Free School Meals (Colleges)

Debate between Robert Halfon and Angela Smith

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

As so often on social issues, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those students are doing the right thing—they are going to college because they want to learn—but for them to go to college and not to have the money to feed themselves, through no fault of their own, is socially unjust.

The moral case for free school meals means that we need a fair deal between students and taxpayers, something that is respectful of both sides. We must help the hungry students, to give them the energy to concentrate, but it is also fair to ask them to work hard and to apply themselves, rather than to attend only; that was a problem with EMA. The welfare state fails when it becomes simply a handout—unconditional and too easily abused. At times, that can be deeply corrosive of public confidence, undermining support for helping the most vulnerable in our society. That is why I support reforms such as universal credit, because it is a proper contract. It says that it will always pay to work but also that welfare is conditional on genuine effort to find a job. I urge the Government to embed the same DNA in other entitlements, especially free school meals or alternatives such as the 16-to-18 bursary.

I am not arguing for the nanny state, because we can make a cost-benefit analysis. For example, in 2011 the Food for Life Partnership published academic research showing that a better uptake of free school meals increased school grades and, ultimately, the life chances of young people. Head teacher Seamus O’Donnell, who was involved in the pilot studies, stated:

“After lunchtime we used to have around 10 to 12 call outs for challenging behaviour in an hour. We did a survey two years ago after the pilot, and we were down to four. There was a correlation between improved food provision in school and better behaviour after lunchtime.”

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is generous to give way, given that I intend to speak, but I must respond to point out that in countries such as Finland all children, regardless of their background, get a free school meal up to the age of 18, and Finland has one of the highest levels of educational attainment in the world. We are not talking about the nanny state. Is there not a case for ensuring that children are able to learn while in the school environment?

[Robert Halfon]

That is where I differ from the hon. Lady. I believe passionately that free school meals should be available for people on lower incomes, especially those who go to FE colleges. As I have argued, we do not have a level playing field, and I do not accept the argument that the majority of taxpayers, who are lower earners, should subsidise school meals for those from wealthier incomes.

In conclusion, we cannot have FE colleges that are only for the wealthy—the problem is that only wealthy students who can afford school meals will be encouraged to go. There is a cost-benefit argument for some form of free school meals, or a subsidised canteen as in Harlow college, so I urge the Government to look at obliging schools to share data with FE colleges on which pupils need free school meals; more financial support for FE colleges, to level the playing field with sixth-form colleges and schools, and topping up the new 16-to-18 bursary scheme; and, finally, embedding the DNA of universal credit in entitlements such as free school meals, to show that it is a contract and not a handout. If lower-earner taxpayers are to make a contribution, it is only fair for students to offer something in return, such as the promise to work hard at their studies.

The Government have the ambition of 100% of young people aged 16 to 18 participating in education and training by 2015. The experience of Harlow college shows that fair provision of free school meals will be absolutely essential to achieving that.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Robert Halfon and Angela Smith

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

Procedure Committee Reports

Debate between Robert Halfon and Angela Smith

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

Perish the thought.

My point is that, if we give Select Committees the right to table amendments to legislation, business relating to the Floor of the House and Public Bill Committees, will it not create the danger of Select Committees taking a much less consensual approach to their work? That is the real risk with the recommendation, and for that reason it should go back for further consideration.

I turn to the recommendation on hand-held devices. I do not need to repeat the background to the debate which goes back to the decision in 2007, because the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire outlined it very clearly. Suffice it to say that technology has moved things forward at a rapid pace—to the extent that we now have smartphones, iPads and other tablets, which have completely transformed the way in which Members conduct their business.

On top of that, we have new forms of communication. According to the Procedure Committee’s report, 225 Members tweet or have Twitter accounts, but in today’s debate we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) state that the figure now stands at 300. That demonstrates how over a six-month period 75 Members have signed up for Twitter accounts. It also shows the popularity of the device as a means of communication, and for that reason alone Members increasingly see new forms of communication such as Twitter as making it easier for us to open up a dialogue with the world outside—with the people we serve. Those new forms of communication and technology have called into question once again how we conduct our business in the Chamber.

I was elected in 2005. At that point, I never thought that I would be standing here on the Front Bench making arguments about smartphones, iPads and Twitter accounts, but that in itself demonstrates how quickly the world is moving forward and how difficult it is for the House to keep up. It would be all too easy to step backwards and pretend that the world has not changed. We could pretend that Steve Jobs never existed and say to ourselves that the business of the House should stay true to the days of paper, pen and ink. However, to do that would be to deny reality and to deny the dynamic relationship that now exists between Parliament and the world outside. Even if we deny it, the media, quite rightly, will not. We cannot, therefore, fulfil our obligations as legislators effectively if we pretend that the world outside has not got smaller and smaller in terms of how quickly news travels.

There are advantages and disadvantages in allowing a more relaxed approach to the use of hand-held devices by Members on the Floor of the House and in Committee, for it is undoubtedly the case that members of the public sometimes object to seeing Members of this House using their phones or their iPads while here in the Chamber. If the Chair of the Administration Committee were in his place, I am sure that he would testify to that fact.

[Robert Halfon]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s remarks. While it is true that some members of the public object, it is also true that many of them like the fact that their MPs are on Twitter and on Facebook communicating what they are doing. Does she agree that that has come about partly because of the huge shift from paper to electronic mail and in how our constituents communicate with us?

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely the argument that I am trying to make.

Although such behaviour is seen by some members of the public as discourteous and indicative of a lack of attention to the business of the House, and although on occasion that has proved to be true, and excessive and obtrusive use of such devices should be deplored, I would contest that excessive chatter and private conversations on the part of Members is equally to be deplored, and that it is those who persist in that kind of behaviour who bring the business of this House into disrepute. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who pointed out that Members who fall asleep in the Chamber while business is being discussed are most to be censured for discourteous behaviour. Indeed, it has been known on occasion even for Front Benchers to fall asleep or to snooze while the business of the House is ongoing.

We need to be pragmatic in our approach. Those who would continue a stricter approach to the use of hand-held devices in the Chamber on the grounds that it constitutes interference in parliamentary proceedings ought to bear in mind that we already allow the passing of messages and envelopes containing paper-based documents in and out of the Chamber for use in debate. On that basis, why cannot we allow the electronic transfer of such information for use in the Chamber? If a Member is given statistics relating to a debate via documents passed to her or him in an envelope brought to the Chamber by a member of his or her staff, then why should not that be done independently by the MP in the Chamber using an electronic device? Moreover, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, given that civil servants pass a fairly constant stream of notes to the Government Front Bench during debate, why should not other Members of the House be able to access information speedily and without delay?

We support the motion laid before the House by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and other Members, and we commend the Procedure Committee for its work. We believe that it represents a pragmatic response to the challenges raised by the development of new technology and means of communication in that it requires Members to be sensible and discreet about their use of electronic devices in this Chamber and elsewhere. We also support the recommendations in the Select Committee report relating to Twitter and to tweeting, which are, again, sensible and pragmatic. As someone who has a Twitter account—and who is about to get her 1,000th follower—but who does not generally tweet in this Chamber, I nevertheless uphold the right to do so and the inevitable pragmatic need to give way on that point.

Our view is that we should give the approach recommended by the Procedure Committee an opportunity to work. We should bear it in mind that it is always possible to review the decision if it is felt that the recommended way forward is not working.