Subordinate Legislation
Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008 (Draft)
Good morning. I open the 17th meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee this year. I remind all those who are present that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of the draft Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008. I am delighted that the committee has the opportunity this morning to hear from Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. She is accompanied by Sean Ledger, the head of charity law in the civil law division; George Reid, head of the college strategy team in the further and adult education division; and Lorraine Stirling, principal legal officer in the development, education and local authorities division of the legal directorate.
My apologies to Siân Ledger—I pronounced her name incorrectly at the beginning; I might even have performed a sex change inappropriately. I am sorry about that, Siân. I invite the minister to make some opening comments on the draft order.
Good morning, convener and committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline the need for the Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008. It addresses a specific point that was raised by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator in relation to the charitable status and independence of the incorporated further education colleges. All incorporated Scottish further education colleges are charities. As such, they must meet the charity test as set out in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. The act states:
"A body … does not … meet the charity test if … its constitution … expressly permits the Scottish Ministers or a Minister of the Crown to direct or otherwise control its activities,"
or if its assets can be distributed
"for a purpose which is not a charitable purpose".
As part of its pilot rolling review in July 2007, OSCR concluded that John Wheatley College failed the charity test, because ministers' powers over the college meant that it did not meet the independence requirement. OSCR found that the college also failed the charity test because, in one instance, college assets are not tied to charitable purposes. The relevant ministerial powers are contained in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992, and they apply to all colleges that are incorporated under the act. Therefore, all those colleges will also fail the charity test for the same reasons that John Wheatley College did.
Following OSCR's ruling, we carefully considered the three options that were available to us. First, we could do nothing, which would result in colleges losing their charitable status. Secondly, we could remove or amend all the powers of control and the asset distribution provision so that colleges could pass the charity test. Thirdly, as a last resort, we could exempt the colleges from the independence requirement and the asset distribution requirement of the charity test.
Ministers considered it important to maintain the charitable status of all the incorporated colleges. We believe that charitable status is entirely consistent with the standing and activity of colleges, the challenges that they address and the way in which they conduct themselves. We share OSCR's view that colleges have an inherently charitable purpose and deliver substantial public benefit. Therefore, taking no action was simply not an option.
After detailed consideration of and consultation on the various powers and whether they could be amended or removed, we concluded that the most appropriate way forward is to amend the provision on asset distribution in the 1992 act to tie it to charitable purposes. That will be done through an order that will be laid later this year. However, we agreed that it is not appropriate to amend or remove all the powers of control. That is because we need to retain control over college powers and constitutions to ensure that they continue to operate within a framework that reflects relevant policies and priorities. An example of the need for that power arose when previous ministers asked Parliament to amend the powers of colleges to enable them to deliver their now highly acclaimed programme of skills courses for young people who are still at school.
We have therefore decided to proceed with the draft order that is now before the committee, which requires the approval of Parliament, to exempt all the incorporated colleges from the independence requirement because of their unique governance structure, the distinctive role that they play in Scottish society and the significant amount of public funding that is invested in them.
The draft order is the first of two that will address the issues that OSCR identified and enable colleges to retain their charitable status. The second order, which amends the provision on asset distribution in 1992 act, will be laid later this year. It will be a technical amendment. Since the creation of the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, ministers no longer have a direct interest in the funding issues of individual colleges, including what happens to the proceeds of any assets of which they dispose.
I highlight the fact that the order exempts the colleges that are listed in it only from the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 for charities to be free from ministerial control. The colleges will still be subject to all the other aspects of the charity test, including the asset distribution provisions and all the requirements of charity law. However, without the exemption, they would lose their charitable status.
Four publicly funded colleges are not incorporated under the 1992 act. They do not face the problem that OSCR identified because the ministerial powers of control in the act do not apply to them. Accordingly, they do not need to be included in the order.
The order is important, as it addresses the uncertainty that incorporated colleges face about their charitable status following OSCR's ruling on ministerial powers.
Thank you very much for those comments, minister. Members of the committee now have an opportunity to ask questions.
I compliment the Government on the move to exempt our colleges. It is vital for their future that it take place as soon as possible.
Colleges have their own constitutions. Is the cabinet secretary confident that individual colleges will not have to rewrite their constitutions to accept the order?
