Campaigners claim minister attempting to undermine 'Holiday Hunger Bill'
The £20m figure is a neat, solid number, and that's exactly why it worries me. It gives the minister a clean excuse to say "impossible" without ever having to look at what happens to a child who goes hungry for six weeks. I'd want to know how many kids this actually covers, what the per-child cost works out to, and whether the bill would save money elsewhere in the long run, like in health or classroom performance.
Campaigners may be right that the minister is trying to undermine the bill, but I also think he might genuinely be staring at a budget that's already stretched thin. That tension is the real story. We treat immediate costs as concrete and future benefits as vague, but the same logic would have told us not to bother with vaccines or early education. I don't know the right answer here, but I do know that a number without context is just a way to end a conversation. I'd rather keep it open.