School Meals
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2507, in the name of Frances Curran, on school meals and our children's future.
Dare I say that it gives me great pleasure to come to the Scottish Parliament today to congratulate Labour councils on the action that they have taken to progress the debate on free, healthy school meals? Obesity is the health time bomb of our time. We know what the problem is; we know what the main causes are; we know that poverty and low income are factors in poor diet; and we know that, as a society, we are supporting and condoning our kids being stuffed full of over-processed food that is laden with salt, fat and sugar. We are standing by while the big multinational food companies make billions of pounds in profit while simultaneously attacking the health of our children. We need to find policies that will challenge that situation and reverse it, and we need to have the bottle to implement them. That is why I have lodged today's motion.
I congratulate councils and the National Assembly for Wales for their action on the issue. Last year, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the pioneering free healthy school meals policy in Hull. Hull City Council is the first council in England and Wales to introduce such a policy, the aims of which are to improve educational attainment, reduce levels of obesity and other health problems—particularly type 2 diabetes—and tackle poverty. The council introduced not only free school meals throughout the city but free breakfasts and free teatime snacks for after-school clubs. Last month, the final phase was rolled out throughout the city. Today, 21,000 children at primary schools in Hull will, if they choose, have a healthy, nutritious breakfast and meal at school. In Hull, processed slurry on school plates has been unceremoniously binned—and the bin is where it belongs.
Take-up has also changed. Since the introduction of the new initiative, 80 per cent more meals are being served in schools in Hull, yet every day in Scotland, 100,000 children who are classed by the Scottish Executive as living in poverty are not entitled to a free school meal. On top of that, one in three children at schools all over Scotland who are entitled to free school meals do not claim them, mainly because of the stigma.
Does the member agree that the way to get over that problem is to use smart cards, which Highland Council has been using for the past 10 years? Smart cards remove any stigma from the child.
The point about stigma is interesting. Research published two weeks ago by Dr Carlo Morelli and Dr Paul Seaman at the University of Dundee shows that means testing—whether smart cards are used or not—and targeting on this specific issue have spectacularly failed. The research also blows a hole in the claim that universal free school meals would waste money by benefiting better-off families.
Hull has a policy that is a success, but the Scottish Executive will no doubt defend in the debate a policy that is consistently failing. We welcome Glasgow City Council's initiative in providing free, healthy breakfasts and free fruit to children in primary schools throughout the city. However, that does not go far enough; it is a drop in the ocean. If we are going to argue that free, healthy breakfasts and free fruit for all primary schoolchildren will help to improve health and tackle poverty, why not extend the argument to provide free school meals throughout Glasgow? The council is in favour of that, but the question is how to implement it.
Our argument is that free, healthy school dinners should be introduced. When we discussed that issue previously, it was argued that young people will not eat healthy food and that they will take to the streets wearing placards demanding burgers, chips and Coke. I never expected Jamie Oliver to be an ally, but Essex boy—or salad boy, as anyone who has watched "Jamie's School Dinners" knows—is about to prove that argument wrong. We saw that on television last night, and we are not at the end of the series yet. If we accept the argument that kids will not eat healthy food, we accept that the multinational food companies will slowly poison a generation of Scottish children while we are mere bystanders who will pick up the bill at the end. If people think that that is far-fetched, it is already happening in America—anyone who watches "Super Size Me" will see that in technicolour.
The Scottish Socialist Party would like the Parliament to introduce free school meals and to reject a policy that is failing to reach its target. There are those who are weather vanes and those who wait to see which way the wind is blowing. Hull City Council has shown courage and vision and I call on the Scottish Executive to follow its lead.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that all serious nutritionists are predicting that obesity will double in Scotland over the next 10 years, causing a health crisis which will dramatically increase demand for health services and lower average life expectancy; therefore endorses the principle that radical action is required to tackle Scotland's diet-related health problems; believes that there can be no better use of Scotland's resources than to invest in our children's future, and congratulates the National Assembly for Wales and the city councils of Hull and Glasgow for their action in providing free breakfasts for all primary children and the councils for their further commitment to extending free, nutritious school lunches to all their primary school pupils.
I welcome the opportunity to debate school meals and—more important—the health and future of Scotland's children. There can be no more important task than ensuring that our children enjoy a long and healthy life. Healthy minds and healthy bodies are at the heart of the Executive's vision for education. As we laid out in last November's "ambitious, excellent schools: our agenda for action", we are committed to ensuring that all our children are
"safe, nurtured, healthy, achieving, active, respected, responsible and included."
Central to achieving that ambition is the promotion of health in Scottish schools. We have made a commitment that all schools will be health promoting by 2007 and have established the Scottish health promoting schools unit to support authorities and schools in meeting that challenging target. The unit undertakes a wide range of work to enable schools to connect their varied health activities—including work on nutrition and diet, physical activity and mental and emotional well-being—and turn them into a cohesive whole.
Important as nutrition and school food undoubtedly are, we cannot achieve long-lasting health for our children through a single means or, indeed, simply through action in schools. The Executive recognises the need for action across a wide front. On physical activity—a vital part of the equation for a healthy life—as part of the acceptance of the report of the physical education review group, the Executive will enable the deployment of an additional 400 specialist PE teachers by 2008.
We have also invested in the development, via sportscotland, of an extensive network of active schools co-ordinators throughout Scottish schools. The active schools programme aims to address low levels of physical activity through the provision of a range of opportunities to be physically active throughout the school day. Although those activities include sport and organised physical recreation, they are not limited to those areas. The active schools programme aims to increase the activity of all pupils, rather than just those who have an interest in sport. We are serious about getting Scotland's children's active and have invested £24 million across 2003 to 2006 in that programme alone.
While I welcome 100 per cent the wider aspects that the minister has brought to the debate, before he moves on will he let the chamber know how successful the hungry for success proposals have been, how they have been monitored and when we will be able to read about them?
I am just moving on to exactly that area.
It is clear that we must take action to prevent obesity and ill health, both today and in future. Improving the nutritional content and attractiveness of school meals is key to making that culture change.
Since 2002, when we accepted all the recommendations of the expert panel on school meals, the Executive has invested heavily in improving school meals. More than £57 million has been committed through to 2006, and authorities throughout Scotland have responded well and enthusiastically to the challenge of revolutionising what our children eat in schools as well as the attractiveness and functionality of dining rooms.
I remind members that the expert panel's report, "Hungry for Success: A Whole School Approach to School Meals in Scotland", recommended a range of changes that are vital to improving school meals. They include larger portions of more nutritious food; new nutrient standards for school meals; detailed mechanisms for monitoring those standards; nutritional analysis software to help caterers to develop balanced menus; the availability of fresh, chilled drinking water in school dining halls and throughout the school day; an improved atmosphere in dining halls; connecting school meals with the curriculum as a key aspect of health education and health promotion, which is an important point; raising awareness of entitlement to free school meals; working to eliminate stigma; and product specifications, as developed by the Food Standards Agency Scotland, that set recommended levels for fat, salt and sugar in processed food used in Scottish schools.