There will not have to be any rewriting for the purpose of maintaining charitable status. We have thought about that carefully, which is why we have taken the steps to exempt colleges as a last resort. The order will provide the powers that we need to exempt them from the requirement for independence from ministerial direction, so the responsibility is the Government's and the colleges are not required to change their constitutions.
Do you anticipate that any of the colleges will have to change their structure or organisation, educational or otherwise?
No, we do not anticipate that.
I, too, welcome the move and agree with Elizabeth Smith. I will ask one question for clarification. The order covers the colleges' boards of management, which means the colleges themselves, but many colleges have subsidiary or partnership organisations, such as trading operations; are they covered by the order as well?
I ask George Reid to answer that.
George Reid (Scottish Government Lifelong Learning Directorate):
Jeremy Purvis is right that many colleges have set up subsidiary organisations. They are not covered by the 1992 act, so they do not require to be covered by the order.
That is helpful.
The convener will remember—because, I think, she was convener of the committee that considered the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill—that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill was being considered at the same time as the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. That was one of the key constraints at the time.
I welcome Jeremy Purvis's and Elizabeth Smith's support for what we are trying to do. I hope that the rationale that we have set out is clear enough, but we are more than happy to provide further briefing if the committee needs it.
To continue the spirit of consensus, I also welcome the order. We are all agreed that it is important that colleges retain their charitable status, because it would have a huge detrimental impact if they did not. Did any of the consultation respondents object to retaining charitable status through exemption and, if so, how were those concerns addressed?
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations raised concerns similar to those that were raised during the passage of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. We have now had some time for the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 to bed in, and it is important to reflect that we are approaching the matter very much in the spirit of the act, which emphasises the importance of charities being independent. That is why we are rolling back some of the ministerial powers that we might want to have over colleges, but we have to maintain the powers to determine and alter board constitutions and to change the powers that are given to boards of management to enable initiatives such as the skills relationship with schools that I mentioned earlier. In the spirit of the act, we recognise that colleges are unique and that they have a particular governance structure and public interest that we need to protect.
The SCVO's concerns are more about the importance of the Government protecting the independence of charities, which we want to do—that is reflected in our approach. The exemption that we will bring forward later on the disposal of assets for charitable purposes will be an important signal of the importance that we give to the independence of charities.
I was indeed the convener of the Communities Committee when it considered the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. This issue concerned the committee at the time, so I welcome what the Government is doing and agree with my colleagues that it is the appropriate course of action.
Mr Macintosh picked up one of the big issues that the Communities Committee wrestled with when it was considering the bill: the importance of the independence of charitable organisations. Following on from Mr Macintosh's question, are you confident that these proposals will not in any way undermine the independence of other charitable organisations or allow challenges to be made? I am sure that the Government considered that, because it has been widely debated, but it would be helpful if we could get an assurance that it did.
Yes, we did. We examined the other options first, because one of those might have been the easiest and simplest way to reflect the thinking behind the charities legislation. However, we also have to consider the matter in the context of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.
Colleges are distinct. Because of the establishment of the Scottish funding council by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, the Government is to a great extent removed. We cannot interfere with individual colleges in matters such as employment issues or the funding of particular courses, although a number of MSPs frequently write to ministers to ask them to do so. Remarkable independence has been established through the development of the Scottish funding council, which—as other charitable organisations can reflect on—means that there is no ministerial responsibility and direction for individual colleges, although we provide strategic guidance for the sector as a whole.
Item 2 is continued consideration of the subordinate legislation. We have the opportunity to debate the matter, but I am not sure that there will be a lengthy debate.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008 be approved.—[Fiona Hyslop.]
I see that members have no additional points to make. Cabinet secretary, do you have anything to add? We do not have much of a debate for you to respond to.
I thank the committee for its co-operation in this matter, which is important to many colleges and their students.
Motion agreed to.
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the Charity Test (Specified Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2008 be approved.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a change of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (Draft)
Item 3 is a further piece of subordinate legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for Children and Early Years for coming to the meeting a little earlier than he would have expected. I am delighted to welcome him.
The minister is joined by three Scottish Government officials: Mike Gibson, who is head of the support for learning division; David Cowan, who is a policy officer in the support for learning division; and Laurence Sullivan, who is senior principal legal officer in the solicitors education, land and pensions division.
