Official Report 108KB pdf
Provision of School Lunches (Disapplication of the Requirement to Charge) (Scotland) Order 2008 (Draft)
Good morning. I open the 26th meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee and remind all those who are present that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off for the duration of the meeting.
That is correct. In the nine-month period of the evaluation, there was insufficient time to evaluate the long-term health impacts on children of the universal provision of free school meals. Nevertheless, there is now consensus on the role of the school in improving children's diet and ensuring that they eat healthily during the school day. That has underpinned the hungry for success approach and the implementation of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007. There is evidence that those measures have improved the nutritional quality of school meals, but they have not succeeded in increasing the number of children who benefit from that healthy food in school.
I have had the pleasure of being able to give evidence to the committee before. The convener has hit on one of the most difficult aspects of any school meals policy: the long-term impact on health. We have already said in our written evidence that the longer-term outcomes are mixed. John Dickie helpfully laid out some of the health-related behaviours that research into the most recent trials picked up on. However, that evidence is rather limited because of the timescale involved.
I apologise to Mr Turner. I understand that he has been in the Parliament for some time and I am glad that he has been able to join us. I am sorry for the confusion. Visitors to the committee will be interested to know that he represents the Aberlour Child Care Trust.
Tam Baillie made a particularly good point about the wider things that are going on in children's lives. Are the witnesses aware of any monitoring of the amount of waste in the pilot? Is there a methodology for getting some indication of what was wasted and what was consumed? I have some evidence from local authorities across Scotland that there are variable methods of monitoring waste. The same applies to the free fruit scheme that the previous Administration introduced. If we are to roll out free school meals nationally, it is important that we have a consistent methodology for assessing the policy's success.
One of the points that the researchers made was that they were not charged with the responsibility of monitoring what the children actually ate. I think that one of their recommendations for future research was for much closer monitoring of how much of the school meal the children eat and of everything else around that. That would mirror some of the evidence from Hull.
Although there would be more waste because more children got school meals, the evaluation was clear that the proportion of waste did not increase as a result of introducing universal free school meals. That is based on feedback from catering and school staff.
One of the points that we made in our written evidence is that, while we are disappointed by the controversy over the funding for free school meals, there is evidence from other European countries that such provision is not necessarily as costly as people in Scotland have conjectured. For example, Sweden provides free school meals throughout pre-school, primary and secondary education, on a much more cost-effective basis. One way in which it does that is by not having a repertoire of foods for children, but having a single meal, without a choice. Choice comes in through the children's participation in the selection and preparation of menus, so that they feel ownership of and involvement in what gets served in school meals. Consequently, the level of wastage is less and the per capita cost of producing the meals is lower.
Good morning. I want to ask about something that ties in with evidence that was presented at our meeting on 19 September 2007, particularly by Children in Scotland and the Aberlour Child Care Trust. I think that it was Marion Macleod's colleague Paula Evans who made the strong point that the policy to deal with the school meals issue in primaries 1 to 3 was not going to be particularly effective unless we dealt with the food issue at a younger age and that part of the problem starts long before the age of five. We have extremely tight resources. Would you suggest that the policy should perhaps shift, in an attempt to target some of the younger children and deal with those of kindergarten age or younger? If not, are you content for the policy to be directed just at primaries 1 to 3?
As my predecessor articulated at that committee meeting, we are clear that it would be important to introduce children and, indeed, families to healthy eating and perhaps to a different approach to food preparation and dining from the approach that is taken at present. However, there are logistical difficulties in early years services that we would need to consider. For example, many children in full day care are not in state-provided full day care, and many children in state-provided pre-school nursery education are there for only two and a half hours in the day and do not receive a meal there. There would need to be a review of entitlement in early years, were provision for that area to be considered.
That point sends a strong message to people who may or may not legislate on the issue. We may be content that provision should be at the level of primaries 1 to 3, which could help considerably, but we must also recognise that that approach does not get at the root of the problem, which obviously exists before children reach the age of five. Does the panel think that we could do more through central or local government policy to try to help younger age groups and to help with parenting and understanding? Could we do something in that regard to ensure that we have a better chance with children when they come to primary 1?
