Finance Committee, 07 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Official Report 366KB pdf

---

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill and Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memoranda

Welcome to the 27th meeting in 2006 of the Finance Committee. I remind everyone that pagers and mobile phones should be switched off. No apologies have been received.

Agenda item 1 is evidence taking on the financial memoranda to the Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill and the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. As I explained at last week's meeting, the committee has agreed to scrutinise the two bills in tandem. Last week, we took evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Today, we will take evidence from the member in charge of the Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill and from Scottish Executive officials on the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. We will have two witness panels.

I welcome Frances Curran MSP, who will give evidence on the Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill in particular. We can also put questions to her on the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. Our procedure is to move to members' questions after short statements from witnesses.

I thank the committee for taking time to consider my bill. I know that time is precious in the six months that remain of the parliamentary session.

The policy intention behind the bill—I am very aware that the committee considers financial rather than policy issues—is to tackle child poverty and social exclusion and to provide benefits to health and educational attainment. Given the widely accepted view that childhood eating habits highly influence adult diet, the bill's intention is to save money in the long term on the £170 million per year that the national health service in Scotland spends on obesity. Given that the latest statistics show that we are losing rather than winning that war, we need to find policies that will tackle the problem if we are not, within a generation, to end up, as the figures suggest, with 40 per cent of adults being obese.

The bill has the support of most major children's charities, the headteachers, the teachers unions, a number of health boards and local authorities and many health professionals and nutritionists. The universality of the proposal would tackle health issues across the board as well as poverty. That is the reason for the policy behind the bill. I hope that the committee will find the figures in the financial memorandum satisfactory.

Thank you very much. I invite Elaine Murray to begin the questioning.

It is not clear whether the bill is intended to enable local authorities to provide other free meals, as well as free school lunches. Last week, we heard from Fergus Chambers about Glasgow City Council's breakfast scheme, which has an uptake of something like 20 per cent in primary schools. Should local authorities be expected to provide free breakfasts as well? If so, should that be included in the financial memorandum to the bill?

The bill is restricted to the provision of healthy lunch-time meals in primary schools. The reason for that is that the take-up rate is only about 20 per cent even in the two authorities that have 100 per cent provision of breakfast clubs. The bill will aim for a much higher percentage of the primary school population. Personally, I have no problem with provision of free breakfast clubs, but the bill is targeted in particular at primary school lunches.

Is the provision of free milk included in the bill?

Yes, free milk and water are included in the costings for the bill.

Does that amount to £6 million?

The cost is included in the £73 million.

When we took evidence from COSLA and Glasgow City Council last week, we heard that uptake has been a problem since schools have tried to provide a more healthy diet. Unfortunately, fairly significant statistics suggest that the uptake of free school meals and of charged-for meals has fallen by 15 per cent and 17 per cent respectively since the hungry for success programme was introduced. It was suggested that increased uptake is more likely to be achieved by the provision of a popular, rather than a free, service.

If children have to queue or if the meals are not the sort of food they want to eat, they will be put off taking up the free school meals to which they are entitled. In secondary schools—I know that the bill deals only with primary schools—children seem to be discouraged from taking school meals either because they need to queue too long or because the food is not attractive to them. If we want to increase the uptake of school meals, would a better approach be to make school meals more attractive?

The drop in take-up that Fergus Chambers described last week related specifically to secondary schools, but the figures he gave were quite encouraging. He said that the take-up of free school meals in Glasgow is 87 per cent. That is not good enough, but it is quite high compared with the average for Scotland. He also said that the take-up of all school meals is 61 per cent. Again, we could do better, but that is not a bad figure for a local authority.

I took on board, when I consulted on my initial proposal, the argument that it could be difficult to introduce healthy meals in secondary schools. If we start in primary schools, those who enter primary 1 today—or whenever the provision is introduced—will have seven years in which to become used to healthy school meals. The bill is about changing the culture in the long term.

