Whatever happened to parental responsibility? Why are taxpayers having to pay for children to have breakfast at school? - Sarah Todd

If this money is being squandered on other items rather than the youngsters for whom it is intended - the obvious modern penchants for tattoos, lip fillers, fancy phones and umpteen television channels spring to mind - it should be taken away altogether.

A bowl of cereal or slice of toast to ensure the day is started off with full tummies is the very least children should expect from whoever decided to bring them into the world. It is called parental responsibility.

A bit harsh? Well, the way the Government basked in the glory of launching these so-called free breakfast clubs in 750 schools across England (before an expected national roll out) was irksome. They aren’t ‘free’, taxpayers will be picking up the tab.

A long time ago now, when our children were at school, those not claiming benefits were always being asked to subsidise those that were. Every year was a trip, for those who had gone through the previous school year without any detentions or other behavioural black marks.

We were happy to pay for the admission ticket and send a packed lunch. Anybody due to have had a free school dinner on the day of the trip was entitled to a complimentary pack-up and it always wound this miserable mother up.

Fair enough, not having to cough up towards the ticket to get into the theme park or wherever. But, surely the parents of these children being treated to such a pricey playday, could have been expected to cram a few slices of bread together into a sandwich when everything else was free gratis. Maybe, just maybe, they would have happily sent some food in, but the parents’ letter home informed them that they didn’t have to. That nanny state again.

Some schools have long opened their doors a little earlier or stayed later with various clubs and activities (usually requiring a small fee), to help working parents whose hours don’t quite collide with the traditional school day. That’s great.

What isn’t, are parents who can’t be bothered. It’s all too much of a rush some say, just not enough time with other tiny tots to get up and other such excuses.

As England footballer Marcus Rashford pointed out in his campaign on the subject a couple of years ago, hungry children are a national disgrace.

Parents of vulnerable children, who are sketchy when it comes to serving up three square meals a day, should be hauled in by the authorities.

Instead of spoon-feeding poor parenting, the state should be stepping up to the plate and making sure mothers and fathers aren’t blowing benefits on non-child-rearing items.

Where has the notion of shame gone? Women at the school gates, dragging on vapes while still wearing pyjamas, are a mighty fine example of this.

The sad reality is that the more the state does, the more its citizens - yes, it’s all sounding very communist - expect.

Parents need to take responsibility for their children and dropping them off at school fed and watered should be at the top of that list. Did you know that one in four infants start school still in nappies, not toilet trained, never mind those who can’t use a knife or fork or brush their teeth?

The state’s job is helping people out during tough times, such as bereavement, job loss or serious illness. Not nannying.

If an interviewer came this way, asking what taxes should be spent on, yours truly would bemoan the fact air ambulances aren’t Government funded. Same goes for compelling causes like Guide Dogs for the Blind. Then hospices, which only receive around a third of their funding from the national purse.

Time was anyone sending their children to school without breakfast, ready for the day of learning ahead, would be seen as neglectful. Now it’s all woe is them.

The Husband’s pet hate, when our children were young, was barely eaten bowls of cereal swimming in gallons of milk left on the table. It was always there waiting for them when they got home. No after-school snacks or tea until the bowl was emptied.

It sounds draconian (he’s actually a soft touch) but was just repeating what his mother had done to him.

Now, maybe that’s the real problem. A generation of parents who haven’t been properly parented themselves?

And if we take the responsibility of sending their children off into the world with a full stomach away, are we not just giving further free rein not to bother.

Perhaps America is onto something, giving social security vouchers to exchange for food, rather than money magically appearing into bank accounts.

Thinking aloud, people jump through more hoops if they want to adopt a pet dog from a rescue centre - detailing feeding and how they are going to keep it fit and healthy - than if they bring children into the world.

Now, if us taxpayers must fork out for something, what about the return of breaktime milk or school dinners made from British farm produced meat and vegetables?

Sarah Todd is a journalist specialising in country life. Read her weekly column in Wednesday’s edition of The Yorkshire Post.