I am happy to answer that point. We have called for hungry for success measures to go downstream, if you like. The question is whether that will be done instead of or as well as other measures. We are on the threshold of the launch of an early years framework, and we hope that some attention will be paid to the eating habits of children in early years, who are in a complicated matrix of provision. Such a measure is certainly worth looking at, but its implementation would need careful consideration because there is not the same uniformity of provision for early years as there is for the primary school stage. However, I agree that eating habits are formed very early on and do not just start at the level of primaries 1 to 3.
It is not too late by primary 1, but I agree that we need to look back and see how we can ensure that children eat healthily and have access to healthy food before they reach primary school. There is no question but that deficiencies in that regard have an impact on children's ability to attain at school. However, there is evidence that suggests that appropriate interventions can help to make up for those deficiencies.
My real concern is about resources. If we take a universal approach to free school meals in primaries 1 to 3, we will be helping some children who are perhaps less in need of that targeted approach. There are genuine cases of children who are desperate for help. I am concerned that, if we make provision universal in primaries 1 to 3, we will take up resources that might be better used in another age group or for more specific targeting of areas where the real problem lies.
Children in Scotland is absolutely in favour of universal and destigmatised provision. However, the argument that we need to ensure that take-up reaches those children who are most in need has some validity. There is slightly concerning evidence that, in some of the pilot areas, take-up was proportionally higher among children who were not previously eligible for free school meals than among those who were. That issue needs attention.
You are absolutely right—I understand the point that you are making. However, we must deal with the reality of the situation, which is that we have a tight budget. A large number of councils say that the measure will be difficult to fund. The choice is not between provision in the pre-school age group and provision in primaries 1 to 3, but between targeting children who are most in need and provision for those who, in my view, are less in need. That opportunity cost is the crux of the matter. We will not be able to provide enough resources to deal with the whole issue at once.
The Government is committed to both approaches. It is committed to universal provision in P1 to P3. We have given considerable support to measures to alleviate the situation of children who are living in poverty. Like the commitment to provide free school meals in P1 to P3, those measures are part of the concordat. We hope that concordat commitments can be implemented across the board.
The issue of wastage has been raised. The evidence from the trial was that there was no proportionate increase in wastage compared with the pre-trial situation. Marion Macleod gave us some insight into how that came about. Would other members of the panel like to comment on the issue?
It is good if there is no increase in wastage.
The results of the trial ran counter to some peoples' expectations. If something that people would not normally get for free is given to them free, there is a risk that they will throw more of it away, but that was not borne out in the trial. An important finding of the evaluation was that there was no proportionate increase in the level of waste.
It is recognised that the level of wastage in primaries 1 to 3 is slightly higher than among older children, because younger children do not eat as much. When the scheme is extended, we should try to find ways of monitoring wastage and encouraging children to eat as much of their meals as possible. We should also look at whether children are differentiating between the healthier and less healthy things on their plates.
Some of the evidence from the Hull research and the free school meals pilot there was that, when teachers sat down and ate with pupils, that had a big impact on whether and what children ate. That is part of the wider approach. How meals are delivered can help to ensure that wastage is reduced as far as possible.
I agree. Although it may not be possible to deliver a raft of measures in support of the provision of free school meals, schools could actively consider their approach to school meals and the context in which they serve them. There could be a change from the queuing-up cafeteria-style approach to something that is much more of a social learning opportunity. That would have nutritional and wastage reduction benefits, as well as benefits for social learning and behaviour.
On a slightly different topic, we have heard about uptake among children who were previously entitled to but unregistered for free school meals and general uptake among children who would not normally be entitled. Can the panel give an insight into the impact that uptake has on stigma?