The Executive needs to learn from the experience in Hull, where the education authority went the whole hog on educational attainment, poverty and health. Free breakfast clubs, free lunches and free after-school snacks were introduced. When healthy menus were initially introduced in primary schools, take-up fell from 48 per cent to 36 per cent. Councillors were subjected to a barrage of criticism from parents, from the Hull Daily Mail—the press gave them an absolute pasting—and from opposition councillors who said that the scheme was a waste of money. Parents were not quite passing chips through the school railings, but the council was under big pressure to put burgers and chips back on the menu. However, to give the councillors—Labour councillors, I might add—their due, they held their nerve. Some changes were made to the menus to accommodate people, but they remained within health and nutritional guidelines. The lesson that we need to learn is that when, six months after the healthy menus were introduced, school meals were made free across the board, take-up went up from 36 per cent to 65 per cent and is still rising.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons that we need to learn from the hungry for success programme in secondary schools is that healthy meals form only half the equation; the free element is just as important. The figures that I gave earlier are for Glasgow secondary schools. I wonder what will happen there.

Did Hull City Council have to make a lot of capital investment? COSLA has pointed out that the hungry for success programme has not required much capital investment. It is concerned that the financial memorandum does not reflect any capital costs associated with this provision.

The council funded staff training, staff cover and capital investment. I have looked at COSLA's figures for implementing hungry for success. Last week, when I asked Councillor Charles Gray how much the Executive has provided for capital expenditure, he said that it has provided absolutely zilch. Given that hungry for success was introduced to improve the nutritional value of the dinner on the plate in schools, which will have meant costs for staff training and new equipment, the capital funding to deal with the provisions in my bill should already be in place. Increased capacity is the only thing that would need to be covered.

The Executive's figures say that it has allocated £120 million for hungry for success in the period 2004 to 2008. Where on earth has that money gone if it has not been spent on staff training or new equipment, or has not been invested in improving the nutritional value of school meals or training the staff in the service to the level that my bill seeks? I find its figures very confusing.

Who do you think has more experience and understanding of how a free school meals service should be delivered: you or the local authorities that have provided such services?

I am sure that local authorities have more experience of that.

In that case, what is your response to COSLA's claim that the projected costs in the financial memorandum have been "severely underestimated"?

I find it difficult to respond, given that COSLA provides no breakdown of the global £100 million it mentions. The financial memorandum states that 372,000 of the 590,000 school pupils in Scotland take school meals and that the average cost of a school meal across the board is £1.77. Personally, I think that that figure is rather high. Indeed, the figure varies enormously; the average in Falkirk is £1 and in Moray it is £1.70.

According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the average cost of a school meal in 2004 was £1.66. After adjusting for inflation and taking into account the notional value of the increase in nutritional value due to hungry for success—which has been worked out at 12p per school meal—SPICe has suggested an average cost of £1.77. If we take into account the money that local authorities already provide to cover free school meal entitlement, the cost of the bill would come to just under £73 million if take-up reached 70 per cent. I simply do not know where the £100 million comes from.

If COSLA's figure is based on 100 per cent take-up, I have to say that we will never achieve that. I think that 70 per cent take-up is enough of a target but, even if we hit 80 per cent, that would mean, on a pro rata basis, only an extra £7 million.

How do you respond to local authorities' concerns about the quality of the school meal that would be provided if there were universal provision of free school meals?

My figures are based on the good-quality meals that are currently provided in primary schools. Last week, Fergus Chambers said that in schools in Glasgow there is 95p of food on each plate—obviously, the £1.77 I mentioned takes in other costs.

Funnily enough, on Thursday, I attended a school meals demonstration event with Nick Nairn and talked to him about the bill. When I asked him whether a main meal and a pudding using fresh, locally sourced products could be provided for 95p, he said, "Absolutely. Of course you can." I think that the figures are pretty accurate as far as nutritional value, health value and quantity are concerned. Obviously, primary school pupils have a smaller quantity on their plate than do secondary school pupils.

A further issue concerns the return for the money that is put in. One key concern consistently raised by COSLA is the overall commitment to meet the costs of the bill and the long-term return. I can understand that there might well be different views in the Parliament about the success or otherwise of that. Fergus Chambers mentioned the provision of one eighth of a child's overall food intake per week, assuming that they eat the whole of every school meal that is put in front of them. Whether the figure is £70 million or £100 million, would that money provide better value if it was spent on activities and exercise, given that the aim is to address obesity?

The Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill is only one aspect of the action that we need to take. We are straying into policy now, but I do not mind—I hope not to try your patience, convener. Other aspects include sport, exercise and a ban on the advertising of junk food to children. I do not understand why there is any benefit from advertising sweets, fizzy drinks or junk food to children. The bill is a contribution. It would form part of an infrastructure that will help change diet and eating habits.

