Kate Anstey gave evidence.

Thank you very much for coming. Apologies; we are a little bit later starting than we had anticipated because of the delay for voting earlier. Could you introduce yourself?

Kate Anstey:

I am Kate Anstey, the head of education policy at Child Poverty Action Group.

Q Good afternoon. Thank you for bearing with us while we voted. During the course of the day we have been discussing free school meals in secondary schools. It is obviously desirable to give lots of people free breakfasts, but there has been a bit of a debate about how to prioritise in a situation of inevitably scarce resources. We heard from Mark Russell that, if given the choice, rather than go for a universal obligation in primary schools, he would have the roll-out of breakfast clubs in more secondary schools targeted at schools with high levels of deprivation. Should we focus first on areas of deprivation and secondary schools with deprivation? Obviously, we would like to have infinite money. What do you think of his argument?

Kate Anstey:

We certainly welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs in the Bill. We speak to children and families in schools extensively and carry out extensive analysis. We know that where breakfast clubs are provided freely, they make a huge difference to low-income families —they make a big difference to lots of children, but to lower-income families disproportionately. The fact that provision is universal is very important; we know that removes a lot of barriers for parents. Where there is any kind of targeted approach, there are issues around stigma and families are less likely to use provision.

Q Do you mean universal within the school—everyone has access to it?

Kate Anstey:

Yes, exactly. Take-up of breakfast clubs varies, but the fact that it is universally available is very important.

I would say that it feels like secondary school pupils need more attention. They are being missed in the Bill. More could be done to support those families. There is also the issue in primary schools of how much support breakfast clubs can provide in terms of childcare, which is much more needed at primary level, but secondary school pupils certainly need support. They need support to get to school and they need food available as well.

Q That is a very interesting point. Do you have a sense yet of the future funding arrangements for breakfast clubs in secondary schools and for HAF—holiday activities and food? What is the current status of those, as you understand it?

Kate Anstey:

My understanding is that the HAF funding for holiday programmes has been committed to until 2025—some time this year. There are concerns about what will happen next with holiday programmes. In terms of funding for breakfast clubs more generally, there has been commitment to carry on funding the national school breakfast programme until 2026. That supports some secondary schools that meet the criteria. That is welcome, but one of our concerns with the work going on around breakfast clubs is funding and commitment to funding. We know that there is funding until 2026.

Q But there is no certainty after that.

Kate Anstey:

Yes, there is no certainty after that. The costs cannot land on families—we know that that will be a major barrier—but they also cannot land on schools, which need to know that they can continue that provision.

Q There are charities, voluntary groups and various people out there funding free breakfasts, and there are paid-for free breakfasts at the moment, so the interaction of the Government-funded entitlement for the 30 minutes and those two other things will be quite complicated. Do you have any thoughts about anything that we need to do in the Bill to make that work well and to avoid the problems you have described? More generally, do you have thoughts, based on the experience of the groups that you speak to, about what it really costs to deliver this well? What is the unit cost of doing it properly? I am interested in both of those things.

Kate Anstey:

Around 75% of schools have some form of breakfast provision already, but, as you say—

Q Is that primary?

Kate Anstey:

There is a higher proportion in primary, but that 75% is across all. Sorry—I have forgotten your question.

Q I was trying to get at what the unit costs look like and how you manage the interaction of providing a new, free entitlement to 30 minutes together with paid-for sessions that offer longer and existing, charitably funded things. Is there anything we need to do in the Bill to ensure that that does not get tangled up?

Kate Anstey:

A large proportion are already running breakfast clubs. It is a real mixture in terms of how that is funded, whether it is through schemes or other things. In primary schools, it is much more likely that parents are paying in some form for that. Again, it is a mixed picture. There is a postcode lottery for families. If you are in a more affluent area, you are more likely to have breakfast club provision available to you, and you are more likely to be supported by family.

In what the Bill is trying to do on breakfast clubs, we really welcome the fact that it is bringing consistency and ensuring that there is access for all families. In the early adopter phase, it would be good to understand what schools are doing already and how this can work, but I think that standardised limit that includes both time and food for families should be standardised for everybody. There might be other things that go around that.

Q On unit costs, I saw in the Government document that there was an initial grant—a lump sum—but the unit cost was about 65p per session per child. I know that there was the lump sum as well, but that struck me as being not a huge amount. I do not know what it really costs to deliver these things in practice in a lot of other places.

Kate Anstey:

It is probably worth speaking to organisations; I am sure that Magic Breakfast will be able to speak more to that. There are certainly economies of scale that can help you bring down costs, but again, our area of expertise is free school meals, and schools are struggling with the funding that they have for free school meals. I would imagine that 65p might be a struggle for schools—I do not know. You would have to have conversations with some of the providers about that.

Q Kate, it is good to see you again. Thank you for giving evidence to the Committee. I have a specific question around school uniform provisions in the Bill. Do you think that the provisions in the Bill on school uniform items for primary schools will support families and children with the cost of living?

Kate Anstey:

We were very pleased to see Government taking action on reducing the cost of the school day, and uniforms are a huge pressure for families. We have done some research looking at the cost of uniforms for families. If you are a primary-aged family, the cost is £350 minimum, and it goes up to about £450 for secondary-aged families. That is for one child, of course, so that multiplies if you have more children. Part of that includes the fact that schools sometimes have excessive lists of compulsory branded items, so we were very pleased to see that acknowledgment in the Bill and the recognition that that needs to be limited. We think that that will make some difference to families.