The minister is correct to say that we cannot consider nutrition on its own, and he made a link with physical activity. Will he assure us that the Executive will issue guidance to local education authorities that are considering public-private partnerships so that they ensure that the gym hall and the dining room are two separate places? In some schools where that is not the case, that places restrictions on gym lessons.
I will consider the point that the member raises. It is for local authorities to decide on school design, but if there are difficulties in that regard the Executive will take his point on board. His comments are welcome in that light.
The range of activity set out in "Hungry for Success" is both broad and deep, and significant progress has been made in delivery. Regular reporting through the national priorities action fund and the annual school meal census reveals good practice across Scotland on different aspects of the hungry for success programme. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will report this summer on the progress of the programme in primary schools. We have commissioned baseline research on the whole of the hungry for success programme, as well as on key dimensions such as the free fruit scheme, to ensure that progress is carefully monitored. We will ensure that all aspects of hungry for success are fully delivered and we are confident that authorities are diligently pursuing the aims of improving food and food culture in Scottish schools.
The hungry for success programme aims to challenge and change the way pupils think about food as well as what they eat in school. We believe that such lasting change is possible only if healthy and nutritious alternatives are attractive options for children. Simply providing free school meals to all pupils will not improve their health if the food itself and the atmosphere in which it is eaten are not appetising and stimulating.
I thank and congratulate all those who have made so much effort in bringing the hungry for success programme into Scotland's schools—whether officials, teachers, school kitchen staff or the children themselves—and who have worked hard on all the aspects of the programme.
I move amendment S2M-2507.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"commends the work the Scottish Executive is doing to tackle childhood obesity, in particular by significantly improving the nutritional quality of school meals across Scotland; acknowledges the significant investment in children's health represented by Hungry for Success, the Executive's programme of activity around school meals and food in schools; recognises the action taken by the Executive to promote physical activity, by amongst other means, the employment of 400 additional physical education teachers and 600 active sports co-ordinators, and welcomes the Executive's commitment to continue investing in a high-quality and attractive school meals service to equip pupils with healthy eating habits for life and in initiatives to improve opportunities for physical exercise in daily life and sporting and recreational settings."
I welcome this further opportunity to debate what is a very important issue. I particularly welcome the tone of both the motion and the Executive amendment, which focus on the health agenda, on which we can take all of Scotland with us in addressing the issues.
I recognise the developments that have taken place since we last debated the subject, such as the Dundee study. We have had several such debates: on an emergency bill from the Executive and on a member's bill from the SSP. The central issues, which we will come back to, are targeting and universality. In general, the Parliament should engage in a debate as to what is appropriate for targeting and what is appropriate for universality. There is an argument for tackling pensioner poverty through a universal pension, and as far as school meals are concerned, there is possibly an argument for universality on health grounds.
However, I wish to emphasise the factual inaccuracies in both the motion and the Executive amendment. If we are going to have a debate on such an important issue, it is vital that members who lodge motions or amendments have the correct facts.
Frances Curran's speech did not mention Glasgow City Council's commitment to extending free, nutritious school lunches to all its primary school pupils. Perhaps that is because the council is not in fact intending to do that. Euan Robson mentioned the Executive's action to promote physical activity through, among other means, the employment of 400 additional PE teachers. Employment means giving people contracts, which means getting people signed up. However, those additional teachers have not been signed up,—they do not exist, and that number merely represents an aspiration for the future.
Is the member suggesting that Glasgow City Council is lying when it says that it intends to implement the proposals by 2007?
My understanding is that there are currently no proposals for Glasgow City Council to extend free, nutritious meals to all primary school pupils.
There is a genuine issue around what is being done here and now, and there are immediate actions and steps that could be taken. I think that we should pilot universal free school meals for primary 1 to primary 3, not least because that is deliverable; it would also address the issue of early palate formation. Anyone who has watched Jamie Oliver's programmes recently will realise that that is a critical issue to tackle. The Finnish model gives us many lessons, and the social aspects of young people sitting with teachers form an important part of their general development and should be encouraged.
We need to consider the matter in the round and in an holistic manner. I do not think that there is a big-bang solution to childhood obesity simply through implementing universal free school meals; we have to consider the matter in the context of palate formation, health, education and sport. That is why the Scottish National Party has a constructive proposal for an action plan for fit, healthy young Scots. There need to be annual fitness checks for school pupils, we need to remove fizzy drinks and unhealthy foods from vending machines and we need to have free, nutritious school meals, which we should pilot in primaries 1 to 3 so that we can produce evidence for the sceptics and so that we can assess the practical challenges for kitchens. We also need to extend access to the children of those who claim passport benefits, as they are becoming known, so as to tackle the poverty issue. We need free fruit in primary schools and for pregnant women. If young mothers are to address the palate issue as they feed their young children, getting free fruit—in a country that produces it—is very important.
I will end on the subject of physical education. Scotland is 27th out of 29 countries in the developed world for the amount of time that we spend on compulsory PE, despite the fact that we send our children to school for longer than just about any other country in the developed world. We must address the physical education side of the issue. Together, we can comprehensively tackle the ticking time bomb of childhood obesity. I welcome this opportunity to debate the matter.
I move amendment S2M-2507.1, to leave out from "and the councils" to end and insert:
"and calls on the Scottish Executive to support the piloting of nutritious free school meals in P1 to 3 in order to provide evidence of the potential benefits of such a policy and practical evidence of delivery and as part of a comprehensive plan to tackle health and fitness in young people covering issues of palate in the early years, health, education and sport to encourage Scottish children to become fit, healthy young Scots."
I express my party's support for the motion. The amendment in my name does not alter the fundamental principle contained in Frances Curran's motion—namely, the recognition that poor diet is a major contributor to Scotland's poor health record and that one of the ways in which we should tackle that is through ensuring that every school pupil is offered a decent, nutritionally balanced meal on each school day. If we fail to tackle the diet-related epidemic of obesity and associated conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, then, to use an over-used yet accurate phrase, we are sitting on a health time bomb. I fully support Frances Curran's motion.
The amendment in my name is about two things: the standards that the meals served in our schools should meet; and changing Scotland's food culture through food education. That is what the food for life initiative sets out to do. The food for life programme was established by the Soil Association in 2003, when a few pilot projects were started in primary schools in England and Wales.
In November 2004, a Scottish pilot was started, involving two schools, one of them being Strathpeffer Primary School in Highland. I should mention that the Highland Council has not been doing badly in this area in any event. Since 2002, fruit consumption in Highland schools has more than trebled and 95 per cent of all Highland schools no longer sell fizzy, sugary drinks or confectionary. It is expected that, by the end of this year, all its schools will have achieved health promoting school status. The uptake of school meals in Highland, which dipped slightly when the new hungry for success menus were introduced, has risen again and continues to increase. I recognise the potential benefits of the Scottish Executive's hungry for success programme. As Tommy Sheridan said, the programme should be formally evaluated and I look forward to seeing the results of that.