Good morning. Our vision for Scotland is that we will live longer and healthier lives. We are all aware of the health challenges for Scotland's young people. As I am the Minister for Children and Early Years, my focus is on ensuring that young people get the best possible start in life.
The Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 will play an important role in addressing the challenges. The act places Scotland at the forefront. We are one of the first nations to focus on the importance of diet and health promotion in schools, and we want to bring coherence and integration to a range of food and health issues that link to the economy, education, health and environmental stewardship.
Parliament voted unanimously in favour of the act in the previous session of Parliament, and the Government has welcomed its responsibility to implement it. Last month, we issued the health promotion guidance for the act, along with draft experiences and outcomes for health and wellbeing, within the curriculum for excellence. Taken together, the package provides a comprehensive approach to developing the skills, knowledge and experience needed to support children and young people to lead healthy lives, now and in the future.
Today, we are considering the draft Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008, which are designed to complement and support the wider health-promoting schools approach of the act. If approved, the regulations will, with the health promotion guidance, help to break Scotland's unhealthy eating culture and ensure that children and young people opt to eat healthier food both in and outwith school.
As members know, the regulations are based on the recommendations of an expert group that was set up by the previous Administration. I put on record my thanks for the group's hard work.
I realise that not everyone is happy with the regulations. Some people feel that they are too strict, others that they are not strict enough. However, if we are to change Scotland's eating culture, we must be prepared to hold the line and build on hungry for success.
I have listened to the concern that has been expressed by some local authorities that, if the regulations are introduced this August, they might have a negative impact on school meal uptake in some secondary schools. As a result, I have decided that, if the regulations are approved, their commencement in secondary schools will be delayed until August 2009.
In reaching that decision, I have also taken account of Her Majesty's inspectorate of education's second progress report on the implementation of hungry for success, which found that the policy's progress in secondary schools has been slower. The year's delay will give the secondary schools that need it more time to make a phased transition to the new regulations. Of course, the schools that feel able to make the changes effectively from this August will be encouraged to do so. Indeed, I am encouraged that some councils are planning to introduce the new requirements into secondary schools in the new term.
I have also responded to requests from food and drinks manufacturers for more time to plan for the changes, and I urge them to take this opportunity to support our work in schools and to develop more products that meet the high standards that we are setting. I will keep the situation under review and consider whether any further action is needed to ensure that an adequate selection of healthier products is available.
We are all responsible for our young people's health and wellbeing, and Scotland is already leading in the strategy to bring about cultural change through food education in schools and to embed that message in communities. The Parliament in the previous session threw its full support behind the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) Act 2007. If the committee does the same today and recommends that the draft regulations be approved, we can together realise our common goal of a healthier Scotland.
Thank you, minister. Do members have any questions or wish to raise any concerns following our evidence-taking session on this topic?
You said that the response to the regulations has generally been quite favourable but that some councils have expressed concern about implementation. Do those councils make up quite a large minority?
No. We are talking about one or two councils—I am thinking, in particular, of Glasgow City Council. Moreover, the concerns that have been expressed do not necessarily apply to a whole authority; they might apply only to particular schools.
We want to ensure that we maintain and do not disrupt the progress in school meal uptake that we have made in recent years. I have listened to the representations made by some authorities and decided to delay commencement in secondary schools for a year to allow them to get up to speed. As members will know, hungry for success itself was a wee bit slower to take off in secondary schools.
So the year's delay is less to do with concerns about the policy itself and more to do with administration and helping schools to implement the regulations.
Absolutely. It is a question of implementation. Delaying the introduction of the regulations will allow some local authorities to get fully up to speed with introducing healthy eating, particularly in secondary schools.
Do you have on record a considerable amount of concern that the regulations might have a detrimental effect on the uptake of school meals?
No. I know that the committee has heard concerns about that and has considered the English example as a warning. However, the reality is that we have had the experience of hungry for success for five years, so we are well ahead of the game on the introduction of healthy choices in schools. There has been a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing in school meal uptake, but the latest figures suggest that roughly half of Scottish school pupils take meals at school and that the figure has stabilised. We do not envisage a significant change in uptake as a consequence of the regulations. I hope that, over time, we can improve uptake.
Do you collect information on the voluntary arrangements that are already in place? I imagine that such arrangements are in place in most schools, although it might only be in some. In my local authority area, very few schools sell sweets or fizzy drinks. Do you collect information on the impact of those voluntary arrangements for healthier choices?
