Free school meals for half a million for kids confirmed in spending review by Chancellor Rachel Reeves
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
HALF a million more kids will be eligible for free school meals, it's been confirmed by the Chancellor.
As part of her spending review today, Rachel Reeves announced that every child in a Universal Credit household will now be eligible for state-sponsored lunches.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
Free school meal has been confirmed for half a million kids
Credit: Reuters
Addressing the House of Commons she said: "Last week, this government announced that Free School Meals will be extended to over half a million more children.
"That policy alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty from Tower Hamlets to Sunderland to Swansea."
Currently, Universal Credit households must earn under £7,400 per year to qualify.
The move is expected to save parents on benefits £500 a year, according to the Department for Education.
Kids in UC households currently not eligible will be able to start claiming lunches from the start of the 2026 school year.
The entitlement will apply in all settings where free school meals are available, including school-based nurseries and further-education settings.
Most parents will be able to apply before the start of the new school year by providing a national insurance number.
Education Secretary Bridget Philipson previously told The Sun the move was a "game changer".
'This will make a big difference to children's attendance and behaviour at school because we know that if kids are hungry, they don't concentrate well."
The expansion of the scheme comes ahead of ahead of the government's Child Poverty Taskforce publishing a ten-year strategy to drive down poverty.
Disability benefit explained - what you can claim
Last week the government rolled out 750 breakfast clubs across the UK.
The move offers half an hour of free childcare and a healthy meal before the school day begins.
Labour are also facing mounting pressure to scrap the two child benefit cap,
Elsewhere, Rachel Reeves also vowed to pump £39billion into building more social and affordable housing across the UK.
This came alongside a new rent policy for social housing starting in 2026.
Reeves told MPs: "I am proud to announce the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years.
"A new Affordable Homes Programme – in which I am investing £39bn over the next decade.
What age do kids get free school meals in the UK?
In England, all eligible children from reception to year two qualify for free school meals - so kids aged roughly between four and seven.
In Scotland, all children between four and nine will qualify, while in Wales, pupils aged around four get free school meals.
But, of course, all primary school-aged children should be eligible for the scheme by the end of 2024.
That means children between four and 11.
In any part of the UK, from year three onwards, your children could qualify for free school meals.
But this is when the eligibility criteria kicks in, meaning you'll need to be receiving certain benefits and your income may be taken into consideration.
Currently, your child may be able to get free school meals if you get any of the following:
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit (provided you're not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
Universal Credit - if you apply on or after 1 April 2018 your household income must be less than £7,400 a year (after tax and not including any benefits you get)
WHAT OTHER HELP IS AVAILABLE?
You get child benefit if you're responsible for bringing up a child who is under 16 or under 20 if they are in approved education or training
The payment is used to help parents cover the costs of childcare.
It is paid at two weekly rates - £26.05 for your eldest or only child and £17.25 for any additional children.
Payments are usually made every four weeks, on a Monday or Tuesday, but sometimes are made weekly.
If you are claiming child benefit for a child under 12, you also receive National Insurance (NI) credits.
NICs count towards your State Pension so claiming the benefit can be useful if you are missing any.