There was already an awareness of food issues and a commitment to improve the situation in Highland, which made it the ideal place for a food for life pilot. The food for life programme has five targets. The first target is good nutrition. The second is more organic food, with 30 per cent of the food served being organic. The third target is a sustainable supply chain, with 50 per cent of the food being produced locally. The fourth is less processed food, with 75 per cent of the food being unprocessed—it is not unreasonable to expect that three quarters of the food that our children eat in school should be fresh.
I particularly want to emphasise the fifth target, which is better food education. In announcing the Strathpeffer pilot scheme, Highland Council's catering manager said:
"A big part of the project will be educating pupils through their school curriculum on the value of healthy eating, cooking skills and the importance of knowing where the food on our plate comes from. This will make sure that the values of traditions and food cultures are not forgotten in our Highland communities."
The food for life programme envisages links between schools and local farmers and producers so that food awareness becomes incorporated into the five-to-14 curriculum. If the pilot is successful, it is the intention that Highland Council will encourage other schools to adopt the principles of the food for life programme.
It is not only the lucky pupils in the two pilot schools who should benefit from local, fresh and organic—where possible—food; that should be the birthright of all Scottish school pupils. As television chef Nick Nairn said:
"Despite Scotland having one of the most notoriously unsound diets in Western Europe, it is also the larder to some of the best and most nutritious produce in the world."
Surely it is our children—the future of our country—who should be eating that nutritious produce.
I move amendment S2M-2507.2, to insert at end:
"further commends the Food for Life pilot programme which is delivering not only healthy, local organic school meals, but also a range of educational activities which reconnect children with a healthy food culture and with how their food is produced, and calls on the Scottish Executive to make a commitment to supporting locally-produced GM-free organic food for school meals provision in Scotland".
I am pleased to speak in this debate. I liked my school dinners—perhaps you can tell, Presiding Officer. Sometimes, I had two school dinners in a day, one at the first sitting and another at the second sitting. People who did dinner duty and helped with the administration got a ticket for a free lunch at the second sitting, so I would have more to eat because I thought that the dinners were great. I remember fondly that, back then, I had a 28in waist. That is a long time ago, of course, but the difference is that I was extremely active in those days. I walked to and from school, played rugby and football and took advantage of every opportunity to take part in sport. Further, our school had eight floors and the lifts often broke.
Then, however, something happened: I learned to drive. Until the age of 27, I had been cycling. At that time, I was working for brewers, restaurants—mostly curry houses—wine merchants and so on and my lifestyle changed. Now, here I am with a 42in waist—honest. The difference was that my lifestyle had become more sedentary. I took less exercise.
Today, we will support the Executive's amendment because it strikes the right balance. It is not only about nutritious meals but about exercise and the level of activity in our schools. In relation to the issue that we are debating, people often talk about the example of Finland. However, we should be aware that Finland has had free school meals since 1948. What has changed in recent years in Finland is the increased amount of physical activity in schools. A 1999 survey in Finland showed that 40 per cent of boys and 27 per cent of girls aged 12 to 18 were active enough to meet the recommended level of activity of one hour a day. In Scotland, we struggle to achieve an hour a week in many of our schools. We need to raise that level of activity.
Other factors must also be borne in mind about Finland. According to a letter in The Scotsman by Jane Ann Liston, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Fife, pupils in Finland
"are not allowed to leave the school premises, and they may not bring a packed lunch"
and they must eat the school dinners. The Dundee study that is eulogised by the Scottish Socialist Party comes with various health checks, one of which is that it is based on the assumption of a 100 per cent take-up of free school meals. Anyone who has sent their children off to school will know that that is unlikely to happen unless the children are locked in the school. Is that what is being proposed by the SSP? I doubt it.
When the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, of which I was a member, took evidence on Tommy Sheridan's bill in the previous session of Parliament, we visited Leith Academy and saw that, although it had a canteen that was better than either of the canteens in the Parliament, with salad bars, baked potatoes, pasta, broccoli—broccoli!—and so on, the pupils were outside the school at lunchtime. They did not want the best, nutritious meals. One cannot take a horse to water and make it drink. It was the teachers who were enjoying the broccoli.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I have to finish.
It is important that we improve nutrition in our schools and that we get the balance right with regard to who should get free meals, but we also have to improve the level of physical activity. That is why we will support the Executive amendment today.
I should declare an interest as a former contributor to the school meals service as a consumer and as a producer.
My experience of school meals is varied and, in preparing for this debate, I realised that it is now in the extreme distant past. That said, I continue to have an interest in how we deliver the service to the young people of today and ensure that we deliver appropriate nutritional standards. I dismiss the hollow gestures of some parties in the chamber who use this issue to try to score political points.
The programme that is outlined in the "Hungry for Success" document, which was implemented by the Executive and has been commended by Jamie Oliver, set the scene by ensuring that nutrition is, quite rightly, central to the positive approach to a child's health. Gone are the days when the daily intake of salt, sugar and fat were not considered. It is a fact that a poor diet has an impact on a child's ability to learn and to grow. As we deliver more and more breakfast services and out-of-school services, we have a greater opportunity to influence and shape the palate of our young people. That positive influence at a young age will greatly benefit Scotland in the future by reversing the trend towards poor diets. We have not embarked on a quick-fix approach. It will take a generation before the benefit is evident.
Many school meals are produced every day in Scotland and the uptake of school meals is increasing in the schools that have positively captured the health-promotion ethos. One such school in my constituency has featured recently in the Scottish media. Hurlford Primary School has gone to the next stage by making the link between school meals and organic and local producers that support the Soil Association's food for life scheme and by reducing the use of processed foods. Since the commencement of the pilot scheme in August last year, the uptake of school meals in the school has risen by 10 per cent.
Will the member give way?
No.
East Ayrshire Council intends to extend the pilot scheme to a further 10 schools very soon. The ingredients are sourced locally, which supports the local economy. It would be wrong to suggest that that has resulted in uninspiring menus. The variety of food on offer allows for a traditional Scottish flavour and an international flavour, which, as those who saw the clips on the news will know, was very much favoured by the young people at Hurlford.
Providing free school meals to all our young people is not the answer to the question of how to tackle the Scotland's poor diet. We also need to change the habits of parents by encouraging them to pass on healthy eating tips of the sort that are being given to young people as part of a pilot scheme that is being run in East Ayrshire at New Farm primary school.
The measures in the hungry for success programme and the Soil Association's food for life scheme, combined with an increase in physical activity in schools, will set us on the way to reducing obesity in Scotland. We have made that start with our young people. That is our radical and logical action to invest in our children's future. Accordingly, I support the amendment in the minister's name.
