Expanding free school meals (FSM) in England presents a complex policy challenge, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) detailing the substantial financial commitments and trade-offs involved. A new report from the IFS outlines several options for expanding eligibility, ranging from universal provision to more targeted approaches, each carrying distinct price tags and potential impacts on child poverty and educational attainment.
Currently, FSM are universally provided to all children in Reception, Year 1, and Year 2. Beyond this, eligibility is restricted to children whose families receive certain benefits and have a net annual earned income below £7,400 after tax and before benefits. The IFS report highlights that this threshold is particularly restrictive, meaning that over 100,000 children living in poverty are currently not eligible for free school meals.
One of the most significant proposals examined is the expansion of FSM to all primary school children. The IFS estimates this would cost approximately £1 billion per year. While offering universal benefits in terms of reducing stigma and administrative burden, it represents a substantial investment. A more targeted approach, such as extending FSM to all children in households receiving Universal Credit, would cost around £500 million annually. This option would ensure that more children from low-income families benefit, without the broader cost of universal provision.
The report also considers the implications of different eligibility criteria. It suggests that increasing the earnings threshold for FSM eligibility could significantly improve coverage for low-income families. For instance, removing the earnings cap for families on Universal Credit would extend eligibility to around 200,000 more children, costing an additional £150 million per year. Such changes would directly address the current 'cliff-edge' effect where a small increase in earnings can lead to a loss of FSM entitlement.
The Labour Party has previously committed to expanding free school meals, though specific details on funding and rollout have varied. The IFS analysis provides a crucial evidence base for policymakers, illustrating the scale of investment required and the different outcomes depending on the chosen policy path. Any decision to expand FSM would require careful consideration of the national budget and competing priorities for public spending.
The implications of these policy choices extend beyond just the financial. Research consistently shows that access to nutritious meals can improve children's concentration, behaviour, and educational outcomes, as well as reducing food insecurity for families. Therefore, any expansion of FSM could have long-term benefits for public health and social mobility across England.
Source: IFS | Institute for Fiscal Studies