Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 06 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 6, 2001

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Public Petitions

Item 5 on the agenda is consideration of public petitions.

Petition PE23 is from the Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society. At our meeting on 10 January, the committee noted the work that had been done on the petition and asked the clerk to forward all the papers to the petitioners to seek their comments. The letter from the petitioners, which members have, indicates their continuing concern about the need for easier access to the caves. We have also had feedback from other committees, Historic Scotland, the Executive and Fife Council.

I suggest that the committee now has sufficient evidence and information on which to come to a conclusion. We can come to one of two conclusions, either that we have no recommendations to make to the Executive, Historic Scotland and Fife Council, or that we want to make a recommendation to one or more of the above. Do any members have especially strong views either way?

We have always been supportive of the petition. We should urge the Executive, Fife Council and Historic Scotland to help, as £20,000 to £30,000 is not very much money. The existence of the caves and their drawings seems to be at risk, so we should recommend that all the bodies that are involved act with urgency.

The president of the Save Wemyss Ancient Caves Society is Councillor John MacDougall, the convener of Fife Council. However, all the documentation seems to vilify Fife Council. The solution is in the society's hands—perhaps it should fire its honorary president. Alternatively, it should start trying to ensure that some action is taken. I suggest that we recommend that all the bodies involved assist the society in undertaking the work that has been identified.

This is a matter of maintaining the opportunity for dialogue, to determine whether there are ways in which the society can explore—for want of a better word—some options.

The committee can suggest to all the agencies involved that they continue to work with the petitioners to find the solution and we could draw a line under our involvement in the matter and allow that discussion to continue.

We should also recommend to the Executive, Fife Council and Historic Scotland that the work should done. We should enclose in those letters an extract from the reports of our meetings.

Yes, but that would be the end of the committee's involvement with the petition.

I suspect that it would be, unless we were prepared to go out there and dig the paths ourselves—although that might be an option.

It depends on how we behave in the committee.

That would be more like filling a big hole, surely.

Do we agree to follow the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE184 is from the Federation of Child Poverty Action Groups in Scotland. We asked other parliamentary committees with relevant interests to make recommendations to us on the petition; all those committees suggested that we take no further action. The issue was the subject of an unsuccessful amendment, moved on 7 June 2000, to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. I open the discussion for comments from committee members.

The petition brings together some interesting and valuable information and refers us to good research and documents dealing with nutrition and to all the arguments that are put whenever we discuss school meals. However, I feel that the extension of the entitlement to free school meals to all the families that are mentioned in the petition would be a big step to take, and I am not sure that we can take it immediately simply because of the petition. The argument is bigger than that.

I shall suggest some actions that we could take to get more information on the subject that the petition raises. First, we could ask the minister exactly what the cost to Scotland's local authorities would be of implementing the proposals. Secondly, we could ask what action the Executive is taking to encourage the take-up of free school meals, which does not seem to be happening. Thirdly, we could ask whether the Executive has evidence from local authorities of best practice in encouraging take-up of free school meals without stigmatising those young people who receive them. Fourthly, we could ask what action the Executive is taking to establish more enforceable nutritional standards in school meals. The availability of free school meals should not be extended if young people are going to be provided with food that is not nutritionally beneficial to them. We may consider taking those actions and getting that information from the minister.

I would be entirely in favour of doing so. The amendment was moved by Helen Eadie on 7 June. She also voted in favour of it, putting her name on the list of SNP members for the first—and, I suspect, last—time. It is right now to push forward on the basis of some facts. The paper that we have received provides some facts, but we do not have a complete costing or information about the nutritional ambitions of the Scottish Executive. We do not have much information about what success local authorities are having in providing free school meals—provision varies widely throughout the country. We should write to the Executive for further information. At some stage, the committee might want to recommend the proposals in the petition, but it should do so only on the basis of the figures.

I accept what has been said. The committee might want to return to the issue of school meals in the wider context of their nutritional value and the nutrition of young people. I look forward to hearing the feedback from the minister.

I think that it is a good idea to get further information. The context is that a number of authorities have improved the take-up of school meals and have then been criticised for the increased number of youngsters who are taking free school meals, although the meals are much more attractive.

The second issue is that there are other ways to address the nutritional needs of young people. A number of authorities are considering a combination of breakfast clubs and guaranteed access to fruit every day for children in primary and nursery schools.

The totality of such initiatives might be more effective. Once we have the information, we will be able to make a much better assessment of the relative worth of the recommendation.

My colleague Irene McGugan has an excellent proposal involving berries. I am sure that the committee could all sign her motion and move the proposal forward. It is a Finnish example, although I hesitate to mention Finland in the committee.

I will action the points that we have agreed and we will progress on that basis.

I would like to make some comments.

I am sorry. I did not see you signalling.

It is difficult for us to make any decision without further evidence. I accept the recommendations that the convener has made and Frank McAveety's comments on overall nutrition. For instance, to provide fruit instead of crisps at break times—or at least to provide the choice—is as important as the school meal at lunch time.

If we are going to examine school meals, we will have to consider their quality. Another issue—as members may recall, it was raised in the Scottish youth health congress—is portion control, especially for those in primary 6 and primary 7, who feel that they have a mean deal when they get the same portion as those in primary 1.

We need to look at the broader issues. The information that the convener suggested that we gather will be the beginning of that.