The Herald Editorial

It is enough to have Gordon Brown choking on his bowl of rice. The chancellor, who is visiting China, is a firm advocate of targeting state benefits on the basis of need. He believes universal benefit, with the odd exception, is wasteful. The Scottish Executive is at one with Mr Brown on the matter of free school meals. More than two years ago, it opposed a private member's bill in the name of Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party to introduce universal free school meals for primary and secondary pupils, in place of the means-tested model. The bill was defeated in the Scottish Parliament. Ministers argued that, if introduced, it would be a costly and wasteful policy.

Much to the discomfort of ministers, universal free school meals will not disappear from the political menu. The Herald reports today that the policy has been endorsed by academics at Dundee University in a paper welcomed by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). One of the authors is an SSP activist who supports the policy. The other describes himself as the "departmental Conservative". This suggests that the collaborators' findings are balanced. They certainly deserve to be taken seriously by Scotland's political class.

The authors concede there would be a cost in extending free school meals to all Scottish children. However, they maintain that the price would be worth paying because it would have a disproportionately beneficial impact on poor families. Some 100,000 Scottish children live in poverty and, according to the CPAG, many are either ineligible for free school meals or do not claim them. Serving them a meal a day (perhaps the only one) would mitigate the effects of poverty. Providing nutritious, appetising food would also improve long-term health prospects; encourage the habit of healthy eating; and raise educational standards over time.

These are also the executive's aims. Ministers are, however, dead set against universal free meals because they say the cost would be some £200m a year and maintain that resources would be better targeted on those who would benefit most. But, according to the academics, many of those who could benefit most, do not. Universality would include them. Opponents argue that the policy flies in the face of common sense because better-off families do not need it. Including them is therefore seen as a waste of resources. The report's authors conclude that waste becomes a significant factor in the case of only the wealthiest 10% of families. Many probably send their children to private schools, where the policy would not apply.

But where is the waste if children take free school meals? The uptake in those Scandinavian countries where there is universality (around 100%) suggests the initiative would also be effective in Scotland. The academics say poor families would gain most. Universality would remove the stigma attached to receiving the benefit. It would also be more cost-effective to administer. The paper makes a compelling case for the policy. If ministers are serious about tackling poverty, they must pay it proper heed so that, when universal free meals next come before the parliament for debate, they do not merely write the policy off as the work of an irritating opposition party. There is too much at stake for that.