Hancock made the claim this morning to the BBC
Marcus Rashford has rejected a claim made by Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock that there has been recent communication between prime minister Boris Johnson and the footballer over his campaign to bring an end to child food poverty in the United Kingdom.
Hancock was speaking to BBC Breakfast when he said that “there has been communication between the two,” referring to Johnson and Manchester United forward Rashford.
Not long afterwards, however, Rashford rejected the claims, saying: “Hmm, unless he’s referring to the call we had following the u-turn in June?…” – a reference to contact between the pair nearer the beginning of his campaign.
Hmm, unless he’s referring to the call we had following the u-turn in June?… https://t.co/QSwmyETN7x
— Marcus Rashford (@MarcusRashford) October 26, 2020
On #BBCBreakfast the Health Secretary Matt Hancock says "there has been communication" between the PM and @MarcusRashford.
The England striker has tweeted to say they've not spoken since the June u-turn over free school meals in England over Summer. https://t.co/5WerwksVRF pic.twitter.com/X6ZhIsLJg4— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) October 26, 2020
During another interview this morning, Hancock stated that he would “vote for the needs of children,” despite the fact that he was one of the Tory MPs who voted against the need of children to in the House of Commons last week.
The vote last week, which defeated a Labour motion on extending free school meals, has seen an enormous backlash aimed at the Tory government.
A petition has since been created to bring an end to the subsidisation of MPs meals – something viewed as hypocrisy at a time when millions of the taxpayers who help pay for their meals are going hungry.
Over the weekend, Tory MP for Southend West, David Amess, saw the exterior of his local HQ covered in empty plates from constituents – furious at his decision to vote against the motion.
The plates were adorned with messages such as, “Tories – For the few, not the many”.
