Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I raise these points because of the concerns I raised in earlier groups about the capacity and skills within the department to deliver the work included in Clauses 14 and 15 in particular. It is not a promising start to equip the Minister with facts that look to be partial and out of date.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see.

The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening.

The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end.

This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined.

To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point.

Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market.

Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out.

The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented.

I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one.

Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty.

I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions thus far. Amendment 146B in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester seeks to strengthen the duty on the local authority to ensure that it has due regard to that very duty to either remove or minimise the disadvantages faced by looked-after children. In applying this language, the local authority has a stronger legal duty to support the looked-after children in its area. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for putting the case so well.

Amendment 147A, also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, builds on the previous amendment in the right reverend Prelate’s name, and would require local authorities not only to be aware of the disadvantages that looked-after children in their area face but also to take steps to avoid and reduce these disadvantages. It is vitally important that local authorities fully support the looked-after children in their area and that they take all the steps and precautions possible to prevent looked-after children from being harmed in any way by the policies they introduce. These amendments seem entirely sensible, and we thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing these issues to the Committee.

Amendment 151 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have signed, seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities in Schedule 1. This amendment seeks to ensure that the future career opportunities of looked-after children are considered as a priority, which is most appropriate. There are an alarming number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and this amendment seeks to quite rightly place importance on finding young people who were previously looked-after children appropriate career development opportunities.

I hope all noble Lords would agree that giving disadvantaged young people the best career advice possible and helping them on that route-to-employment journey is absolutely essential. Whether it be assisting with writing CVs and cover letters, preparing for interviews, gaining work experience and job trialling, providing guidance and support for individuals looking to start their own businesses or providing detailed knowledge of the local labour markets to help employers find the right candidates, these are essential foundation stones to help our young workforce.

Our Amendment 152A addresses the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Finlay and Lady Ramsey, regarding Clause 24:

“we recommend that the guidance is made subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with the draft negative procedure offering an appropriate level of scrutiny”.

His Majesty’s Government’s Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, are technical amendments and seek only to clarify the reference to integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition will not seek to oppose them.

We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these important amendments and trust that His Majesty’s Government will see fit to acknowledge and incorporate into the Bill these positive amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments go to one of the most important points about just how important the parent is in a child’s upbringing. Many years ago I came across a piece of black humour that never seems to stop giving: the first thing that a disabled child, or a child with special educational needs, must do to be a success is to choose their parents correctly. Without that back-up, you are asking a lot of any system. Making sure that all the systems take that seriously is key.

The situation has got better and there has been progress, but we are not there yet. The statistics—which we all have in front of us and have all talked about—prove that. Still, people who lack that strong body of support tend to fail, and often quite dramatically. Success—even moderate success—within that group is celebrated, so it is important that we go forward with this work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—who is my friend—and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, were right to table an amendment saying that jobcentres should be brought into this. That would expand the web of support and make sure it goes wide and goes through. If people do not have the central drive, we will need a wider net to pick them up when they slip. I hope that the Government will give us some positive response to this approach, because it is needed. They have gone far; go a little further.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 151. My friend—the noble Lord, Lord Addington—has done my job for me, but I will not be done out of my few moments to speak.

I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill seeks to strengthen the support provided to looked-after children and care leavers. I seek to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of organisations classified as a relevant authority. Currently, the authorities listed—I will not name every single one—include central government, education, health and youth justice. On a previous amendment I gave something of a statistic sandwich, but let me remind noble Lords of those figures. As at May 2025, there were 923,000 NEETs, and 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. Some 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution, and 25% of the adult prison population, have been in care. That is frightening.

Ultimately, the Bill seeks to improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers, but the one organisation that is missing is Jobcentre Plus. I have known that organisation for—I do not want to give away my age—35 to 40 years. I know people who have worked there for 25 years; they ring me and tell me about all the things they are doing or are struggling with. Jobcentre Plus has an excellent network of staff and of third-sector and other organisations that, collectively, can wrap these people up in their arms and make sure that we improve outcomes for young people. The rationale for its existence is sustainable employment—which is critical to care leavers and looked-after children—and jobcentres are already delivering services aligned with the Bill’s aspiration.

