrive. What a win! 🍽️💥 @Keir_Starmer @bphillipsonMP @StephenMorganMP @leicesterliz #FreeSchoolMeals
— Jamie Oliver (@jamieoliver) June 5, 2025
The Prime Minister added that he was 'determined' to drive down child poverty and identify its root causes.
Currently, households in England on universal credit must earn below £7,400 a year (after tax and not including benefits) to qualify for free school meals.
More than one in four pupils in England are now eligible for free school meals, the latest figures show.
An additional 77,700 children became eligible for free school meals over a year, according to data published by the Department for Education (DfE).
Eligibility for free school meals stood at 25.7% of all pupils in January this year, the equivalent of 2.17 million children – up from 24.6%, or 2.09 million, in January 2024, the data shows.
The Government has said the expansion of free school meals to all pupils in families on universal credit from September 2026 will make 500,000 more children eligible for free lunches during the school day.
Ministers have also suggested that the change will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty.
Alongside the extension of free school meals, the DfE said it is working with experts across the sector to review the School Food Standards to ensure every school is supported with the latest nutrition guidance.
Sir Keir said Thursday's announcement was part of a broader package of provisions including breakfast clubs and 'so it needs to be seen within that group of measures'.
He added: 'But yes, it's a down payment on what I want to do in relation to child poverty.'
The Government's child poverty taskforce is due to publish its strategy later this year.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told Times Radio that the meals extension would be funded and the Government will 'make sure that schools have what they need to deliver this'.
Sir Keir Starmer serves food during a visit to a school in Essex, following the Government's announcement that more children are to get free school meals (Isabel Infantes/PA)
Asked why the expansion was not coming into force now, Ms Phillipson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're working as quickly as we can because we do appreciate the urgency, but we also need to work with schools to make this change happen.'
Parents have to apply for their children to receive free school meals and eligible children are not automatically enrolled.
The announcement has been largely welcomed by education leaders and campaigners, but some organisations have called for the Government to go further and introduce auto-enrolment.
Arooj Shah, chairwoman of the Local Government Association's (LGA) children and young people board, said: 'Councils still face data sharing and resource challenges in ensuring as many eligible children as possible receive what they are entitled to.
'Introducing automatic enrolment, using existing government data to capture all those who are entitled to free school meals, would also streamline the process and ensure as many children as possible can benefit, at a time when many families are still under financial pressure.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream
BERN, June 6 (Reuters) - Switzerland announced reforms on Friday to make its biggest bank UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab safer and avoid another crisis, hampering the global ambitions of a lender whose financial weight eclipses the country's economy. UBS emerged as Switzerland's sole global bank more than two years ago after the government hastily arranged its rescue of scandal-hit Credit Suisse to prevent a disorderly collapse. The demise of Credit Suisse, one of the world's biggest banks, rattled global markets and blindsided officials and regulators, whose struggle to steer the lender as it lurched from one scandal to the next underscored their weakness. On Friday, speaking from the same podium where she had announced the Credit Suisse rescue in 2023 as finance minister, Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter delivered a firm message. The country would not be wrongfooted again. "I don't believe that the competitiveness will be impaired, but it is true that growth abroad will become more expensive," Keller-Sutter said of UBS. "We've had two crises. 