Government urged to introduce free school meal auto-enrolment by MP committee
The Commons Education Committee has called for a number of improvements to the Government's Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to support the most vulnerable children.
The Bill's timetable has been 'rushed and inadequate', making it more difficult to conduct 'proper scrutiny', the committee's report said.
It has called for all pupils entitled to free school meals to be automatically enrolled to receive them in order to alleviate hunger and improve the health and educational outcomes for the poorest children.
The committee has recommended that the inclusion requirements of school breakfast clubs should be strengthened to ensure special educational needs and disabilities (Send) pupils do not miss out.
The report added that the Government should strengthen the requirement for the mental health and wellbeing of children in the care system to be assessed, and improve support for care leavers as part of the Bill.
The Bill – which also proposes a number of changes to academy freedoms – has faced criticism from education leaders and politicians in recent weeks.
Academies, which are independent of local authorities, currently have the freedom to set their own pay and conditions for staff, and some exceed the national pay scales for teachers.
But under the Bill, all teachers will be part of the same core pay and conditions framework whether they work in a local authority-run school or an academy.
The Bill will also require academies to follow the national curriculum, and their teachers will need to have, or be in the process of achieving, qualified teacher status.
But on the proposed changes to academies, the committee's report said: 'Some witnesses expressed concerns about the reductions in academy freedoms, while others welcomed greater oversight, but on balance, there were no strong concerns about the changes to academy status.'
Committee chairwoman and Labour MP Helen Hayes said: 'The committee has made recommendations designed to strengthen support for the most vulnerable children in society, based on compelling evidence from experts and from young people who shared with us their deeply moving experiences of life in care.
'This report urges the Government to tackle the postcode lottery of support offered to young people leaving care; to ensure that children whose parents struggle to put food on the table at home can get a proper meal at school; that children with Send aren't left out of breakfast clubs; and that children facing the traumatic experiences associated with being taken into care are properly cared for and their mental health assessed in a timely way.'
Ms Hayes – who has tabled new amendments to the Bill to reflect the committee's recommendations – said: 'While we welcome the Government's ambition in this Bill, my colleagues and I from across the political parties were disappointed by how the Government has rushed this Bill through the House of Commons at the expense of time for proper scrutiny.
'With such wide-ranging reforms that will have dramatic, lasting consequences for children and families, the DfE's (Department for Education) need for speed should not have been prioritised over diligent examination of evidence.'
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'Many of the education committee's recommendations seem sensible.
'We particularly agree with the need to introduce a system of auto-enrolment for all children and young people who are eligible for free school meals.
'This is something we have long called for, to ensure that nobody misses out unnecessarily, and should be a relatively straightforward change that could make a big difference to vulnerable families.
'We also hold concerns around the logistics and funding of the breakfast club policy and urge the Government to learn from the early-adopter scheme and make changes accordingly.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour must stand firm and resist trade union pressure
The government clashed twice with trade unions in the past week and demonstrated its independence from the movement from which the Labour Party arose but to which it must never be beholden. Activists attending the 'policy' conference of Unite, the trade union, voted to suspend Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, from membership of the union, because they blame her for failing to settle the Birmingham bins dispute. By seeking to use the leverage of a personal attack, they undermined their comrades' cause. Ms Rayner is a proud trade unionist who owes her start in politics to the success she made of her role as a Unison union representative of care workers. Her Unite membership was a paper one, and she says she had already given it up. She was rightly disdainful of Unite's pettiness and the Birmingham dispute is probably further from resolution as a result. If the case against the workforce changes in Birmingham is as strong as Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, says it is, it should not need the attempted intimidation of government ministers to fight it. Meanwhile, Ms Rayner's cabinet colleague Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is engaged in a different disagreement with another trade union, and one of national significance. He settled the dispute with junior hospital doctors, now called resident doctors, when Labour took office last year. The doctors secured a bigger pay rise than other public sector employees. It was a generous deal, which The Independent criticised because it did not include any commitment on the part of doctors to more efficient ways of working. Doctors could look forward to several years of favourable treatment, by which their pay would continue to catch up after the real-terms decline of the Conservative years. Instead, the British Medical Association has balloted its members on strike action in pursuit of a 'non-negotiable' demand for a 29 per cent pay rise. In that ballot an overwhelming majority of those voting supported strikes, but the strike option still failed to secure the support of a majority of those entitled to vote. As a result, public opinion is opposed to the strikes, in contrast to last year's dispute when the doctors' case was supported. Alan Johnson, the former health secretary and a former union leader himself, tells The Independent: 'This has all the signs of the BMA leading their troops into a battle they can't win – nor should they, given that government has honoured the pay review recommendations in full having settled last year's dispute immediately on taking office.' Mr Johnson is right when he says: 'This is a battle Wes Streeting has to win.' The Independent is not anti-union, despite the circumstances of its birth in the 1980s, which was enabled by the breaking of the power of the print unions in the newspaper industry. We believe that unions have a valuable role in supporting and defending their members. We have our reservations about some of the measures in Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill, and think it was right to postpone implementation of some of the most contentious of them until at least 2027. But there is nothing wrong with unions seeking to influence that legislation and calling on the common bonds of history to persuade Labour ministers of their arguments. But in the end, ministers must decide. They can take account of representations made by trade unions, but they should not be bullied, either by personal gestures or by industrial action. Ms Rayner and Mr Streeting must stand firm.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Young people want to work. Yet we are stopping them
