Official Report 215KB pdf
We will take further evidence on the bill. Our first witness is Professor Phil Hanlon, whom we all know, from the Public Health Institute of Scotland. Welcome to the meeting, Phil. You can make a short statement, if you wish, after which we will have questions.
Members either have received or will soon receive our submission. For the sake of clarity, I might as well repeat the submission's main headings, because we tried to organise our evidence as succinctly as we could around those headings.
Thank you for that.
I think that you possibly answered my first question. However, I will go a step further. Do you believe that the provision of free school meals will have a measurable or positive impact on schoolchildren's health? In answering, can you refer to any research that is evaluating the health outcomes of free school meals?
We did not have much time to research the issue, so the short answer to your second question is no. There is no equivalent to the drug-based, randomised, controlled trial that we can point to and say, "There is the evidence. That is the size of the effect." A decision will have to be made in the absence of such evidence. However, I point you to another kind of evidence.
I know from experience that although California has a no-smoking policy, one cannot breathe the air there. My asthma is testament to that.
You win some, you lose some.
You certainly lose, because the air is so polluted. Point 9 of your submission states:
Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to obfuscate the matter. If I put my trained scientist's hat on, I must adopt scientific vocabulary. That is what you get from scientists when you prompt us with such questions. If the introduction of universal free school meals of the suggested nutritional standards resulted in widespread uptake of nutritionally satisfactory meals on a near to full scale, particularly in primary schools, that would have a beneficial effect. That statement is unproblematic. Of course, the effect would be contingent on the rest of the diet because children consume only 12 per cent of their food in school time.
The One Plus submission is interesting. According to the pie chart that shows the reasons why children do not take school meals, only 16 per cent of children cannot afford them, whereas 33 per cent dislike them and 30 per cent prefer packed lunches. Does that evidence show that only 16 per cent of children might benefit from free school meals?
That is one interpretation of the results. I am trying to be as positive as I can, because I do not want to be negatively scientific. To use a piece of jargon, my point is that there are normative benefits. If we made a healthy meal in the middle of the day normative—what kids do as a matter of routine—that would have some kind of general effect. That might be an argument for universal free school meals. There is also an argument against, which is that because the cost of meals is a barrier to only 16 per cent of children, free school meals might not be taken up. Those arguments have been well rehearsed before the committee.
As you said, the decision is political. The nub of the matter is what proportion any positive improvement in health from the bill would have to the amount that the bill would cost to implement. Would the bill be the most effective use of money?
That is a big question. My submission sets out the position of the Public Health Institute of Scotland, but I can offer a personal opinion, if the committee would like me to. My best guess is that the biochemical and nutritional benefit of introducing universal provision of free school meals would be small, for the reasons that have already been rehearsed.
It would cost about £74 million more than £200 million.
Yes.
We have talked about the need for hard evidence. Do you support the introduction of a year-long pilot scheme in a particularly deprived area in order to gather such evidence?
That would be the most rational approach to take. We could conduct a randomised trial of universal free school meal provision. That would require attendant support, involving the examination of kids' behaviour and nutritional status, and other food-diary-type approaches. It would not take too long to conduct such a trial. It could be done easily and would provide the answers to some of the questions that you are asking.
Within what period would it be possible to discern whether universal provision of free school meals had made a difference? Would we need a year or longer than that?
Within a year, one could draw conclusions about the effect that the measure had had on uptake of meals. I must warn members that the likelihood of its impacting on body mass index, weight and obesity is small. The world literature is full of people who have tried—and failed—to combat the problem of obesity.
Many of them are sitting around this table.
We all live in a society that struggles with the issue of weight. We know how hard it is to combat obesity. Let us not pretend that the problem is easy to solve.
If this symbolic step were taken and universal provision of free school meals were introduced, would it be possible or practical to monitor school meals to ensure that they complied with nutritional standards?
Yes. That is not beyond the wit of man.
So there would be no problem doing that.
I would not say that, although it is not hard to measure food content against nutrition. However, there is no guarantee that the 12 per cent of children's food that is consumed at school will be reflected in their overall nutrition. That is why simply introducing universal provision of free school meals would not deal adequately with the problem that we face.
Would it be worth our while introducing universal provision of free school meals alongside other measures?
We are now talking again about my personal opinion. As has been said, the cost of extending free school meals to all children is more than £200 million. I would prefer to target that resource more, because there is a gradation of need. Other symbolic measures could be introduced. For example, primary schools are probably more amenable than others to intervention of the sort that we are discussing. As a halfway house, I would suggest that universal free school meals be introduced first in primary schools.
Would the approaches that you have outlined have a more positive effect than the introduction of universal free school meals?
They would have a stronger evidence base and be less problematic, although they would have less media impact. We have been doing the things that I have described, which usually receive no more than a few column inches here or there.
Are you saying that such measures would have a greater impact on the children?
Yes. The fruit in schools and the community school programmes can be shown to have increased the amount of fruit that children eat. They have stronger evidence bases because people have done the sorts of trials that we are discussing for free school meals. In that sense we have more confidence in such programmes. They are much less expensive and much more amenable to targeting.
Are you saying that they are more cost-effective?
Yes, but we have to be careful. Given that we do not know the effect of universal free school meals, we cannot comment. We have said that because there is a lack of evidence, it is inappropriate for us to comment. I have been forced back into scientific mode now. I cannot say that universal school meals are more or less cost-effective, because I do not have a cost-effective figure for universal free school meals.
Would a pilot project provide the scientific data that you could analyse in that respect?
Yes.
On the evidence base, what is the best example that you can give us of the fruit initiatives that you have talked about assisting the increased consumption of fruit among children?
