Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, with the leave of the Grand Committee, and at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will move Amendment 33A in his name. He very much regrets that he cannot be here today. As the Minister has grouped a later amendment with this one, this is the right place to have a short debate about the whole subject of free school meals and milk for children whose families receive working tax credit. We have a lot of sympathy with the first two amendments and wholeheartedly support the Government’s amendment, which increases free school meals and milk to primary school children whose families receive working tax credit. The first amendment, Amendment 33A, would insert the words "and nutrition" after "health", which would mean that the Secretary of State had to consider what, if any, measures ought to be taken in the area of health and nutrition, as well as other matters, in preparing a UK strategy. The second amendment, Amendment 41A, would add another paragraph: ""In preparing a UK strategy, the Secretary of State must consider the desirability of extending eligibility for free school lunches and milk to secondary school pupils in the UK whose parent or parents are in receipt of working tax credit"." I freely admit that there are no accurate costings in any of this, although we think that they might be in the region of £1 billion as a maximum. At this stage, no one is advocating that the Secretary of State should do anything other than look at the merits of this proposal. However, the more I think about the amendment, the more taken with it I am. Not only would free school meals for this cohort of children be good for their health, but other benefits would flow. A lot more children would be eligible for free school meals and this proposal would not stigmatise those who at present are reluctant to be singled out for fear of being labelled poor. I gather that there is a real problem of take-up in many areas on that ground and I can quite understand why. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, more that 350,000 children do not claim free school meals who are entitled to do so. School meals are now prepared according to the Government’s new healthy eating guidelines for secondary schools, which were introduced in September 2009, thanks in part to Jamie Oliver, I believe. We all heard a few weeks ago about the unhealthy lunchboxes that many children bring to school. According to research carried out in Leeds, less than 1 per cent of school lunchboxes meet the Government’s healthy eating guidelines. That is across all socio-economic groups. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, knows what I mean by that. Poor nutrition for children leaves a legacy of ill health in adulthood, such as the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Many parents are probably at their wits’ end to know what food to give their children at lunchtime. Should it be convenience food that they know will be eaten, such as crisps, or should it be healthy food, which might be left? In any case, for children to be offered a hot and nutritious meal, particularly in the middle of a freezing winter such as this, must be a good thing. Another benefit is the increased concentration of well nourished children. In one secondary school in Norfolk, teachers reported a marked improvement in afternoon learning, behaviour and attendance at school clubs when children had eaten a school lunch. This is an important finding and must be factored into the whole debate. Here I pay tribute to the West Norfolk Women and Carers’ Pensions Network and in particular Alexandra Kemp, the chief executive, who has done a lot of interesting and important work on this issue. Many other benefits flow from a much larger cohort of children having school lunches prepared on the school premises. The local economy would be boosted by more local sourcing of meat, vegetables and fruit, leading to an environmentally friendly reduction of food miles. There would be the potential for upskilling more kitchen staff, which could lead to many of them studying for NVQ level 2 in catering, as has happened in schools where more of them have prepared their own food. A lot more part-time and therefore family-friendly local jobs would be provided with the school holidays free. There would be a need for people with computer skills to help to use the relevant computer software that checks nutritional standards and there would be a need for proper nutritional advice and so potential for career advancement for catering staff. It is worth noting that private companies can charge £200 a day for such advice, which, of course, most schools cannot afford. There is scope for the Future Jobs Fund to cover extra staffing costs and training—I would be interested in the Minister’s comment on that. As for the reduction in costs to the NHS because of the potential for improved health outcomes, this might be over the longer term, but it should not be overlooked. In West Norfolk, a case study was carried out with extremely beneficial results. Children were involved in helping to create menus; local suppliers and farmers had increased business; the school had more autonomy in making nearly everything from bread rolls and pizzas to meat pies; and, most important of all, the children liked the meals. To sum up, we believe that the way in which we nourish our children has a major bearing on child poverty. There is a great deal of merit in this amendment, which we believe should be considered. I beg to move.