Shadow education, schools and families secretary David Laws has uncovered a worrying trend in school meal take-up, according to the Guardian.
According to figures obtained in response to a Lib Dem parliamentary question, almost two-thirds of secondary, and around 60% of primary school pupils, are shunning school meals.
The numbers of children eating at school was set to increase in the wake of new rules on the nutritional content of meals introduced last September after Jamie Oliver’s exposé of school kitchens. Yet the most recent data show that fewer and fewer pupils are taking advantage of the better food.
David Laws says: “These figures show that the school meals service is in meltdown. Instead of boosting the number of children taking up healthy school meals, government policy has contributed to an implosion of the service.
“There is no point serving healthy meals if pupils aren’t eating them. The government is now one million children below its target for school meal uptake, and the figures are getting worse rather than better.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
theakes
21 Comments
So, 70% of secondary school kids, almost certainly with the agreement of their parents, choose to eat something other than that provided by the school. I seem to recall eating a packed lunch outside was the preferred choice of my friends at school as well, and that was years ago.
It’s hard to say from the quotes, but David appears to be attacking the Govt policy and the top-down approach, but the Guardian have quoted selectively to form an attack on the take up rather than the control-freak tendency of the policy. Hopefully his full statement can hit the party website at some point.
This was predictable from the outset. I listened to ‘half a job’ Oliver commenting on this on radio today. It was a real shame that when he had managed to build up a head of steam on an issue many had been working on he did not push for compulsory free school meals as they have in Finland (at least for younger pupils) – where health has greatly improved.
This was the whole point of school meals when they were first introduced. To give a child a decent healthy meal once a day. We should get back to that and tackle this spread of obecity which is destroying the health of our country.
It depresses me when people suggest such illiberal things.
‘We must force people to eat properly’. No we should do no such thing. Schools are right to offer people the option of having food there, but that is as far as things should go.
I know obesity is the latest health scare, but we cannot tackle it with such illiberal, authoritarian policies.
I thought the Government’s aim was to rule over 60 million children…
Encouraging children to eat more healthily, rather than just having chips every day, clearly falls under a schools educational remit. It would be right to be up in arms over such proposals for, say, public service staff, simply on a public health message.
In schools, though, such efforts can be seen as having a valuable educational end. They prepare children to make informed choices about their eating, having tried a variety of options.
Tristan,
it depresses me when people hide behind the old illiberal term when they do not have a descent argument to make.
We can choose to sit here, do nothing, and watch the health of our nation collapse and our health service become overwhelmed or we can act to improve health.
Making school meals compulsory for infants or even primary school children does not mean we necessarily take options away. Sandwich bars, healthy fast food, etc should all be on offer. But to hide behind ‘illiberal’ tag is pretty low and to call it authoritarian well that is just a joke.
To refer to this as a health scare dismisses an issue which is about the health of our children and nation far too easily.
All the best,
Tim
@Tim. It is illiberal. Any imposition by authority is an illiberal position. It may be that it’s justified, but if you deny choice to parents and kids, then you’re doing something that is illiberal.
There are times when the Govt does have to take illiberal measures. I don’t think that should be too often, I’m very strong in my liberal convictions, but there are times where it’s justifiable.
But coercion simply doesn’t work when it comes down to food, Tinter has it right when he says “Encouraging children to eat more healthily, rather than just having chips every day, clearly falls under a schools educational remit.”
Force will just breed resentment–I wasn’t forced to eat healthily, my parents knew that it was a good idea and made sure I did as well–making sure the option is there for healthy food, removing obvious monstrosities like turkey twizzlers, these are all things I support.
But compulsory school meals? No. Let parents make dietary decisions, and if they’re making poor ones, educate them as to why.
MattGB,
Quite the opposite what I propose is to increase a childs liberty. A child denied the option of healthy food at home is then denied that choice at school as its dietary patterns and parental guidance will strongly influence its choices. I propose we readdress the balance. Give back the choice of healthy food by ensuring that once a day every child will be able to eat healthily.
It is very easy to brandish the illiberal sword – but people should think it through a little first!
So I could easily argue that Tristan’s stance is illiberal. Personally I prefer not to throw that insult around in a public forum 🙂
As you have clearly put it your parents influenced your health choices. What about the children denied the influence of healthy food choices? Do we just leave them to an unhealthy life and early death?
PS have now ranted about this further on my blog – thanks for working me up enough to get back to bloging!
If the healthy food is forced, then it is not a choice. That doesn’t make sense under any definition of the term.