The evidence is not at the trial level. The work that has been done in Glasgow has a captive audience for the fruit prepared and consumed in class. The number of pieces of fruit provided and consumed for a given target population can be shown.
Would you accept that, inadvertently—I am not suggesting that you did this deliberately—your evidence on the success of the fruit schemes was slightly misleading? You mentioned that Glasgow was the best example of such a scheme, yet you also mentioned targeting. However, the fruit in Glasgow is free and there is no targeting.
That is right. I am sorry, I did not mean to be misleading. My point about targeting is that, for example, the new community schools initiative can target those areas that have lost out socially and economically in the past. I agree that every child in Scotland needs more fresh fruit and vegetables than they get and therefore the fruit programme is a good universal measure.
Thank you. I appreciate what you are saying, but on the issue of what you call targeting and what I see as means testing, the evidence that you have given about the success of a particular programme relates to an area where there was no targeting.
I agree with that observation.
Do you accept that the work that was done by Nordlund and Jacobson in 1997 on free school meals provision in Sweden showed that universal free school meals increased uptake, appreciation of food and the quality of food? The study also found improvements in physical fitness, well-being and alertness. Do you accept that the latest study from Nordlund and Jacobson in 1999 shows that in the local authorities in Sweden that have begun to introduce charging for meals, all the health benefits have declined and there is less take-up? Do you think that that is good evidence that could be reasonably used by the supporters of the bill to argue that universal and healthy free school meals could improve the health of the population?
I am trying to distinguish between my scientific answers and my answers based on opinion. With my scientific hat on, I would say that such studies are observational. For example, if I were trying to get a drug introduced on the basis of an observational study, it would not be allowed. The evidence from Sweden is helpful and is the sort of evidence that would convince a scientific committee to fund a trial. It is at that level. It is supported evidence and it is helpful and I have tried to be fair to that when saying that there is evidence that cost and availability influence food consumption. To that extent, it is kosher—that may be a politically incorrect usage of the word and I apologise if it is—but it is not proof in the scientific sense.
I would not suggest for a moment that it is proof. I was suggesting only that it is reasonable for the proponents of the bill to draw on this evidence to support their arguments.
Absolutely. There is a great deal of evidence that cost, availability, presentation and other related factors influence uptake. There is no doubt that your bill would have an impact on what Scots kids eat. It is just that, at the moment, the impact would be unpredictable and the debate is around whether the impact would be worth the money.
You have sort of pre-empted my final question, but I will ask it anyway. Last week, the Health and Community Care Committee was told by Ian Young of the Health Education Board Scotland that, although there was no evidence, he confidently predicted that the bill would result in an increase in the intake of healthy food. We heard similar evidence from Dr Wrieden from Dundee University.
You are trying to put words in my mouth, so I will be careful. I am happy to go on the record as saying that I think that there is good evidence to suggest that what we eat is to some extent a habit. If we could make the consumption of healthy foods a habit right from primary 1—because primary school is a different proposition from secondary school and I wonder whether you have considered that distinction—we can be educative about it. If the meals reach a certain nutritional standard and the fast food culture that has infected our dining halls is to some extent overcome, there is something to be said for that argument.
You have mentioned several times this morning that your only concern about the universal free school meals proposal is its opportunity cost because the money might be better spent in other ways. However, the figure that you mentioned is inaccurate. According to Jack McConnell, who, as I am sure you would accept, is an unimpeachable source, the net cost would be £174 million. That assumes no other action on the part of the Executive. However, the expert panel will produce a series of recommendations for changes in the school meals service that will have a cost effect. That means that the net cost of £174 million will come down still further. Would a reduction in the net cost to less than, say, £100 million change your views?
Again, I do not want to seem to be dodging your questions, but I can speak with some confidence only about what I have written in my submission. With confidence, I can say that the opportunity cost is a key issue. The question is not whether the cost is £174 million or less than that—I am sure that some people will claim that the capital costs will be greater than you imagine—because we do not have the data that would enable us to work out the cost per life saved or heart improved or whatever.
I accept that. However, you mentioned the importance of universal access to fresh fruit and vegetables for children, no matter whether they are from poor or well-off families. Many of the initiatives that have been recommended by the Executive are not like that. For example, the Executive intends to set up a breakfast club challenge fund, which means that schools throughout Scotland will have to submit bids. Although some schools will be successful and will receive funding, many will not. That diminishes the scheme's effect.
I agree.
Is it not also the case that a targeting approach to diet, nutrition and health will have a limited effect and that it would be much better to ensure a universal approach to diet for all children in Scotland?
Just to ensure that my evidence on that is clear, I should point out that I happily subscribe to the view that we have a universal problem with respect to the diet of Scottish children. However, I am not fully convinced that the universal provision of school meals will solve that problem, although I am interested in the debate.
No one is saying that the provision of school meals will solve the problem on its own, but it could form part of a wider package to address the problem.
Yes.
Would the introduction of free school meals for everyone overcome the alleged stigma that prevents many children from taking up free meals under the present system?
I do not know. The evidence that we were able to find suggests that quite a long list of factors determine why kids do not take up school meals, no matter whether they pay for them or not. The cultural issue of escaping the school at lunchtime seems to play a large part in it.
We have all contributed to that at some time.
Indeed. Last year's conference on food and schools highlighted the stigma problem. Whatever happens to the bill, that problem needs to be solved. Again, it is not beyond the wit of man to deal with it, and I believe that there are proposals in the pipeline to do so.
