'Free' school meals leave schools facing funding crisis

Ever since its announcement at last year's Liberal Democrat party conference, the government's decision to grant every child aged 5-7 a free school meal has been dogged by controversy.

Aside from it being questionable that in excess of £600million of taxpayers' cash should be spent feeding the offspring of very affluent families (children from the poorest families have long received free school meals, irrespective of the child's age), this politically motivated gimmick has been beset with eminently foreseeable difficulties from day one.

From councils across the country (though thankfully not in Stockton) having to dip into their own education budgets to pay for kitchen improvements (the grant from central government proving insufficient) to thousands of schools unlikely to have the work completed by the first week of term in September, the implementation of the policy has been shambolic. So much so, faced with the number of schools who will be forced to provide meals cooked off-site and then re-heated, or even unable to provide a hot meal at all, the government has quietly dropped the obligation on schools to provide a hot meal.

But whilst these issues could be argued to be temporary, and relatively easily remedied, one enduring problem with the policy will continue to impact schools for years to come.

One of the Lib Dem's proudest - dare I say rightly so - achievements in government is the introduction of the Pupil Premium.

The Pupil Premium is additional funding given to publicly funded schools throughout England to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils hailing from the poorest families. During the financial year 2014/15, primary schools will receive an additional £1,300 for each eligible child. These payments soon add up to sizeable sums of money.

Here in the borough of Stockton on Tees, our primary schools registered anywhere up to 74.1% of pupils being eligible for the Pupil Premium - nearly three times the national average. Rosebrook Primary School, to give but one example, received £203,942 in 2013/14 (when the premium was set at just £953 per pupil).

The difficulty such schools face going forward is that eligibility to receive the pupil premium is based on whether a child has been eligible for free school meals at any point during the past 6 years. Given all pupils aged 5-7 will now automatically receive a free meal, their parents will no longer have to apply and prove their eligibility to the local authority, and by extension the school.

The upshot of this is that primary schools throughout the country will not necessarily know which or how many of their Year 1 pupils are eligible for free school meals, and without any previous record of them having been eligible, thereby leaving the school unable to apply for the additional pupil premium for those otherwise eligible pupils. This could easily see primary schools losing tens of thousands of pounds of additional funding.

Upon asking the question of Stockton Council last week, I was pleased to hear that the council has been working with the governing bodies of local schools to encourage parents to still register their eligibility for free school meals and the pupil premium irrespective of the fact their child(ren) will receive a free meal nevertheless. Whilst it's pleasing the council is ostensibly ahead of the curve on this issue, it is ludicrous they have been put in this position in the first place.

Councillors from all across the country will be aware of eligible families who haven't previously registered for free school meals, be it through ignorance of their eligibility or embarrassment at having to do so. Indeed, this was used as one of the justifications for the expansion of free school meals to all infants.

But how many more families will fall into this category when there is no tangible financial benefit to them in them doing so? It seems inevitable that we will see the number of infants recorded as eligible for the Pupil Premium fall as a direct consequence of the new free school meal policy.

It is impossible to say whether this looming crisis was foreseen by the government or simply overlooked, although given I wrote a blog last September highlighting the problem (here) it simply isn't plausible to claim nobody in government saw this coming.

What seems for more likely is that George Osborne did indeed anticipate these difficulties but saw reduced Pupil Premium payments to schools as a means of contributing to the cost of the additional free school meals. Once again it seems the Conservative part of the government is happy to take away from the poorest in society to the benefit of their more affluent core vote.

If you have children attending any publicly funded school within Stockton Borough, you can check eligibility and register for free school meals / the pupil premium online here or by ringing the Free School Meals Team on 01642 526606.

Response to the Autumn Statement

The chancellor's statement (see the key points here) this afternoon once again reiterated how little he understands just how much ordinary families, particularly in the north east, are struggling. Whilst hard working families need help with their bills now, the best the chancellor could offer was a pledge to kick them slightly less whilst they are down.

It would be churlish to admit there wasn't some welcome news.

The increase in personal income tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014 will help most in work retain more of their wages. It is nevertheless disappointing however that he won't commit to increasing this further and work towards removing all earning the minimum wage from paying income tax altogether.

