Free school breakfasts or lunches offer measureable educational benefits and, on Thursday, voters will have to make up their minds which is more important. Or are both necessary?

one of the causes our school supported in Lent was Mary’s Meals. Quite a young charity, it will already be familiar to many. Mary’s Meals sets up school feeding programmes in some of the world’s poorest communities. It is supported by people from many walks of life and different backgrounds. Its vision is that every child deserves an education – and enough to eat. 

“Mary” of course is Our Lady: this is a charity explicitly inspired by its founder’s Catholic faith, with a simple underlying principle. “At Mary’s Meals,” the website explains, “we are focused on one goal – that every child receives a nutritious daily meal in a place of education. These life-changing meals attract hungry children into the classroom. The food fills their empty bellies so they have the energy and opportunity to learn, giving them the chance of a brighter future.” 

In the UK, where education is compulsory, we should not need to attract hungry children into the classroom, but it is just as true here that children with empty stomachs can’t learn. Which is why it’s not unusual for many schools, ours included, to provide a free breakfast to the pupil who turns up in the morning not having eaten. We can do this because we run a breakfast club, not primarily to tackle hunger, but as part of our wrap-around care offer: it’s a service for parents who work and need to bring their children to school early. 

School meals have become an issue in the general election. All the main cross-UK party manifestos mention them. Labour proposes free lunches for every child of primary age; the Conservatives plan to offer free breakfasts to all primary school children, but to withdraw free lunches from many of those who have them at present; and the Liberal Democrats want both free school dinners for all, and greater support for breakfast clubs.