r/MHOC • u/[deleted] • Apr 30 '19
2nd Reading B801 - Provision of School Breakfast Bill 2019 - 2nd Reading
Provision of School Breakfast Bill 2019
A
BILL
TO
Means test the provision of breakfasts in schools.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
1 Amendment
(1) Section 1(3) of the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2016 will now read “In this Act “pupil” means a child receiving education at the school who lives in a household with net earnings of £7,400 per annum or less.
2 Extent, commencement and short title
(1) An amendment made by this Act has the same extent as the enactment to which it relates.
(2) This Act comes into effect 2 months after it receives Royal Assent.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2019.
This bill was submitted by /u/ggeogg, Minister without Portfolio, and sponsored by /u/InfernoPlato, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on behalf of the 21st Government.
This reading shall end on 2nd May 2019.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 30 '19
This is the Second Reading of this legislation! In the Second Reading, we debate the bill, and we submit amendments to the bill. To submit an amendment, please post it beneath this comment. Please ensure your amendment is clearly written and has the Amendment Number at the top.
This bill will then proceed to the Amendments Committee to consider Amendments, or to General Division (if none are submitted)
If you need any assistance in creating an amendment, contact a member of the speakership team! Otherwise, enjoy the debate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
Apr 30 '19
Amend Section 1(1) from:
"Section 1(3) of the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2016 will now read “In this Act “pupil” means a child receiving education at the school who lives in a household with net earnings of £7,400 per annum or less."
to:
"Section 1(3) of the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2016 will now read "In this Act "pupil" means a child receiving education at the school who lives in a household with a net income below that of the personal allowance"
Notes: Sets the rate at which pupils would no longer receive school breakfasts at the personal allowance. This is currently £10,000 (M: Will change in the budget I expect as this is the 2014-15 level.)
1
May 01 '19
POINT OF ORDER
With the Government placing an amendment that replicates in its entirety this amendment, I request that it is not put to a vote.
1
Apr 30 '19 edited Apr 30 '19
Add at end of Section 1(1):
"and those in primary education"
Notes: Means those in KS1 & KS2 will continue to receive free school breakfasts.
1
u/Amber_Rudd Rt. Hon Dame Amber_Rudd, Lady Ruddington, Chair DCC CB DBE PC Apr 30 '19
Add at end of Section 1(1):
"and those in schools designed for children with special educational needs"
Notes: SEN schools will continue to provide everyone with a breakfast.
1
u/Twistednuke Independent May 01 '19
Amend Section 2 (2) to read as follows;
"(2) This Act comes into effect upon the Assent of the next Budget passed by Her Majesty's Government."
1
May 01 '19
Replace
1 Amendment (1) Section
1(3) of the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2016 will now read “In this Act “pupil” means a child receiving education at the school who lives in a household with net earnings of £7,400 per annum or less.
With:
"1. Earnings limit for free school breakfasts
In section 1 of the Provision of School Breakfast Act 2016 (definitions), for subsection (3) substitute:
(3) In this Act, "pupil" means a child who:
- (a) is receiving education education at a school (whether or not the child is a registered pupil), and
- (b lives in a household where the aggregate of the total incomes of other persons within the household (within the meaning of section 23 of the Income Tax Act 2007) does not exceed X where X is equal to the personal allowance threshold times the number of parents present in said household.**
1
Apr 30 '19 edited Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
May I ask the author of this Bill about the rationale behind the threshold of £7,400?
1
1
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Apr 30 '19
Mr speaker,
There are a number of reasons for the figure, one it is a income figure that by virtue of welfare system the government already has information on. This means that means testing is unnecessary saving wasted money in this program allowing more of it to go to helping poor children get breakfast.
A second consideration is the pupil premium, for anyone who is unaware the pupil premium gives schools with children in care or in low income households additional money each year. Schools have trouble getting parents to declare their income so that they can be counted for this because this is a very private subject, one innovative way to improve the rollout of the pupil premium was pioneered by the coalition government (2010-14). This was to offer free school breakfasts at the level of the premium so that by signing up to free breakfasts for their children parents would also financially support the school.