2008 and 2023," she said. "If you see something that is broken, you have to fix it." During the global financial crisis of 2008, UBS was hit by a losses in subprime debt, as a disastrous expansion into riskier investment banking forced it to write down tens of billions of dollars and ultimately turn to the state for help. Memories of that crisis also linger, reinforcing the government's resolve after the collapse of Credit Suisse. For UBS, which has a financial balance sheet of around $1.7 trillion, far bigger than the Swiss economy, the implications of the reforms proposed on Friday are clear. Switzerland no longer wants to back its international growth. "Bottom line: who is carrying the risk for growth abroad?" said Keller-Sutter. "The bank, its owners or the state?" The rules the government proposed demand that UBS in Switzerland holds more capital to cover risks in its foreign operations. That move, one of the most important steps taken by the Swiss in a series of otherwise piecemeal measures, will make UBS's businesses abroad more expensive to run for one of the globe's largest banks for millionaires and billionaires. Following publication of the reform plans, UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and CEO Sergio Ermotti said in an internal memo that if fully implemented, they would undermine the bank's "global competitive footprint" and hurt the Swiss economy. The reform would require UBS to hold as much as $26 billion in extra capital. Some believe the demands may alter the bank's course. "It could be that UBS has to change its strategy of growth in the United States and Asia," said Andreas Venditti, an analyst at Vontobel. "It's not just growing. It makes the existing business more expensive. It is an incentive to get smaller and this will most likely happen." Credit Suisse's demise exploded the myth of invincibility of one of the wealthiest countries in the world, home to a global reserve currency, and proved as unworkable a central reform of the financial crisis to prevent state bailouts. For many in Switzerland, the government's reforms are long overdue. "The bank is bigger than the entire Swiss economy. It makes sense that it should not grow even bigger," said Andreas Missbach of Alliance Sud, a group that campaigns for transparency. "It is good that the government did not give in to lobbying by UBS. The question is whether it is enough. We have a banking crisis roughly every 12 years. So I'm not really put at ease." UBS CEO Ermotti had lobbied against the reforms, arguing that a heavy capital burden would put the bank on the back foot with rivals. The world's second-largest wealth manager after Morgan Stanley is dwarfed by its U.S. peer. Morgan Stanley shares value the firm at twice its book value, compared with UBS's 20% premium to book. On Friday, the bank reiterated this message, saying that it strongly disagreed with the "extreme" increase in capital. But others are sceptical that the government has done enough. Hans Gersbach, a professor at ETH Zurich, said there was still no proper plan to cope should UBS run into trouble. "The credibility of the too big to fail regime remains in question."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Scottish politics: Labour wins the seat but not – yet – the argument
Labour's victory in the Holyrood byelection offers the UK government a rare political comfort but not, perhaps, the strategic breakthrough it might like to imagine. A late flurry of welfare signalling, a dogged ground campaign and a carefully staged visit to a Govan shipyard by Sir Keir Starmer helped shore up Labour's appeal to its traditional voters in Scotland's industrial belt. Yet as Prof John Curtice has noted, Labour's share of the vote actually declined compared with the last time voters cast ballots here in 2021 – a year in which the party was placed a distant third and was polling at the same dismal level of public support, 20%, it has today. The prime minister will gladly pocket Davy Russell's win in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. But it is a foothold. There is still a steep climb to the summit. More telling is who lost. The Scottish National party's poor showing reflects dissatisfaction with its record of governance and the diminishing appeal of independence in areas where Labour has deep roots. The real surprise was Reform UK, taking over a quarter of the vote and leapfrogging the Conservatives into third place. It drew from both main parties, fuelled by protest and unionist anger that flattened the Tories. If these trends continue, the Holyrood elections, scheduled for next year, will not be good news for anyone but Reform despite the party losing its chair Zia Yusuf this week. Labour is not yet credible as a government-in-waiting at Holyrood. But for the SNP the crisis is more acute. If its vote remains around 30% and opposition is split at the next election, the SNP would probably remain the largest party, but would be unlikely to bestride the Scottish parliament. The pro‑independence movement would be institutionally endangered, not by Westminster suppression, but by electoral mathematics. Scottish politicians have long held the belief that Nigel Farage has less sway in a pro-EU, pro‑immigration nation. That is now harder to sustain. On the campaign trail, Mr Farage defended a race‑baiting Reform advert that twisted Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's