Do you mean in schools?
Yes.
I am not sure about that. I invite my colleague to answer the question.
David Cowan (Scottish Government Schools Directorate):
I am sorry, but I ask Ken Macintosh what he means when he talks about voluntary schemes.
Most schools in my authority do not sell sweets or fizzy drinks, although they might sell chocolates. Do we have information on the impact of those voluntary restrictions on uptake and changes in diet?
Do you mean for local authorities that have removed those products voluntarily?
Yes.
We do not have hard and fast information on that. We have anecdotal information from authorities that have made that transition already. The situation varies across the piece. Some authorities used hungry for success money to offset the initial losses that they had as a result of removing those products. From what we have heard from places such as North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire, there were initial losses, but the situation has pretty much stabilised—the accounts have been rejigged and the councils are not noticing any loss of income.
I was thinking about the impact on diet rather than the impact on finances.
An issue has been brought to my attention by several fair trade groups in schools. It is not just about the income that fair trade products generate for those groups but about the way in which those products tend to be pushed through schools, rather than through local shops or newsagents. Although there is fantastic growth in fair trade generally throughout Scotland, it has been led by school and church groups and others. If we do not make an exception for fair trade products such as chocolate, we might be taking a step backwards. Did you consider making an exception for fair trade chocolate, which some might argue is not as bad for children as chewy sweets or fizzy drinks are?
That is arguable. We did not consider making an exception for fair trade products, although we support the fair trade campaigns. As you know, there are a range of fair trade products. Fair trade has been promoted using chocolate to bring the issue to the attention of people, particularly children. We seek to remove confectionary in schools across the board, but that is not to say that we cannot promote fair trade products in schools. For example, we all know about fair trade fruit. Perhaps we should focus on those products, rather than on chocolate.
I do not know whether committee members have seen the evidence in the Food Standard Agency's sugar survey, which reported in March this year that 17.4 per cent of the diet of Scottish children was made up of sugar-type products such as confectionery, chocolate, sweets and so on. The recommended level is less than 10 per cent. That shows the scale of the challenge that we face to improve children's diet. I do not think that we can make exceptions for fair trade chocolate.
The sugar survey is interesting—I look out for it avidly every year. Another report that came out yesterday suggested that Scottish pupils are second in the world for fruit consumption, so there might be encouraging signs.
Perhaps I overemphasised fair trade chocolate. One of the most popular snacks is Geo cereal bars, which are fair trade. We share the desire to improve children's ability to make healthier choices, but the question is whether, by making Geo bars and other such confectionary available, we will encourage them to do that or whether they will just sidestep school altogether. Two weeks ago, we heard interesting evidence that where the healthier option is made available alongside more traditional options, uptake of the healthier option is noticeable but that, where such a choice is not made available, people vote with their feet and go elsewhere.
It is a question of what works. That is why I asked how we monitor the situation, and how we will ensure that the regulations are working after 2009, when they are introduced in secondary schools. Clearly, the products will not be sold to children, but how will we monitor whether children are buying fewer sweets altogether or just getting them outside school and bringing them in? We heard evidence about mini black markets in schools. How do we monitor such things? What role will the Government play in ensuring that the regulations are a success?
There will be a range of measures to which we can refer. You mentioned the World Health Organization report on the very good figures for 11-year-olds in Scotland eating fruit, which are encouraging. Perhaps that was a consequence of hungry for success and the pushing of fruit in primary schools and nurseries.
We have our own growing up in Scotland survey, which will be very detailed and should be able to track changes in behaviour over time. I mentioned the curriculum for excellence and the health promotion guidance in my opening remarks, and HMIE will monitor those. We will move towards a mainstreaming of inspection activity that is focused on the new curriculum for excellence, so that issues such as health and wellbeing outcomes and literacy and numeracy will be reported on over time. We should be able to monitor what is happening with behaviours in schools by using that range of surveys and inspections.
I take Ken Macintosh's point about removing products from schools. I will watch that carefully, because we do not want to tip the situation over to the point at which children leave school to find other choices. We have to strike a balance.
Minister, you said that you will monitor statistics. In North Lanarkshire, we have fulfilled the hungry for success guidelines and most of our tuck shops are healthy tuck shops. There is a greater emphasis on the products that are sold, such as toast or other snacks, being made in schools. However, I have spoken to a number of primary schools in my area, and if there are insufficient resources, some schools will not have a tuck shop in the mornings next term.
