Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report stage debate on nursery milk, Healthy Start payments, school food standards, the Government's expanded free school meals commitment, and national thresholds for children in need.
B(For a decade, childminders registered through childminder agencies have been unable to claim free nursery milk subsidies, while those registered directly with Ofsted can — despite both groups being Ofsted-regulated and operating under identical rules. More than 10,000 children are currently missing out. Two successive Governments have pledged to fix it; none has acted. Amendment 98 would close this clear legislative loophole with a simple drafting fix — and I urge the Minister to go further than her predecessors and commit to a "no later than" date for doing so.My Lords, this is a very different topic from what we were discussing before the dinner break—we move to nursery milk. Only in your Lordships’ House could one say those words. My Amendment 98 would bring childminders who are registered with a childminding agency into the scope of the free nursery milk scheme. As your Lordships know, the nursery milk scheme provides a free portion of milk every day to any child under the age of five attending a registered childcare setting; it is a long-standing initiative dating back to the 1940s. The legislation underpinning the scheme was written before childminder agencies—CMAs—came into existence, and a later drafting oversight meant that milk subsidies were not mentioned in the legislation that created CMAs in 2014. For a decade, childminders registered through CMAs have been unable to claim milk subsidies, while those registered directly with Ofsted can; that is despite the fact that all childminders are Ofsted regulated and operate under the same regulations. The loophole has been widely acknowledged as a clear legislative oversight. Two successive Governments, including my own, have pledged to fix it, but sadly no action has been taken. As a result, more than 10,000 children are currently missing out on free milk. As CMA-registered childminders make up a growing share of the workforce, the number of children affected increases every year. A simple legislative update would close this loophole and restore parity across the early years sector. I hope that the Minister can do better and go further than previous Governments—including my own—and commit not only to addressing this but to giving the House a “no later than” date for doing so. I beg to move.
On Amendment 104: the Minister rejected my Healthy Start proposal in Committee on the grounds that the prepaid card requires the recipient to accept its terms — but my amendment explicitly provides an opt-out, which satisfies that requirement. If the NHS Business Services Authority can already identify eligible families in order to write to them, why can it not simply enrol them, notify them, and let them opt out? At a minimum, any letter should include an application form and prepaid envelope, since no further evidence of eligibility should be needed. How long will this take, and will the Minister report to Parliament on whether uptake improves over the first year? On Amendment 113: school food standards were promised almost a year ago; it took until June 2025 for a consultation announcement. The amendment requires the current review to be completed within 12 months of Royal Assent and a compliance scheme to be established. Research by Professor Defeyter shows that large schools in wealthier areas sometimes profit from the free school meals allowance without reinvesting it in food quality, while small schools in deprived areas must top up the free meals budget from the education budget — that is simply wrong, and the Government need to address it.My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendment 104 is to ensure that no eligible family misses out on the Healthy Start payments, as there is evidence that many families have not been aware of this important extra support and have therefore not applied for it. I have tabled this amendment again because I was not content with the Minister’s response in Committee, but I thank her for her subsequent letter. During that debate, the Minister said that she could not accept my amendment because the Healthy Start programme requires an eligibility check as the funds come in the form of a prepaid card. This, she said, is a financial product and therefore requires the recipient to accept the terms. Will the Minister please note that my amendment, in proposed new subsection (3), takes note of that fact and requires that the eligible person must be able to opt out of the scheme if they wish. That, of course, implies that they also opt in. This could be done by rejecting the terms of the card offered, rather than accepting them. However, the Minister went on to say that to increase uptake, which she agreed is important, the NHS Business Services Authority will write to those eligible to encourage them to apply to the scheme. Three questions arise from that answer. First, if the NHS Business Services Authority is going to write to those who are eligible, it must have already found out who is eligible. If that is the case, why can those people not be enrolled, informed that they have been enrolled and, finally, given the chance to opt out if they wish? I cannot imagine that many will. Secondly, now that the Minister has laid Amendments 111 and 112, which I am sure she will explain in a few minutes, it is clear that government departments will now be able to share information for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for free school meals. I hope we can assume, therefore, that the NHSBSA will also be able to get information from other departments to ascert…
