With the continuing rise in childhood obesity, countless plans are being put forward on how best to halt the increase. As children return to school after the summer holidays the Government has announced trials in two areas of the UK to give free hot school meals to all pupils. While the idea sounds good in theory, some critics say in reality it is impractical and with many schools in Sussex lacking full kitchens is it even possible? Emily-Ann Elliott reports.

Lunchtime is an integral part of the day at any school.

There is gossip to share, homework to cram and the chance to take part in extra-curricular activities.

But it is also the time when children refuel themselves for the afternoon ahead.

It has long been agreed that full stomachs enable better concentration in the classroom and over the last few years just what goes into those stomachs has moved more into the spotlight.

Thanks in part to TV chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinner campaign, gone are the days when children could opt for chips every lunchtime and instead they are being encouraged to try healthier options like salad, tortilla wraps and vegetables.

But the latest debate to be thrust into the education spotlight is whether parents should have to pay for these meals.

At the moment most schools allow children to choose whether to bring in a packed lunch or to have a school dinner.

Statistics in Sussex even show that those who are entitled to free school meals, as their parents are on benefits or have a low income, do not take up the offer.

However the Government has now launched a £40 million two-year trial to provide free school meals to all primary school children in County Durham and Newham in London.

It aims to see if behaviour, health and academic standards improve and if it is successful, the idea could be spread nationwide.

The proposal has been backed by education unions but for many the idea sounds too good to be true.

Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb, the Conservative MP for Bognor and Littlehampton, said: "The idea that the Government will be able to find the extra £1 billion a year that it's estimated would be needed to pay for such a scheme to go nationwide is completely unrealistic in the current economic climate.

"£1 billion is the equivalent of 33,000 full-time teachers, they would effectively have to stop all teacher recruitment in order to pay for it, regardless of the fact that one in five primary schools don't even currently have a kitchen."

Figures obtained by the Conservatives under the Freedom of Information Act showed that just 200 (42%) of the county's 470 primary schools had "full production" kitchens.

The figure was lowered significantly by the fact that West Sussex primaries were the worst kitted out in the county, with only five out of 243 (2%) being fully equipped.

By contrast, most schools in East Sussex (83%) and Brighton and Hove (91%) were capable of providing fresh, hot meals on site.

A spokesman for West Sussex County Council said £5.7m was being spent on new facilities and upgrades to provide its schools with mini-kitchens to heat food using "steam pressure".

It said its new steam systems, introduced since 2007, ensured food retained its "maximum nutritional goodness" and met all Government standards even though it was not made freshly on site.

Obviously this raises a whole new set of issues as, if the scheme was rolled out nationally, schools without proper facilities would have to be equipped to be able to provide hot meals for all pupils.

This adds more expense to an already pricey idea and once again opens the debate of health versus money.

It would be difficult to criticise the belief that all pupils should be entitled to a healthy school meal and something drastic certainly needs to be done to halt the growing numbers of obese children.

But in order to offer the meals, firstly there must be the facilities available in which to make them and secondly, the money must be found from somewhere.

As with many issues in politics it is about getting a balance between wanting to do something positive and being able to afford it.

It will be interesting to watch the trial over the next two years to see whether its results will allow whichever party is running the Government to justify whether the money can be spent.