I believe that the benefits will have an impact, as research has shown, on long-term eating habits. Fergus Chambers might have said that last week. Children's charities that responded to our consultation told us that, for many children, particularly those from the poorest families who do not qualify for free school meals, school meals are the main meal. They are some of the children we are trying to target when it comes to health and obesity. I do not see how the bill cannot bring any health benefits or improvements. I think that that is crucial.

I share Frances Curran's concern about those who are most in need. COSLA has said:

"Targeting resources could reduce the overall cost of extending free meals … to around £20 to £30 million, while at the same time helping those most in need".

Would you agree with that approach?

We had a major piece of research done on free school meals. It looked at targeting versus universality. That research, by Morelli and Seaman of the University of Dundee, is referred to in the policy memorandum and shows that targeting is the more inefficient approach. Targeting is not an efficient way to get meals to the children who need them most. Morelli and Seaman prove by their research that such efforts do not necessarily reach the children of people who are working but are on low incomes, or those with a low family income and several children in the household. Targeting does not necessarily reach all the children whose parents are on benefits or receive the child tax credit either. There is an assumption that parents will fill in the form.

There are loads of children who would benefit from the policy. They should be entitled to free school meals, given their families' incomes, although they might not be on benefits and might not meet the current, very narrow, criteria. The researchers argue that universality is in fact a much more efficient way of getting meals to the children who particularly need them.

It is only for the top 10 per cent of families, who are very well off, that the policy would not have a major beneficial effect on the family income. One of the reasons for that is the fact that wages are so low in Scotland—three quarters of the population earn less than £25,000 a year. The policy outcome would be better in Scotland or Northern Ireland than it would be in England. In my opinion, Morelli and Seaman prove that universality is the most efficient way to deliver the policy.

COSLA also mentioned using a

"tax credit system to target groups who would genuinely benefit from a free meal."

If we could do the targeting around the tax credit system, we might address the concern that the academics raised.

Not really. The benefits and tax system is really complex. It is quite difficult to define who would be eligible under the current tax system. The targeting approach assumes that the parents will fill in the forms—a proactive arrangement would be required to enable the children to get free school meals. If free school meals were delivered across the board, every child would get them and there would be equality. The commissioner for children and young people often argues that we need equality and that we should not means test children.

On a visit to a citizens advice bureau, I was surprised to be told by the staff, who did some calculations, that I might be eligible for a bit of tax credit. That seemed odd, given my salary.

I have some questions on the figures you mentioned, including the cost of £66.3 million to £72.8 million, and on the robustness of your figures on the average cost per meal and the uptake. First, will you comment on the statement that a meal that meets the nutrient standards costs an extra 12p? That sounds like a small amount of money.

It does, but an increased cost of 12p per meal was the outcome of implementing the new nutrient standards under the hungry for success programme. The Scottish Executive says that the cost was less than it expected.

A spin-off from the hungry for success programme was that it forced local authorities to find local producers. My bill would do that too, so NFU Scotland should support it. Local authorities now buy food from local producers with competitive contracts. They did not do that before because they bought in bulk. They find that the terms of buying that healthier produce are much more favourable than they anticipated.

Local authorities say—surprisingly, I have to say—that the additional cost of meals that meet the nutrient standards is only 12p per meal.

What is the £1.77 average cost per meal based on?

That is a local authority figure that was given to SPICe. It is the cost to local authorities of providing 53 million meals per year. It is local authorities' estimate of what it would cost them pro rata to provide the 70 per cent take-up mentioned in the bill. I think that the figure is accurate.

What is more interesting, but not completely relevant to my bill, is how much of that figure is the cost of the dinner on the plate—Fergus Chambers told us last week that it is 95p—and how much is other costs. That does not affect the figures in the financial memorandum, but I would be interested to know why there is disparity between local authorities. Some authorities can provide a school meal at a cost of £1 while others spend £1.70. That is interesting, but the figures in the financial memorandum are for local authorities across the board.

You say that there will never be 100 per cent take-up and quote take-up figures of 65 to 70 per cent. Given that your aim is universal provision, why do you think it is impossible to get 100 per cent take-up?

That would be good, but it would take time to get to that stage. There will always be children who, for whatever reason, do not want to take a free, healthy school meal. Also, if we consider absences due to truancy, illness or holidays, that works out, on average, as two weeks out of the 190 days. If we take that figure and aggregate it, take-up will already be down by 10 per cent, on average, because not all children are at school every day and take a meal. The figures have been extrapolated and the maximum that we would get is probably about 80 per cent. However, we do not expect that in the first two years.