In my industry, I meet countless young people full of energy and potential. Hospitality has always offered opportunities for those who are ambitious, practical and determined to get ahead – particularly those spurning university to get straight into the jobs market. But more and more, I hear the same frustration from employers: it's getting harder to bring young people into the workforce and keep them there. This isn't because young people don't want to work. It's because we've created an environment that makes it incredibly difficult for them to start. Nearly one million young people are now not in education, employment or training (NEETs). This is an economic disaster, but it is also a profound waste of human potential. Above all, it is a failure in policy. Because while the Government talks a good game on growth, the reality is it is building an environment at odds with young people's natural desire to get on and succeed. Take the benefit system. I was shocked to read in new research from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) that by 2026, someone out of work due to anxiety, receiving both Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment, will receive more than £25,000 a year. A full-time worker on the national living wage, meanwhile, will take home only around £22,500 after tax. This is not a criticism of those receiving support. The fault lies ultimately with a benefits system that, however well-intentioned, now too often rewards economic inactivity and traps people in dependency. It can't be right that some interviews with potential claimants are now done online and over Zoom. We must not forget that the ultimate goal of welfare should be to provide hand up not a handout. The problem is being compounded by short-sighted policies. Recent increases in National Insurance have raised costs for employers – especially in labour-intensive sectors like hospitality – and made it harder to create and sustain jobs. Hospitality has been hit hardest: since April, almost 70,000 jobs have been lost, reversing a gain of 18,000 last year. Add to that talk of more tax rises, and we risk sending a clear message to young people: effort doesn't pay, and enterprise isn't welcome. We've been here before. In the 1970s, Britain learnt the hard way that punishing work and subsidising idleness leads to stagnation and decline. Today we face a similar moment. If we want a dynamic, outward-looking economy again, we need to restore the link between work and reward. That means rebalancing the benefits system. The CSJ's proposals to tighten eligibility for long-term sickness claims based on less severe mental health conditions, using the savings to reinvest in NHS therapy, would be positive step in the right direction. Another idea is to use the saving to bring in tax relief for employers taking on NEETs. What better way to ameliorate the effects of the NICs rise for businesses, solve our inactivity problem and help thousands more young people reap all the financial and mental health benefits a job? The scheme would more than pay for itself, the CSJ finds, in added value to the economy. We cannot allow young people to drift, unsupported, when they could be building careers, confidence, and lives of purpose. A modern economy should reward ambition, support those who fall on hard times, and help people into meaningful work. For Britain's young people, there is no time to lose.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain does not need an Islamophobia law, existing rules work
As the founder and former director of Tell MAMA, I have experience of working with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases of anti-Muslim hatred, including working with the CPS on a six-year harassment campaign that I endured and which finally led to a prosecution. I am speaking as someone who has many years of practical experience of combatting anti-Muslim hate. This is something that cannot be said of all the members of the Labour-appointed Working Group on Islamophobia. How the group defines anti-Muslim hate will have profound ramifications. Its recommendations risk strengthening bad actors within Muslim communities who want to create a chilling effect on free speech. I know full well that existing laws are robust enough to prosecute genuine Islamophobes. They are used effectively by police forces up and down this country. What is needed is better enforcement of existing laws, not new speech codes. The Working Group on Islamophobia will have you believe that its work is similar to that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism produced by academics, legal scholars and representatives of Jewish organisations. But it is not. The IHRA definition was not handed down by a government, but was a grassroots initiative developed by non-governmental organisations. The reason for the current Islamophobia drive is simple. Labour is trying to provide a symbolic sop to British Muslim communities after suffering significant electoral losses in some strongly Muslim seats at the last election. Members of the Working Group have suggested that anti-Muslim hate is racialised. This is only part of the picture. Tell MAMA data, covering the last 13 years, demonstrate that this is not true in the majority of cases, although it certainly is in some. I know that campaigning groups have been calling for Islamophobia to be recognised and recorded as being both racially and religiously aggravated, thereby melding the two separate aggravating factors. But the law is clear – Sikhs and Jews can be regarded as both a racial and religious group. This is simply not the case with Muslims since they do not constitute a single racial group and come from across the world. When we drill down into the laws on incitement to racial hatred, it is clear that racially aggravated offences are deemed different from religiously aggravated ones. The CPS guidance is unambiguous on this. If there are no racially aggravating comments, materials or actions, then the case should not be classed as such. Whatever definition Dominic Grieve and his group come up with will be caveated in a long report that will more than likely make the argument that many cases of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hate have a racial hatred component to them. But since Muslims are not a race this, by definition, cannot be the case. With a sleight of the hand, they will seek to confuse and project the view that race and religion both automatically play a part in the targeting of Muslims. We must call them out on this, and the CPS must push back on the claim with some vigour. If we, as the public, do not wake up, we may be looking at more people being cancelled or even criminalised in the future. We cannot allow that to happen.
