Chamber
Plenary, 24 Jan 2007
24 Jan 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
There is a battle on over what our children eat. The big question is whether the Executive is serious about that battle and equipped for it.
There has been a lot of talk about figures during the debate. The big food companies spend £1 billion targeting our children so that they will eat junk food such as sweets, crisps, burgers and pizza. Those companies have no problem with universality; they are quite happy to target the rich children and the poor ones as long as they get the sale in the end. They are also prepared to spend as much as it takes to win the battle.
The question in this debate and in all the debates that we have on the issue should be whether, in 10 years, our children and the society in which we live will be eating healthier food. The jury is out on that. So far, we do not have the policies that will make an impact and the independent evidence, some of which was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, shows that we are not shifting towards the targets and outcomes.
Dave Petrie said that take-up of school meals is falling overall, not just among those who are entitled to them free. He is absolutely right. Charlie Gordon said that if meals are made healthy, the danger is that overall take-up will fall. He is right, too. Glasgow City Council and the secondary schools showed in evidence to the committee that that has been their experience.
What is the answer to that? When healthy meals were introduced to the primary schools in Hull, take-up fell from 48 to 34 per cent. When the meals were made free, take-up rose from 34 to 65 per cent. Any good researcher would see the dramatic changes in those figures. We are talking about the same group of children, and figures that changed over a year. So what had changed? The meals had been made free. Providing healthy meals is only half the equation; the other half is providing them for free.
Karen Whitefield said that the committee did not call for evidence on free school meals. That was a missed opportunity. Both Karen Whitefield and Jamie Stone referred to Lynsey Currie and the evidence session in Airdrie to show that young people do not want free school meals or that they support the Executive's position. Annisha Davie, who was sitting beside Lynsey Currie, said:
"If school meals were free, a lot more people would always go to the cafeteria to eat, as that would save them having to go and pay for stuff. They would be like, "Oh yes, the school's paying for more stuff for us." They would get their free lunch and then be able to go wherever they wanted after that."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 22 November 2006; c 4348.]
The young people would not necessarily go to burger vans and chip shops. If members want to use that evidence, they should quote more than just one individual.
Moreover, the Scottish Youth Parliament supports the provision of free healthy school meals not just for school pupils, but for all 16 to 19-year-olds who are in college. The Scottish Youth Parliament represents young people in this country.
In response to David Davidson's complaint about the nanny state, I will not go as far as Tricia Marwick did but I must ask what the Tories have against nannies. What have nannies ever done to them?
Let us consider what we know about school meals. As Cathie Craigie said, we know that healthy eating is linked to educational attainment and we have evidence to prove that. We know that, if we provide free healthy school meals, children will eat the healthy food on the plate and take-up of school meals will massively increase.
On the issue of universality, which is at the heart of the debate, the arguments of Labour ministers, Liberals and Labour back benchers are all over the shop. They were in favour of free fruit, so they introduced that policy. Because it costs just 50p a head, children can have an apple and an orange. Charlie Gordon and Glasgow City Council are in favour of the provision of free breakfasts. Because that costs just 78p per child, it is made universal and everyone can get it. However, because lunch costs £1.15 a head, pupils such as my son, who attends a Glasgow City Council school, are not given a free lunch. Surely members should be either opposed to universality or in favour of it. However, is money the real issue? If the issue is how much universal provision would cost, why can pupils get free fruit and a free breakfast but not a free school meal?
The minister knows the arguments. He and I have spent many hours on street corners and other places—
There has been a lot of talk about figures during the debate. The big food companies spend £1 billion targeting our children so that they will eat junk food such as sweets, crisps, burgers and pizza. Those companies have no problem with universality; they are quite happy to target the rich children and the poor ones as long as they get the sale in the end. They are also prepared to spend as much as it takes to win the battle.
The question in this debate and in all the debates that we have on the issue should be whether, in 10 years, our children and the society in which we live will be eating healthier food. The jury is out on that. So far, we do not have the policies that will make an impact and the independent evidence, some of which was commissioned by the Scottish Executive, shows that we are not shifting towards the targets and outcomes.
Dave Petrie said that take-up of school meals is falling overall, not just among those who are entitled to them free. He is absolutely right. Charlie Gordon said that if meals are made healthy, the danger is that overall take-up will fall. He is right, too. Glasgow City Council and the secondary schools showed in evidence to the committee that that has been their experience.
What is the answer to that? When healthy meals were introduced to the primary schools in Hull, take-up fell from 48 to 34 per cent. When the meals were made free, take-up rose from 34 to 65 per cent. Any good researcher would see the dramatic changes in those figures. We are talking about the same group of children, and figures that changed over a year. So what had changed? The meals had been made free. Providing healthy meals is only half the equation; the other half is providing them for free.