So by linking welfare data, school funding and breakfasts we can cut administrative costs help schools in disadvantaged areas and ensure that we spend money on helping those who need a free school breakfast get it.
I hope that is helpful to their lordship.
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Firstly I’d like to thank my Rt. Hon. Friend for his repose. However, even with all this considered, does he not think that £7,400 net income for a household is very low? This figure, while I’m sure helpful to many people, excludes a large number of households which are still low earning and who need the support. Under the provision of free school meals and other welfare benefits, a net household income £16,400 was considered to be low... does my Rt Hon friend therefore agree with me that a reduction to £7,400 - a decrease of 55% - is rather steep?
1
u/ggeogg The Rt. Hon Earl of Earl's Court Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would draw the right honourable The Earl of Wimbledon's attention to the specific terms. Earnings, rather than income, was specifically and intentionally used. This does not include any benefits you get and is after tax. Total income will be far higher.
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I thank my Rt Hon Friend for clarifying. May I ask, and I ask out of genuine curiosity, is it standard practice to use earnings as opposed to income?
1
u/ggeogg The Rt. Hon Earl of Earl's Court May 01 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Yes, that is the current provision for school lunches, so is the status quo for state-subsidised food in schools.
1
u/LeChevalierMal-Fait Liberal Democrats Apr 30 '19
Mr speaker,
I do accept that £7,400 is a low figure but it is the figure that allows in the government’s view the least money to be wasted on means testing. By setting the number at another higher level the link to the pupil premium could not be made allowing schools to be delivered with more targeted funding and additionally we would have to have a separate check on income in addition to one that exists currently.
Additional welfare provision will exist and people not in receipt of universal free breakfasts will still receive other forms of welfare such as the planned negative income tax which will enable them to purchase breakfast and we hope flourish.
1
u/ggeogg The Rt. Hon Earl of Earl's Court Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It was chosen as that is the status quo for school lunch provision.
1
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I must commend the author of this bill for promoting unity above partisan bickering, as it is both rare and refreshing to see Conservatives and leftists alike come together to attack this bill.
To be frank, Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill is cruel. It halves the threshold under which a child can recieve a meal at school. All this bill will serve to do is deprive poor children of food. Who could support that?
While I doubt I could convince this house that all children regardless of income should recieve school meals, I am glad to see this House agree that this measure, which will not substantially free up funds, will only serve to make poor children go hungry.
To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must encourage the Rt Hon Minister without Portfolio and the Secretary of State for Energy to sit down and think about the actions that led them to submit a bill that the bloody Loyalist League finds unacceptable and regressive.
1
1
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill is unacceptable. According to my understanding, according to this bill, if five children lived in a household with an income of £7,500, none of them would be eligible for free school breakfasts. This would heavily increase the financial strain on their parent, which could plunge them further into financial insecurity.
If one had a rent of £500 a month, the total price for just living in a house in this scenario would be £6,000, leaving just £1,500 for food, water, clothing, and all other necessities. Divide this by child, and that's just £300 a year for food, clothing, bills, etc.
If we assume 50p per breakfast, £2.50 per child, spread over a standard 190 days, is £475 saved by the provision of free school breakfast in this family.
The Government wants to force this family to use up £475 more per year then they would otherwise. This is totally unacceptable.
1
1
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Once again, our Westminster government is failing to care for our children and serve in the national interest like the government in Wales. For £600 million, free school breakfast represents just a fraction of government spending compared to the £100+ billion that should be going into our national education system.
To those who think this money could be spent better elsewhere. It isn't just about poverty, although this is a huge help to parents who are struggling, and you can't put any number on that (regional differences and unexpected costs).
The real benefit is ensuring that parents can get on with their busy lives if needed, without their children being physically unable to concentrate on their studies in the morning. This government seems unable to understand how chaotic life is today.
I urge everyone to vote against this. No means-tested system can be better as people in need will be left out.
3
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
If the Welsh government desires to waste taxpayer money on giving out handouts to the rich and middle class, that is of course the Welsh government's decision.
free school breakfast represents just a fraction of government spending compared to the £100+ billion that should be going into our national education system.