Do you have any comments on Glasgow City Council's figures for the cost of removing the stigma from pupils who get free school meals? The figures are £30,000 for a secondary school and £15,000 for a primary school. Your bill would remove any possibility of stigma.

The figures say that there would be £2.6 million in start-up costs and £300,000 a year in running costs. We would save that money. I have not taken that into account in the figures for the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill, but if the Scottish Executive paid for school meals, local authorities would save the costs involved in removing stigma.

I am not convinced by the measures currently being taken to reduce stigma. The briefing document from SPICe on the Executive's Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill contains a graph that shows the take-up of free school meals in the 17 local authorities that have introduced anonymised schemes. Falkirk Council is soaring ahead—it would be interesting to know why—but everywhere else take-up of free school meals in secondary schools has gone down since the introduction of the technology in 1997. We have to ask why that has happened. The technology has not had an impact for the better, so we can only conclude that it has had an impact for the worse, or that other factors are involved. The technology has certainly not dealt with the stigma issue, except in Falkirk.

I have a very simple question based on the COSLA briefing we received this morning. Its most relevant point is its final one: COSLA suggests that your bill is unnecessary because ministers already have the powers to extend free school meal provision if they choose to do so. Do you accept that?

Yes, ministers do have those powers, but therein lies the problem. If ministers came to me tomorrow and said that they would be happy to introduce free and healthy school meals in primary schools and would do so within a certain timescale, I would withdraw the bill. The problem is that ministers are not committed to doing that, so the only thing to do is to pass a member's bill, to get the measures on the statute book. I would be very happy if ministers wanted to introduce free and healthy school meals.

So the bill would force ministers to exercise their discretion in a certain manner.

No, it would not force ministers in that way. The bill would amend section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Other subsections of section 53 give ministers powers to do with healthy snacks, for example. If my bill were passed, free school meals would be set in statute.

As there seem to be no further questions, I thank Frances Curran very much for coming along to the committee.

Thank you.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We will now take evidence from Scottish Executive officials. Maria McCann is head of branch in the support for learning division, and David Cowan is the bill team leader for the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. They do not intend to make an opening statement, so we will proceed with questions.

Last week, we heard from Glasgow City Council and COSLA that, since the introduction of hungry for success, there has been a marked decrease in the uptake of free and charged for school meals—15 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. Fergus Chambers estimated that the service in Glasgow could lose £750,000 as a result of reduced uptake. I would welcome the witnesses' comments on his findings, which seem to be supported by the table in the annex to the SPICe briefing on the bill. The table shows a decrease in uptake of school meals between 1999 and 2006, particularly in secondary schools. The figures might reflect problems with implementation of the hungry for success recommendations.

The financial memorandum does not reflect the impact of reduced uptake. Should an estimate of possible losses to local authorities have been included, on the basis of the evidence?

I heard the evidence at last week's meeting and followed it up by speaking to COSLA representatives, who agreed that the bill's financial implications will vary between councils. Some issues that were highlighted in the meeting were based on experience in Glasgow and will not necessarily be the experience of other local authorities in Scotland. It is important to bear that in mind.

I spoke to contacts in other local authorities, to gauge their experience and ascertain whether they are as worried as their colleagues in Glasgow City Council. I should say that Fergus Chambers's figures were projections; Glasgow has not yet experienced a 17 per cent downturn in school meals uptake. The authorities that I contacted have experienced a downturn, but not nearly to the extent that was suggested during the meeting. East Ayrshire Council has experienced a 2.9 per cent downturn in secondary schools, against a backdrop of a 1.1 per cent drop in the school roll. The council is confident that uptake will bounce back and recover. North Lanarkshire Council's experience is similar; there has been a downturn but uptake is expected to recover.

The same pattern was experienced in primary schools when the hungry for success recommendations were implemented. There was an initial drop in uptake during the transition period, but children got used to the meals and uptake increased. We expect the same pattern to be repeated in secondary schools. Not all local authorities are experiencing the situation that Glasgow is experiencing. East Ayrshire Council said that it would just have to hold its nerve during the transition period.