As members will be aware, I have to fit in two debates this morning. Therefore, speeches must be restricted to four minutes.
At the risk of being not quite politically correct, I suggest that we are having a debate about motherhood and apple pie. I do not know how apple pie fits into the school meals agenda these days, but to some extent this is an artificial debate. Is it a debate about health, or is it a debate about poverty and stigma? Is it a debate about targeting as opposed to universality? Is it a debate about whether people should be allowed to make individual choices on a voluntary basis or whether they should be compelled?
Across the board, we recognise that there are serious health problems in Scotland, which are likely to get worse if we continue to do what we are doing at the moment. The status quo is not an option. The debate is about how we make the change and about whether we compel or persuade people to do things.
There are some interesting pilots that aim to make changes. The pilot in East Ayrshire has a great deal going for it. It is important that there has been greater uptake of free school meals. The East Ayrshire pilot has been successful and deserves support.
I have a straightforward question for the member. Does he think that in the past four years the national wealth of Scotland has increased or decreased?
What an interesting question. I intend rather to address the issue that we are debating.
The issue of school meals cannot be dealt with in isolation. Various members, including Mr Monteith, have made the point that exercise is part and parcel of what we are seeking to achieve. I would like to hear more from the Executive about whether under the new school building programme there will be separate canteens and gym halls. That should not be a matter for local authorities, because we will not be able to deliver the change that is required if the choice is between having a gym class and having lunch. People should not have to make that choice. As we refine our approach, we should be able to iron out such problems. It may cost more to have separate canteens and gym halls, but that is the kind of measure that is required if we are to deliver change.
The debate about targeting or universality is important, but it is not necessarily the key to change. Others have cast doubt on the evidence that has been advanced both by the Child Poverty Action Group and by the SSP. We must pilot free school meals to see where they should be introduced. The Scottish National Party proposals that we introduce them in primaries 1 to 3 are costed and realistic. Our focus should be on youngsters in that age group. The eating patterns of children in secondary 4, secondary 5 and secondary 6 are fairly firmly established, so introducing free school meals for those pupils is unlikely to yield the best results. Trying that approach at an early stage, when we have some chance of influencing people's eating patterns, is probably the best option.
We may be able to import measures that have been tried elsewhere in the world, which may well work. However, we have our own culture, some of which is not a healthy culture. We need to try things out here, to see what delivers best for pupils in Scotland. The introduction of universal free school meals for pupils in primaries 1 to 3 would provide us with the basis on which to assess how we may make progress and whether universality is appropriate. I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Fiona Hyslop.
I rise to speak in support of the Executive's amendment. I do not believe that there is anyone in the chamber who does not wish to see our schoolchildren eating healthy, nutritious meals both at home and at school. However, anyone who has brought up or taught children will be under no illusion about the fact that that is easier said than done. A four-year-old who will eat only chicken dinosaurs and a 14-year-old who refuses to eat vegetables are formidable foes.
I remember my deep antipathy as a child to vegetable soup and pink cold meat. That was bad enough at home and worse still when it confronted me in the school canteen. I am sorry that Dennis Canavan is not here. He once told me that when he did not like his school dinners he put them in his trouser pocket.
I have taught pupils who lived on Mars bars and Coca-Cola. I have seen children in the school canteen choose chocolate cake and chips for their lunch, spend their dinner money at the burger van at the school gate, or walk out of the school at lunch time to go to the local chippy. For many youngsters, healthy school meals are not cool. Making them free will not stop those youngsters choosing the unhealthy option, whether in the school canteen or out of school. As Fiona Hyslop and Margaret Jamieson said, we need to educate our children's palates.
Can the member explain why in Hull there has been an 80 per cent increase in take-up since free dinners were introduced? The issue is not burgers and chips, but what is presented and the fact that it is free.
I have not examined what has happened in Hull. I want to speak about the initiatives in the Highland Council area, which Eleanor Scott described. Those initiatives are not based on universal free school meals. Smart cards were introduced in the area 10 years ago and there is no complaint about stigma. The cornerstone of Highland Council's policy is the local sourcing of food and the education of pupils' palates. The meat that is served is reared in the Highlands. Previously it had been sourced frozen and imported, but now it provides nutritious meals, a market for local farmers and work for local butchery workers. Eggs are sourced locally. Only organic carrots are bought and seasonality has been reintroduced to school menus. Links have been developed with farmers, the Highlands and Islands food and drink forum, the Soil Association and other bodies, to encourage small local suppliers.
As well as cutting transport costs and the food miles that are so important for the environment, the measures that I have described introduce schoolchildren to high-quality, tasty, nutritious food, which they appreciate. Eleanor Scott has already mentioned some of the excellent results that have been achieved in Highland. I will mention one or two more. There has been a 600 per cent increase in water consumption in schools. Ninety-five per cent of schools no longer sell fizzy drinks. More than 60 schools in Highland have been accredited with health promoting schools status. One of the cooks was runner-up in the competition for education supporter of the year. Several establishments have achieved healthy choices awards and chips sales are down by 50 per cent.
Will the member give way?
No—I have already taken an intervention.
I commend the Highland Council on its policy. Last Sunday on Radio 4, "The Food Programme" held up Highland Council as a shining example of good practice. I also commend the action earth initiative by Community Service Volunteers Scotland. Recently, Eleanor Scott and I visited Fortrose Academy, where CSV is working in partnership with the school to promote vegetable growing. Eleanor presented the pupils with some seed potatoes. We are going back to the future, because I remember a similar scheme that was run at Dingwall Academy 25 years ago. Since then, we have seen the collapse under the Tory Government of nutritional standards in schools and of the home economics department.
The SSP motion does not address fully the issue of healthy eating, so I will not support it. I commend the other initiatives that I have mentioned, which are contributing in a positive way to healthy eating. Together with the Highland schools' commitment to promoting active lifestyles, which I have not had a chance to discuss, they will counteract the insidious obesity creep.
This has been a good debate, with some excellent speeches. It has been historic in one respect—it is the first debate in the Parliament that I can recall in which I have agreed with most, if not all, of what Brian Monteith had to say.
The debate about school meals is important and I am grateful to the SSP for bringing it to the chamber today. As we have heard, it raises issues of child poverty, of choice for young people, of nutritional standards, of the effects of breakfast, drinking water and eating fruit on school performance, and of stigma and other possible reasons for low take-up of school meals. There are also advantages to having children sit down to a meal, at which they can learn to talk to and interact with one another—something that does not always happen at home in this frenetic age.
I have some sympathy with the case for universal free school meals, which involves a degree of administrative saving, may have an impact on stigma and could contribute to better diet. However, I do not accept the more extravagant claims that are made. It is not a particularly effective use of public finance to provide free school meals to the children of the 70 per cent of parents who can afford to pay.