You have mentioned the likely impact on health if we were to tackle the problem of diet in primary schools. However, what about introducing young pupils, particularly those in nursery schools, to fruit and various vegetables that they might well never have tasted before? Could we take a targeted approach to that that would be beneficial and would produce measurable outcomes?
The answer to your specific question is probably yes. We must introduce some form of targeted pre-school approach that would be beneficial.
Would it be a fair reflection of what you have said to say that even if we do not go ahead with the bill, the concept of piloting free school meals, particularly in primary schools, would be a useful contribution in itself?
Absolutely. The committee should hang on like a terrier to the issue. We must hang on to the fact that there is a profound problem with Scottish children's diets, including issues such as obesity and micronutrient deficiency.
In respect of that we can say, perhaps, that there are two issues about universality. People have focused so far on the financial one, which is that a bill that proposed universal free school meals would obviously help children, such as yours and mine, whose parents can afford to pay for school meals. However, you outlined a universality argument around the fact that there is obesity or lack of nutrition in all our children and that those are issues for every family with children.
There are two dimensions to that. First, there is evidence to show that there is a problem across the whole population. Secondly, what we eat is a socially determined phenomenon. Why do our kids wander off to McDonalds at lunch time? It is because that is socially determined. It is cool to do it and the other kids do it. If you change what is cool and normative, you will make a difference. That is the dimension of the bill. That is why I have tried to be balanced in my comments this morning, because the bill is a bold attempt to change the norm, particularly in primary schools, because most of the kids in the early years of primary school stay in school at lunch time. If the committee really went at the bill, if you were imaginative and promoted it, you could change the norm.
No. You expand on social culture and changing the norms in paragraph 8, page 4 of your submission in terms of what we can do to increase the uptake of school meals. Paragraph 8 refers to such things as queuing and the ambience of school eating areas. You indicated that in some cases such aspects obviously have a big capital cost attached to them. However, that evidence shows the committee that the issue is not only about universal free school meals. The issue is much more complicated.
It is the whole-school approach. For example, let us consider your or my relatively affluent kids—although I hate that distinction, because each of our kids is needy in their own way. It is—careful with one's words here—not right that they should go to a school eating environment that is just not up to it, is it? Not only is there a nutritional issue, there is also an educational and social issue about being in a bad environment over lunch time. We must consider that in and of itself, irrespective of the nutritional argument.
Absolutely. Dorothy-Grace Elder will ask the final question.
You referred to kids wandering off to McDonalds at lunch time. However, you might agree that the situation is worse than that sometimes, because school environments have vending machines that sell confectionery and soft drinks. Schools are trying to encourage the eating of fruit, but they are also making money from selling children sugar. What do you think of that?
I think that that is a scandal. How did we get to the circumstance in which a school needs to flog its conscience for a few hundred quid by vending teeth-rotting soft drinks? That is product placement, is it not? It is awful.
It often happens in the poorest areas.
Yes.
Okay. That has covered all our questions. Thank you for coming along and for your written evidence.
Thank you.
Good morning to Bill Gray, our next witness, who is the national project officer for the Scottish Community Diet Project. I invite Mr Gray to make a short statement before members ask questions.
I want to make a brief statement relating to the written evidence that I submitted. As I represent the Scottish Community Diet Project, it is important to make clear the nature of the project. We are not a lobbying or a campaigning project; we are a networking project that works with hundreds of community initiatives throughout the country. We work on poverty and diet and health inequality.
My question relates to points that you have already raised. We all agree that nutritious meals would benefit health outcomes and the health of children in the long run. In your submission you say that the impact on health is "difficult to gauge" and that establishing the effect of the school meals system and what health impact that has
I think I have answered that by saying that common sense says yes. I have no doubt that those who are more knowledgeable on the subject would be able to measure that impact. It is the scale of the impact that I have not heard any evidence about.
Could you elaborate on the point that you make in your submission under the heading "Diet and Income" that, although you have been working closely with communities in the different ways that you have outlined, you have not
On the first point, I would say that it is not at all amazing that communities have not prioritised universal free school meal provision. That is a social policy response. The communities have identified several problems and universal free school meal provision could be the response that they require. People respond to their immediate needs and try to tackle them. That is why there are food co-operatives and all sorts of other community initiatives that will not provide an answer to the big picture, but will address immediate need.
Are you saying that communities do not see universal free school meals as the answer to the bigger picture?
No. I am saying that until now communities have not raised that. That issue has been raised very successfully with communities by the people giving evidence today and by the Child Poverty Action Group, which has done a lot to raise free school meals as a social policy option in our low income communities. It has become much more of an issue for people to consider.
But low income communities have not raised it as a priority at Scottish Community Diet Project events?
Not at any of our events. We have done the reverse and ensured that everyone on our mailing list has had the bill brought to their attention and has been encouraged to think carefully and get involved in the debate.
Will you spell out the evidence behind the desire to buy into a service instead of simply remaining a recipient of that service?
I am not claiming that this evidence is particularly strong, but we have a lot of experience with breakfast clubs, which is a slightly different kind of initiative. That said, when establishing breakfast clubs, local groups have carried out many surveys and have fed back that people seem willing to pay a relatively low, affordable price to feed into the schemes. I was simply giving an opinion based on anecdotal evidence about why people have chosen to respond in that way to those surveys.
The One Plus submission mentions that, in a survey that it carried out, 16 per cent of children said that they could not afford school meals. Have you come across the same evidence on your travels?
As evidence from my own project, from the Scottish Consumer Council conference and from the research that the SCC conducted with the Health Education Board for Scotland shows, cost is a major factor. No one has ever questioned that. However, quality of food and the environment that a child eats in are also major factors.
