Child Poverty Bill

I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. Perhaps I may come on to the position in Scotland in a moment. The mechanism for dealing with these matters in England and Wales is the Education Act as it is and that is the Act that we need to amend. This is an opportunity to do so. If we did not take this opportunity, I am not sure how we would be able to move forward quickly. Amendments 81, 81A and 82 are consequential amendments. Amendment 81 amends Clause 28, which is the provision of the Bill dealing with extent. As the new provision on free school meals extends to England and Wales only and is being included in Part 3, we need to amend Clause 28 to give effect to this. Amendments 81A and 82 amend Clause 29, which deals with commencement. We are proposing that the provision on free school meals will come into force two months after Royal Assent, along with the other provisions in Part 2. Amendment 41A seeks to ensure the extension of eligibility for free school meals to secondary school children whose parents are on working tax credit in the UK. As I have said, the amendment does not preclude the Government from making further changes at a later date if it is thought necessary. However, as set out in the Pre-Budget Report, the Government believe that early intervention is vital. Therefore, extending eligibility to primary age children is the right way to proceed. While I am sympathetic to the result that this amendment ultimately wants, the cost of including secondary school children across the UK is of real substance. When fully rolled out in England alone, extending eligibility to primary school children in low-income families will cost over £200 million a year. Agreeing to this amendment would put significant additional new pressures on school budgets, which would have to be met by potentially reducing other school services that are already committed. The Government chose to focus the available resource on primary school children rather than secondary school children to maximise efficiency. This is consistent with the strategy that early intervention has more impact. We know that the parents of young children face the greatest barriers to returning to work. Therefore, by focusing efforts here, allowing parents to return to work and not be penalised by losing their children’s free school meals eligibility, there is the potential that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. Also, the focus on primary school children means that good healthy eating habits will be learnt from an early age and so be likely to be carried on independently at secondary school. With regard to the rollout across the UK, the provision of free school meals is a matter for the devolved Administrations. We are seeking powers in this Bill to extend free school meals to primary school children in the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Provision beyond that is a matter for the other devolved Administrations. Finally, Amendment 33A, which was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is similar to Amendment 33 in that it seeks to specify a particular aspect of health that should be taken into account in developing the child poverty strategy. As with the previous amendment, it is our view that Amendment 33A is unnecessary because "health" is already wide enough to cover issues around healthy eating and nutrition. The building blocks listed here are broad areas for consideration and, if we keep subdividing the list of issues at subsection (5), we will end up with a very long list indeed. Notwithstanding that and given our previous debate, we are minded to take away the issue of specifically adding "mental health". However, we would not wish to make the list overly extensive by adding "nutrition" to it. We believe that it is covered. It is not that the issue is not important, but it does not need to be specified in the Bill. I do not wish to imply that we do not recognise the importance of good nutrition, particularly for developing children, and of course we recognise that living in poverty can impact on the ability of parents to provide a nutritious diet for themselves and for their children. We have taken significant steps to ensure that all families have a nutritious diet and recognise the importance of healthy eating. Perhaps I may give some examples. We published Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives in January 2008, which set out how the Government will support everyone in society to maintain a healthy weight. That is supported by £372 million of funding over three years. School food has improved enormously. All school meals must now meet standards that help children to get the nutrition that they need to grow up fit and healthy. This is being supported by an additional investment of over £650 million between 2005 and 2011. It is particularly important that children from our poorer families eat well in schools, as school lunch can be their most important meal of the day. The amendments that we are proposing to this Bill will increase eligibility of free school meals. We are also prioritising maternal nutrition, making a health in pregnancy grant of £190, as we referred to in our earlier debates. I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness on behalf of the noble Earl that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that people of all ages are well nourished. We do not see it as necessary, however, to include the word "nutrition" in the Bill. We have given consideration to extending free school meals to secondary schools—