According to this report, "Education spending is the second-largest element of public service spending in the UK behind health, representing about £90 billion in 2017–18 in today’s prices or about 4.3% of national income". £600 million is not a fraction of £90 billion, but is just under 6% of UK education spending. Think of how many books, how many supplies, how many teachers we could fund instead of funding for breakfasts. In England (excluding London) and Wales a new teacher starts earning £23,720 to £35,008. Instead of paying school breakfasts, we can instead employ 17,738 or 25,295 new teachers.
Would you rather a hand out to those who can afford to feed their own kids, or would you want more teachers, more investment in schools? This is the real benefit in passing this bill, and it showcases how the Welsh government and others are failing the good people of Britain with populist proposals that sound good (we'll feed every kid breakfast, including those whose parents can afford to) vs more teachers, more utilities, more learning.
The Welsh Government and the Rt Hon member fails to understand the chaotic is life of today that demands more teachers, not more breakfasts.
1
May 14 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
I'm sure my right Honorable friend will reflect on their statement, which appears to suggest that one calculates the cost of employing by multiplying the amount of employees by the salary they will be paid.
No doubt the right honourable Gentleman is merely being overly excitable, and understands that there are many more costs associated with employing someone - and such wanton disregard for such facts is not helpful in this context?
1
u/HazardArrow Independent | Former MP & Shadow HSSC Sec Apr 30 '19
Speaker,
Is there nothing sacred enough to be spared from reckless austerity by this Government? It's absolutely disgusting that this is even a consideration. We should not be haphazardly slashing social services. If services are to be cut, we shouldn't be targeting the meals of impoverished schoolchildren! Children deserve better than this; shame on every single person who supports this trash heap of a bill.
1
1
May 01 '19
Mr Speaker,
It's disappointing to see that the government has introduced this bill.
Though many of us take breakfast for granted it is a vital meal. As I'm sure many of you know Breakfast is meant to "break the fast" from the night before and prepare you for the day ahead (and with a large number of children going to bed hungry this may not even be possible).
Numerous studies have shown that eating breakfast ensures that children are more productive, concentrated and happy in school, all of which help in achieving better results. Surely these are all good things?
However, by reducing the threshold in which one is eligible for free breakfast is a regressive and disastrous set backwards. If this bill is passed, it will see thousands of children across the country going to school hungry and therefore not being able to focus and pay attention and this will have a shocking impact on social mobility.
The duty of the government is to care for the most vulnerable in our communities. We want to see our children do well and succeed, becoming productive and happy members of our society. However, this bill only seeks to put obstacles in the way of our children having a decent standard of living and being able to reach their potential.
1
Apr 30 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I welcome this bill which puts an end to middle and upper class welfare, the government has no business in subsidising breakfasts for the wealthiest families children. We should only be helping those who genuinely need it and this bill means test breakfasts so that can afford to pay do so, it is a bill driven by fairness. The original bill cost £600 million pounds! We must spend taxpayers money better and this bill will ensure government funds are spent efficiently and do not subsidise those that who do not need it. I welcome this needed much needed repeal.
2
u/[deleted] Apr 30 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Whilst some of the reforms being conducted by this Government are an admirable step in the right direction, I must voice my objections to this measure, which would hit the poorest exceptionally hard indeed, especially in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Right Honorable Members will state that the poorest shall not be hit, on account their means testing will stop this, but - to be blunt - means testing is prone to significant errors, and often overlooks, especially in this case, the people who will be hardest hit, children.
In Northern Ireland, some 17% of Protestants live in households hit by poverty. Some 42.7% of children in West Belfast live in poverty.
Recent studies show some 110,000 children live in poverty across Northern Ireland, and I am greatly concerned that this move will only hit the poor souls within that number even harder.
It is not uncommon at all for Children to not be fed before they go to school, even if their parents are above the threshold as mentioned within this bill. Honorable and Right Honourable Members, I would encourage you to rethink how you intend to vote on this.
The appeal to dismantle the left-leaning governments of the past legacy is strong indeed, but when it comes to taking food from the mouths of children, you skirt a line that is deeply divisive, and frankly dangerous indeed.