How many groups have fed into your consultation to enable you to arrive at the evidence that you have submitted today? In other words, what is your evidence based on?
My evidence is largely based on five and a half years of constant networking with low-income families, arranging conferences and seminars, attending other events, commissioning articles for the newsletter, organising study tours and all the other activities that we have undertaken. As I said, I worked with a community health project for eight years before that.
With respect, I am trying to get you to home in on how your evidence applies to the bill, which was not around five and a half years ago and indeed has only existed in written form for the best part of six months. Are you suggesting that your evidence is based on your own experience rather than on the consultation with various groups involved in the Scottish Community Diet Project?
The evidence is based on our contact with people and groups in the field. In four out of the last five editions of our newsletter, we have gone out of our way to promote the bill and to encourage local communities to do the same. We have never tried to act as a representative for the hundreds of local community groups that exist; that is not within our remit and we are not seeking to do that today.
It is important that that statement should be on the record. I do not know whether you heard our earlier discussion on this point. We are hearing a lot of evidence in relation to the bill. When anecdotal evidence is used to argue against it—which is what happened at yesterday's Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting—it can be quite powerful; however, the anecdotal evidence used to support the bill has not been as powerful. I am sure that you will understand now why I have raised the matter.
School meals are the issue and access to school meals has always been an issue. We have to relate the problems that communities identify to the scale of the solution that they come up with. Communities that have identified school meals as a problem with regard to those who miss out and those who have problems over the summer have come up with responses to those problems.
It would not be unreasonable to discern from your evidence that exclusion from entitlement to free school meals is an issue for low-income families.
It is definitely an issue.
The issue seems to boil down to cost. Are you saying that an improvement in health, possibly through free school meals, would not be proportionate to the cost of implementing the bill?
No. I could not say that. I could no more say that the improvement in health would be proportionate to the cost than I could say that it would not be proportionate to the cost. I do not think that the evidence exists to support either position, which is why I am suggesting a pilot.
We keep coming back to evidence. You will perhaps agree that during the war the Government had no evidence that providing free orange juice and milk for all children would help them. That was perhaps just common sense and the Government went ahead without evidence.
I would always bow to the Public Health Institute of Scotland or the Health Education Board for Scotland when it comes to the best research methodology. I was trying to reflect the diversity of Scotland's schools. In rural areas there are small schools and schools with large catchment areas, into which children are bussed. There are a lot of factors. I am suggesting that that diversity needs to be reflected, but I would be happy if organisations with research experience thought otherwise.
You seem to support a pilot scheme of a length that is sensible enough to show results. Is that correct?
I do not think that anyone who claims that there is inadequate evidence could argue against trying to get the evidence; that would be hypocritical.
Would the evidence be taken from a large area with a large number of children—say a whole city such as Glasgow or Dundee?
Again, I would take the lead from those that are more knowledgeable about creating a decent research proposal.
Do you believe that free school meals for all children would help to overcome the current stigma and improve uptake among children who are not claiming their entitlement?
I believe that universal free school meals are very likely to have an impact on both those areas.
Do you have any evidence for that?
Again, it is a matter of common sense. Universal free school meals are not likely to create a bigger stigma and they are not likely to reduce uptake. It is a question of quantifying the degree of improvement in those areas in proportion to the degree of investment.
Again, the only way of getting scientific evidence that is hard to refute is by carrying out a pilot project of some kind.
I think so, although, coming from a community development perspective, I would want to ensure that any pilot also took account of the range of factors involved, including the processes that are involved in the delivery of a school meal system. A pilot should not focus only on the fact that the meals are free—one could run a free school meal system that was bad and unpopular. We need to examine the other factors at the same time.
The pilot would need to be properly run.
I work a lot with local communities and they always argue that they have had so many pilots that they should have their own airports. On this occasion, I might go against my experience of local communities, which are sick of pilots. The pilot would have to be adequately researched. The important thing for local communities is that pilots are acted upon if they prove to be successful.
So it would need to be something that would fly and have a destination?
That is a good pun.
Thanks. It was not that good.
I want to ask about a reply that you gave earlier. You said that your experience of breakfast clubs was that many parents preferred to buy into a service, rather than get it free. Was any work done on finding out why that was the case? It strikes me that the stigma that is attached to getting something for free is a big factor for many parents. Is it the humiliation of the means test that means that parents would prefer to pay some small contribution to show that they are not a burden on the state, as is often alleged?
That needs to be examined. I hope that that will be considered, either as part of or beyond the breakfast club review that is taking place. Your point is common sense and matches my experience.
Your submission warns against imposing dietary initiatives on communities. Do you accept the argument of others that universal provision of a free school meal would increase ownership for communities, because it would tie all parents into the school meal service?
Steps would need to be taken to ensure that all parents were tied in. We could not presume that that would be automatic.
Is it not the case that a universal free school meal would not impose anything on anyone, but would confer eligibility on everyone, just like the national health service? Surely that cannot be regarded as imposing something? We can give people eligibility and then negotiate how the free school meal service should be delivered.
You referred to breakfast clubs and I was basing those comments on my experience with breakfast clubs. It was mentioned earlier that there was some enthusiasm for having breakfast clubs in all schools. However, my experience and the research show that breakfast clubs work best where they are wanted. I was reflecting on the experience of imposing breakfast clubs on a school where the teaching staff, janitor, parents or anyone else is less than keen. Breakfast clubs in such schools are much more likely to be unsuccessful or unsustainable.
I just want to clarify that that argument does not apply to universal eligibility for free school meals in all schools.
