Should the government provide free school meals over the school holidays to 1.4 million qualifying children? This was the issue put before the British parliament after a campaign by a footballer to address ‘food poverty’ during the pandemic gathered momentum. Controversially, the motion was defeated as the Conservative government’s decided to vote against and only five Tory PM’s broke ranks. The result spurred widespread fury. Who votes against feeding hungry children? But as usual, the social media stampede of indignant outrage hides a more complex issue. This issue is not about hungry children but about the role of the state. Should the government be in charge of feeding the citizenry?
Free school meals are provided during school hours to eligible children (at or below 1.3x the official poverty level of 60% of the median UK household income). Today, 15% of school children in the UK qualify the scheme (which sits on top of more than £125bn of annual welfare provided to working age claimants). The principle of providing eligible school children with a hot lunch during the school day is as old as the British welfare state. Where the new motion breaks with tradition is that the meals would be provided out of school hours, essentially turning schools into free restaurants. The principle of the British welfare state has always been that support to those deemed deserving was given in the form of financial assistance. Except for housing support, prioritizing spending has largely been left up to the welfare claimant – as opposed to for example US food stamp schemes. But the state’s remit is continuously expanding and this motion would see a further Rubicon crossed. The government was right to take a (rare) principled stand to prevent further mission creep. If meals were provided during the holidays, why not during the weekends? If school children are entitled to free meals, why not children too young to go to school? What about those who are home schooled? And those who have just left school? University students? Why stop at food? Are shoes not important? A taxpayer funded raincoat? Toys? Holidays?
To absolve parents from the obligation to feed their children would be another nail in the coffin of individual accountability and personal responsibility and further undermine the family as a social unit. The state should never seek to replace parents and with parenthood comes responsibility – none more important that feeding your child. That responsibility should always reside with the parents.
That does not mean that a vote against free school meals during the holidays is a vote in favour of child poverty. Instead of feeding the mouths of the hungry, the government should focus on why they are left to go hungry in the first place. But sadly, the Tory government has never shown any willingness to address the underlying issues. The best way to address poverty has always been to create a dynamic, flexible and prosperous economy. The widespread joblessness that scars the lethargic modern welfare economies is the main cause of destitution. The charge should not be that the government is shirking their responsibility to look after the poor but that they have failed to create an economy where those at the bottom of the income scale can look after themselves. This has to do with excessive regulation, high minimum wages and punitive taxes, both on businesses and individuals. When an average full time income is faced with paying more than a third in taxes it is not surprising that some need assistance to pay for the basics.
Hungry children is an sensitive issue and the debate is laced with the usual emotive arguments. But what is at stake is not just the wellbeing of children, it is the wellbeing of society. A healthy society consists of individuals who are self-reliant and responsible. A society where the population relies on the state is sick. It has undermined the mutual self-interest which drives successful capitalist societies and replaced it with clientelism and dependency. We are already far too long down this road and are steadily sliding deeper into the morass. We should applaud the government for finally taking a stand.