The Scottish Executive's programme of practical reforms is a better way forward. Ninety-nine per cent of primary schools give free fresh fruit to P1 and P2 pupils. I am not sure whether we know how many of them eat it, which is an issue. I went to school at about the same time as Brian Monteith, and the free school milk that was a feature of my childhood was not always drunk—especially when it was lukewarm in hot weather or frozen solid in icy weather. Such issues encapsulate many of the points in this debate.
The issue of take-up is central to the argument. Ninety-two per cent of those who are entitled are registered for free school meals; indeed, the figure is 100 per cent in Glasgow, Inverclyde, Aberdeenshire and some other council areas. Clearly, 100 per cent registration would not be impossible to achieve throughout Scotland and I think that that should be an objective of the Executive.
I appreciate the point that is being made, but Robert Brown should remember that only 20 per cent of children are getting free school meals although 30 per cent of Scottish children live in poverty. How do we close that gap?
There are issues arising out of that, but I want to move on to a slightly different point.
Twenty per cent of those who are entitled to free school meals were not present on the day that the census took place and a further 25 per cent did not take up their entitlement. Interestingly, that percentage does not seem to vary between those schools that have an automated system—including 100 per cent of Glasgow's secondary schools—and schools that do not. I am not saying that stigma is not important. I am saying that stigma does not seem to have a particularly significant effect on take-up—the evidence does not seem to support that claim.
Much more significant is getting the children to school in the first place and interesting them in the school diet and the offerings at the school lunch in the second place. No one can deny the huge success of the schemes for free water and free fruit. Interestingly, water has become cool—not just literally, but in the fashion sense. Breakfast clubs have a more variable take-up and clearly have a contribution to make, as do the wider, radical health promotion initiatives that the minister and others have talked about.
There are some inhibiting factors. Eleanor Scott touched on an aspect of that and I very much agree with her comments. The size of school kitchens and dining rooms is an issue that needs to be resolved and I hope that the Executive will ensure that there is sufficient flexibility of provision in the new school programmes as they move forward.
Much moral indignation is expended by Frances Curran and the SSP not just in this debate, but in practically every debate in which they take part. In fact, it is the broad approach of the Scottish Executive that enables it to hold the moral high ground on the issue and that will make a difference. I beg the chamber to support the Executive's amendment.
I am pleased, if a little disappointed, to find myself back on this familiar territory. I supported the School Meals (Scotland) Bill in the previous session of Parliament and I am a vocal supporter of the on-going campaign. Although the defeat of the bill was disheartening for everyone who was involved, the campaign has moved on since then and has gained strength and perspective as a result.
Since 2002, the campaign, which is co-ordinated by a coalition of charities led by the Child Poverty Action Group, has continued to build on a wide range of support from individuals and organisations, including the Scottish Youth Parliament, Unison, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, NCH and the British Medical Association. There has also been an increase in the amount of research that is conducted in areas such as the extent and cost of the obesity problem in Scotland and a study was undertaken by economists at the University of Dundee on the distributional benefits of free school meals.
Similarly, some local authorities have committed themselves to the introduction of a policy of providing free nutritional meals universally. In Hull, the city council is just coming to the end of the process, as we have heard, and the initiative has been praised by the Minister of State for School Standards, Stephen Twigg MP. In Glasgow, the council has committed itself to the principle of delivering universal free provision and will do so in primary schools by 2007.
Just as the Parliament's surroundings have changed and evolved since 2002, so have the arguments surrounding the validity of the case for free school meals. In the interim period, the Executive has also taken steps that focus on child health and nutrition. Several commendable initiatives have been introduced, such as the hungry for success programme. New nutritional standards in schools, increased health education and promotion and the universal provision of free fruit for primary 1 and 2 children are just some of the measures that are beginning to make a difference for schoolchildren in Scotland.
There is nothing wrong with the words of the Executive's amendment—apart, perhaps, from the fact that the Tories support them. The amendment merely points out what is being done. Nevertheless, it intrinsically alters the motion and is, basically, an amendment against the universal provision of free school meals. I have no doubt that the Executive is committed to improving the health prospects of our children; in fact, there is a general consensus in the Parliament that improving the dietary health of our children must be a priority. The question is how we can do that. The sheer scale of the challenge that we face in turning around the health prospects of our nation has convinced us that the issue needs decisive, radical and sustained action. For that reason, the Parliament should not dismiss the notion of universally free school meals without proper scrutiny and consideration.
In saying that, I am not suggesting that the committees that were charged with scrutinising the member's bill in the previous session did not do that to the best of their ability. However, many of the arguments that were employed at that time by both sides were based on speculative evidence. The Health and Community Care Committee suggested, during stage 1, that a pilot scheme would be of benefit in gauging the merits or demerits of the proposal. I think that a pilot scheme would be a rational and pragmatic way in which to proceed, be it in Glasgow, across Scotland, or in primary 1, 2 and 3.
With recent figures suggesting that a third of 12-year-olds in Scotland are overweight and that one in five is clinically obese, there is no doubt that we are facing an obesity time bomb in this country. We must lead from the front and educate all our children about what it is to eat a healthy diet. I can see no better or more effective way of achieving that than by providing a free nutritional meal for every child on every day of their young school life. I hope that the Parliament will keep an open mind on that prospect, support further independent research and consider implementing pilot schemes. Do something about obesity we must.
I thank Brian Monteith for giving us the first confession in the Parliament today in admitting to being the genuine Billy Bunter of Scottish politics. I want to make the second confession. When I received free school meals at secondary school in Glasgow in the 1970s, there was no sense of children being bullied because they were in receipt of free school meals. One of the key arguments that is often propounded, emotionally, in the debate is the suggestion that children have been bullied because of their entitlement to free school meals. However, that has been shown both anecdotally and evidentially not to be the case.
Members have argued passionately about what they believe would be the best ways in which to tackle obesity in Scotland. I know that there is a genuine commitment across the Parliament, among all members, to address that issue. The question that needs to be asked is whether the universal provision of free school meals is the most appropriate solution to the challenge and several members have identified reasons why that would not necessarily be the case.
Frances Curran praised Hull City Council. It is for Hull City Council and its elected members to determine how its resources are allocated. I look forward to hearing Frances Curran speak in support of Hull City Council's efforts to ensure that its council housing stock is transferred to social ownership and its liberalisation of the socially owned telecoms company. I doubt that a motion praising those things will be put before the Parliament. We cannot pick from an à la carte menu the things that we want to have in different authorities in Scotland.
Another issue concerns how we would police the universal provision of free school meals. As members have said, there is a substantial drop-off of take-up of free school meals when children move from primary to secondary school. Anybody who understands the development of young people knows that that is about personal choice, peer group pressure and a whole range of other factors. Those factors are equally important in the debate, whether or not free school meals are available universally. We need to address those questions as well.
