Laws: “99% of schools now have a plan in place to deliver universal free school meals in September”

school mealsI’ll be honest. If I had the choice over where to direct £500 million a year of taxpayers’ money, universal free school meals for infants would not be top of my priority list.

That said, the sheer desperation of right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail for the policy to fail just to spite Nick Clegg strikes me as pretty mean-spirited. It’s a policy which is highly popular with headteachers, and will be with parents too. Perhaps more surprisingly, it’s possibly the only Lib Dem policy ever to attract the support of Paul Staines (aka blogger Guido Fawkes):

I have been worried about the messaging coming from the Lib Dems, though. Under-promise and over-deliver is usually the best plan in politics. I remember Ken Livingstone being interviewed on the morning the congestion charge system kicked in admitting to an interviewer, “I’m just waiting for something to go wrong.” That struck the right note, especially when it all went off without a hitch.

So I was mostly reassured this week by a speech from Lib Dem schools minister David Laws that “based on evidence from local authorities, schools and the support service, over 99% of schools now have a plan in place to deliver universal free school meals in September”.

This won’t always be a hot school meal cooked on the premises, it’s true (the original Clegg aim). To begin with at least, many schools will rely either on delivered hot meals or cold packed lunches. However, the meal will still be a nutritious one — currently, fewer than 1% of packed lunches meet the school food standards.

But there will of course be complaints: in the schools which haven’t managed to meet the Government’s timetable and doubtless from parents unhappy about some aspect of their child’s lunch. Lib Dems should be fully prepared for the media to focus on those exceptions: negativity is what most news reporters are paid to engage in.

David Laws speaking at Lib Dem Spring conference, Liverpool 2008And here, for those wanting to be reminded of the reasons why the Lib Dems have pushed this policy, is an excerpt from David Laws’ speech this week

Take up of free and paid for meals increased dramatically during the Second World War – from just 3% at its outset, to over 30% at its conclusion.

Come 1946, the day of our now much loved ‘dinner lady’ dawned: popularity of school meals had grown so much that paid assistants were introduced to supervise children as they ate their lunch.

And in June 1949, the number of school dinners reached nearly 3 million, over half of the total school population.

Take up reached a high water mark in 1974, when 70% of pupils ate school meals.

But one thing is clear: since that peak in the 1970s, the number of children receiving school meals has been in steady decline.

In the 1980s, the then government cut back on free school meal entitlement, and removed some of the standards designed to ensure healthy meals.

Take up of meals, and the quality of much food, went into steep decline – with a fall in the proportion of children taking school meals from roughly 7 in 10 to just 4 in 10.

That has been bad for attainment in schools. It has been bad for children’s health and concentration. It has undermined the socialisation which comes from children sitting down together each day and eating together.

And the removal of free meals has been an extra pressure on family budgets which has particularly hit low income families who take the initiative to get into work, but who then find that they lose their entitlement to free meals which can be worth almost £1,500 per year for a family with 3 children.

Free school meals are sometimes regarded as an aspiration and idea from the political left.

But I regard this as a common sense policy for the mainstream majority.

I happen to have the old-fashioned view that given that these children are the responsibility of the school and the state for around 7 hours a day, the least we can do is ensure that they eat healthily.

Many of our minds are now on this September, when infants will have a new entitlement to a healthy meal at school.

This policy is the latest milestone in the long history of school meals.

And it is one of the most important.

It is the biggest expansion of free school meals in over 65 years.

1.5 million additional pupils will become entitled to a free meal.

Now every step forward in the last 100 years has had its critics.

But remember that the work you do has a proud and long-standing heritage. You are part of a progressive movement that has always had one overriding priority: to improve school food. …

The plan also recommended that the government should offer free school meals for all children in primary schools.

This was a big and radical idea; but it wasn’t a new one.

Durham and Newham and other parts of the country had already piloted universal free school meals.

The results were clear.

Good, healthy school food, combined with universal provision, had a positive effect on all pupils, but particularly on those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

Universal provision increased take-up among the disadvantaged who are eligible for meals, but don’t always take them up.

They removed the stigma of ‘being a free meals kid’.

They meant that the 1 in 4 children from working families, but who nevertheless live in poverty, got a meal for the first time.

When I visited a school recently in south London, I was moved when the headteacher told me about 1 parent who currently just misses out on free school meals, because she is in a low income job, being in tears after being told of the new entitlement, because of the positive impact it would have on her family’s budget.

Some people in the media seem to think our country is made up of very poor people on benefits who are the only ones needing financial help, and then the so called ‘middle classes’, who they view as all earning £100,000 or more each year.

But most people aren’t very poor or very rich. They are getting by. On £15,000, or £20,000, or £25,000. As a teacher in that London school said to me last week, ‘If you are a parent in London on £18,000 with 3 children, you don’t feel rich.’

This policy will make a huge difference to family budgets in these hard times. And do not worry about whether we are wasting money on families who can afford the meals – we are not paying for free meals in Eton, Westminster or Rugby private schools.

