Free Lunches - A Good Idea?

[youngmafbog]

No I am going to surprise some on here I am sure but I agree with free lunches for all kids. It removes the social stigma and ensures that children eat at least one nutritious meal a day. In addition I believe it instills an important social ability; to be able to eat correctly in a public environment.

However, the funding aspect is an issue. In my opinion this should have been funded by a cut in child benefit, after all its 5 meals less a week the parent needs to provide.

Of course we should go further, means testing child benefit for the well off and no child benefit for anyone not working, instead providing decent nutritious food parcels from ADS/Lidel or whoever could deliver them competitively

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/no-such-thing-as-a-free-school-lunch-government-reckless-in-failing-to-provide-adequate-school-funds-9677179.html

[Ric.ror]

You know I think I agree - I was talking to someone who used to work in social services (adoption and fostering) and they would strongly agree with that

[black_cat51]

i suppose if you are taking benefits away to provide the meals they are not really free meals (well, i suppose only in the sense that benefits are "free" money) :)

[anotheoldgit]

Don't deprive our own, cut some unnecessary overseas aid to fund it.

[black_cat51]

ll AG, i thought our schools were full to the brim of immigrants? Or are you proposing that "British" kids all get free meals, while the children of migrants dont? perhaps the new free school meals test shouldn't be means testing but what the primary language spoken at home is?

[anotheoldgit]

black_cat51

What the *** are you ranting on about, did I mention immigrants at home?

The secret is in the word 'overseas'.

[Old_Geezer]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. It means Muggins the taxpayer is paying for responsibilities that parents should be covering; or those thinking about being parents should be aware is their responsibility. There was no social stigma in the school I attended, I'm not even sure one pupil knew whether another had a free meal or not. And eating lunch in public has the opportunity to instil correct behaviour if the parents are incapable of doing so, it does not rely on handouts to all parents. The child benefit thing is a red herring. It should be overhauled anyway since there is no excuse for handouts for second or subsequent children. Means testing is a bad thing when it isn't required. It costs more than saying something is a right not a benefit, and so should be avoided wherever possible. In any case it demeans those who do have it done to them and if it becomes known might even increase the stigma the OP seemed to think was worth removing.

[black_cat51]

when you said don't deprive "our own" i was wondering what you meant by that

[belrec]

ymb while I do agree on the whole that it is a good idea and the funding is a problem.

however, you cannot "take away" the benefit for those not working as it is //after all its 5 meals less a week the parent needs to provide. // as those not working get free schools meals anyway so you wouldn't be changing anything as those parents are not providing that lunchtime meal in the first place.

My youngest is about to be eligible for the free meals but i will probably not do the whole 5 days for him as there are a few things on there he wont eat, also i do not know how much he is eating and while the dinner staff do check its not the same as having the lunchbox in front of you.

Plus it may have slipped many peoples' minds but it is a free HOT dinner so if your child wants a pack up lunch instead you may still have to pay for that so you might as well just give them a pack up from home. :-)

[joeluke]

Free lunches could be funded by cutting out child benefit for those households with an income of say 50k+

[pixie373]

There's no need for it, imo. Although would mean parents didn't need to cook after school- but that's not unreasonable when you choose to have children. Schools are becoming a bit nannying, I think. I always decline the weighing of mine- if they had a weight problem, I would do something about it. It isn't the school's business really.

[Cloverjo]

Not all schools have kitchens, so those schools will give their pupils sandwiches, so kids won't necessarily have a hot meal. They'll have some food, so perhaps this will help a few families, but not likely to be great for everyone.
People who are on the basic amount of jobless benefits don't get Child Benefit anyway. Or if they don't know their way around the social security system and claim it anyway, it will be taken off their other benefit.
In the schools that do have kitchens, I'm not sure there is a social stigma. No one will know who is getting their meals for free, most of the time. In my school, (years ago now), the only time we knew who was getting free meals was when we were on a field trip and grim-looking boxes were handed out to those children.

[Cloverjo]

Sorry, I don't like the way my last sentence read. I was one of "those children" once, but my mum was too proud to claim free meals for us.

[Mamyalynne]

When did those on basic jobless benefits stop getting Child Benefit?

[Cloverjo]

Mamyalynne, when I was a single mother about 20 years ago, I claimed Child Benefit and then Income Support. My IS amount was reduced by the CB amount. The name of the benefit might have changed, but I think the principle remains the same. There is a basic amount the gov thinks you can live on, so any other benefits you get including CB will be taken off that number.

[Mamyalynne]

I think you are wrong - Child Benefit is a universal benefit.

[pixie373]

I didn't realise that cloverjo, either. So the poorest people are the only ones that don't get the"extra" of child benefit?

[Old_Geezer]

If true, then that is the worst state of affairs. If the poor's safety net is already taken care of by another means, then we can cheerfully just dispense with the handout for having a child then. Not that, that was the subject of this thread.

[anotheoldgit]

black_cat51

/// when you said don't deprive "our own" i was wondering what you meant by that ///

I was unaware that I was speaking in a foreign language, 'our own' means er, er, well to put it simply 'our own' how can I be any more descriptive?

But let's try shall we?

The people who are officially residents of these Islands.

[Baldric]

So, as Tax-payers, myself and OH, who have raised kids, waved them a fond farewell and never received a penny in benefits whilst doing so, should now have our pockets picked by the Government to feed the offspring of those too lazy, ignorant or feckless to do it themselves?
I think that sums it up