The figures in the SPICe briefing are from the Scottish Executive. In some local authorities the drop in uptake of school meals—free and purchased—has been considerable. For example, in my authority, Dumfries and Galloway Council, uptake in primary schools dropped from 61 per cent in 1999 to 47 per cent in 2006 and uptake in secondary schools dropped from 60 per cent in 1999 to 35 per cent in 2006. I presume that you have seen those figures. If hungry for success is not the reason, why has there been such a dramatic fall in uptake?

Many factors are involved and it is difficult to pull out one that explains why uptake is falling. Work probably needs to be done on that. As I think Fergus Chambers said last week, food choice is not the most important element; there are others, such as queuing and the dining experience and facilities. When we consulted young people, we received feedback that the all-round dining experience was not always particularly pleasant, which is a reason why the hungry for success agenda was developed. Hungry for success is about not just nutritious food but the quality of the food and the dining experience. It seeks almost to make the canteen part of the curriculum, to ensure that the education and health benefits are considered.

COSLA was concerned about the cost to local authorities of meeting the proposed new nutritional standards, which were not published until last week. Why did you not publish the new standards before the bill was introduced, so that COSLA might estimate the knock-on financial effect of the approach?

We did not know what the bill's scope would be until earlier this year. When we knew, we went ahead with the consultation. We wanted to gauge people's views, so we waited until the consultation period ended at the end of July before we pulled together the expert working group, which was done by the end of August. The group has proposed the new standards to be set out in regulations, but we do not yet know what the regulations will say because the Scottish ministers must consider the proposals.

Can you offer any reassurance to COSLA, now that the proposed new standards have been published? Are there likely to be major differences between the new standards and the hungry for success standards that would have cost implications for local authorities?

I do not think that there will be cost implications for local authorities. You will have seen the proposals for lunches, which are not radically different from what was proposed in hungry for success. Most local authorities will have done the costings for hungry for success already, so the transition should be fairly smooth. A few recommendations in the bill could be considered controversial, such as those about vending machines and tuck shops; the bill's scope goes beyond lunches to include all food in schools.

We have seen the proposals, but ministers have yet to decide what they are, so we don't know whether there will be cost implications for vending machines and suchlike, which was alluded to in COSLA's evidence last week. When we took evidence on the matter from local authorities, one or two told us that they have phased healthy products into, and unhealthy products out of, their vending machines and that it has been a cost-neutral experience.

Is not one of the problems that young people could bring in the unhealthy option anyway? They do not have to buy from the vending machine in the school, so if they wish to eat Mars bars and drink fizzy drinks they can bring them in from home. There could be a longer-term loss if eating patterns do not change in the expected timescale.

That is why it is important to remember that the bill is about health promotion and nutrition and that health promotion is the more significant part. As a result of the bill, health promotion will not be optional in schools; it will be central and embedded. If young people do not have the ability to make healthy choices outwith the school context, there will not be as much impact. Health promotion activities will cover the curriculum and form part of the full range of activities that young people are involved in at school. We want them to be able to make healthy choices in the short term and in the long term, so that is why it is important to remember that the bill is about health promotion in its widest sense rather than limited to school meals.

There is evidence, not just from hungry for success, to suggest that that is quite difficult to achieve in a short time, particularly in secondary schools. There was discussion over the weekend about the experience south of the border, where it has been difficult to turn children's eating habits around. It might not happen quickly and therefore there could be financial consequences for local authorities.

We see the effects of the first generation of hungry for success on pupils who are now moving into secondary, and differences in their eating habits have been reported. However, we are not saying that there should be no vending machines; we are saying that there could be healthy vending. If young people's tastes adjust and they choose the healthy options, we can still sell those to them. If children are going to spend money on snacks in school, they can be offered healthy choices.

It is important to remember that hungry for success has been rolled out in Scotland for the past three years and that the transition is still being made. The experience in England is markedly different, as the process has only just started and people there have not had the benefit of hungry for success. It is possible that they are making faster changes than we are because they have not adopted a phased approach.

To back up Maria McCann's point, I spoke to people in local authorities yesterday and last week and their catering managers tell them that the first year pupils who are coming through—the first of the hungry for success generation—are not even looking for chips when they come to school; they are perfectly content with the healthy options.

Will you remind me of how much has been spent on hungry for success?

By 2008, it will be almost £120 million.

One of the concerns of Frances Curran, the member in charge of the Education (School Meals etc) (Scotland) Bill, was what that money was spent on.