Recently I went to visit the Margate task force. It is in a room not much smaller than this wonderful Chamber, but it has Jobcentre Plus, the police, immigration and social services in there—you name it, it is there. The youngsters and the people at most risk of getting themselves into trouble are known to them all, and when there is a problem they can sort it. I cannot speak highly enough of the potential for them to be added to this list.

Formal inclusion of jobcentres would ensure accountability and consistency in the quest. Their role has the potential to improve outcomes for all young people, particularly those who are in care and looked after, and help them make a good transition to the world of work, giving them the best start in life. I spent yesterday talking to another organisation about how, if we started this thing in schools, if we got hold of them and started early, we could prevent a lot of this happening—but you have heard all that from me before, so I will not go on again.

I urge the Minister to include jobcentres and their network of excellent delivery partners in the list of relevant authorities. I look forward to her reply and live in hope that she will do this or, if not, help us understand why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the very compassionate comments that ran through their suggestions.

By way of background, the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill will, for the first time, impose a duty on a number of public bodies to be alert to matters that affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. This means that every Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, schools, colleges, NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Youth Justice Board will be named as corporate parents and therefore will be required to take the needs and circumstances of looked-after children and care leavers into account when designing policies and delivering services that affect them.

There were powerful comments from all sides, which I hope to address in some more detail. But I start by emphasising that I believe all of us in the public sector or in a position to drive change have a responsibility and, indeed, a moral obligation to do this, levelling the playing field for looked-after children and care leavers, who, as we have heard, are among the most vulnerable groups in our society, have suffered the worst outcomes across a range of measures and deserve this attention to detail, care and understanding, which, quite frankly, is not presently evident in all areas.

We have had lots of figures, but I will add some more: some 26% of the homeless population are care experienced, around one-quarter of the adult prison population have been in care as a child and—as we have heard, but this is a slightly different take on it—care leavers aged 19 to 21 are more than three times more likely than their peers to be not in education, employment or training. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referenced Terry Galloway, and it was my privilege to come into contact with Terry through my previous role before I came into this House. I do not think I have ever met anyone who is quite so determined, persistent and absolutely dedicated on behalf of other young people across the whole of the country, so I pay tribute to him from us all.

Government Amendments 148 to 150 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith are minor and technical amendments simply to improve the drafting of the list of corporate parents in Schedule 1. Amendments 148 and 149 add clarity to the definition of integrated care boards and NHS foundation trusts. Amendment 150 clarifies that the reference to NHS trusts in the list of corporate parents applies only to NHS trusts in England.

Clause 21 sets out the responsibilities to be introduced for corporate parents, and the duty aims to drive a widespread culture change across the public sector, which will involve adapting services; increasing awareness of matters that adversely affect looked-after children and care leavers; importantly, tackling stigma and discrimination; and improving all aspects of their lives.

Clause 23 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively when performing their respective corporate parenting duties. This would prevent silo working—we are all well aware of how damaging people working in their narrow fields can be, particularly in this very important area—and highlight where duplication of effort sometimes gets in the way and how we can make sure that the conversations happen between all relevant people, to help deliver targeted and timely support. Running through all this is a constant reminder of the importance of listening to young people themselves and making sure that their influence is heard and acted upon. We have experience at local authority level of making departments work with responsibility, picking up the corporate parenting responsibilities. That experience will help inform the work of the national institutions to show that it is not only the right thing to do but is empowering in its own right and changes behaviours in a very constructive and positive way.

