'Extended provision' seems like a good idea - neatly deals with the not everyone who is poor qualifies angle. Again, fundamentally I (and others who have replied) don't have an issue with funding school meals to those kids who need them. It's just the one's who could afford to pay that should continue to do so.
The education, healthcare etc that keeps getting brought up is a silly argument. As others have said, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. God bless the UK for believing that people should have the right to decent free healthcare and free-ish education. The opposite argument can be applied though that everyone should be provided for to exactly the same degree across the board regardless of wealth....sounding very Orwell-esque again.
Like it or not, a line needs to exist. All I'm saying is that currently / with extended provision it appears to me that those that need get and those that can afford can buy. It's nice to live in the UK where you have that option. Just seems like a waste of money to provide free meals for everyone 5, 6 & 7 when some of them will get anyway by virtue of affluence. Also, I totally agree that we waste a heck of a lot of money on crap (nuclear deterrent, MP's drinking habits etc) and that I'd be much more supportive of free meals than a 3rd runway or whatever....but that's not what is being discussed is it?