In many deprived communities, children come to school having had nothing to eat before they leave the house. If there is no breakfast club, their first chance to get something to eat in the morning is to buy something at the school tuck shop. Many of those children buy toast. If there is no tuck shop because the school is worried about meeting the guidelines, or if there are insufficient resources and cost issues about the provision of a tuck shop first thing in the morning, some of those children, who probably include some of our most vulnerable children, will go without anything until lunch time. Alternatively, they might buy something on the way to school, which will be a much less healthy option.
Have you considered that, and will you monitor the situation?
The question of tuck shops has certainly been raised. I guess that we come at it from the perspective that, if we are promoting health in schools, it would be perverse to allow tuck shops to sell unhealthy choices. If we did so, we would be accused of sending out mixed messages.
I agree that local authorities could consider providing food for children early in the morning, and particularly breakfast clubs. I visited an interesting project in Edinburgh, where the local Heart of Midlothian Football Club and local businesspeople are sponsoring breakfast clubs. The idea is to have a breakfast club in every school in Edinburgh, and they are well on their way towards achieving that. That is a good initiative, and such work is to be encouraged throughout Scotland. For example, Learning and Teaching Scotland has a health and wellbeing network, which could perhaps be used to try to spread that best practice throughout the country.
I do not know whether that adequately answers your question, convener, but that is the broad thrust of where we are coming from.
I do not think that anybody would object to the provision of breakfast clubs, although it is unlikely that Airdrie United would have the resources, even in partnership with local businesses, to provide breakfast clubs in every school in my constituency. Nor would that necessarily be welcome in Shotts, where people are much more likely to be Motherwell fans than Airdrie fans.
I am keen to find out whether the Executive will monitor what happens after the guidelines are implemented. Will you monitor whether we still have tuck shops in many of our schools in the 32 local authorities and exactly what is sold in them, or whether as a consequence we do not have tuck shops? At that point, an issue might arise, because we might be forcing children to purchase their morning snack elsewhere. I would prefer them not to do that. I would much prefer them to have a piece of fruit or some toast at school.
Clearly, we are keen for tuck shops of the type that you describe to be available to children. We will focus on that area in monitoring progress with the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007. We will do so as a matter of course.
We heard evidence, and you mentioned this morning, that the food and drink industry wants time to adapt its products to meet the regulations. At the same time, there is an issue about how procurement works in local authorities, and particularly their ability to source local, nutritious food. Do those issues impinge in any way on the draft Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008? Food that is sourced for tuck shops or is made in schools should contain safe, healthy and, if possible, local ingredients.
Local authorities will refer to the regulations for the types of food to be procured. The member asked how food will be procured. The issues of sustainability, seasonality and local produce are covered in the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007. Sustainability should be a feature of procurement. I know that some local authorities have made significant progress on that front. My home area of East Ayrshire is an exemplar and has done excellent work on sourcing local, organic and non-processed foods.
Earlier we heard good news about the amount of fruit that youngsters eat. It is to be hoped that it will also be possible to measure factors such as seasonality. In the growing up in Scotland surveys, which measure how well children are progressing, are we measuring how well local authorities are coping with the move towards increased sustainability and seasonality?
We are conducting a scoping exercise right now to get a sense of what local authorities in Scotland are doing. We have issued a short survey that asks authorities whether they have initiatives to increase local sourcing or to meet other sustainable development objectives. We are awaiting the returns from the survey, as we want in the first instance to see what is happening. We have not yet established a formal mechanism for collecting information on such issues, but we will keep an eye on that possibility.
We are talking again to Learning and Teaching Scotland, health and wellbeing networks and hungry for success networks. At some point in the future, we will speak to procurement officers across the piece to encourage them to look more closely at sustainable procurement guidance, to make them aware that, under the 2007 act, they have a duty to do so, and to encourage them to use the guidance more regularly. We have not set out the entire process, but we intend this summer to issue a refreshed, revised version of the guidance that reflects recent experience and to encourage local suppliers to become engaged. We will keep an eye on that body of work as it goes forward.
I am sure that you would be happy for the procurement process to feed into work on nutrition, so that tuck shops can have much more local food.
Absolutely.
