Labour has been deliberately opaque when it comes to their plans for government, but on one issue Sir Keir Starmer has been uncharacteristically lucid. The leader of the opposition will be slapping VAT on private schools on ‘day one’ in Downing Street, a promise which has already prompted some parents to cancel places for September.
Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson has made clear that this punitive, green-eyed levy on independent school fees will fund her broad-ranging education plans, from ‘higher standards’ (though the number of schools judged by Ofsted to be ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ increased from 68 per cent in 2010 to 90 per cent in 2023) to ‘higher paid jobs’ (these details remain unknown). But it is the plan for universal free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England that may rankle parents of privately educated children the most.
Once you make breakfasts universal you have opened the door to ‘free’ lunches
Around four-fifths of schools already have some level of breakfast provision for children. In England, all reception, year one and year two pupils are entitled to free lunches. Blanket free school meals have been rolled out across Labour-run London and Wales, but Phillipson has U-turned on a nationwide policy, perhaps because the IFS has found it could cost nearly £1 billion a year. A recent government estimate of the breakfast club plan, assuming 30 per cent take up, put it at £205 million a year by 2030. Were pupils to be provided with an hour of childcare in addition to a meal, however, it could cost close to £1 billion.
In other words, Labour will price some parents out of something they want (private education), in order that others can subsidise something they don’t need (‘free’ breakfast). I would wager that, given the choice, vanishingly few parents would prefer the latter.
Most would agree that the state should stop children from deprived backgrounds going hungry, and would support spending around £1.4 billion a year annually on free school meals throughout term time in England. It’s an imperfect solution, of course: IFS research has found the savings to households from meals are considerably less than the government pays for them. Universal Credit was introduced to streamline the benefits system, and ought to be deployed in such a way as to mitigate the need for free school meals.
But why provide children of more affluent families with free breakfast? Labour says it will allow parents to get to work earlier, and there is some merit to this argument. The school timetable does not make it easy for both parents to work long hours, or have lengthy commutes. Some may welcome the additional flexibility. Yet still, this should be means-tested.
In any case, just 38 per cent of working mothers with children aged 0-14 say that having reliable childcare helps them go to work. One recent study found that over half of schools with breakfast clubs said they were operating below capacity. Labour’s defence reinforces the idea that parents should maximise the time their children spend in the care of the state, and their own at the office.
Indeed, Phillipson has hailed the scheme as ‘giving every child the best start to the day’. Why is another hour at school, away from their family, the ‘best start’? In what world do public sector busybodies know better than parents how their child should eat? The nanny statists would argue that school food is more nutritious, but the evidence to support this is mixed. Even if it were correct, there is no guarantee pupils would choose the healthier options on offer.
It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see the slippery slope. Once you make breakfasts universal you have opened the door to ‘free’ lunches. Phillipson has already said she is ‘looking closely’ at this policy, and the public health establishment have demanded ‘urgent action’. And, once they’re free, the government can make them mandatory.
All signs are pointing to Labour accelerating the paternalism ratchet. The shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has defended the nanny state by proudly declaring Labour ‘sit idly by while children get fatter’. The party wants supervised toothbrushing in schools. Rishi’s gradual smoking ban may have been postponed, but it is likely to be a brief delay. Wes Streeting has already given it his backing.
The British public don’t need saving from themselves. Children don’t need shielding from their parents. What we may all need, however, is protection against a Labour government.
Comments