The Parliament has had a chance, especially in the previous session, both through the committee system and through debate in the chamber, to unpick many of the issues that have been identified. The relevant points from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's assessment of the School Meals (Scotland) Bill in the previous session have stood the test of time. The committee said that the central objectives that we must address include the quality of food, on which the Executive has moved; the quality of the environment, which the Executive has identified ways of improving; and better targeting to make intervention more effective. The strong evidence is that intervention at an early age, especially through breakfast clubs, is markedly better than any general universal provision at lunch time for schoolchildren of all ages.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but we do not have time because the debate has been split. I want to make some points on behalf of Labour members.
The fundamental issue is how we deal with the problem. We could have food commissars patrolling the school dinner queues, perhaps led by Colin Fox—maybe Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC, will give way to CFFC, Colin Fox's food commissars—ensuring that children eat the right food so that they develop.
The evidence is much more complex than the simplistic slogan that has been put forward. I hope that members will understand that and articulate it much more than they are doing at the moment. If we look at the real issues, we see that children are at school for 190 days of the year, which means that, even if they took up universal free school meals consistently, that would equate to 17 per cent of their food consumption. The rest of their diet—almost nine tenths—is just as important. Education, environment and choice are critical.
In the final 25 or 30 seconds of my speech, I want to pose a question on a subject that I think Brian Monteith is exactly right to raise. If we had £170 million to spend, what would we spend it on—588 trained home economics or specialist physical education teachers, 150 new secondary school halls, a whole development of outdoor and adventure activity programmes, or resources to provide organised and supervised physical activity? A whole range of measures are markedly more important in addressing obesity in Scotland. I believe that, if we tackle those issues, we can certainly address the question that members are concerned about.
This has been a good debate and the Greens are happy to support Frances Curran's motion. However, I did feel that she went a little too far yesterday when she commandeered a room that I had booked for a meeting and scoffed all the lunch. I feel that that is taking the campaign for free lunches a bit too far.
The speeches this morning have been excellent. It is important that we congratulate the National Assembly for Wales and those councils that have shown a lead. Eleanor Scott mentioned Highland Council, which has done excellent work. Margaret Jamieson mentioned East Ayrshire Council; I, too, support the developments at Hurlford Primary School, which is in my region.
It is not in the member's region. He should get his geography right.
I hope that Margaret Jamieson will sign the motion that I have lodged.
Euan Robson spoke of the Executive's hungry for success campaign, on which the Greens congratulate the Executive. The campaign has done a lot to raise nutritional standards, but we would like it to go further. We would like the Soil Association's food for life campaign to be incorporated into it, because that connects school meals with the curriculum. We must ensure that farmers see themselves as being important to their local community again, rather than being marginalised as they are at present. Under the Soil Association's scheme, children are encouraged to build a link with a local organic farm and to discover that apples do, in fact, grow on trees. We need to put food on to the school curriculum; it is a sign of how divorced from farming children have become that that is necessary.
Brian Monteith made an excellent paean of praise for broccoli. I suggest, however, that the problems that he described are in secondary schools. The solution is that we have to establish healthy eating habits at primary ages. That point was also made by Brian Adam.
Robert Brown highlighted breakfast clubs and the important role that they have to play. Some children eat almost nothing but factory-processed foods at home and there is a duty on Government to provide the lead and to teach children that food does not have to come out of a packet.
Does Chris Ballance agree that breakfast clubs make a huge difference to children's learning and to their health? Does he agree that it is wrong that current provision is unequal, with some areas having breakfast clubs and others not having them? Does he share my view that head teachers should not be scraping about to find funds to set them up?
I thank Rosemary Byrne for that intervention and I very much agree with her.
Jamie Oliver's recent television series showed that many children do not even know what a salad is. It is no wonder that we are seeing diseases such as diabetes and obesity at younger and younger ages. It has also been suggested that additives play a role in hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, two of the plagues of today's classrooms. Jamie Oliver's series makes a strong case for investigating the links between junk food and bad behaviour.
Fiona Hyslop talked about the need to remove fizzy drinks from vending machines. I agree that it is vital to remove fizzy brands from school. It is also important that we design communities to encourage healthy eating. Eleanor Scott's amendment calls for Scottish children to be fed the best and most nutritious food possible and to be taught that milk comes out of a cow, not a carton. That is a basic principle that the Parliament should support.
To forestall any further letters, I advise members that Hurlford Primary School is in the Central Scotland region.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise.
First of all, I apologise for the state of my voice. I could probably start a health scare by saying that I caught it off a seagull, but I do not think that that is true.
There is nothing very objectionable about the SSP motion. Obesity is an issue of major concern and it is extremely important to encourage a healthy diet in children, but the content of Frances Curran's speech, as other members have said, seemed to be rather different from that of the motion. We need to recognise that, as others have said, diet is only one part of the equation. As I was cooking my tea last night, I thought back to what primary school children ate when I was young. I remember being told off for not eating the fat on meat, because it was supposed to be good for us. We ate butter and we had two-course dinners with puddings. I can remember coming down the stairs and looking at the dinner table thinking, "Please let it be a pudding spoon that's on the table." Who remembers high teas, when we used to get a plate of fish and chips with bread and butter followed by a great big platter of cakes and biscuits?
And scones.
And scones, yes. It is true that we ate more vegetables and much less in the way of additives and processed foods. The incidence of childhood obesity was very much lower then than it is now. I hate to agree with the Tories, especially so near to the possible date of a general election, but Brian Monteith is right to say that, although the Scottish lifestyle has changed, our diet essentially has not changed. I remember having a 20in waist—the only reason why I am still wearing a size 10 skirt is that a size 10 is a hell of a lot bigger today than it was 35 years ago, just like me.
The problem is common across Europe. I was sitting outside a cafe in Spain at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon during the October recess, enjoying a glass of vino blanco, when I spotted a crowd of rather sturdy young people leaving school and heading for the bus. I looked at them and thought, "Heavens! They look about the size of Scottish children." It is a problem all over Europe. The solution has to be about diet and exercise, as the Executive's amendment suggests.
Will Elaine Murray give way?
I am sorry but, if Rosie Kane's party wants a debate, it should use its allotted time to hold one debate. If the SSP wants to hold two debates, it cannot have debates in which there is time for interventions. That is it. The SSP makes those decisions.
Robert Brown made an appropriate comment about school milk. I absolutely hated the stuff. I also hated school dinners and got out of them by telling my parents that everybody threw them under the table, so they allowed me to take sandwiches. I have never noticed my children being much more enthusiastic about school dinners than I was. Just getting children to eat better is not enough. We need to do that, but we also have to establish from an early age, at pre-school, the habit of physical exercise. That is what we have lost over the past 30 or 40 years.
We cannot get away from the role of parents. There is a whole range of factors and a whole range of educational issues. There is also an issue of personal responsibility, of how we feed and exercise our children—it will not do to say that the state should do all that for people. There is also an issue of corporate responsibility. Many of the supermarkets want to say that they are socially responsible, but how do they market food? What sort of profits are they making on healthy foods? That debate has to take place.