My question follows on from the valid points that Rob Gibson has made. Whereas the 2003 guidance refers to the provision of two portions of fruit and vegetables, the regulations that are before us stipulate:
"Not less than 2 types of fruit shall be provided every day."
Ensuring that two types of fruit are available all year round in term time may have an impact on the issues that Rob Gibson raised.
As Ken Macintosh and other members of the committee have suggested, instead of relying on other, more generic surveys of pupils' activity and health initiatives, we have an opportunity collectively to carry out specific monitoring of how the regulations are being implemented in schools and how pupils are reacting to them. Such monitoring could take place live, as the regulations are implemented. You have not yet indicated that the Government proposes to take that approach, but the committee believes that it might be worth exploring. What are your thoughts on commissioning specific research on the impact of the regulations and on youngsters' reaction to them, which is of key importance and will be reflected in uptake?
We have annual reports on uptake in schools. Nevertheless, the member makes a valid point and I will consider what research we can pursue to tackle the issues that he raises. I do not think that we have commissioned any such research at the moment, have we?
We have commissioned no research specifically on the regulations. However, as part of the survey of local authorities that we are undertaking, we are looking at what assessment local authorities themselves have made of healthy eating and health promotion initiatives. We are also conducting an international literature review of the research on what goes on in schools in other parts of the world as well as in Scotland. All that information should have been gathered towards the end of the summer. One of our reasons for doing that is that we need to decide what else we need to do specifically in Scotland—what longitudinal research we might undertake and whether there are any gaps that we need to fill.
A lot of organisations conduct research in the area, including the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Consumer Council, which will shortly produce a report on what kids are eating outside school at lunch time. Work is also being done in our health department. If we are going to do something, we must ensure that we work with the research that already exists so that, rather than duplicate the on-going work, we add value to it.
That is welcome.
A difference between the regulations and the existing guidance is the fact that the allowed fat content of school meals—both saturated fat and other fats—is being increased. That seems counterintuitive. We were unable to get clarity from the expert group, when we took evidence from it, and from others on that change. Can the Scottish Government officials explain it?
I will have a crack at it.
There has been some relaxation on the sodium content, too. The guidance permits a school meal to contain 33 per cent of the recommended daily allowance of sodium; we have increased that to around 38 per cent. The reason for that is that we want children to eat healthy school meals. Relaxing the restrictions on sodium and fat a little will allow tastier school meals to be prepared, which will develop youngsters' palates and tastes. The intention is to draw back again from the proposed levels and reduce them; however, we first want to entice youngsters to eat the meals that are on offer. It is following the experience that we have had over the past five years, with the hungry for success initiative, that those minor moves have been made. To compensate, we are being a little more restrictive on the snacks that are allowed to be made available throughout the day. So, over the piece, the balance will be restored.
That was a very good crack, minister. That satisfies me.
The regulations require the provision of drinking water in schools free of charge at all times. Ministers have the powers legally to make that provision apply to all schools, but it is being restricted to public schools and hostels that are provided by education authorities. Why should not that provision apply to all schools in Scotland?
You mean independent schools.
Yes.
I think that the 2007 act did not cover all schools, which is why the regulations do not cover all schools. Nonetheless, I imagine that the Scottish Council of Independent Schools will look carefully at the regulations and will want to respond appropriately to them.
You talked about sharing best practice. I would like to draw your attention to an Irish project that realised the importance of making healthy food fun and cool, and the need to change children's thoughts about food. The project involved cartoon characters called food dudes and junk punks.
Is the Government actively considering not only statistics but the psychological aspect of children's thoughts about food, in order to help them make a healthy choice?
Such work starts early. Guidelines for nursery schools are in place, and they help to develop children's palates so that they get a taste for healthy food early on.
Primary schools have taken up the hungry for success programme with enthusiasm. However, the issue is about not only food choices, but the environment in which children eat the food, which can be made fun. In secondary schools, all sorts of things can be done to make the dining environment attractive, to encourage children to stay in school at lunch time.
We will issue leaflets to parents to inform them of the changes that are being made in relation to health promotion and healthy food promotion. Other leaflets will be issued to teachers, to explain what we want them to do. There is a case for conducting a marketing exercise of the kind that you describe.
That concludes the committee's questions to you, minister
Motion moved,
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008 be approved.—[Adam Ingram.]