It was costed out on making improvements to canteens and on healthy ingredients. We factored in the cost of an increase in uptake of school meals, but that has not happened across the board. The money was costed out based on various recommendations in "Hungry for Success".

I apologise if I am wrong, but I thought that COSLA suggested in its evidence that a little of that money would be spent on capital investments. Is there an inconsistency between the submissions?

No. Hungry for success moneys were intended for programme expenditure, but moneys for capital expenditure are available through the schools fund. Between 2003 and 2008, nearly £450 million will have been made available for capital expenditure on the school estate. Local authorities are free to spend that as they wish, but the hope was that they would take account of hungry for success and make some allowance for the initiative within their budgeting.

Fergus Chambers expressed the concern that, although progress has been made in Glasgow over the years towards making school meals more attractive, as we move to a new agenda of nutritional standards and expectations, we might reach a tipping point at which the appeal of the school meals service might diminish. I do not know whether that is a valid concern. How do you feel about that evidence? How can the Executive address that concern?

As I said, every local authority has its own experience of the implementation of hungry for success. Glasgow has made great strides in primary schools, although difficulties are being experienced in secondary schools. However, the pattern tends to be that there is a downturn in the uptake of school meals before there is an increase. This all has to be seen in the context of health-promoting schools; these things cannot be done in isolation. We cannot just change the food and expect kids to take it; the initiative has to go hand in hand with the whole school ethos in which kids are being encouraged to think about the food that they eat and healthy lifestyles in general. We expect that that approach will be helped by making meals in school healthy, to back up those choices.

The other issue that we have been exploring over the past couple of evidence sessions is how the figures for individual and overall costs were arrived at. How did you arrive at the figure for the total cost of free breakfasts? Are overhead costs for supervision and so on included?

We asked local authorities about their experience of providing breakfasts and the cost of doing so. Each local authority provides and funds breakfasts differently and collects information about the costs differently. Basically, we had to make our best estimate on the basis of the evidence that we were given.

We have costed the price of each breakfast at between £1 and £1.26—that is the price range that we were given for breakfasts. Our estimate is based on that, but we would be surprised if there was 100 per cent take-up. In Glasgow, the take-up has been about 20 per cent—that figure seems fairly robust.

We have also been exploring the costs of the different elements of the whole package, especially the cost of tackling the stigma that is experienced by young people who take up the free school meals to which they are entitled. There seems to be a 50 per cent difference in the cost of tackling that stigma between the figure that we were given by Glasgow City Council and your figure. That is a big difference. Can you explain it?

Again, we asked local authorities to provide their figures for those costs, and we were told that the cost was about £20,000 on average for a cashless swipe-card system—if that is the way in which councils choose to tackle the issue—to each school of about 800 pupils. On top of that, local authorities would have to pay for equipment that would be used in all the schools in their areas for taking photographs for the cards and so on. The cost of that would be about £18,000. There would then be running costs of the swipe-card system of about £3,000.

It may be that Glasgow City Council faces slightly higher costs, as it has slightly higher numbers of pupils in its schools. That might explain the difference in its figure for such a system. I stress the fact that we are not saying that schools must use cashless swipe-card systems, although they may choose to do so.

Does the funding for that come from the hungry for success budget? If we are talking about a technological solution, why can we not get the money for it through the modernising government fund?

I think that money was originally made available through the modernising government fund. At the beginning of September, Peter Peacock announced an additional £30 million for the schools fund. He suggested that that could be used for energy efficiency measures and improvements to school canteens.

Can I ask about manufactured products? I understand that target maximum values for fats, sugar and protein were published in Scotland following the publication of "Hungry for Success" and that there has been a consultation that will lead to higher standards that have not yet been applied. Given the increased awareness of some of the processes that are involved in manufacturing foods—for example, New York has introduced a mechanism that prevents restaurants from using spray-on fat in the preparation of food—do we need to consider some way of putting further pressure on the manufacturers as part of this process?

You are talking about trans-fats, which are apparently not a big issue in the United Kingdom. Thankfully, we do not have to tackle that one.

We spoke to a lot of manufacturers and received a lot of responses from them to our consultation. Generally, they have been supportive of the approach that we have taken through hungry for success. We have stated clearly the target nutrient specifications, which has allowed them to develop products and work towards meeting those specifications. We want to continue to work with manufacturers to ensure that they continue to meet the specifications. That work is not happening in isolation—most manufacturers are already developing healthy product lines and are happy to support the agenda of providing healthy food in schools.

