
The Guardian view on child poverty: free school meals are a help, but not a panacea
It was Ellen Wilkinson, education minister in the Attlee government, who announced in 1946 that free school dinners would be introduced, along with free school milk, at the same time as child benefit. No doubt Rachel Reeves, who has a picture of Wilkinson on the wall of her office, is aware of this – and also that the Treasury subsequently decided the policy was unaffordable. The meals were subsidised instead.
Despite these initial charges, and later price rises, poorer children did gain, and keep, an entitlement to free school meals. The announcement last week that this is being extended in England to all those whose parents or carers claim universal credit – rather than restricted to families with incomes lower than £7,400 – should be welcomed by all objectors to child poverty. Being assured of a hot lunch in the middle of the school day makes pupils' lives better. Children cannot be expected to learn when they do not have enough to eat. This might sound obvious, but is easily forgotten. Scotland and Northern Ireland already have more generous rules in place.
Ministers clearly hope that this will be a popular policy, as they prepare for this week's spending review and the reaction to it. Hunger in schools is disturbingly widespread and the enthusiastic reception to Marcus Rashford's campaign on school food showed that this is a cause the public warms to. Long before last year's election, breakfast clubs were a flagship Labour policy. Now they are part of Bridget Phillipson's schools bill.
But as with breakfast clubs, which some schools have said that they cannot deliver on the budget provided, good intentions must not mask inadequate finances. Already, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has challenged the government's claim that 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. It said this can only be expected over the long term. And some children already entitled to free meals do not receive them – prompting calls for auto-enrolment.
Another challenge concerns food quality, which has been eroded by a series of below-inflation funding increases. Free lunches are already offered to all pupils up to the age of seven. But a recently announced 3p rise in the subsidy towards these (from £2.58 to £2.61 per meal), was rightly criticised for forcing school leaders to either reduce their lunch offer, or make cuts elsewhere. The average actual cost of a school lunch is £3.16.
Twenty years after the Channel 4 television series Jamie's School Dinners turned kitchens' reliance on junk food into a national issue, it is depressing that resources remain so meagre. Childhood obesity and poor dental health are serious problems, particularly in poorer parts of the country where treatment is harder to access. Ms Phillipson and her colleagues should be more ambitious about quality as well as quantity. Improvements could contribute to children's overall wellbeing, as well as nutrition. Meals are social events, not just refuelling stops.
But step back from the table and the bigger picture comes into view. Child poverty, of which poor diets are a symptom, cannot be tackled by schools alone. Reducing it means raising family incomes through the benefits system – as well as trying to boost wage growth. Earlier this year, some Labour MPs warned that school food risked becoming a sop. That danger has not gone away. The latest announcement on free lunches is good news so long as it does not distract from efforts to remove the two-child benefit cap, or weaken the wider campaign against child poverty.
Hashtags

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


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
'It's simply not safe': A thousand doctors write to MPs urging them to vote against assisted dying bill
More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce". The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less. A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament. But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns". Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords. The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE. The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer". It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. "This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill". 1:40 Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years". "It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession." He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill. "We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce." What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now? The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November. Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May. But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage. The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords. 'No safeguards against coercion' One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control. "Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says. It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying. "People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult." Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons. Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis. "Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says. "As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life." 1:50 The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members. "A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request. The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients".


South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
North missed £140bn of transport investment over last government, research finds
Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power. It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period. While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said. The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively. This amounted to £140 billion of missed investment for the North, more than the entire £83 billion estimate of capital spending on transport in the region since 1999/2000, according to the analysis. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Among the most divisive transport investment projects for the previous government was the HS2 rail project, which was axed north of Birmingham in October 2023. Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak pledged to 'reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands', including improvements to road, rail and bus schemes. Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands ahead of the spending review. It is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, along with a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. 'We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign, yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her rein – while our transport chasm widens. 'This isn't London bashing – Londoners absolutely deserve investment. But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right. 'This Government have begun to restore fairness with their big bet on transport cash for city leaders. 'They should continue on this journey to close this investment gap in the upcoming spending review and decades ahead.' Former Treasury minister Lord Jim O'Neill said: 'Good governance requires the guts to take a long-term approach, not just quick fixes. So the Chancellor is right in her focus on the UK's long-standing supply-side weaknesses – namely our woeful productivity and weak private and public investment. 'Backing major infrastructure is the right call, and this spending review is the right time for the Chancellor to place a big bet on northern growth and begin to close this investment chasm. 'But it's going to take more than commitments alone – she'll need to set out a transparent framework for delivery.'


North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
North missed £140bn of transport investment over last government, research finds
Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power. It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period. While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said. The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively. This amounted to £140 billion of missed investment for the North, more than the entire £83 billion estimate of capital spending on transport in the region since 1999/2000, according to the analysis. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Among the most divisive transport investment projects for the previous government was the HS2 rail project, which was axed north of Birmingham in October 2023. Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak pledged to 'reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands', including improvements to road, rail and bus schemes. Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands ahead of the spending review. It is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, along with a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. 'We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign, yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her rein – while our transport chasm widens. 'This isn't London bashing – Londoners absolutely deserve investment. But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right. 'This Government have begun to restore fairness with their big bet on transport cash for city leaders. 'They should continue on this journey to close this investment gap in the upcoming spending review and decades ahead.' Former Treasury minister Lord Jim O'Neill said: 'Good governance requires the guts to take a long-term approach, not just quick fixes. So the Chancellor is right in her focus on the UK's long-standing supply-side weaknesses – namely our woeful productivity and weak private and public investment. 'Backing major infrastructure is the right call, and this spending review is the right time for the Chancellor to place a big bet on northern growth and begin to close this investment chasm. 'But it's going to take more than commitments alone – she'll need to set out a transparent framework for delivery.'