The Guardian view on post-Covid welfare: needs more progressive experiments
At a time when food and energy prices are soaring, Sadiq Khan’s announcement that every London primary school pupil will get free school meals from September is a welcome shift in both tone and substance. The current incoherent tax and benefit system is one that leaves millions of children in poverty and hunger. The London mayor’s £130m plan is distinguished by the fact that it rejects the bookkeeping approach of the government in favour of a more universal scheme.
Mr Khan’s move is smart politics. It creates a distinctly Labour offer that will be welcomed by many voters ahead of next year’s mayoral elections. Providing a nutritious hot lunch at school is also a good policy that studies show will result in reduced child obesity rates as well as improved pupil attainment. The Impact on Urban Health thinktank estimates that making free schools meals universal will generate £1.71 in economic and social benefits for every £1 invested. Crucially, the move reveals an appetite for experimentation, necessary – as the Resolution Foundation chair, Gavin Kelly, and the University of Bath’s Nick Pearce point out – to “flesh out the future of the post-Covid welfare state”.
Unfortunately, the collective spirit seems antithetical to the current politics of the Conservative party. The government seems more interested in rationing access to welfare than helping people get the support they need. There has been no official campaign to encourage uptake of universal credit during the cost of living crisis, for example, despite the Department for Work and Pensions urging people to apply for pension credit. Shortly after his party was pressed by Marcus Rashford to extend free school meals over the holidays, the Conservative MP Danny Kruger said universal benefit entitlements “trap people in dependence on the state and … enrage people who are working hard”.
This argument falls apart when thousands of children are going hungry and consequently struggling to learn at school. Means-testing is often justified on the grounds that it diverts resources to the most needy, but it is neither fair nor efficient. Parents in England claiming universal credit must have a household income of less than £7,400 to qualify for free school meals. The eligibility criteria are so restrictive that an estimated 800,000 children living in poverty do not get them. Another 200,000 are eligible but haven’t accessed them because enrolment is not automatic.
Because they are means-tested, free school meals are regarded as something only the destitute should receive. Yet universal public services create shared understanding. In Wales, all primary pupils will get free school meals by 2024. Four London boroughs already give free school meals to primary pupils and Scotland has pledged to pilot them in secondary schools. Some parents on higher salaries will benefit, but focusing on this would be missing the point: such services pay for themselves.
Universal services gain political legitimacy because enabling individuals to live at a reasonable standard is a vote-winner. Everyone has an experience of using the NHS, which is precisely why it is so difficult to dismantle. In 2017, academics at University College London suggested expanding the idea of universal basic services to “zero rent” social housing, free bus travel and complimentary internet access. Reducing personal income tax allowances would, they said, minimise the budgetary impact. This would be a fine place to end up – and shows that Mr Khan is heading in the right direction.