Hasn’t Rachel Reeves got enough on her plate without a row about free school meals?

Sean O’Grady looks at the rumours that Labour will seek to make savings by reintroducing means-testing for primary-age children to receive free lunches

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, says she “does not recognise” news reports that ministers are considering the future of free school meals for infant pupils in England (it is a devolved matter). Specifically – though it has not been specifically denied – the suggestion is that means-testing may be introduced, which would reduce the number of children who are eligible (as well as the cost).

Reeves will need to make considerable cuts to spending plans across government, perhaps including previously “protected” areas such as schools, if she is to reach her fiscal targets and fulfil the broad public spending plans to be announced on Wednesday.

What’s the proposal?

If there is such a thing, then it is most likely to involve reducing the number of children in England who receive free school meals. Savings in the education budget could be achieved by ending universal free school meals for all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2, according to reports. For older children in state schools, free school meals are means-tested, and linked to families qualifying for various social security benefits. The move would thus bring the very youngest children into line with their older siblings.

What’s the truth?

Hard to say. Reeves says she doesn’t “recognise” the idea, which can be spin-doctor-speak for “We’re thinking about something along those lines, and it’s uncertain and therefore we can’t commit either way.”

A source at the Department for Education makes a parallel not-quite-denial, and – whatever the substance of the original story – attempts to protect the position and reputation of Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, and afford her some room for manoeuvre should things get tricky: “It’s no secret that there are some tough choices coming down the track – but if people don’t think Bridget is going to fight tooth and nail to protect programmes that support the most disadvantaged children, they don’t know Bridget very well. Any suggestions those things are being ‘offered up’ is complete rubbish.”

Which is not the same as just saying “Free school meals for infants will continue.”

It may just be that it is being bandied about in Whitehall as an “option”, with no decision near being made.

What about the breakfast clubs?

Well, quite. Given these were a much-publicised manifesto commitment, the government can’t U-turn on them, even though it seems odd to provide free breakfasts but not free lunches. There are problems with funding the breakfast clubs (some schools say they can’t do it for 60p per head), but Reeves has ruled out means-testing or other restrictions: “In fact, this government are ensuring that all children get a good start to the day with a breakfast club, helping working parents, and helping all children get a good start in life”.

Why means-test the meals?

Money. The public finances need fixing, and Reeves has to present the Office for Budget Responsibility and the markets with credible, practical ways in which public spending and borrowing will be cut; vague promises about unleashing growth and artificial intelligence saving billions won’t fool anyone. Reeves’s worst nightmare is that she ends up crashing the public finances just as Liz Truss did in the notorious 2022 mini-Budget. Any political pain involved in spending cuts is trivial by comparison.

Why not means-test the meals?

It is deeply stigmatising for any pupil to be identifiably in receipt of free school meals, and for the very youngest it must be potentially traumatic. Children can be cruel.

What would be the consequences of means-testing infants’ meals?

Ugly. Phillipson and Reeves might find themselves in competition for the title of “most hated woman in Britain”, or even the nickname “lunch snatcher” – and it could damage their careers, perhaps fatally. Then again, that didn’t happen to the original “milk snatcher”, Margaret Thatcher – who, in 1971, as education secretary, withdrew free school milk for schoolchildren over the age of seven.

She regretted the move, but it didn’t stop her becoming party leader and prime minister a few years later. However, it didn’t help her party’s popularity then, and a similar move now would damage Labour’s poll ratings still further.

Will it happen?

It might be a step too far, even for today’s pliant cohort of Labour MPs, and the political battle might well not be worth it. Marcus Rashford, along with other celebrities and charities, would mount a formidable defensive action. The opposition parties would surely be tempted to exploit cynically the government’s discomfiture, even if they’d likely have implemented the same measure, and even if they did not commit to reversing Labour’s policy (as with so much else Reeves has done or has had to do).

In short, rather like the stories about Liz Kendall freezing personal independence payments, it sounds like another bit of kite-flying.