The Welfare Food Regulations 1996 make clear the importance of milk for young children, yet they treat childminder agencies as untrustworthy to dispense something as basic as a portion of milk — while Ofsted-registered childminders next door can. These agencies are local, flexible and professionally regulated; excluding them serves no purpose except to harm children and, incidentally, our dairy farmers who are already suffering a 30% drop in liquid milk prices. We should abolish this arbitrary divide and let every childcare setting that is trusted with children also be trusted with milk.My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran and to associate myself with Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whom it is a pleasure to follow. The Welfare Food Regulations 1996 lay out in astonishing detail the importance of milk to those who were entitled to it for the early years. While there are different regulatory regimes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, it is clear that certain children in certain circumstances are entitled to dried milk or fresh milk in prescribed portions per week, be it according to age; to those whose families are on financial assistance for low income; to the Healthy Start, which would include expectant mothers and those with children otherwise under four—and, of course, some people of any age, including children, but not necessarily children, with certain physical and mental difficulties. I think it is common ground on all sides of this House that the provision of milk as part of a healthy diet is a good thing. But the regulations provide for this milk to be dispensed, if I can use that word, in maternity and healthcare centres, as part of the National Health Service, but also in other welfare and food distribution centres. But the world has changed, and these settings are no longer the only places where people access help. The NHS, which may work from nine to five, or a food distribution centre, which may open for only a few mornings a week, are not necessarily the only places nowadays where people can access the help they need. Those settings are just not as thick on the ground as they used to be at times that are convenient to families. I do not deny the good work of those settings, but others are available under the same regulations, and some of them are even paid for by the state. My noble friend Lady Barran laid out the importance of childminders and childminder agencies as a part of the mix that helps provide time and space for families to get into work so they can earn and improve…
The Government are taking welcome steps on school food, but a postcode lottery persists — some schools do extraordinary things with limited budgets and others do not. Schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch and give catering staff minimal training cannot be delivering nutritious meals. There is an excellent programme run by Chefs in Schools and philanthropic partners that trains chefs to work alongside school kitchens for the same money with transformative results. Nursery food matters just as much — and currently falls outside almost all standards frameworks.My Lords, I support both amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular Amendment 113 on the school food improvement scheme. I am incredibly glad to see how many steps the Government are taking, but there are still things we need to work on. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Defeyter’s work on the finances and how, with big schools versus small schools, a lot of the money gets lost. It also happens with councils that are so cash-strapped that they sometimes take some of the money. We are still living in a country where we have a postcode lottery on food. Some schools do amazing jobs with limited resources and some schools really do not. Nobody can now dispute the fact that the free school lunch, or any school lunch, is incredibly important to children. Yet we hear too often about schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch, in which time you are meant to play, make a call, go to the toilet and have lunch, which is clearly going to be seen as a secondary part of a school. It is also secondary in that the school catering departments at the moment get very little training. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a scheme in the department being run by Chefs in Schools and a lot of philanthropic organisations to actively train chefs to go into schools and work with them to improve the quality. For the same amount of money, you can have really good quality and transform children’s lives. Finally, nursery is equally important in getting kids eating the right stuff right from the beginning. I absolutely support that we need milk, but children also get fed there and those meals tend to fall outside of anything right now, as far as I can see. I would be interested to know what the Government will do.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab22:00 HansardGovernment Amendments 111 and 112 enshrine in law the commitment that from September 2026 every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals — lifting 100,000 children out of poverty and saving families around £500 per child per year. Amendment 112 creates a new "expanded free school meals" category removing the £7,400 income cut-off, covering over half a million more children. Amendment 111 amends the Education Act 2005 to enable the Department for Education to share eligibility information with local authorities, parents and schools.My Lords, the amendments in the third group cover free school meals, the nursery milk scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and school food. Ensuring that every child has access to nutritious food and support is fundamental to their health, development and ability to learn. We know that good nutrition starts early and that simple measures, whether access to milk or balanced school meals, can make a lasting difference. I turn to government Amendments 111 and 112. Last year the Government announced that from September 2026, every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. This decisive action will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and save families around £500 per child each year. The amendments will enshrine this crucial commitment in law and ensure its successful delivery. A child is currently eligible for free school meals if they attend a state-funded school in England, their household is in receipt of universal credit and the household’s income is less than £7,400. Government Amendment 112 creates a new category of free school meals, to be known as expanded free school meals, which will apply to that cohort of children in receipt of universal credit but with a household income greater than £7,400. This will ensure that free school lunches are provided on request to all pupils from households in receipt of universal credit and that state-funded schools in England will be under a duty to provide meals to those eligible children. We will support over half a million more children in this way. Providing the most disadvantaged children with a healthy lunch each school day will help secure their education and improve their future prospects. Government Amendment 111 will deliver the practical implementation of the free school meals expansion. The Department for Education relies on the provisions of the Education Act 2005 to process income and benefits data from other government departments so that it can check and…
- The Government's free school meals expansion is very welcome — but the Minister said the additional cohort gets a meal "on request". How easy will it actually be to apply? Can she say more about the process families will need to go through?
