Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 24 Jan 2007

24 Jan 2007 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Petrie, Dave Con Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

My initial reaction to the bill was a straight question: why do we need legislation to decide what our kids should eat? Was that not the aim of the hungry for success and health-promoting schools policies, which appear to have failed to increase uptake of school lunches? However, we acknowledge that the health and welfare of pupils are increasing causes of concern, so we are generally supportive of the proposals in the bill at this stage.

There is a cycle of poor nutritional standards in key areas throughout Scotland. Childhood obesity is on the increase: in Scotland, 20 per cent of 12-year-olds are classified as obese and 33 per cent are overweight. That has knock-on effects on the health service, employability and the learning abilities of children while they are in school. Ironically, Scotland is one of the richest countries but has among the worst health statistics.

One positive aspect of the bill is that it puts the child first and tackles health issues from an early age. It has been proved that healthy eating from a young age continues into adulthood. We support the Soil Association's food for life campaign, which Fiona Hyslop mentioned earlier, to educate pupils about food production on farms, but we do not agree that free school meals should be universal when many can afford to pay.

I turn to the negative sides of the bill. Although it would promote healthy, nutritious food in schools, there is no guarantee that that would improve uptake. Regrettably, hungry for success has resulted in a downturn in uptake. Statistics show that in Edinburgh only 23 per cent of children take up free or paid-for meals. Areas where health concerns are more serious, such as Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and South Lanarkshire, have school meal take-up rates of less than 50 per cent. Many pupils still bring in lunches or go out to eat. Initiatives need to be introduced to encourage the take-up of school meals. Providing more lunch time activities may be the key to that.

If the hungry for success initiative has not brought about a great deal of improvement, why should legislation? I share the serious concerns that have been expressed about the popularity of mobile catering establishments outside schools, which may not be serving the best dietary interests of pupils. However, although eating outside school presents unhealthy eating temptations, it should not be assumed that all children who leave school for lunch are choosing that option. Many senior pupils enjoy a break from the school environment at lunch time and eat healthily.

Health promotion is not just about diet—exercise must also be taken into consideration if we are to be successful. There is scope for greater emphasis on extracurricular activities in school. Lunch time activities could encourage pupils to stay in school and, I hope, to take up school lunches. When taking evidence in Airdrie, the Communities Committee identified the potential for provision of healthy, nutritious snacks to coincide with sporting activities. If kids stay at school for sport, we could give them snacks—food and drink—free of charge.

We must work to encourage children who are entitled to free school meals to take them up and must examine the reasons for their failure to do so.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 24 Jan 2007

In the same item of business