Source · Select Committees · Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Recommendation 11

11 Not Addressed Paragraph: 58

The Government should now be more flexible and recognise the importance and success of most...

Recommendation
The Government should now be more flexible and recognise the importance and success of most community-led responses to the provision of free school meal substitutes. Schools should be allowed to provide vouchers for whichever retailers serve their community best, without financial penalty. In addition, schools should be encouraged to continue catering directly for their pupils without being put in a financially worse situation than those using the national voucher scheme.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government response largely reiterates the committee's observations about the problems with the national free school meal voucher system, but does not directly address the recommendation for greater flexibility, allowing schools to choose retailers, or encouraging direct catering without penalty.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference: 58
Government Response Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract Not Addressed
The Government has taken unprecedented and substantial action to ensure that no child should go hungry as we take measures to tackle coronavirus, including in relation to free school meals. Minister Prentis chaired a cross-Government Task Force on Food and Other Essential Supplies to the Vulnerable in order to bring together and drive forward Government activity on access to food. We continued to provide schools with their expected funding, including funding to cover benefits-related free school meals (FSM) and universal infant FSM. Schools continued to provide meal options for all children who were in school, and meals were available free of charge to pupils eligible for FSM. In addition, schools were free to consider the best solution for providing support to pupils eligible for benefits-related FSM who were staying at home. In the first instance, we asked schools to support eligible pupils at home by providing meals or food parcels through their existing food providers wherever possible. We have always encouraged schools to firstly consider if they can use their own local food parcel arrangements to support families with food and we are aware of excellent examples of where schools and their food providers have delivered this. However, we recognised that providing meals and food parcels was not a practical option for all schools. That is why on 31 March we launched a national voucher scheme as an alternative option, with costs covered by the Department for Education. Initially, the scheme’s gift cards could be spent in stores who already had eGift card arrangements in place with our supplier. This included Asda, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, M&S and Waitrose. Other supermarkets were encouraged to join the scheme, where they had the infrastructure to deliver eGift cards across their network of stores. As the scheme progressed, we were able to add Aldi, McColl’s, Iceland and the Company Shop Group. Alternatively, schools could take local approaches to providing FSM and claim for the costs to be reimbursed. This included the option to make local voucher arrangements with supermarkets that were not part of our national scheme. We published guidance on funding for exceptional costs associated with coronavirus (COVID-19)4 with instructions for how schools could be reimbursed when they incurred additional costs in this way. 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-financial-support-for-schools The scheme delivered to thousands of schools and families. The supplier, Edenred, has reported that over £384m worth of voucher codes has been redeemed into supermarket eGift cards by schools and families through the scheme as of 16 September. Edenred has also reported that over 20,350 schools had placed orders for the scheme. Funding is available to schools that are unable to meet such additional costs from their existing resources, or which they could only meet by drawing down on reserves and undermining their long-term financial sustainability. Schools are not eligible to make a claim against this fund if they expect to add to their existing historic surpluses in their current financial year (September 2019 to August 2020 for academies and April 2020 to March 2021 for maintained schools). This means schools cannot claim if they began their current financial year with an accumulated historic surplus and expect to increase that surplus this year and thereby finish the year with a higher level of reserves than they started. Schools are eligible for reimbursement where the additional costs associated with coronavirus (COVID-19) would • result in a school having to use historic surpluses • increase the size of a historic deficit • prevent the planned repayment of a historic deficit Conclusion and Recommendation 12: The distribution of food parcels to people who were Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) and without other means of support was a valuable way of ensuring that those people had access to basic foodstuffs. We accept that many of the complaints about the contents of parcels were likely to relate to the early food parcels made from the emergency bulk food offer from Government to local authorities. Once the centralised system was in place, it appeared to operate very well. However, if the Government repeats such an endeavour in future, such as during a second wave of COVID-19, it should make greater efforts to ensure that nutrition and dietary needs are given higher priority from the start.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