Associate
Do you *need* an NHS that's free at the point of use when you can afford private healthcare? Do you *need* free access to libraries when you can afford to buy books? Do you *need* public schools when you can afford to send your children to private?
The answer to all the above is: no, if you're well-off. But what these things do is provide a level playing field. We have a well-funded health service that provides a good -- and free at the point of use -- service and that's available to everyone regardless of what they earn, if anything. The alternative is that the rich get a better service and the poor have only access to poor services, or a lifetime of debt (as often happens in the USA). We have to access to books for education or leisure without having to pay extra; we can enrich our lives without worrying about the cost. We have an education system that works well for the majority.
The point of free school meals is that every child is given the opportunity to have a good meal every weekday. This has been shown to improve the ability to concentrate and hence learn. I'm all for making it means tested, but there are downsides to that too. It costs money to administer. It's not infallible: some parents who didn't meet the criteria go without food themselves to pay for lunch for their children. Some parents choose to provide lunch for their children, and fill them with rubbish. Children who have their meals paid for by the state get singled out as being 'poor'. If school meals are means tested, I think the alternative should be that the parents pay for the *same meals* as the means tested children. Everyone gets their lunch from the cafeteria, nobody is singled out.