Trying to force children to eat school meals will be a disaster. It will either mean children being fed through railings, smuggling food or not eating at all, or even worse terrible, illiberal measures to enforce the policy. It is a complete non-starter for anyone with any sense, but especially for a liberal opposed to compulsion!
Having some days where only healthy options are provided may fit into a nutritional education program intended to help children make educated decisions as adults. Forcing children to do so every day will simply result in poor take up, and those with no other option going without- not a group of children learning to make informed decisions for themselves. That should be our goal- not for them to grow up to eat the food the state approves!
You could argue Tristans stance is illiberal, but you would be wrong. I find your dislike of the term disturbing. If we uncritically accept proposals from lib dems as liberal, the term will lose meaning and we will weaken the debate. It is absolutely right to make the liberal nature of decisions a central part of our conversations.
Well that’s us told.
Surely, though, it is illiberal in these terms to require children to attend school at all?
If you reckon diet is a key factor in ability to learn, life chances, life expectancy, and you’re not prepared to say that it should be part (in a sensible way) of a school’s remit, isn’t it all a bit pre-1906?
Schools don’t ask parents if they would like their children to attend the numeracy hour, so what makes this entirely different in a clear-cut way apart from your conservatism?
It seems as if people are happy to get hung up on whether something is too illiberal for them rather than to sugggest sollutions to a problem. This is very sad.
We have a very serious problem. We need to consider answers. Just jabbering on about things being illiberal from our secure middle class backgrounds (have put that in just to stir) is an easy get out to trying to tackle the problem.
This is serious folks! Perhaps the question is why would liberals want to deny young children the chance of a healthy diet? I do not know if my idea would hold up (it is not even a novel idea)under scrutiny? I do not know if it is a pratical, affordable or even an acceptable solution? I do know that just to simply dismiss something as being illiberal based on your arbitary view of what is and is not liberal is something I hope I would never be closed minded enough to do.
Ok – am going to try to drop this now as I am wasting too much time on what I perceive as a non productive avenue.
So children should be force-fed, like Ian Brady?
Did Chairman Mao think of this, or Comrade Enver Hoxha?
Or has the modern tendency to control young people’s lives down to the finest possible detail gone so far that even they hadn’t thought it possible?
During the Second World War, when we had rationing, public heatlh improved markedly – because government controlled what people ate.
Oh, I shouldn’t have said that. I might be putting ideas into authoritarian control freaks’ heads.
OK, I tried to hold out of this particular debate, but I’ve failed.
Liberalism is about striking the correct balance between autonomy and authority (which may and does change and evolve over time).
Liberty is not simple opposition to authority – it is the freedom to accept or refute, according to agreed requirement (whatever simplistic or purist Libertarian or Authoritarian reasoning one might choose to argue doesn’t make it wholly correct and won’t reduce disagreement, nor will it abolish the need for debate).
It must be added, though, that since and because authority tends to imposition, while autonomy tends to spontaneity, liberalism remains under constant attack from the perpetual tension that is is created as clarity becomes lost in specific detail.
So here, if the wider interests of the child (and by extension, society) are best served by removing a certain choice, then so be it. Of course, this temporary situation may become reversed, in which case the policy would need to be amended.
#11- I did not mean to set myself up as the final arbiter of liberalism. Rather, I wanted to make clear that we shouldn’t shy away from terms like “illiberal”, but that they should instead be central to all our debates.
Liberty is the ability of individuals to make choices for themselves. It is impacted but not defined by authorities and wider power structures. Liberals should naturally try to maximise liberty.
However, this debate shouldn’t even get to these theoretical stages. It is unenforcable. If children are made to eat certain dinners, they will not comply. Either they will smuggle in food or just not eat.
#15 Fair enough re. ‘illiberal’, although I sympathise with what Tim is saying. I think the point is we should explain what is liberal and illiberal rather than just mentioning the words and assuming that settles things. I don’t agree that it’s totally impractical – no-one is saying that there shouldn’t be choice in what children eat, just that it could be justified to restrict the choice. We’re mainly talking about the younger end of primary school, and I think schools have all sorts of much trickier rules, which they maintain to a workable extent. Clearly, gaining the confidence of parents would be very important, but (again) that goes for a lot of things that schools do.
#13 Calm down. Grow up. Presumably you look at the local primary school and see some sort of fascist indoctrination taking place daily?
Tims use of the word choice was, I think you agree, odd enough that unraveling it would be more of a task then this comment thread really warrants! I was just pointing out that his use of the term didn’t appear to be coherent at all, and that if we just apply it to every political view we hold while being a lib dem member it looks silly.