A number of members have mentioned "Jamie's School Dinners". Poor Jamie Oliver was nearly in tears trying to get secondary school kids to eat a healthy diet and, in last night's programme, he got the primary kids to do so only by encouraging them to grow the food themselves. We must not be complacent about the health of young people. It is an extremely complex issue, which the Executive is attempting to address by a number of interrelated priorities and policies. That is the best way forward. I congratulate the Executive on what it is doing, but let us not be complacent. We have a hell of a problem to tackle.
I seek the Presiding Officer's guidance. If, for the sake of argument, Euan Robson's amendment were agreed to, would it be possible for the amendment by Eleanor Scott also to be called? We are minded to support both if we are given the opportunity to do so.
We will rule on that at the end of your speech, when I have had the opportunity to take advice.
I am most grateful. We hope very much that the minister will, at any rate, look sympathetically not only at his own amendment but at that of Eleanor Scott.
We last debated the issue on 11 June 2003. At that time, I stated my conviction that every schoolchild in Scotland knows that he or she can get into a national team if he or she has the ability, the aptitude and the inclination. It follows that the development of potential and the passport to success must and should be through the educational system. That must include good nutrition and exercise. I also made it clear that, in our view, people who are well enough off and can afford to pay—such as MSPs—should pay and the funds that are saved should be directed to those who need them most. Universality of provision does not necessarily represent the best use of resources.
I recall that the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Act 2003 led to a further 7,000 pupils gaining entitlement to free school meals because their families were eligible for child tax credit. That was a highly desirable move.
The argument that Maureen Macmillan touched on was entirely valid. Some schoolchildren do not take up the offer of free school meals on the ground that it stigmatises them. That situation can and should be addressed by having swipe cards made available. I understand that, in September 2003, 16,750 such cards were in use for catering and vending machines in 17 schools. I am glad that the Executive will work with councils to collate information on the uptake of smart cards. Maureen Macmillan also made the extremely important point that sufficient water must be made available to avoid dehydration. I hope that that will be acted on.
The Scottish Executive has committed considerable resources to the hungry for success scheme, the aims of which include the encouragement of the serving of larger portions of more nutritious foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables. The Executive committed £2 million over three years to provide all pupils in primaries 1 and 2 with one piece of fruit three times a week. Individual authorities are responsible for implementation and have been offered an additional £57.5 million over three years to deliver initiatives under hungry for success. We look forward to seeing, in due course, the evaluation of what we hope will be the success of that scheme.
The value of nutritious school meals is undoubted. It is important that parents are well informed. Parents who have special needs, for example those who are mentally impaired, have additional needs or are addicted to drugs, may need extra help and support. We believe that resources should be made available to help the weakest in communities and should be targeted to their needs; they should not be committed to the universal provision of free school meals.
I believe that it was Nye Bevan who said that the language of priorities was the language of socialism. Sadly, it must be the language of all who wish to achieve the most far-reaching results with finite resources. In those circumstances, we will not support the motion.
I will respond to the procedural matter that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised. It appears—we are all agreed here, at any rate—that the Green amendment is an addendum to the motion and that it could, equally, be added to the Executive amendment if that were to become the substantive motion. We therefore think that, if Mr Robson's amendment were agreed to, it would not pre-empt the Green amendment, although it would appear to pre-empt the SNP amendment.
The SNP broadly agrees with the motion. Our amendment would both strengthen its thrust by calling on the Executive to take appropriate action and broaden it out to include the wider health and fitness agenda. The need to raise levels of physical exercise has been well expressed during the debate by, among others, Fiona Hyslop, Brian Monteith and Elaine Murray.
I will focus on the school meals issue. The time is right to revisit the matter, given the publication of the University of Dundee research that compares the impact of targeted versus universal provision of free school meals; the filtering through of some of the results from the Executive's hungry for success programme; and Jamie Oliver's fascinating television series on his quest to banish junk food from school dinners.
I will start with an appraisal of hungry for success. Margaret Jamieson, rightly, focused on successes in her constituency, as did Maureen Macmillan and Eleanor Scott in relation to the Highlands.
East Ayrshire Council is to be congratulated on the commitment and enthusiasm that it has shown in getting rid of processed foods in its primary schools and in replacing commercial vending of fizzy drinks with healthy vending in secondary schools. The organic and local sourcing pilot in Hurlford looks really exciting. However, East Ayrshire Council is the only Scottish council to have achieved commended status for all primary and secondary schools in the Scottish healthy choices award scheme. How much more could be achieved if the East Ayrshire example were to be backed up by statute or by regulation and if coverage were extended to all children who might depend on their school dinner to provide their one nutritious meal of the day?
In East Ayrshire, hungry for success has proved—in primary schools at least—that the take-up of school meals can be improved by increasing nutritional standards. Catch kids early enough and they can be weaned off junk food. As we know, all the research evidence shows that a balanced diet is essential if kids are to be fit for schools in respect of their ability to concentrate, to behave appropriately—as Chris Ballance said—and, above all, to learn. However, making school dinners nutritious is not enough: we must extend the entitlement to free school meals. As the Child Poverty Action Group points out, 100,000 children who live in poverty are not getting the benefit of a free school meal. Twenty seven per cent of children live in poverty, but only 19 per cent are entitled to free school meals.
Not only does the current system of means testing fail to deliver to the poorest, but it creates a poverty trap. Of course, those arguments have been well rehearsed in the chamber and have always foundered on the issue of cost. The SNP offers a third way in the form of a pilot initiative for free school meals in the early primary years—an early intervention. For the Executive parties, which boast of the introduction of free personal care for the elderly and the abolition of up-front tuition fees as their main achievements, surely a free school meals initiative is not a step too far.
It has been a good debate. The future of Scotland's children is of paramount importance to us all. That has come across from members throughout the chamber. There is no greater task than ensuring their health now and into adulthood.
As many members have said, it is clearly vital to promote health among Scottish children, not narrowly or in a single area, but broadly and cohesively.
Will the minister congratulate those on the planning committee of South Ayrshire Council, who recently took a decision that saved sports grounds that were intended to be built upon?
I do not know the local circumstances as well as Mr Gallie does, but if the council has done as he says, that is obviously a worthy initiative for it to have taken.
It is important that schools are not seen as the sole forum for improving health. Progress to tackle lifestyle choices is being made throughout Scotland with partners in the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the private sector.
I will respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate. I say to Fiona Hyslop that the point about the 400 additional specialist PE teachers is that they are to be deployed by 2008. That is work in progress and I think that her comments muddied the waters a bit.
