Free School Meals

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Wes Streeting

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). We spent time on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we agree on much. I also agreed with much that the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. She was my predecessor as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, so we share many of the concerns that have been raised in this debate.

However, I listened very carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State said, and at one point she said—I hope I do not get this wrong—that it is the Government’s job to make sure children do not go hungry. I differ there, and I think lots of my constituents differ there too, because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry. Many in this House will be aware that I had a slight fall-out in the Twittersphere with Marcus Rashford a couple of weeks ago on this issue, which is why I wanted to speak today. When somebody said something similar to me on Twitter, I simply tweeted:

“Where they can, it’s a parent’s job to feed their children”.

I noticed that the shadow Secretary of State did not include the caveat “where they can”, and that is the key difference here. It needs—

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Oh, for God’s sake.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is what she did not say, and it is a very important principle.

The other important principle is whether the measures that the shadow Secretary of State is proposing are temporary or permanent. Temporary measures in this place tend to become permanent. These are exceptional times, but I can see the outcry in a year or two when we try to reverse these measures: “Oh my God, you can’t do that because of the impact it might have on people.” These measures may well then become permanent, and, if we are honest, what would that mean? It would mean increasing the size of the welfare state and therefore increasing taxation.

Even before covid, we were running a deficit and had done for the vast majority of the last 40 years, so such a measure would mean higher taxes. The alternative, of course, is that we spread a load of welfare among many more people, which will mean that less will go to the people who are really in need. That is the principle we are talking about—whether we are going to target these resources to the people who are really, really in need or whether we are going to spread it more widely. We need to include the taxpayer in this conversation and say to them, “If we are going to increase welfare, you are going to carry the burden.” If we are going to say that people, we should also be saying to people that we are going to clamp down on tax avoidance, which is a stain on the way we handle our tax system. Whether it is multinationals or individuals in the UK who try to avoid tax through things such as image rights, we need to ensure that people pay a fair share of their taxes.