I turn to Amendment 151, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I want to continue to bring noble Lords together in their mutual admiration, and I would hate to get in the way of this. The amendment seeks to add Jobcentre Plus to the list of relevant authorities to which the corporate parenting duty applies. Of course, I recognise the passion for this area of work and, importantly, for the personnel who deliver the services. We know that the statistics are far from where they need to be, which is why this Government are absolutely determined to work in this space to make sure that the opportunities we create are available for all. That has to be a basic understanding. While agreeing with the noble Baroness that Jobcentre Plus plays the crucial role in supporting care leavers in making that difficult transition to parenthood, whether through training or a whole range of different skills, I am pleased to be able to reassure her that her amendment is not necessary, as Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions and therefore is already in scope of the measures by virtue of the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We have several other examples of good practice in this space—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having an overall duty and having an access point to make sure that it happens are very often different—I mean, it just happens in government. If the Minister could write to us, telling us how the Government propose to implement that, it would remove certain anxieties on this.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will consider whether that is necessary when I get to the end of my speaking notes.

To continue, the corporate parenting responsibilities will also apply to bodies that exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as the Prison and Probation Service. Of course, there should be real overlap between the different services in this regard. This will be explained in statutory guidance. So that it can be rolled out properly, it is absolutely crucial that, as it is written, the statutory guidance is co-produced and everyone has an opportunity to put money in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187 in my name, and I am supportive of others in this group, particularly those in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote and support a mixed model of breakfast provision, already mentioned by my noble friend, which would better meet the Government’s objectives, in the view of Magic Breakfast, which has years of experience of school breakfast provision, and to which I am grateful for its support.

I have long been a supporter of free school breakfasts, particularly for children living in poverty, for whom the provision of breakfast can make so much difference to their well-being and their ability to benefit from their schooling. I was therefore delighted that the Government had included them for primary school children in the bill. However, I am persuaded by Magic Breakfast’s argument in favour of a more flexible approach that would embrace other forms of provision as well as breakfast clubs—“breakfast clubs plus”, if you like. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the duty it places on schools is a minimum. The official guidance for the early adopter scheme makes it clear that schools are encouraged to go beyond the minimum standards. This amendment would signal that more clearly and would support schools in going beyond the minimum.

Magic Breakfast very much supports the breakfast club model as a minimum standard, but suggests that, because its inflexibility means that it can limit access to food in ways we already heard about, it is not the best model on its own for tackling hunger and child poverty, which I know the Secretary of State cares passionately about. The two other models that could play a valuable role are classroom-based and nurture-group provision. Classroom provision is delivered within the main learning environment, either straight before the start of the school day or as part of a soft start to the day. The latter can support the development of soft skills and ensure that all pupils are adequately fed and ready to start learning.

Nurture groups are commonly used in both mainstream and specialist settings to provide a small-group environment, particularly for pupils with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Many Magic Breakfast partner schools deliver such provision in a variety of ways, enabling them to take a more person-centred approach to the needs of pupils. The amendment will support both these models but would leave it open to the Secretary of State to promote other models that go beyond the delivery of food.

Magic Breakfast sums up the amendment as encouraging a “place-based approach” to breakfast policy-making. It believes that such an approach has been a key driver behind the scale of take-up of breakfasts in its partner schools. On average, this is 375% higher than among non-Magic Breakfast schools. It suggests that the reason is that alternative models do not require access to childcare or necessarily being at school early. Not every pupil at risk of hunger is able to access before-school provision due to factors beyond their, and often their parents’, control.

This is particularly true of those with SEND, an issue that was raised a number of times in the Commons and by my noble friend Lord Watson. A mixed model is better able to respond to difficulties that SEND pupils might have with transport, specialist medication and eating needs and large-group provision. It can offer the kind of pupil-centred provision that is needed. It is no accident that only 16% of special schools partnered with Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club-only model. I am sure many noble Lords have received the open letter signed by leading charities on this matter.

According to Magic Breakfast, the breakfast club model is particularly expensive. In 2021, analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation found mixed models make more efficient use of staffing and that, on average, a mixed model approach was up to 75% cheaper than a pure breakfast club model. I would have thought that that would be music to the ears of the Government.

In conclusion, the Government’s laudable objectives with regard to education, hunger and child poverty would be better met by adopting the mixed-model approach put forward in this amendment. If my noble friend the Minister does not feel able to accept this, or an alternative, amendment, I would urge her in her response to first explicitly recognise the case for schools delivering school breakfast in a way that has regard for the varied needs of their pupils and that is focused on alleviating hunger and, secondly, to commit to encouraging mixed models of provision in national guidance.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about my amendment, which is about a slightly different area but attached to the same part of the Bill.