words to suggest he had divided loyalties – a textbook use of identity politics to inflame division and resentment. It was a toxic, racist and dishonest dog‑whistle but that did not stop Reform's rise. The Tories face an existential crisis. In 2021 they became the official opposition as the strongest anti‑SNP, pro-unionist option, a strategy that paid off on the regional list. But if Reform keeps eating into that base, Thursday's result suggests the Conservatives could ignominiously fall behind not just Reform, but also the Lib Dems and Greens. With the constitutional question fading and Holyrood designed to favour horse-trading, 2026 looks like yielding a more divided chamber. Coalitions – Labour with the Lib Dems, or even across the divide – could yet emerge to focus on bread-and-butter issues and govern without Reform. Labour won the seat, not the argument. The SNP may still top the poll in 2026 – but as a weaker force in a far less predictable landscape.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Robert Jenrick is no kind of role model for Labour
Robert Jenrick isn't diagnosing disorder. He's manufacturing it (It's easy to dismiss Robert Jenrick's fare-dodging stunt. But he understands something Keir Starmer doesn't, 30 May). The issue isn't whether people are annoyed by fare-dodgers or spooked by barber shops that stay open late. It's why that resentment gets more political airtime than landlords hiking rents, billionaires dodging taxes, or private equity firms bleeding the NHS dry. What Jenrick is doing isn't tapping into some universal British frustration with rule-breaking. He's engaging in the oldest trick in the reactionary playbook. Inflate petty infractions into moral panics. Redirect public rage downward. Claim the mantle of common sense. It's the politics of distraction, dressed up as concern for order. When Freedland suggests Keir Starmer could learn from this, not the policies but the presentation, he endorses the very performance of power that makes people feel unheard. It's not that Starmer fails to appear tough enough on antisocial behaviour. It's that he fails to speak to the real antisocial behaviours that define life under late capitalism. Wage theft. Housing precarity. Digital surveillance. Austerity itself. Fare-dodging is often an act of desperation or defiance in a system designed to extract. 'Weird Turkish barber shops' is not a neutral observation. It is a dog-whistle wrapped in folksy suspicion. The real disorder is structural, not stylistic. Any politics that treats broken windows as more urgent than broken lives will only reinforce the rot. We don't need Labour to better mimic Tory talking points. We need courage. Courage to name the real villains. Courage to refuse the scapegoat circuit. Courage to believe the public can handle more than tabloid MarphenLondon Jonathan Freedland is correct when he says it is 'awkward to take lessons in politics from Robert Jenrick'. However, Jenrick glosses over his party's part in the causes and thus has no understanding of what brought us here. The society that my and my parents' generation knew had established, long-term employers, often with people working together on a large scale. We had mutuals, social societies, sports and social and working men's clubs. What we offer my children's generation is cellular working, the commodification of everything, self-absorption and social isolation. Margaret Thatcher started the decay of mutual support and shared interests, and it has worsened over the past 14 years, so it is no surprise that some see the expression of self‑interest in antisocial behaviour and low-level criminality. Andrew KyleEaling, London Jonathan Freedland suggests that Keir Starmer might copy the populist gestures of Robert Jenrick. But Starmer has already indulged in many of Freedland's 'nods to the right' with his gimmicky video showing the forcible deportation of asylum seekers, and then his Powellite 'island of strangers' speech. Better by far to 'nod to the left' by copying Bernie Sanders (Interview, 4 June), with his uncompromising opposition to all forms of bigotry while advocating traditional social-democratic politics of strong welfare and just redistribution. And nearer home, Starmer could listen to Gordon Brown (Opinion, 27 May) with his passionate commitment to ending child poverty, starting with the unhesitating end to the Tory two-child benefit Ben-Tovim University of Liverpool It is so distressing to find that I'm impressed by the actions of a politician whom I usually despise. Jonathan Freedland is correct, it's this kind of petty lawbreaking that infuriates those of us who think that as a society we all need to 'play by the rules'. But having Robert Jenrick (of all people) point this out? Talk about cognitive DownesBryneglwys, Denbighshire 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.