That is right. However, work would still need to be done to involve parents and engage everyone else as much as possible. Ownership would not be created automatically, but would need to be worked on.
That specific criticism was about breakfast clubs, rather than the proposal for universal free school meals.
The criticism was based on the experience of breakfast clubs.
You also said that the school meal service has obtained the Scottish healthy choices award because there is wide and effective consultation on best practice. In the event of a school meal service being universally free, would it be possible to conduct such wide and effective consultation before the service was implemented?
Yes; that would be essential.
And practical?
Yes, and not just before the service was implemented, but on an on-going basis. It is important to have consultation not just prior to setting up a system, but while the service is provided. When we visit a primary or secondary school where there is good provision, it is clear that that is because there is on-going participation by all the relevant parties.
Thank you for your evidence. We will now take evidence from the witnesses from One Plus.
I thank the committee for inviting One Plus to give evidence and for enabling lone parents to make their voice heard on this important issue. My colleagues are Rose Wilmot, who was involved in the research on children's views; Deborah Doyle from Easterhouse, who will say something about the poverty trap; and Teresa McCormack from Pollokshaws, who will touch on issues around stigma.
You mentioned stigma as a main issue. The evidence that we have taken on that issue seems to differ. Can you give me practical examples of stigma? Why would removing stigma be such a big part of the benefit of providing universal free school meals?
I have a younger sister who is about to go to secondary school. She is embarrassed about taking free school meals, because some of her friends pay for their lunch. There are two canteens. One is a cash cafeteria for pupils who pay for lunches. The other is for those who get free school meals. Taking free school meals stigmatises a lot of children because everybody knows who takes free school meals and who pays for their lunch.
I do not think that anyone would doubt that some schools' systems are unsatisfactory and lead to children being stigmatised. However, I know that there are initiatives such as swipe cards. With a bit of creative thinking, we might be able to come up with other initiatives that could overcome stigma without making free school meals universal. Do you have views on such systems?
Even with swipe cards, there is a cash limit for those who receive free school meals compared with those who pay for their lunch. If a young person who received free school meals went over their limit on the swipe card, they would have to return something. The other children would then know that they were still on free school meals.
It is obvious that providing universal free school meals would have a huge cost impact. Marion Davis mentioned that the School Meals (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity for the Parliament to put money into the pockets of those in poverty. However, as this is a health committee, we are primarily interested in whether there would be health benefits from providing universal free school meals. Instead of large sums of money being put into providing universal free school meals, could that money not be better used to improve the education system? Such an improvement would have a knock-on benefit for those in poverty and would assist in the longer term in removing people from the poverty trap.
Recent statistics have demonstrated the horrendous problems of ill health and poverty in Glasgow. Universal free school meals would contribute to improving Glasgow's situation and so should be a top expenditure priority. There is a close link between being in poverty, being on income support over a long period and struggling on a low income, and both the parent and the children in one parent families being in poor health. If we can contribute towards improving the standard of living of not only lone parents who want to go out to work, but lone parents who are in work, that would be good.
You mentioned the number of children who are eligible for free school meals but who do not take up their entitlement. I agree that the stigma that is attached to free school meals is one of the main reasons for that; indeed, eradicating such stigma is one of the reasons for supporting the bill. Do any other factors influence the low uptake of free school meals? If so, what are they and how would the bill tackle them?
I am a lone parent from Easterhouse with five sons; my middle three boys are triplets. I hope to be ready for employment in a year's time—I passed my Scottish vocational qualification in community work last year, and this year I am going to college and doing various things in between. I was told by the new deal adviser that I would need to earn a minimum wage of about £16,000 to £18,000 a year so that I could afford to go to work. Once I start work, I will need to pay about £200 a month to ensure that my kids get school meals. Over the next nine years, four of my kids will go to school, and that will work out at about £16,000 for school meals without taking interest rates and other factors into consideration. Getting this bill through would be a major benefit, as it would mean that my kids could have a hot meal in the afternoon.
In our survey, we found that many children who took school meals did not get their first choice. That is off-putting, because it means that they might be getting food that they are not keen on. The next time, they might refuse school dinners and ask their parents for a packed lunch instead.
One of the witnesses last week said that a child who takes free school meals is more likely not to get their first choice—even if they have a swipe card—because of the limit that you mentioned. Is that an issue?
I think that different schools have different arrangements for free school meals.
If my kids are among the last in the queue, they might get only one sausage and a spoonful of beans for their lunch.
Is that because of bad management in the dinner hall? Is not enough food being ordered?
The kids have to stand in another queue to get their ticket while the other kids who pay go and get their lunch. That means that the kids who pay for their meals get first choice.
Marion Davis mentioned that paying for school meals creates a barrier to work, and Deborah Doyle outlined a very good example of that. Would you go so far as to say that there would be a cost saving if such a barrier were removed, because more people could start work and come off benefit?
Offering free school meals to all children will not of itself enable more lone parents to start work. However, if it formed part of a comprehensive package, it would boost the in-work income of lone parents who come off income support and move into employment. Other policies would have to fit into place beside that. However, someone on a low income with two children might have to pay up to £20 a week for school meals; if the service was free, they would be able to spend £20 on something else. For example, they could use that money to pay their council tax.
It was about whether extending eligibility would be enough.
Right—extending eligibility to the low paid. I assume that you mean people who claim working families tax credit.
Yes.
Universal free school meals would improve the end-mark income of those people, but it still would not address the stigma. What child wants to be labelled as a second-class citizen and set apart from their peers? No matter how sophisticated the technology that is put in place to address stigma, children still know who in their class is getting a free school meal. They know that their friend who has a swipe card for a free school meal can afford to spend only £1.10, or whatever it is in Glasgow. However, the other child, whose credit limit is higher, can also buy a bottle of water that can cost up to 60p. Irrespective of the technology that is put in place, that problem will not be resolved. The case for universality is sound.
