Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 14 Mar 2007

14 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Byrne, Ms Rosemary Sol South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

My amendment 6 proposes universal provision of free, nutritious school meals. We support universal provision because, if we are to give children the chance to have nutritious school meals, we should ensure that all children get the chance to eat those meals.

I begin by thanking the free school meals campaign. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Child Poverty Action Group, One Plus, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women's committee, Unison and the many others who joined the campaign. I thank them for the solid support that they have provided since 2001, when Tommy Sheridan first raised the matter in a member's bill.

Capability Scotland states:

"Capability Scotland's own research—through our 1 in 4 poll which surveys a panel of disabled people, their family members and carers across Scotland—shows the following:

Nearly 40% of respondents had an income of less than £200 per week

State benefits were the main source of income for nearly 70% of respondents

Nevertheless, two thirds of families with children did not receive free school meals".

Such anomalies crop up throughout the benefits system, but extending means testing to ensure that more children are given free school meals is not the answer. The answer is to ensure that no child is left without a free, nutritious school meal.

Capability Scotland goes on to state:

"disabled families do not generally receive free school meals, despite an increased chance of living in poverty."

It points out that many disabled children have special dietary needs and that their diet would be helped if they were given free school meals.

Research by Save the Children shows that the families of many children who live in the most severe and persistent poverty do not receive benefits and therefore the children are not guaranteed to receive free school meals. I might have said this before in other debates, but I do not apologise for saying it again. In my past experience in education, I encountered families who would not fill in forms for free school meals. They refused to do so, for whatever reason—we can perhaps work out what the reasons were. That meant that the children were not given access to a decent meal and staff had to provide for them quietly at dinner time with sandwiches to take home because they were not being fed. Eventually, the children ended up at the sheriff court and were taken into care, but for about 18 months they were not provided with good meals. It is important to ensure that everyone is caught by the safety net.

We are all concerned about the figures on child obesity. What better way is there to ensure that all our children are healthy than to educate them about food and provide them with a free, nutritious school meal? Finland does that, and it has made a huge difference to the health of the nation. We can do it as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the amount of money that would be required is minimal in comparison with the long-term health benefits for the nation.

I make no apology for proposing universal provision of free school meals. I hope that members will support my amendments 6, 23, 24, 7 and 9. I am sympathetic to the other amendments in the group, but universality is the best way forward.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 14 Mar 2007

In the same item of business