Parents can also get help with free food vouchers through the government's Household Support Fund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves claims she's balancing the books - but sky-high bond yields tell a different story, says ALEX BRUMMER
The Chancellor's spending review is being billed by Labour as a signal moment for a government that is haunted by banana skins of its own making. It paints events as a moment for national renewal after 14 years of Tory chaos. It is nothing of the kind. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, despite the hype and hand-outs for favoured constituencies, Rachel Reeves barely moved the dial on capital investment spending. All she did was maintain capital budgets, such as those for science and tech, at the same 'high' level of national income as Jeremy Hunt, the most recent Conservative Chancellor. IFS's director Paul Johnson doesn't pull his punches. He says if anyone was 'baffled' by the Chancellor's speech 'so were we'. He goes on to suggest that it wasn't a serious effort to provide useful information to anybody. It also exposed Reeves's ineptitude in framing arguments. There was no attempt to elevate and explain the spend, with focus on the white heat of technology, in terms of the nuclear, digital, and biotech revolution which will change Britain forever. Instead, there was revived talk of 'securonomics' (buried since Labour has been in office) and misleading crowing about the state of the economy. The boast that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year was accurate. But as Reuters reported yesterday it was a case of 'pride comes before a fall'. Reeves and her team must have had early sight of the April growth data which showed output shrank by 0.3 per cent. A big factor was Trump's tariff war, which caused car, steel and other exports to stumble. One might have thought someone at the Treasury, or a special adviser, might gently have suggested the G7 comparison was a rhetorical trap which might have been avoided. The April data may be rogue because of Trump tariff uncertainty. The Government hopes the trumpeted trade accord with the US will soon come to fruition and the UK's upmarket car makers – Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce and the more eclectic Mini – will soon be back to normal business. However, it will take time for the logistics and supply chain to be revised. The downturn also was partly the result of policy. The end to concessions on stamp duty predictably produced a lull in home sales, despite the good househunting weather and the easing of the bank rate. Tax does make a difference. It is not wise for a government making a big bet on the housing market to bypass it as a recovery tool by punishing homebuyers, especially younger people seeking the first rung on the ladder. There is one G7 table which Rachel Reeves didn't mention. The Chancellor believes her fiscal rules, which require current spending to be matched by taxation but allow borrowing for investment, have secured the UK's budget after the Liz Truss disorder. Markets don't believe it. The yield on Britain's ten-year bond – or gilt – at 4.5 per cent in latest trading is the highest among the rich Western democracies. Reeves makes the reasonable case that UK yields move in lockstep with those in New York. There is, however, a serious flaw in the thinking. The Chancellor appears to believe that if the current budget is in balance, it is fine to borrow to invest. That may be the case in Japan and Germany, where bond rates are 1.46 per cent and 2.53 per cent respectively, because their governments' overall interest bill is, by UK standards, under control. In Britain's case, every pound that is borrowed for a new roundabout or bypass behind the Red Wall comes with interest at high rates. So the extra borrowing for Labour's £2 trillion or so of capital spend inflates the current budget via borrowing charges. In the autumn, the Treasury estimated the interest bill for 2025-26 at £126billion. If gilts had a similar yield to the German bund there would be an extra £60billion or so for education, health or even an end to the freeze on income tax thresholds which punish hard work and enterprise. Britain's national accounts do not provide a free pass for capital projects.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Brazil's Lula approval rating edges down to 28%, pollster Datafolha says
SAO PAULO, June 12 (Reuters) - Approval of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's government ticked down to 28% from 29% in April, pollster Datafolha said on Thursday. The government's disapproval rate increased to 40% from 38% in the same period.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Labour promise to ‘end asylum hotels' is worthless… Reeves will be turfed out long before last asylum seeker leaves B&B