Will the provision of free school meals to all Scottish school children have a measurable impact on health, given that many of those on low incomes already receive free school meals and universal provision would generally benefit more wealthy children? Do you have specific research that has evaluated the health outcomes of free school meals?
We accept that children from wealthier families would benefit from universal provision. However, children from better income families do not necessarily have a nutritious lunch or a nutritious meal at home in the evening. I highlighted earlier that almost half the children in Scotland who are defined as poor by the Government do not take up their entitlement to a free school meal. Universality is a way of reaching the people whom we want to target. That is why child benefit and other universal benefits are so successful. That is also why there are problems with benefits such as working families tax credit, whose major shortcoming is that eligible people do not claim because the benefit is means tested. Universality is at the core of our argument and that of other organisations that want to tackle child poverty.
Page 8 of your submission contains a pie chart on why children do not take school meals, which says that 33 per cent of children dislike them, 30 per cent like packed lunches, 14 per cent go home and 5 per cent go to the shops. Two per cent made no response and only 16 per cent said that they could not afford school meals. We have received submissions from various councils; last week I was surprised by a submission from Glasgow City Council, which said that it was not favourably disposed toward free school meals, despite the levels of poverty and deprivation in Glasgow. Angus Council said that free school meals would
That direct connection cannot be made. It is bad that 16 per cent of children of primary age feel that they cannot have a school meal because their parents cannot afford it. In general, children of that age do not put finance at the top of their school meals priority list.
My point is that 33 per cent—twice as many as cannot afford school meals—dislike school meals.
The children were given a free choice with the question—there were no boxes to tick. They were given the chance to write what they felt, so they did not prioritise by a list. They did not have to say whether they disliked school meals—that just came out. The question was not multiple choice. The answers reflect the children's priorities.
Some children who dislike school meals might also be unable to afford them. As Rose Wilmot said, the answers were in response to an open question.
The point is that only one segment of the pie chart—16 per cent—says that the problem is financial.
I would like to move on.
I thank Theresa McCormack for attending. You talked about your sister's humiliation, which made her dread going to secondary school. I presume that you had the same experience at the same school.
I did.
Will you describe that and go into a bit more detail about the two cafeterias? Was the standard of food lower in the cafeteria that served children who took free school meals?
The two cafeterias are a new development in the school. When I was there, the school had a healthy option bar, which was called the milk bar, and a big canteen, which served chips and so on. There were two lines. As has been said, kids with dinner tickets had to line up first and show their tickets to enter the cafeteria. Now, kids who pay enter the cash cafeteria, which sells fast food and has no healthy option. That cafeteria sells food such as burgers and pizzas. I am not too sure about the canteen, because my sister does not start secondary school until summer.
Did you sometimes not take up a free school meal out of humiliation and embarrassment?
Yes.
Tell me a bit more about that, please.
A lot of the time we would just go out and walk about down at the shops instead of going into the canteen. A lot of people would sell their dinner tickets because they did not like the idea of having to stand in a big queue—the school was massive—and show their dinner ticket with all the other people looking on. It was really quite embarrassing sometimes.
Did that cloud your school days? Are you still at school, Theresa?
No, I am not.
You just look very young.
For the record, convener, although Mary Scanlon has referred a couple of times to Glasgow City Council's evidence, we should make it clear that the evidence was not from Glasgow City Council. The beginning of the submission makes it clear that it is not from Glasgow City Council. I have also had a letter from the chief executive of Glasgow City Council to say that the submission's conclusion should have made it clearer that it was not Glasgow City Council's evidence.
The evidence was written by the chief executive of Glasgow City Council.
That is what I have tried to explain to you, Mary.
We shall seek clarification for members.
Please do so because I know that tomorrow's Education, Culture and Sport Committee meeting will discuss that evidence. There has been some disquiet over it.
I can hear your speech in the chamber any time I like. Can I have a question, please?
Sure. I will come to that.
No. You will come to the question now, please. Everybody else asks questions without making speeches. Ask the question.
I will come to the question, but your invitations to witnesses have been balanced against the bill. That is the problem.
I do not accept that. The calling of witnesses has been totally balanced. In fact, you and I had a private conversation about the fact that we felt that the evidence taking was balanced. Ask the question.
I think that you will find that we disagreed during that conversation. I said that I thought that there was an imbalance.
The issue of stigma is alive and well and comes up regularly within our organisation. When we did the survey of children, we also had a focus group of parents. The parents talked about the stigma that was involved in free school dinners when they were younger. The parents were really keen that their children should not have to go through that.
Can you explain to the committee who One Plus represents? On whose behalf are you speaking today?
One Plus is the United Kingdom's largest lone-parent organisation. We work with lone parents in a range of ways. We offer advice and information, we work with lone parents based in local communities, and we deliver training and employment. We are a representative organisation and most members of our management committee are lone parents. We try to act on behalf of lone parents.
How did you arrive at your policy on the bill? Are you speaking on your own behalf or on behalf or your organisation?
I am speaking on behalf of the organisation. The One Plus committee discussed the School Meals (Scotland) Bill and agreed to support it.
I will have to bring this part of this evidence-taking session to a conclusion, as we have another set of witnesses to hear. Thank you very much for attending and for your written submission, including the pie chart.
Thank you very much for inviting us.
We will now hear from our last witnesses today, who represent the Food Standards Agency Scotland.