School activity has taken rather a pounding of late. If you link sport, arts, music, culture, youth clubs and so on only to a school, so they happen only in a school setting, they stop when school stops. If you make it just about education—sport is a very good example of this—dropout ages are 16, 18 and 21, because that is when you leave your educational institution. I hope that here we would have an opportunity to get the voluntary sector back talking to and helping young people.

On the amendments I tabled, subsection (2A) in Amendment 185 is at least as important, because it means providing voluntary activity in schools so they can identify with and get in contact with these groups outside. The groups outside want to make contact. Their survival and the survival of their activity depends on getting new people in, and they are giving something positive back. Anybody who has had any experience with anything from an am-dram group to a rugby team knows there is a social network that is interdependent and builds up a sense of community and purpose, and helps that group and those people in it, effectively providing almost a family group at times. It is a place where you can find jobs, structure, help, support and purpose; it is all there.

Apart from a diatribe that amateur sport will save the world, it is a fact that we are going to very solid, well-established ground here. I do not think anybody is going to disagree that these things are beneficial. We talk about the health aspect and the need for a good diet, but it is possible to put on weight on healthy food if you do not move. Let us look at how we can expand education not just through the education establishment. We should look to people who are doing positive things on a voluntary basis and helping you get out there.

Just to cast an eye on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are about to discuss, this is another good amendment. I know the noble Lord well, and I have no doubt that he will have more to say on it. He refers to me as his “friend in sport”, and I am glad to carry on that one. Basically, if we do not encourage these formal lines back into our education system—unfortunately we have broken, or at least damaged, the informal ones—we are going to lose this contact with somewhere where you go on to do something positive. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and to her answer on the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, while we are still on breakfast clubs, I hope I can jump in to speak to Amendment 184, which relates to the additional costs of breakfast clubs in primary schools, combined with the quality of food expected. The amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who is sorry that he cannot be in the Committee right now. Like others in this group, this is, to a certain extent, a probing amendment to understand how much the Government understand about the whole-of-service costs that this part of the Bill will impose on schools and how they plan to meet them, based on conversations with those currently involved in making breakfast clubs work.

I support breakfast clubs. I have previously declared an interest as a mum whose daughter goes to breakfast clubs, and I am a big fan of their provision. For me, they provide hugely valuable additional childcare that allows me and my partner to meet our work commitments, but I also recognise the role that they play in ensuring that no child starts school hungry and unable to learn.

Turning to the practical implications, let us assume that a breakfast club in a primary school is taken up by 50% of the children in that school. A two-form entry school would require oversight by seven members of staff, and a school with a single form would require four members of staff. This does not include the catering element. That ratio is set out in regulations, so it is not advisory. A single-form entry primary school is highly unlikely to have sufficient unused non-teaching staff resource to handle the new obligation without drawing on directed teacher time.

That brings us back to the vital concept of the hard cap on directed time. If, for example, a teacher now has to be diverted for an hour a day to support and supervise a breakfast club, that is around 170 hours a year out of 1,265. Some 15% of the time, they will no longer be available for other duties—most significantly teaching. How are the Government going to account for this?

To the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I say that I completely acknowledge the additional money that has been put into schools through last week’s spending review settlement, and previously, but, when we take into account increased eligibility for free school meals—which is welcome—increased SEND costs, teacher pay awards and increased national insurance costs, my understanding is that there is currently no additional funding to meet the costs of a national rollout of breakfast clubs. That is a question that remains unanswered. The same applies to non-teaching staff: more hours will be required, so how will it be paid for?

Currently, schools can charge parents for early delivery of children before the academic day begins. As I have said, this enables working parents to drop their children off on their way to work, and it works well. I pay £3 for 45 minutes, including breakfast. This will rise to £4 pounds in September, but with provision extending to an hour. For me, it is fantastic value. Many schools deliver this provision for free or at a lower cost for children in receipt of free school meals, with the costs covered by the pupil premium income that a school receives.