Yet another £600 million down the drain

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many parents don't spend the money for their kids benefit. So directly spending on children themselves to improve their well being is a good idea in principle. The sad case this week illustrates the problem society faces. If the poor boy had school meals then unlikely he would have only weighed 1 and half stone when he died. Even more likely that he would have survived.

As for "Yet another £600 million down the drain". Do you realise how much time is spent in hospitals, schools, social workers, police etc administering these cases of child abuse and neglect?

so with 600 million to spend, you really think that providing free school lunches for all 5-7 years old is the very best way of using this money to reduce child abuse?

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Apart from extreme obvious cases, isn't the question why should we monitor it?

The more things like this are 'treated' by the Nanny State with so-called 'solutions' to a problem, the more people learn that it is no longer their responsibility and take on the attitude "why should we....?"

Do we monitor that children are being 'stimulated' and 'engaged' at home (rather than kicked out of the way with X-boxes)? Do we monitor what time the go to bed (or even if they go to bed)? Do we monitor whether or not 12/15 year olds are allowed to go out with knives and hoodies to loiter on street corners and sell/carry drugs for older dealers?

The threshold for free meals is a family income of £16000 per year which puts a cooked meal at lunchtime out of the reach of many people who don't qualify.

Schools which have introduced free meals all over the world report significantly improved academic performance and reduced behaviour problems across the board.

CLAPTON

my newspaper today reports there are about 1,500,000 children in that age group of which 400,000 already qualify for free lunches

Graham_Devon

Come on now. It's not that much.

Winter fuel allowance costs over £2bn, and much of it goes towards people who don't need it. Bus passes cost £1bn, and many people don't use them.

In relative terms, the cost of school meals for all children appears to be £200m per year. By the time we have spent £600m, pensioners will have received £6bn in winter fuel payments and £3bn in bus passes.

There are loads of people getting "christmas bonuses" of £10 each which is also a collosal waste of money.

At least the majority WOULD use this and kids get a hot meal to boot.

If we started cutting back the two items above then fine, but until that point, I'd find it hard to suggest this is a waste of public money while spending the amounts above.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we started cutting back the two items above then fine, but until that point, I'd find it hard to suggest this is a waste of public money while spending the amounts above.

It's a waste of public money. Wasting money on other crap doesn't make it otherwise.

However did we manage before politicians decided they were experts on all aspects of life?

CFC

Give em all a free school meal and do away entirely with child benefit.

vivatifosi

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The threshold for free meals is a family income of £16000 per year which puts a cooked meal at lunchtime out of the reach of many people who don't qualify.

.

It isn't 16k, it is a bit over that, which I agree is not particularly generous. However that is not the only criteria. Children of people on job seekers allowance and children of asylum seekers are also exempt for example. Add these other categories up and that's probably why CLAPTON's number is so high.

Incidentally, payment of higher rate child tax credit is not a criteria. I don't know but I guess the assumption is that provides enough to fund this. Sorry can't post a link as on tablet but from gov website.

CLAPTON wrote: »

my newspaper today reports there are about 1,500,000 children in that age group of which 400,000 already qualify for free lunches

ETA: a link with the rationale for who is eligible for school meals, it's a bit more to the point than govt sites.

http://www.coventry.gov.uk/info/37/school-catering/168/free_school_meals

As Universal Credit is being introduced, would a more logical step be to make free school meals available for everyone on UC, ie broadening the uptake without giving an unneccesary benefit to everyone?

PaulF81

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Well fed kids can concentrate more and therefore develop and learn quicker apparently. got to cram all that early learning in ready for future education inflation.

I can understand free school meals for those that need it but I wonder how much is just going to end up in the bin and won't be to Sophie or Preston's taste when the "rich" kids get it.

If they come from a family that won't provide either the cash for a school meal or a meal in a lunch box, how do you expect them to do well? More likely to turn out a burglar or an addict than a barrister.

Can't we feed them old people on the state pension instead? No productive work for the county, cost us a fortune, expect to live to 110. Granted they will be stringer than a 7year old, but desperate times call for desperate measures...

Niv

From the test group there was a 90% take up in free school meals and a marked improvement in academic achievement (something like 20%). Assuming the take-up would be 90% if this goes live then I would expect the economies of scale to kick in and the wastage will be swallowed up in the cost savings made. On top of this I do not know how much it costs to administrate the current free school meals scheme which of course will no longer be needed and the meals would not be means tested – this should also therefore give a saving to further reduce the cost burden of this scheme.
I do not have a child and am on the fence with this benefit as it is a slippery slope in my opinion, however the results of the test case (assuming genuine) are compelling and make it hard to be too against this move. I hope that to fund this child benefits are slightly reduced or at least frozen for a few years.

Hadrian

Can someone explain to me why I should, by taxation, feed someone elses children? I brought up and fed well my two children in the days when pay was by todays standards abysmal. I clothed them and housed them without any help from anybody. Oh, I forgot, I received ten shillings (50p) 'Family Allowance' for the first, nothing for the second child.
I earned £11 week in 1963. (x 14.7 for 2013 prices - Govt RPI stats.), so that works out as £161.70p a week in todays money. Some get that in, whatever it's called, "Family Allowance" today!!!
If you want children work it out before whether or not you can afford to keep them without state help. As The State has no money it's MY money.