AS election manifesto pledges go, it was as simple and straightforward as they get: Labour will 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. No wriggle room there, you might think. Not SOME asylum hotels, ALL of them. 3 3 3 And, given the current huge annual cost of housing Channel migrants, that would surely save taxpayers money. Simple! Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad — and expensive — news, but apparently not. After 11 months in office, Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave a helpful update this week on that vow to the British people during her Spending Review, and added in the teeny-tiny oh-so-insignificant caveat that it wouldn't actually happen until 2029. That's four long years away. It also means many more billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being thrown away. After all, the Government is currently forking out more than £4BILLION a year to house illegal migrants, some of whom have arrived on small boats, and even by 2029 asylum costs are STILL predicted to top £2.5billion a year — with or without a hotel room in sight. After the Tories failed to deliver on their promise to stop putting asylum seekers in hotels, we have every right to be cynical. Indeed, they were happily paying for expensive four-star rooms until that was exposed to widespread public fury. But even if Labour do actually keep their manifesto pledge by 2029, what does 'ending asylum hotels' actually mean? Let's look at the best-case scenario. Let's imagine a world where Home Office officials go to warp speed to process the massive backlog of asylum seekers who are currently waiting years to learn their fate. Will that mean we can finally stop paying for their accommodation? Almost certainly not. Windows smashed at migrant hotel as UK braces for another night of violence Although Britain already grants asylum at a far higher rate than most other European countries (indeed, it offers asylum to those who've already failed to win it elsewhere in Europe), tens of thousands of claims from undocumented economic migrants are still likely to be refused. So will that mean those failed asylum seekers will be packed off home and finally off our books? Nope. Unless their own countries agree to take them back and their safety can be guaranteed in places like Iran, Afghanistan or Eritrea, then I'm afraid they will be staying right here. What about shipping them off to third countries, like Rwanda or Albania, if they won't go home? Again, that's a non-starter under Sir Keir Starmer, whose human rights lawyer chums will have a field day arguing for failed asylum seekers' rights to a family life in Britain. Staying right here If it turns out that the thousands of young men who pay people-smugglers to get on dinghies to come to our shores are NOT in fact all brilliant rocket scientists, brain surgeons and engineers, they will probably end up working in low-wage jobs, often in the black economy, needing benefits and will likely remain a drain on taxpayers for the rest of their lives. Anyway, even if the Home Office could manage to deal with the existing backlog, what are they going to do about the thousands of new asylum seekers who are arriving from the beaches of Calais every week? This year has so far seen the highest ever number of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel, with no sign — despite Sir Keir Starmer's promises — of the smuggling gangs being smashed any time soon. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another Julia Hartley-Brewer OK, fair enough, but at least by 2029 we won't be paying for these new arrivals to live in hotels any more. True, but they will need to live somewhere. Unless the Government is secretly planning to send them off to the Falklands or give them all tents and plonk them in a field in the middle of nowhere, that means paying for their accommodation and other living costs. If officials are not going to pay for hotels, then more and more asylum seekers will end up being moved into private rented flats and houses in a street near you. This is already happening in many towns and cities, as companies such as Serco, Mears and Clearsprings have been handed multi-million pound contracts to strike deals with local landlords to house asylum seekers. Hope we won't notice Using our hard-earned taxes, they often pay far above (sometimes even double) local market rents, with guaranteed leases for five years, with all utilities and any other costs paid for by taxpayers, and pushing rents beyond the means of countless local families. Getting asylum seekers out of hotels also brings the added bonus that the cost of thousands of individual private rentals are rather easier to hide from the public than enormous Home Office hotel bills totalling billions. And after the Channel migrants are processed and allowed to stay — with or without asylum status — they can then be quietly shunted on to the general benefits bill or on to local councils' housing costs in the hope that we won't notice or care any more. Like so many manifestos, the promise to 'end asylum hotels' isn't worth the glossy paper it is printed on. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another for years to come. We don't know how many more Channel migrants will turn up this week, this year or by 2029, so we can't know how much that bill will be. But the one thing we can say for certain is that Rachel Reeves will be turfed out of the Treasury long before the last asylum seekers are turfed out of their hotel. HOMELESS TENT CITIES ON WAY DON'T look now but the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has had another brilliant idea. This time, her clever plan is to tackle the rising problem of rough sleeping on our streets by decriminalising it. She plans to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act which, for two centuries, has made it a criminal act to sleep rough, raising fears that we will soon see tent cities pop up in our parks and streets, similar to those in San Francisco. Ms Rayner says these people are not criminals but 'vulnerable' victims of 'injustice'. Indeed, this is true for many. In the first three months of this year, 4,427 people spent at least one night sleeping on the streets of our capital. Many of them are drug addicts or alcoholics, while others are service veterans who are victims of both PTSD and a bureaucracy that just doesn't care. Making it easier for people to sleep on the streets won't solve THEIR problems – but it will create more problems for everyone else.