The increase of £2.95/week in the basic state pension is also welcome. However, this is hardly news - following the changes announced in 2012 the increase was already guaranteed; the announcement was akin to being cheered to the rafters for declaring tomorrow to be Friday.

We also, finally, had confirmation of the married couples and civil partners tax break to be introduced from 2014. Granted, this only qualifies as good news if you are married or in a civil partnership - if you are single, cohabiting, or widowed this announcement might well be considered a waste of £700million (which, don't forget, we don't have so needs to be borrowed).

Oh, erm, this is rather embarrassing. That seems to be all the good news I can find.

What we also found out is that, despite the much publicised government announcement of a £50 saving, the average energy bill will still rise by £70 this winter. Already exorbitant rail fails will, on average, rise by inflation (ie by more than your wages are rising). Fuel duty will once again be frozen, but that is hardly a help if you already cannot afford to fill and run your car.

Of particularly concerning news for the north east is the announced increase in state retirement age, to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late-2040s. Given the Healthy Life Expectancy for the North East is 59.7 years for men and 60.2 years for women - the lowest of any region of the UK - and the disproportionately high number of employees engaged in heavy manual labour in the region, increasing numbers of us will be forced to, literally, work until we drop.

Although it has been patently obvious for some time now, this government of millionaires really does not comprehend how increasingly difficult the average family is finding it to get by. For 40 out of the 41 months of this government, inflation has outpaced the rise in incomes.

Put another way, for 40 out of 41 months of this government we have been getting poorer. Much poorer.

Indeed, figures publicised by Labour today show that the average household is £1,600/year worse off than when this government came into power. (NB I use this figure with a caveat: as is Labour's way, this figure is incredibly simplistic as it only compares inflation directly with wages and fails to take into account changes to tax allowances, benefits, etc.).

What is clearer than ever is that this country, and particularly the North East, needs support and a change of government priorities. What is clearer than ever is that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have no intention of delivering that change.

What is also clear is that Labour can never, ever be trusted with our economy again. Although the ConDem coalition have proved to be poor stewards, it would be sheer lunacy to throw Labour the keys to the economy they crashed so spectacularly.

Only one party pledges to cut your fuel bills, not just marginally slow the rate of their increase; only one party pledges to cut taxes and business rates across the board for every small and medium sized business in the country; only one party pledges to put the poor of our own region ahead of those in foreign countries.

And that party is UKIP.

There's no such thing as a free school meal...

During an announcement at the Lib Dem conference, Nick Clegg announced all children in reception, year 1 or year 2 - all those aged between 5 and 7 - would be entitled to receive a free school meal. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be somewhere in the region of £600million each year. Not such a "free" school meal then.

 

Irrespective of how needy or affluent a child's family may be, the Lib Dems now expect each and every taxpayer to cough up to feed those little Janets and Johns. How times have changed.

 

In November 2011, Nick Clegg and other Lib Dem ministers were pushing hard for the means-testing of universal benefits to be announced in the autumn statement. These calls were rebuffed by the Conservative half of the coalition, who feared a public backlash against any such announcement.

 

Nevertheless, Clegg pushed on. He called on "millionaire pensioners" to sacrifice, amongst other benefits, their free TV licenses.  "There are some people who are well-off and obviously don't need the benefits they are getting," one unnamed Lib Dem source told the Telegraph. "That's a point we are going to be making from now until the end of this parliament."

 

The cost of giving free TV licenses to everybody aged over 75 costs the taxpayer in the region of £550 million each year.  Two years ago it was unconscionable to Mr Clegg to keep handing out such vast sums in a universal benefit irrespective of the recipient's ability to pay. Today he is proposing to create a new universal benefit costing the taxpayer an even larger sum. What a difference plummeting opinion polls two years makes.

 

Not only that, the move is completely at odds with the government's decision to take child benefit away from the better off.

 

(Nick Clegg claims the free school meals announcement is the price he extracted from the Conservatives for the Lib Dems abstaining on a vote to introduce the tax break for married couples widely expected to be announced at the Tory party conference next week - a tax break believed to be worth a paltry £150 a year, but more on that another time).