To choice will be restricted to two or three LEA approved selections a day. This still takes the choice away from parents and presumes the state is best positioned to make judgements about individual children. Furthermore, it is likely to leave a signifcant proportion forced to disobey, eat meals they do not like or not eat at all; all worse outcomes than we have now. I would also question the ability of monolithic systems to cater for those with special dietary requirments, of which there are an increasing number. Being a vegan forced to eat at a school canteen would probably not be a fun experince!
I’m not saying that some action shouldn’t be taken. I’m saying it should be taken not in an attempt to force children to eat one state-approved meal a day, but to prepare them to make their own choices- whatever they may be- from an educated position.
No 16: Get yourself a sense of humour. Once you’ve done that, take a look at recent government proposals.
Firstly, the extension of the school day. Secondly, the raising of the school-leaving age to 18. Thirdly, the placing of children excluded from school under house arrest and the prosecution and imprisonment of parents who fail to keep their children (17 year-olds in some cases) locked up. Fourthly, the placing of satellite tracking devices in school clothing. And I know of a recent attempt by a LEA to send a 13 year-old boy to a lunatic asylum simply because he refused to attend school.
No 17: Are children going to be allowed to “disobey”? A number of years ago, I was speaking to an alumnus of Bradfield College, a Dotheboys Hall west of Reading. He told me that pupils who refused to eat the pig swill served up were flogged. Torture is no longer permitted, of course, but headmasters still have numerous sanctions in their armoury.
So force-feeding and “fascism” are not as far removed from reality as Clever Dick No 16 would have us believe. (If he thinks Mao and Hoxha were fascists, then he needs a bit of political education.)
I agree that healthy eating is a thoroughly good thing, as is the removal of contaminants from food which appear to have a negative effect on children’s behaviour. What I question is (1) the use of coercion and (2) nannying.
If the state controlled our diet there would be undoubted health benefits (as World War II rationing proved). But is this what government is for?
Mill stated that the only reason to interfere was to prevent harm to others, but he installed enough caveats, as I recall – I admit, it’s been about two years since I gave it a good going over – that interference in uninformed choices was permissable. A young child raised by a parent who doesn’t know what real food is is simply not in a position to make an informed choice about what they should eat.
It’s also worth noting that one of Mill’s great concerns was of the power society could bring to bear. In many inner city ghettos, the culinary form this takes is the pressure – and that’s what it is, whether it’s obvious or not – to eat meals that contain less nutritional value than the cardboard they’re packed in.
Also should be remembered that whilst in school, they do have in loco parentis authority. Parents wishing to take full control of their children are under no obligation to send them to school, merely to ensure they are educated. By using the state system to fulfill this requirement, they are tactitly accepting any conditions that the schools place on this – however reasonable or unreasonable they seem, the parents always have a choice.
I’m not sure how enamoured I am with the idea of compulsory school meals, but I certainly think school meals should be free, and freely available, and they should be high quality, not only for the nutritional benefits but the educational benefits of better fed pupils that are less disruptive, and in a better state to learn. I’m certainly interested in learning more about the Finnish example, where they have serious problems to overcome due in large part to traditional diets – if they’ve made good progress, it may well be that others can learn from them.
No 19 wrote: “Parents wishing to take full control of their children are under no obligation to send them to school, merely to ensure they are educated.”
Brown would like to change this. He sees home schooling as a threat.
No 19 further wrote: “By using the state system to fulfill this requirement, they are tactitly accepting any conditions that the schools place on this – however reasonable or unreasonable they seem, the parents always have a choice.”
This is the same spurious argument deployed by Victorian judges to deny that employers could be liable for injuries caused to their employees by their negligence. Most parents have no realistic alternative to what the state has to offer. And the children, of course, have no choice whatsoever (if they try to exercise one, they might even end up in a lunatic asylum).
Companies that manufacture and sell junk food make huge profits. Brown and his cronies are only threatening those profits because the public health bill is beginning to mount, and the disruptive behaviour poor diet can cause is affecting the education system with a potential cost to Brown of votes.
Consumer choice is much, much better today than it was 40 years ago, when most of us lived on a diet of tinned food, corned beef, margarine and powdered milk. Poor diet is a problem affecting only a minority.
Tim: I hope I have made good argument elsewhere.
If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
As for your suggestion being illiberal, it is for the reasons set out above and elsewhere.
It is authoritarian because it seeks to force people into actions which they otherwise wouldn’t do. That by my book is authoritarian.
And yes, by that measure, forcing children to be educated is illiberal, as it taxation…
For practical purposes a debate is needed to weigh out costs and benefits, but every extension of state power and every illiberal move must be questioned and challenged.