The Bill could have gone further. I am not sure why the difference has been made between secondary and primary on the minimum. I think that those should be the same; there should not be a discrepancy there. I encourage Government to consider going further on this and bringing down the branded items as much as possible, because that is one of the things that place pressure on families.

In addition, the Bill could go further to support families with the cost of uniforms. In every other UK nation, families get grants and support with school costs. England is the only one that is lagging behind in that area, so we would like the idea of lower-income families getting more support with the cost to be looked at. This is two-pronged: schools need to do more, but families really do need help to meet some of those costs as well.

One more thing on uniform that comes up a lot in our research with children and young people is that children are being isolated or sent home from school because they do not meet requirements around uniform. DFE data showed that 18% of children in hardship were sent home for not meeting uniform requirements. I find that kind of shocking when we have an attendance crisis. Something needs to be done around the guidance for behaviour in schools to ensure that children are not sanctioned for poverty-related issues or issues relating to uniform. Those are areas where I think that the Bill could have gone further, but we certainly think restricting branded items is a good thing.

Q Kate, you touched on the fact that the Bill does not really address the needs of children at secondary school who might be in poverty. I know that the Child Poverty Action Group has long campaigned on expanding eligibility for free school meals. Could you tell us whether you would like to see the threshold of eligibility across both primary and secondary raised? Also, should we be looking at auto-enrolment?

Kate Anstey:

I think the Bill was a real missed opportunity to do more on free school meals. Again, school food comes up in every conversation we have. At the moment, we estimate that about one in three children in poverty do not qualify for free school meals because that threshold is painfully low. It has not been updated since 2018. As CPAG, ultimately, we want to see means-testing removed from lunchtime altogether. We want children to be in school and able to learn. They have to be there at lunchtime. There is no reason why we should not feed every child universally and make it part of the school day, but I think there is an urgent need to increase that threshold as much as possible to support more lower-income families.

Q To what level?

Kate Anstey:

As I say, we would like to see universal provision, but the fact that currently you can be eligible for universal credit and state-funded benefits and yet your child cannot get a bit of support in the form of a hot meal at lunchtime is completely wrong, in my mind. I think, at the very least, it should go to all families on universal credit.

Q And auto-enrolment?

Kate Anstey:

Yes. The data on auto-enrolment shows that around one in 10 children who are eligible for free school meals are not registered. That is for a whole host of reasons, including families not knowing they are entitled and families struggling with the admin. There is a very clear fix to this: if the DWP and the DFE work together to do the right data sharing, those children can be automatically enrolled. At the moment, many local authorities are doing a brilliant job of putting opt-out schemes in place, but that is highly onerous and those systems are not perfect, so they still miss children. We absolutely would say that increasing eligibility for free school meals is a priority, as is making sure that everybody who is entitled is getting one. The children who are missing out because they are not registered are some of the poorest. They are missing out on the meal and the benefits that go alongside that.

Q Nutritionally, would you say a hot meal at lunchtime is more beneficial than a breakfast?

Kate Anstey:

As I said, take-up of breakfast clubs or different schemes is around 40%, whereas the vast majority of children are in school for lunchtime. Children will be there and able to access that hot meal, so they are more likely to feel the benefits, whereas the effects of breakfast clubs depend on whether that offer is taken up.

I want to make a reference to the previous witness. It is my first time at a Committee oral hearing, and I am slightly astonished that there was no declaration that the previous witness was a parliamentary candidate at the election just gone—[Interruption.]

Order. Can we please get on to the questions to the witness on the Bill?

I make this point in the context of the Labour peer who did disclose her party allegiance.

And others.

Order. It is not acceptable to have this backwards and forwards across the Committee. Please ask a question of the witness.

Q I want to ask somebody who clearly has long professional experience about the nutrition of food in the free breakfast clubs. Children are experiencing significant difficulty, whether it be from the cost of living crisis, the pandemic, reduced opportunity for play outdoors or their increased screentime. Children are struggling, so we need to make sure that the food that they get from this Government is as nutritious as possible. There is clearly a correlation between poor health outcomes and people’s financial hardship. How do you expect health outcomes will improve for children, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, by their having access to free breakfast clubs?

You have one minute to answer.

Kate Anstey:

Food that is given at breakfast time has to be in line with school food standards. Those standards certainly need to be looked at and more could be done around them but, again, I pivot back to the fact that although there is a need to look at what children are getting at breakfast, there is even more of a need to look at making sure that more children can get access to food at lunch time.

Schools themselves will say that there are sometimes struggles in terms of meeting school food standards because of the costs. Schools have faced increased costs of food, and they do not want to pass those costs on to families, so there are challenges there, but there is a will from schools to try to meet those standards and give children a complete meal. That can hopefully happen at breakfast and at lunch time. It is fundamental that children are able to have that nutritious hot meal, and we know it has really fantastic benefits for the rest of the school day.

We recently evaluated the Mayor’s universal free school meals policy in London. We found that, as well as the health benefits, families are also able to spend on food at home when they save that money. Children are also much more likely to try new foods when they are around other children, when teachers are there and when they are socialising, so there are multiple health benefits to children eating well at school. We need to support schools to be able to do that.

We now have to move on to the next panel. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to the Committee.