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, responds, I would like a small point of clarification from the Minister. I very much welcome the government amendments and congratulate the Government on what they are doing on free school meals. This is all very welcome, but in introducing it, the Minister said that the additional cohort would get a free school meal on request. She mentioned how the Government will make it easier for families to find out whether they are eligible, but can she say a little more about how they have to apply? Will it be as easy as possible?
- It will be as easy as possible. By removing the £7,400 income cut-off, eligibility is now far clearer for families, advisers and schools alike. And the new information-sharing provisions extend to parents directly — not only to local authorities — so eligibility can be confirmed quickly without families having to navigate bureaucracy.
Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.
- I am encouraged by the Minister's commitment — I caught only "within six months" before my pen ran out of ink, so parliamentary time is apparently available. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, deserves a fuller answer to her final question on Healthy Start; I hope the Minister will provide one.
I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me. I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 102 would impose a binding timetable for the child protection authority and Amendment 103 would establish national thresholds for children in need assessments. The postcode lottery is stark: the proportion of children known to social care ranges from 3% to 70% across local authority areas, and that cannot be explained by demographics alone. The Minister in the other place is sympathetic but does not yet see national thresholds as the way forward — I urge this Minister to at least agree to continue those conversations and explore whether a way forward can be found.My Lords, it is very late, so I will not go through the five pages of my speech. However, I will speak to Amendments 102 and 103 in my name. The arguments have been well rehearsed previously. I thank the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for meeting some of us to go through the issues. He is very clear on the so-called postcode lottery of child in need reports that are often produced for children. In some areas it is as high as 70%, and the research I did found that in other areas it is 20%. The Children’s Commissioner found that the lowest percentage of young people known to social care in some local authority areas was 3%. As we have heard earlier and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, that number cannot just be demographics. My suggestion and the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestion has been, and we continue to maintain this, that we need some national thresholds so that we do not have a big gap in the care that young people get, depending on where they live. A child in need report is quite crucial. I understand that the Minister in the other place is very sympathetic to the issue but does not see this as a way forward. Late into this evening and night, I hope I can use my power of persuasion to convince the Minister in front of me to be willing to at least continue to talk and see whether we can find a way forward. Amendment 102 is about establishing a child protection body that would work to improve child protection practice, advise government and the sector, and conduct inspections. This is an important issue, in addition to the one I raised earlier. I do not intend to speak any further, but I would welcome a response from the Minister. Given that we agree that there is a problem, would she now be willing at least to look at whether we can reinvestigate the national thresholds? I beg to move.
- I was slightly surprised that Amendment 102 is needed at all — the Government have already committed to establishing a child protection authority and are consulting on it. That said, implementation will be crucial: we must avoid blurring accountability and creating new bureaucracy. On children in need thresholds, we on these benches believe practitioners need professional flexibility to assess the whole picture — but I accept entirely that too many children suffering serious exploitation are being held at Section 17 "child in need" status rather than moved to child protection.
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that. We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.
The Government are fully committed to this area. Establishing a child protection authority was a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; the Minister for Safeguarding announced in April 2025 that it will be created, and the consultation published in December 2025 sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. Imposing an arbitrary statutory timetable now — before that consultation concludes — would not be prudent. We will publish the government response this summer and legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area. Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to. On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.