 

I won't bother discussing the merits or otherwise of the free school meals policy, other than to say it is patently absurd to ask working parents paying tax on their minimum wage earnings to subsidise the meals of very affluent families.

 

One issue worth considering, however, is the effect this will have on another Lib Dem policy; the Pupil Premium.

 

At present, each school receives an additional £600 each year for each pupil who is eligible for free school meals.  The only means local authorities have of ascertaining how many children are eligible for free school meals (and therefore the pupil premium) is to literally count the number of children who actually receive them. It is down to the child's parent(s) to apply for free school meals; should the family of an eligible child not do so for whatever reason, the school misses out on the pupil premium for that child.

 

Do you see the problem? Once we remove the need for parents of children aged 5 - 7 to apply for free school meals, it will become impossible for local authorities to accurately say how many of those children would have been eligible under the present scheme, and therefore what pupil premium each school should receive.

 

So not only have the Lib Dems have decided to throw hundreds of millions of taxpayers money at families who don't need it (the benefit to families is estimated to be £400 per eligible child per year), they have needlessly created another level of bureaucracy, which will need to be paid for, to continue their pupil premium scheme as is.

 

As the Taxpayers' Alliance succinctly put it, "It's no wonder Westminster fails to deal with unsustainable levels of Government spending when it is so keen on finding new ways to throw other peoples' money at a problem that politicians have created themselves."

 

It is vital that children eat healthily and exercise regularly, but the responsibility for ensuring that lies with parents alone.  Perhaps if the government stopped taking quite so much of other peoples' money and splashing it around willy nilly, particularly on pre-election giveaways, we wouldn't have quite so many families struggling to feed themselves adequately.



Stockton Council approves council tax hike

Stockton Council last night approved its budget for 2013/14 agreeing in the process to a referendum dodging 1.9% increase in council tax.

An alternative budget proposal from the Conservative group of councillors which would have seen council tax levels for 2013/14 frozen was regrettably, but nevertheless predictably, defeated. Interestingly, even though the Lib Dem and Ingleby Barwick Independent (IBIS) councillors voted with Labour to increase residents' council tax bills not one councillor from IBIS contributed to the debate nor even attempted to justify their voting for the hike.

Put in a national context, even amongst those other councils who have also opted to increase their council tax rates, the average rise was just 0.8%. In a local context, neighbouring Hambleton and Durham councils are yet again freezing their rates.

In the Stockton Council's press release early this morning, the Leader of the Council, Bob Cook, said, "we simply cannot afford the additional £2million cost that the [council tax] freeze would have over the next three years."

What councillor Cook neglected to include in his press release was the fact that the Labour / IBIS coalition cabinet did manage to find an additional £4.7million to throw at the council's Stockton High Street vanity project. You will, of course, draw your own conclusions as to what this says about Labour's priorities.

As a result of Stockton Council's program of efficiency, improvement and transformation (EIT) reviews - launched under the then leadership of Conservative councillor Ken Lupton - the council has been able to absorb some £31 million in savings already, with scant impact on services. The council is now a much leaner, more efficient body following the EIT initiative.

However, the difficult questions the council now faces are not simply ones of further reductions in funding, but rather questions of political courage.

When it comes to making further efficiencies, the low hanging fruits have already been plucked. The potential areas from where further savings can be found are not as immediately apparent as they once were. Much more creative thinking and, yes, tough decisions, are needed.

Last night the council found itself at a crossroads (or more accurately, a T-junction).

One path was undoubtedly more challenging to tread, with obstacles to be tackled head on and overcome, this being the path to a council living within its means and not passing an ever-growing buck to the taxpayer.

The second path was a much less daunting prospect, smoothed as it was by the ever-diminishing content of taxpayers' wallets. There is no need to live within your means whilst on this path; you simply increase your means to match how you live.

Faced with choosing the path of financial prudence, of doing right by the taxpayer, councillors from Labour, Liberal Democrats and IBIS instead joined forces to choose the path of cowardice and easy decisions.

An unnamed councillor who voted for last night's budget

But then again, what's new?