I say to Shiona Baird and Tommy Sheridan that there are various levels of assessment of hungry for success. For example, for the school itself there is the "How good is our school?" toolkit, which allows self-assessment. There are standard HMIE inspections, nutritional assessors perform a number of inspections and a full HMIE thematic report on hungry for success will be ready by 2007. There is also a school meals census in June each year, and a separate assessment of free fruit.
I was interested in Brian Monteith's gastronomic tour of his early life. I am grateful for his support and for that of Elaine Smith. The emphasis that they put on physical exercise is clearly correct. I agreed with most of Brian Monteith's comments on Finland and the Dundee study, which indeed assumes a 100 per cent take-up of free school meals.
Margaret Jamieson mentioned Hurlford Primary School, which is an example of very good practice. I congratulate the school on its achievement, and I congratulate East Ayrshire Council on all that it is doing. I accept Margaret Jamieson's view, which she made very clear, that change may take a generation. As Elaine Smith said, we should not underestimate the scale of the challenge.
On the issue of broader experience, I say to Brian Adam that the Executive is considering European practice in some detail to see what we can learn.
Maureen Macmillan mentioned the smart cards in Highland Council and other work that the council is doing. I agree with her about the local sourcing of food, which is indeed of benefit to the local economy and local farmers. Chris Ballance mentioned that point, although I think that he is probably due back for a geography class at some point.
Frank McAveety mentioned breakfast clubs. He also listed, rightly, the uses to which £170 million could be put, other than for the universal provision of free school meals. Of course, £170 million represents the cost only of the food; peripheral costs would probably take the bill to more than £200 million.
Robert Brown said that stigma was not necessarily related to take-up. Interesting facts arise on that issue. In its free fruit initiative, Moray Council found that more than 90 per cent of the free fruit was partially or wholly eaten. The wastage rate was only about 7 or 8 per cent. I have not heard of such figures being contradicted by other councils. However, we are looking into the issue in detail.
I have visited Lawmuir Primary School, in Michael McMahon's constituency, to talk to the kitchen staff. They said that change took time and had to be worked at, and that if one is asking primary schoolchildren to think about vegetables, one has to keep at it. That is exactly the phrase that we should take from today's debate. Hungry for success is a very important initiative, but we have to keep at it. It is work in progress and there are various milestones on the way to the success that we want.
I am gratified that Jamie Oliver said recently that Scotland was light years ahead of England and Wales. I have written to thank him and to invite him to have a school dinner with me, somewhere in Scotland, in the near future.
Today's debate should have been about the twin and related scourges of child poverty and serious obesity and health problems. However, I am afraid that the debate has served only to expose the poverty of ambition that is prevalent across the other political parties—apart from the Greens—that have taken part.
I ask members who tell us that we cannot convince children to eat a healthy and nutritious meal to consider what we are trying to do in relation to the scourge of excess drinking among adults and the scourge of excess smoking among adults. In the Parliament, we are taking measures to try to challenge and change the behaviour of adults. However, members seem to think that it is impossible to challenge and change the behaviour of children. That is ridiculous.
Mr Sheridan mentions alcohol and cigarettes, but what about drugs? Does he agree that people should be deterred from using cannabis?
The use of cannabis should be legalised, but it should not be encouraged. We should not encourage the use of any drugs—unlike Phil Gallie's party, which hypocritically refuses to attack the most damaging drug, which of course is alcohol.
A total of 280,000 children are brought up in poor households; among the kids in that official and shameful figure, there are 100,000 who are brought up in poor households and are also excluded from receiving free school meals. That is the proof that the current means-testing system does not work. Political parties, other than the Greens and ourselves, say that they want to continue with the means test.
Fiona Hyslop's contribution was a pity, and it was a pity that Brian Adam did not answer the question when I asked him whether Scotland was poorer today than it was four years ago. Of course, the truth is that we are not poorer today than we were four years ago. Four years ago, this Parliament had a budget of £18 billion; today we have a budget of £25 billion. Why, then, could the SNP support the provision of free school meals for every child in Scotland four years ago, when today it says that we can afford free school meals only for children in primaries 1, 2 and 3? That is poverty of ambition from the new SNP.
Frank McAveety brings his lack of football skills to the chamber. He has always lacked nimbleness on his feet, so he was not able to change his speech today. Nobody mentioned the word "bullied", but Frank McAveety had it in his prepared speech and decided to keep it in.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but the member would not give way to anybody else. He should sit down.
Frank McAveety refused to refer to the fact that the amendment that he will support today removes from the motion congratulations to Glasgow City Council—a Labour council that he used to lead and which is now committed to providing free school meals for every primary school kid in Glasgow, without means testing. The amendment also removes reference to the National Assembly for Wales, which will introduce free breakfasts for every child in Wales, without means testing. What Frank McAveety is supporting today is the removal of congratulations to a Labour council and a Labour Assembly. That shows how pathetic his contribution is, and shows how pathetic are the Labour members who will back the Executive amendment. They are not even prepared to back their own political friends when they take radical and worthwhile action on this issue.
Will Tommy Sheridan take an intervention?
Sit down.
On the question of independent research, the University of Dundee now tells us not only that universality is an effective mechanism for the delivery of nutritious meals to every child in Scotland, but that universality is an economically efficient method that would benefit poorer kids more than richer kids.
I look forward to next week's debate and I hope that the Labour members who tell us that we cannot have free school meals because it would help the rich kids will back my amendment to the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill, which would remove charitable status from private schools. If Labour members are not prepared to back free school meals because they would help the rich kids, I hope that they will be prepared to remove charitable status from the private schools where the rich kids go.
The University of Dundee research opens up the whole idea of universality as a principle. It supports the idea of all children receiving free school meals.
Will Tommy Sheridan take an intervention on that specific issue?
Frank McAveety obviously has ants in his pants; he should just sit on those ants for a wee while.
The United Nations Children's Fund, the international children's charity, which over the past year has investigated the problem of child poverty in rich countries, published the results of its study only this week. UNICEF—not the Scottish Socialist Party—concluded that, in the developed world,
"benefits universally provided, though apparently more expensive, can avoid this poverty trap".
That is what the SSP and the Greens want to do: we want to avoid the poverty trap. The other parties want to keep kids in the poverty trap; they want to means test children at the age of five.
Today's debate is not about left and right; it is about right and wrong. It is wrong for Labour members to want to continue to means test kids at the age of five. Let us have universal provision and let us congratulate those authorities that are prepared to introduce such provision.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is about the sound system in the chamber. I might be a little more fragile than most members today—through illness rather than alcohol—but when people shout as loudly as Mr Sheridan was doing, I find it painful. My ears are really sore. Can something be done to turn down the volume?
I cannot rule on that definitively as a point of order, but I can give the general advice that the sound systems in the chamber are quite sophisticated. The sound engineers attempt to adjust for voices that are weaker than average and for those that are stronger than average. It is just that Mr Sheridan sometimes tests the parameters. There is not much that I or anyone else on this podium can do about that.