Thank you for the invitation. The committee has received our submission, so I will not discuss that; instead, I will tell the committee a little bit about the Food Standards Agency. The agency was created in April 2000 as a non-ministerial UK Government department—which is quite a mouthful. We have an independent board consisting of lay people, who provide the agency's strategic direction, but the agency itself is accountable to health ministers. Food safety matters are devolved, so a distinct arm of the agency—the Food Standards Agency Scotland—is based in Aberdeen. I, as director, am accountable to the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Scottish Parliament.
In your written submission you agree that nutritious school meals would improve the health of pupils. Do you agree that providing free school meals to all pupils would maximise the potential health impact?
That is a difficult question. I return to the fact that the views we take are evidence-based. I am not trying to skirt the issue, but I do not think that evidence on that exists. I emphasise that the agency's priority is to ensure that there are high standards of nutrition throughout Scotland's school meals system. Whether that would be maximised through universal provision of free school meals, I cannot say.
Let us assume that all school meals are nutritious. In paragraph 7 of your evidence you state:
I will start to answer that question, then hand over to Lydia Wilkie for more detail. Many factors influence the situation, such as nutrition, the appeal of the food, where the food is served, and the number of alternative sources of food. There is a multiplicity of factors. Lydia Wilkie will address the question in more detail.
We are actively involved in the expert panel on school meals, on which we have a representative. One issue that has been identified is uptake. We have carried out research that links to that. We performed a focus-group study to examine why the messages that people know about—for example, many children know about the message to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, because that is being taught in the curriculum—are not being put into practice. We want to see whether the information that we gain can be used to address school canteen issues. One of the messages that came out of the research is that the term "healthy eating" is a turn-off. People feel that they can more easily buy into a message about better eating and its positive effects. The research has been fed into the expert panel, and may contribute to chipping away at the poor uptake of school meals.
Are you really saying that improving the uptake of what we assume will be nutritional meals has more to do with schools' and education authorities' management, the presentation of the food and the provision of the service? Are you saying that those are more important in increasing uptake than giving everyone a free school meal?
I am not saying that those are the most important factors, but they must be considered. We cannot just look at—
What is the most important factor?
On our evidence so far, good nutrition and accessibility are as important.
How, in that case, do we improve accessibility?
The expert panel is trying to find out what is best practice throughout Scotland. There have, under the Scottish diet action plan, been a tremendous number of initiatives. It is important to review those to determine best practice. I am sure that the committee has done that to a certain extent. The expert panel is bringing together its expert knowledge to determine definitive best practice. That does not naturally go as far as considering whether universal provision of free school meals is the way to implement best practice.
If any one in the public gallery has a mobile phone switched on, they should switch it off, because it interferes with the sound system.
I thought that that was Bill Butler thinking.
I think that Tommy Sheridan is listening to himself again.
There is no scientific evidence—
With respect, that is not what the submission says. It says that there "is no evidence" that such provision would do anything at all. Why are you so certain that free school meals would not play even the smallest part in improving uptake? Such provision might not be a worthwhile addition, but you say that it would play no part whatever in improving uptake. What is your evidence for that?
We have no negative evidence, either. The statement was meant to be a bald statement of fact. We have no scientific evidence to show—
With respect, is it not a bald statement of opinion rather than fact? I have a problem with it. Professor Hanlon was careful to be even-handed and objective. The question is not easy, but you seem to have gone at it pell-mell, given an opinion and dressed it up as a fact. How do you know that?
I accept your point—perhaps our wording could have been better couched.
How would you restate what you said?
I would restate it in the way that you stated it. With the evidence that is available, it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion.
So what I have said has led you to reappraise that part of the submission. Are you now saying that that is not 100 per cent certain?
Yes.
Good. Other witnesses have suggested that, as the question cannot be proved conclusively one way or the other, a way of progressing the matter and obtaining objective scientific data would be to have a pilot project. What do you think of that suggestion?
In general, the Food Standards Agency is comfortable with that suggestion. As I said in my preamble, the agency has been very much an evidence-based organisation in respect of the hard sciences such as chemistry and biology. We are putting much more emphasis on social science research and research on nutrition and diet. In doing so, we are supporting some pilot projects—Professor Anderson has a couple in the Dundee area. We favour pilots to advance knowledge.
Do you mean the sort of pilots that other members of the committee proposed to witnesses? Do you think that such pilots would be a positive way of trying to answer a question that cannot absolutely be answered at this stage?
In science, pilots are used all the time to test theories.
Do you favour a pilot of the sort that has been suggested?
I apologise for the fact that I was not here when the details of such a pilot were discussed, but in principle I would support one.
I do not expect you to respond to this, but a couple of witnesses mentioned that it might be easier to achieve the ends of the bill by restricting universal free school meals to primary school children.
Do you accept that, for a pilot to be effective, it would have to be run in a large area, such as a whole city or education authority? It would also have to be conducted in an area that was home to a considerable number of children from deprived backgrounds, as well as children from families that are not so deprived. You referred to an area of Dundee in which some sort of pilot was under way—although I do not think that it was a pilot for universal free school meals. Do you accept that any pilot for universal free schools meals could not be restricted to a district, and that it would have to be substantial and serious?
I do not accept that any pilot scheme would have to cover a whole area. How a pilot is run depends on what one is trying to prove, on the methodology that is being followed and on the statistical base that is required. The study might be stratified to focus on children between five and 11 in urban centres. It could cover a representative sample of primary schools in a local authority.
The FSA Scotland is an agency of the Scottish Executive. In fact, in your submission you refer to the Executive four times. Does that make your evidence biased against the universal provision of free school meals?