You say that trans-fats are not a big issue in the UK. On what evidence do you base that?

I am told by a nutritionist on the working group that trans-fats are not a big issue in the UK at present.

Well, I am not 100 per cent sure about that. I think that there are issues around the use of fats in food processing that need to be addressed.

Another issue comes out of what Fergus Chambers said last week. He perceives a problem arising from the fact that, although there is an agenda for healthy food in schools, outside the school gate children can buy carbonated drinks, crisps and other unhealthy foods. One argument is that we should abandon hungry for success and accept the reality that children can get alternatives. Another argument says that we should look beyond the school gate to see what controls we can put on the sale of food to children by people who seek to compete with school meals. As part of the broader agenda of improving children's diets, have you thought about licensing food vans and shops that sell hot or processed food to children, so that what happens at school is mirrored outside school?

Definitely. That is an important issue. The food vans have received a lot of attention, and some local authorities use existing licensing provisions to ensure that the vans do not park outside schools. We have shared that information with all local authorities in Scotland.

There is a larger problem with permanent food outlets—shops and so on—which is a difficult issue. We have spoken to COSLA about that in the context of the community planning and community leadership agenda, and are seeking to involve people in the community and give them a sense of responsibility for all the young people in the community. That could seem naive, given the fact that we are talking about traders, but there have been some successes whereby such outlets have provided healthier options. The fact that people are in trade does not mean that they do not want to be part of the community agenda.

There is no easy solution in terms of the scope of the bill, but those are the channels that we have been exploring.

There is a wider health improvement agenda, and the Scottish Executive Health Department is doing a lot of work on that agenda, exploring issues such as the provision of healthier food in public buildings beyond schools—within the NHS, for example.

Specifically on shops, the department has been working on the neighbourhood shops initiative and has worked with the Scottish Grocers Federation and some major operators and convenience stores to encourage them to present healthier foods better in shops and to consider how they present what is available. I am told that that programme has met with considerable success.

I suppose that it is not so much a financial issue, other than the point that Fergus Chambers was making about the reduced uptake of school meals, which is a drain on local authority resources. However, if cash is being spent elsewhere on healthy food, that is an issue for the families concerned and for your objectives. One would have thought, in the context of this issue, that you would have been considering not only school meals as a way of taking forward the nutrition agenda but also licensing arrangements. That might concern another department but it is undoubtedly an issue that needs to be addressed if you are going to have a comprehensive outcome.

I would add that there is a need to work with parents. Packed lunches will not be within the scope of the bill. However, we must work with parents as well as with children on thinking about what is a healthy packed lunch. You are right to say that we need to address many strands to get the outcomes that we are looking for.

The Food and Drink Federation told us that it does not accept the idea that the bill would not have any significant financial implications for food manufacturers. Have you been in dialogue with the federation? Is it pleased yet?

I have spoken to the Food and Drink Federation. It wanted to point out that it was not fully behind the statement that we made. However, we are continuing to speak to the federation, as we are continuing to speak to manufacturers. We based our statement on evidence that we received from food manufacturers.

So the federation is not yet fully behind what you have said.

The manufacturers have pointed out to us the fact that product development costs are involved in changing products. However, they have said that developing a healthier product is part of on-going product development. Yes, there are costs, but they can be absorbed in the product development budget if the companies are given sufficient lead time. Under the hungry for success programme, that time is available. The manufacturers have encouraged us to continue with that approach.

What lead time did they suggest would help them to arrive at a manageable cost?

It would depend on the product, but they suggested a timescale of one to two years.

I do not think that there are any other questions from members. I thank our witnesses for attending.

It would make sense to me, given that the committee has combined its scrutiny of these two bills, if we were to produce one report on both bills rather than two separate reports. Do members agree so to do?

Members indicated agreement.

We will consider the draft report on 21 November, which will leave time for the bills to go to the lead committee.

Is that the Communities Committee?

Yes.

Do you know what the Communities Committee is doing in relation to its scrutiny of the bills?

According to the clerk, the Communities Committee has not yet set its timetable for the consideration of Frances Curran's bill. However, that should not necessarily impact on the way in which we produce our report. If we produce a report on both bills, the Communities Committee will be as well informed as we can make it about our financial considerations.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—