We have up to 90 minutes in which to debate the motion, but that might be slightly excessive. As this is a debate rather than a question-and-answer session, the minister will respond to any points when he winds up.
The challenge will be to ensure that youngsters who wish to avail themselves of a healthy school meal are presented with a choice that is attractive to them. It would be perverse if the guidance resulted in such children choosing alternatives that are less healthy. In that context, I welcome what the minister said about monitoring the effect of the implementation of the regulations.
I commend the minister on the way in which he brought forward the regulations and on the detailed responses that he gave to the committee.
I will continue in the same vein. It is clear that we are engaged in a common endeavour to drive up food nutrition standards in our schools, improve the healthier choices that are made available to our youngsters and tackle the growing obesity problem in Scotland.
The regulations are a step in the right direction, and I think that they will be successful. However, there is no guarantee of success. Rightly, most of the questions today showed that there is concern about what the impact of the regulations—which are a rather blunt instrument—might be on the complex psychology of children.
I think we are all agreed that it is important for schools to set an example, and not to undermine the parental role by offering children sweets and fizzy drinks that they might not be encouraged to have at home. However, everything about our schools these days is focused on developing the ability of children and young people to make choices, in terms of citizenship and so on. My main concern is that there is a slight contrast between banning items and removing choice, and encouraging children to take control themselves.
Over the past month or so, when I have visited schools, one issue has been raised repeatedly; I do not know whether the convener, too, has found that to be the case. The children feel that there is a little bit of, "Do as I say, not as I do" about the regulations. I never fail to be amazed by children's sophistication in being aware of such aspects. Most young people are switched on to, and aware of, what is healthy and good for them and what is not, although that does not mean that they always follow their reasoning.
One of the kids that I talked to in a school used the example of the Horrid Henry books. I do not know whether the minister is aware of them, but they are very funny and very good. I am not saying that Horrid Henry should be an example, but he has a brother called Perfect Peter, who does not eat sweets and would, I am sure, agree totally with the regulations. However, none of us is a Perfect Peter and we do not want our children to be, either.
After hearing the minister's comments, I am reassured that he shares the committee's concerns about the impact of the regulations. In particular, I am reassured by his comment that he will further examine how we monitor the impact: not just the uptake by schools, but the impact on children and whether they buy sweets elsewhere. Aside from those concerns, I fully support the regulations.
Like others here, I welcome the legislation's direction of travel. It is important that we send out a signal and introduce legislation that will attempt to tackle and change our unhealthy eating habits. If we are to stand any chance of tackling the issue, we should start with our youngest citizens. However, like others, I have some concerns, especially regarding the provision of healthy snacks. It is important that children have access to snacks. There are issues about the choice of prepared snacks that are manufactured outside school, as schools would be able to purchase only a very limited choice of snacks.
Both the previous and the current Governments have challenged the manufacturers to step up and meet that challenge and to come up with new products that meet the nutritional requirements. I hope that the manufacturers will listen to the Government and do that. I also hope, however, that you will monitor the situation so that we can be confident that our young people can access healthy snacks in school and that they do not have to go for long periods of time without any access to snacks and food, which could undermine their learning experience and their ability to take full advantage of being at school.
I do not think that anyone has anything further to contribute. I hope that the minister will respond to the points that members have made.
Certainly. With regard to your point about the response of manufacturers and food producers, we have been a wee bit disappointed that manufacturers have not so far brought forward proposals or ideas for product development. Perhaps they have been waiting for the regulations to be put in place so that they know precisely what situation they face. I hope that that process will begin to happen over the coming year and, as I said in my opening remarks, I will keep it under review.
I agree with the points that Jeremy Purvis and Ken Macintosh raised. We are not looking for our children to be Perfect Peters; we want to improve their health and wellbeing. Children might get something like a third of their daily nutrition during the school day, and we can do a lot to ensure that the nutrition that they get meets their needs. We are setting an example.
I hope that, through the health promotion activities in schools, we will develop children's understanding of the link between healthy eating and health and wellbeing, and the balance between energy intake and burning off energy in physical activity, which is an aspect that we have not touched on. The committee and I are in broad agreement on where we need to go and what we need to do in monitoring the implementation of the regulations. In due course, the committee will be furnished with any relevant reports on the issue.
The question is, that motion S3M-1920, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008 be approved.
That concludes our consideration of subordinate legislation. I thank the minister and his officials.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—