Karen Whitefield said that the committee did not call for evidence on free school meals. That was a missed opportunity. Both Karen Whitefield and Jamie Stone referred to Lynsey Currie and the evidence session in Airdrie to show that young people do not want free school meals or that they support the Executive's position. Annisha Davie, who was sitting beside Lynsey Currie, said:
"If school meals were free, a lot more people would always go to the cafeteria to eat, as that would save them having to go and pay for stuff. They would be like, "Oh yes, the school's paying for more stuff for us." They would get their free lunch and then be able to go wherever they wanted after that."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 22 November 2006; c 4348.]
The young people would not necessarily go to burger vans and chip shops. If members want to use that evidence, they should quote more than just one individual.
Moreover, the Scottish Youth Parliament supports the provision of free healthy school meals not just for school pupils, but for all 16 to 19-year-olds who are in college. The Scottish Youth Parliament represents young people in this country.
In response to David Davidson's complaint about the nanny state, I will not go as far as Tricia Marwick did but I must ask what the Tories have against nannies. What have nannies ever done to them?
Let us consider what we know about school meals. As Cathie Craigie said, we know that healthy eating is linked to educational attainment and we have evidence to prove that. We know that, if we provide free healthy school meals, children will eat the healthy food on the plate and take-up of school meals will massively increase.
On the issue of universality, which is at the heart of the debate, the arguments of Labour ministers, Liberals and Labour back benchers are all over the shop. They were in favour of free fruit, so they introduced that policy. Because it costs just 50p a head, children can have an apple and an orange. Charlie Gordon and Glasgow City Council are in favour of the provision of free breakfasts. Because that costs just 78p per child, it is made universal and everyone can get it. However, because lunch costs £1.15 a head, pupils such as my son, who attends a Glasgow City Council school, are not given a free lunch. Surely members should be either opposed to universality or in favour of it. However, is money the real issue? If the issue is how much universal provision would cost, why can pupils get free fruit and a free breakfast but not a free school meal?
The minister knows the arguments. He and I have spent many hours on street corners and other places—
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5339, in the name of Hugh Henry, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Schools (Hea...
The Minister for Education and Young People (Hugh Henry):
Lab
Improving the health of people in Scotland is a key priority for the Executive. We are taking action on a number of fronts to tackle our poor health record. ...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
The minister talks about the need for our children to be given the right start in life. Will he say why the Executive has set its face against extending the ...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I will touch on that later.Before discussing the bill in detail, I thank the many pupils, parents and professionals from the education sector, health service...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I understand why the minister is cautious about introducing universal free school meals, but the Scottish National Party's amendment simply asks that the bil...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I did not say anything about reviewing proposals for universal free school meals at a later date. As I explained, I do not accept the principle behind provid...
Frances Curran (West of Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Hugh Henry:
Lab
No, thank you.As I said, universal free school meals would make children in the poorest families no better off than they currently are.Ensuring that children...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Hugh Henry:
Lab
No.Frances Curran's amendment is not factually accurate. The research in question is independent research, not research by Hull City Council, and I have been...
Frances Curran:
SSP
Does the minister accept that Labour councillors do not want to end the pilot, but Liberal Democrat councillors do, and that Labour councillors accept the re...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Frances Curran talks about independent research, but her amendment states that the research was done by Hull City Council. Perhaps she can clarify for us at ...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
The SNP supports the general principles of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill, which contains a great deal that we have called for ...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (Sol):
Sol
Does the member agree that the minister misled Parliament when he said that universal free school meals would not help poorer kids? Evidence from the Child P...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
I agree. The minister misled us on two points, one of which the member has just raised. The other is that the issue has been considered by the Scottish Parli...
Frances Curran (West of Scotland) (SSP):
SSP
At the outset, I say to the minister that we have evidence—which the Scottish Executive has tried to ignore for three years—that the provision of free, healt...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
The member has made an interesting case, but so far she has not mentioned once how much the policy that she advocates would cost. Will she give Parliament an...
Frances Curran:
SSP
It would cost £73 million. Considering that the Scottish Executive's underspend over the past four years has left £1.3 billion in its Westminster bank accoun...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Frances Curran:
SSP
I have only a minute left in which to make my last few points.This is a politically sectarian bill that is not about nutrition. If it were, it would take on ...
Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
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 fo...
Frances Curran:
SSP
Does the member accept that that we know the reason? Research that has been done by a number of children's charities has shown that it is stigma.
Dave Petrie:
Con
I accept that stigma is a problem and was about to address the issue. I have taught in schools that operate a card system, to ensure anonymity, but let us ma...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Dave Petrie:
Con
I am sorry; I would struggle to finish if I did. There is talk of banning foods. We need to influence the culture of nutrition in schools, but we should not ...
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
I came to the bill halfway through the Communities Committee's consideration of it. I thank the clerks and my colleagues on the committee for their forbearan...
Frances Curran:
SSP
Will the member give way?
Mr Stone:
LD
In a second.A parallel argument that both Frances Curran and I accept is that it should be horses for courses when it comes to taxation—in other words, we sh...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Mr Stone:
LD
I will do so shortly, after I have given way to Frances Curran.It is worth remembering that, according to the Executive's calculations, it would cost £180 mi...