The pilots also showed that when universal free school meals were implemented, children were less likely to eat crisps and unhealthy packed lunches during the school day, and more likely to eat healthy food instead.

And, most importantly, there was a positive impact on children’s levels of literacy and numeracy.

Crucially, the pilots showed that to achieve the benefits of the policy it has to be a universal offer – to all children.

The pilots in which entitlement was only extended modestly to low income working families did not see the attainment and other benefits which we want to secure.

So this is a universal entitlement which we’re introducing not just because it’s popular with parents, though it most certainly is, but because the evidence shows that this is the right thing to do – the only way to secure the improved outcomes we want to see.

There are some who are against this policy as a point of principle. They don’t think it is the job of government to make sure all children get a healthy lunch.

Like those who blocked the first moves to provide healthy meals to school children 100 years ago, they argue it is too expensive; too radical; too difficult.

Government does not share that position.

We cannot allow some siren voices to undermine a policy that will save ordinary parents money and improve children’s education and health.

Left to their own devices, those who want to undermine this policy would take us back in time, unwinding over 100 years of progress on school food.

Government will not allow that to happen.

And that is why it is so important that we work together to make this policy a stunning success in September.

If we get this right, no one will be able to take it away – because it will be so popular with parents that no politician would dare.

That is the prize we are all working for.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

7 Comments

  • I totally agree, Caractatus. Those who thoughtlessly criticise the “Nanny State” forget that it can have a major role in “levelling up” provision and giving everyone a decent start in life, allowing them to achieve their full potential. This is what liberalism should be about: liberating people from constraints, in this case the very simple one of hunger.

  • “This is what liberalism should be about: ”

    By extending taxpayer provided meals to the children of the wealthy at a cost of 500 million per year?? I would have thought that doling out money for the children of the wealthy achieves the opposite of levelling the playing field.

  • Matthew Huntbach 15th Jul '14 - 11:56am

    Stephen Tall

    I have been worried about the messaging coming from the Lib Dems, though. Under-promise and over-deliver is usually the best plan in politics.

    Yup, and since the coalition was formed, in fact before it with “Cleggmania”, we’ve been doing the opposite. It’s like that Apprentice show on television, where somehow the participants feel they all have to give this image of being thrusting super-dynamic types, promising to deliver 110% of everything, and only turn slightly more into realistic human being when they are thrown out and talk honestly.

    There seems to be something in modern culture which just assumes that’s how things must be done. Everything must be sold in this super-duper salesman’s language of over-promise.

    That’s how it seems to be with this School Meals thing. As you suggest, it would probably not be most Liberal Democrats’ top priority for spending the money it needs, which is why when it was pulled out of the hat by The Leader the reaction was more an “Oh …” than a “Whoopee”. It’s not that most of us would be against it, it’s just that I think we would like to have been consulted about whether this should be the priority and not just have it announced in that way. But the Paul Staines quote gives an inkling of what might have happened – various things pushed forward in negotiation and this one unexpectedly meeting an open door.

    Then it is sold as super-duper wonderful, what we always wanted, the heart of what Liberal Democrats are about. Which it isn’t. But the impression given that it is opens us up to attacks on the weaknesses of it.

  • Helen Tedcastle 15th Jul '14 - 12:28pm

    I’m not against free school meals for infants but I can’t help thinking that this policy is merely icing, while the cake – the substance of education – has been decisively ceded to the Tories.

    This is where the Lib Dems went disastrously wrong – trusting Gove and his policy exchange think tank, along with Dominic Cummings – to tear up the curriculum, school governance and structuring, teacher pay and conditions and impose their ideology.

    It’s no wonder that so many teachers will not even consider voting for us ever again from our high water mark of 28% support in 2010.

  • Jayne Mansfield 15th Jul '14 - 12:41pm

    [email protected] Tedcastle
    I couldn’t agree more.
    Welcome back

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTonyH 20th Nov - 2:07am
    Mark - thank you for posting these daily press releases. It's really good to be able to keep track of what the party is saying...
  • User AvatarRossMcL 20th Nov - 12:18am
    I agree that Jo did well here. She is at her best in these kind of face-to-face situations, I think. It will be interesting to...
  • User Avatarnigel hunter 20th Nov - 12:16am
    Same old same old of a failed Tory policy. It is not Democracy when only one viewpoint is discussed. Fact Check UK reminds me of...
  • User AvatarJohn Barrett 19th Nov - 11:53pm
    Jo was lucky not to be in the earlier debate with the 2 so called "main party" leaders. She did very well in a much...
  • User Avatarnigel hunter 19th Nov - 11:35pm
    Neither of the 2 main parties are worth a penny.Equally some of the questions asked were pathetic when we have the most monumental period in...
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill. 19th Nov - 11:29pm
    Jo Swinson was asked about the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson resigning. Boris Johnson has purged the Conservative Parliamentary Party of Remainers and...