The FSA Scotland is not an agency of the Scottish Executive. We are a UK body.
You are funded by the Scottish Executive.
Yes, and we are accountable politically to the Scottish Parliament. You asked whether we were too cosy with the Scottish Executive.
Is your opposition to the universal provision of free school meals influenced in any way by your relationship with the Scottish Executive?
I do not think so. My point applies to pilots as well as to the general statement that we made—and have since modified—regarding the impact on uptake of making free school meals available to all. In different ways, we are all seeking new knowledge and evidence that will enable us to make sensible policy. The Scottish Executive, the UK Government and everyone else subscribe to the principles of joined-up government and partnership.
However, your submission seems to focus on whether the universal provision of free school meals would be cost-effective. We all agree that better nutrition in schools is a necessity.
Yes.
I refer you to the evidence that you have given regarding stigma and how that can be ended. You mention smart cards as one way of overcoming the stigma that is associated with means testing. However, we have heard evidence from other witnesses—including, this morning, from people who are at the receiving end of means testing—that smart cards would not work. For a free school meals smart card there would be a credit limit of £1.10, but for every other kind of smart card there would be no credit limit. As soon as children went to get their food, it would become obvious that one person was receiving a free school meal and another was not. Do you accept that?
We recognise the problem that the member describes as a barrier. That is why we are working with members of the expert panel to identify best practice in this area. A variety of options and methodologies are being introduced in schools throughout Scotland.
Can you comment specifically on the smart cards? They are the only suggestion to end stigma, other than universal free school meals, that has come forward during the discussion on the bill. How do you stop comparisons being made between the cards, when a free school meal smart card is limited to £1.10 and the other cards have no such limit? How can you overcome that? Would everybody who pays for a meal have to be limited to spending £1.10?
That is outwith the remit of our Government departments. What we are trying to do is within our remit.
I thought that the remit of the expert panel was to address stigma.
Lydia Wilkie is saying that the Food Standards Agency does not have a position on smart cards.
Our position is that we recognise that we need to break down barriers. We will work with people to do that as far as possible so that our aim, which is general nutrition improvement, can be met.
You have mentioned the whole-school approach several times this morning. We have heard from the evidence given to us by the previous witnesses, who are means tested, that they are excluded from the school meal service because of embarrassment about being means tested. Does that not make nonsense of your arguments for a whole-school approach? If you allow means testing in a school, you immediately exclude children from the school lunch in the middle of the day, which is a major part of the school experience. They cannot go because they cannot afford it, or they are too embarrassed to go because they get a free school meal. Does that not make nonsense of the whole-school approach?
Not necessarily.
So people can be excluded and there can still be a whole-school approach.
It depends on whether stigma is the total reason. I accept the evidence that was presented by the previous witnesses, but I think that other factors influence the pupil's decision. I do not think that we know—I certainly do not know and, if evidence has been presented, I would be pleased to see it—how strongly those factors weigh in the decisions of the pupil. I accept that stigmatisation has been presented as being the critical factor, but I think that there is evidence to show that there are other factors; I do not know whether they are critical factors or minor influencing factors.
Are you saying that if stigma remains inside the system there cannot be a whole-school approach?
I agree that stigmatisation would have to be addressed for a whole-school approach to work effectively.
It would have to be removed, not addressed.
Yes.
Notwithstanding John McAllion's comments on the whole-school approach, your submission states that there is overwhelming evidence that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to ensure a healthy eating strategy in schools. Are you saying that that is more effective than providing universal free school meals? If so, on what evidence do you base that statement?
We are talking about two different evidence bases. The problem is that we do not have the evidence base to say that the provision of free school meals will, per se, change the nutrition that a child is taking in. Our view is that there is evidence to suggest that the priority is to marry what is being taught about healthy eating in the school curriculum to availability of healthy options and an appealing set-up of the dining area so that children are actively encouraged to use it. We must also find ways to remove stigmas and other barriers. That is the positive way to move forward. The expert panel that has been examining that matter is due to pull its conclusions together towards the end of the month. Its specific aim is to consider best practice and see how to take that forward. It will be important to review how effective that is. Our view is that, if we were to consider taking it to the next step, which is universal free school meals, we should first develop the whole-school approach and review its effectiveness.
Would you say that the whole-school approach—breakfast clubs, fruit in schools, the curriculum and so on—and providing meals that are attractive and healthy, although not necessarily free, would be a better use of resources in improving the health and nutrition of our children?
The finer resource issues are a matter for ministers rather than the agency. Our focus is to consider children and school meals in the context of our wider aim, which is to improve the diet of people in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The next question is from Nicola Sturgeon. It will have to be the final question because we have run out of time. We have to curtail the meeting because our report to the Finance Committee on the budget is due tomorrow.
If the introducer of the bill wants to take the final question, I am happy to defer to him.
Thank you, Nicola.
I would not accept that we were being completely biased. I hope that that is not the view of the committee. We have tried to convey to the committee—
I am sorry, but your submission says:
We retracted that statement.
We covered that at length earlier.
What about your statement that
Without getting into a long answer—
If you have the answer you should give it to us.
There is no evidence on that—not even from Finland, which first introduced free school meals in the early 1900s and then more seriously after the war. There is no concrete evidence from Finland that that has been successful. In fact, one could say that Finland is experiencing similar problems to those of Scotland and other developed countries, such as obesity and cardiovascular problems.
Thank you for giving evidence and for your written submission. That brings the public part of this morning's meeting to a close. We will continue in private to discuss items on the MMR report and our budget report.
Meeting continued in private until 12:24.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation