The Independent is calling for free school meals for all children in poverty

There are few duties of government more important than ensuring that children have good, nutritious food to fill their hungry bellies. So it is with great pride and maximum conviction that The Independent has partnered up with the Food Foundation, a consortium of charities, to campaign for the extension of the free school meals programme.

Ideally, as Michael Gove has suggested, the residual stigma of free meals should be removed by a system of universal provision, but that is beyond political realism. A modest change in the rules, however, would help lift some 800,000 children in England out of food poverty. That is something that, even in the present political situation, could be achieved. It should be because – crises or not – Britain remains a civilised society.

At the moment, only the very poorest children, in virtual destitution, are eligible for the security of guaranteed free daily nutrition. Households on universal credit, but where their income happens to be more than £7,400 a year (excluding benefits), are not. This low threshold applies regardless of family size or living conditions. These families are in poverty, but not poor enough for school meals. It should be an intolerable state of affairs. It implies hunger.

With the public finances in crisis, there are obvious objections to increasing public expenditure in this way – to which there are two answers. First, it is hardly the fault of poor families that the nation’s finances have been so mismanaged. It was not their idea to dish out tax cuts to the very rich, or those in the middle of the income scale, squeezed as they are.

Write a letter to your MP – click here to send one quickly and simply

Please sign the petition by clicking here

Second, and in stark contrast to some of the chancellor’s other fiscal plans, this scheme really does pay for itself. A study of the proposal by PwC, a consultancy and accountancy firm, suggests that the cost of providing free school lunches for all children in poverty (using the conventional definition) in England would be an additional £477m in the first year, and would then decline to £210m over 20 years.

But that money represents investment. It means stronger young people, more able to exercise, resist infection, and not become unhealthy and make premature demands on the NHS. It means more alert school children who are better able to absorb knowledge. It eases the burden on families without enough to live on. In due course, it will create a more useful workforce and a healthier citizenry. The UK would be that little bit more productive.

The total cost of £6.4bn over two decades would thus yield benefits of £8.9bn – resulting in a net benefit of £2.4bn. PwC has aggregated the positive impacts that flow from educational attainment, mental and physical health effects and productivity improvements, and reported that for every £1 invested by the government, £1.40 would be returned.

These are the kind of “supply side” reforms that will yield economic and social benefits sown way behind the initial investment. But it is also the right thing to do. Charities and extended families can assist children in need, and they do, but one way to make assured progress on health and diet in young people is to deliver it at scale and within the existing school distribution system.

The moral argument was won during the pandemic, with the success of the school lunches campaign led by Marcus Rashford. At such a moment of national distress and solidarity, the government had to change its mind and admit the strength of the argument. The case to feed the young properly is just as powerful now as it was during Covid. Once again, even in troubled times, the government must listen.