There is some evidence from the evaluation of the pilot that children are enjoying eating school meals more—even those who already took school meals. The evaluators posit some explanations for that, although they cannot prove those. Part of the reason may be to do with children being able to sit alongside their friends who now get a school meal but who previously did not. There is evidence that the approach has removed a barrier that stopped children taking the school meals to which they were entitled and that children are enjoying them more than they did previously. To return to the issue of the proportionate increase, among those who were not previously registered for or entitled to free school meals, the proportionate increase is massive. We cannot underestimate the huge impact of the measure—there was a 22 percentage point increase across the board and a 28 percentage point increase among those who were not previously entitled.
Stigma has been recognised as a barrier to uptake, particularly among the older age group, although not so much in the primary age group—the uptake in primaries has tended to be higher. There are potential public health benefits as a result of the switch that I mentioned from packed lunches to school lunches, especially if we pay attention to the nutritional value of the school meals that are served up through the hungry for success initiative. We need to capture data on that through longer-term monitoring. The most significant increase was among pupils who were previously not qualified or did not register for free school meals.
One interesting impact that is mentioned in the evaluation report is the increase in uptake between primary 4 and primary 7. When I saw that evidence, my immediate thought was that that was because parents who could not afford two school meals were now getting one free, which meant that they could afford to pay for their older child's school meal. Have the witnesses picked up on that impact from speaking to parents?
I have not spoken to any of the parents whose children were involved in the pilot. However, the increase in uptake is quite modest. The situation to which you refer is one of the unintended outcomes of the pilot and, without knowing the detail, it is quite difficult to comment on it. We know, however, that the policy may have some knock-on effects on parents of older children who are living in poverty, in terms of increased uptake in the later years.
The evaluation highlights the fact that some parents said that they were able to pay for a school meal for an older child only because they were getting a free meal for a younger child. Although I have not received any direct additional feedback from parents on that issue, the evaluation is quite clear on that point.
I would like to clarify some figures that John Dickie has already half-clarified. In your written submission, you suggest that the increased take-up among children who already qualified for free school meals was 8.5 per cent. That contradicts the Barnardo's submission, which puts the figure at 4 per cent. I am not trying to catch you out.
It was up to 8.5 per cent.
Exactly. I think that it varied from 3.4 per cent; however, across the board, the average was 4.4 per cent. Tam Baillie has expanded on the reason why that matters. The evidence shows that, if free school meals are introduced, there will be a big uptake—we all expected that and there is no doubt that that has been proven. However, what is the benefit of that? If many of the children were already eating nutritious meals, in a packed lunch or whatever, is not the policy an expensive way of targeting a small number of pupils? You have suggested that it is better for pupils—even for those who eat packed lunches and who did not qualify—to get a free school meal. However, Marion Macleod earlier expressed concern over the smallness of the increase in uptake.
That question really gets at the two policy objectives of providing good, nutritious meals to children, free or otherwise. The first of those is to address the public health agenda, for which we have hungry for success. The universal provision of free school meals to all pupils in primaries 1 and 2 is an extension of that work. However, we have stated in our written evidence—and I have said today—that the evidence is rather mixed on the long-term outcomes of the policy for the public health agenda.
It is crucial to remember that it is not just those children who are currently entitled to a free school meal who live in poverty. Fewer than half of children who live in poverty get a free school meal. Extending entitlement to those who were previously not eligible for a free school meal will benefit substantially children who live in poverty. The problem is with the current, very narrow means testing.
I agree with John Dickie. Not all children who live in poor circumstances or who receive inadequate nutrition are currently entitled to free school meals.
My first comment is that Children in Scotland's submission contains a list of extremely helpful points about measures that local authorities and the Government could take to supplement the policy.
The number of children in Scotland who live in poverty is 250,000. That is the measurement after housing costs have been taken account of. The figure is measured before housing costs and after housing costs, and the figure after housing costs have been taken account of is 250,000. That is slightly different from the figure that was quoted earlier because, over the past few years, there has been a change in how child poverty is measured, which is to do with equivalisation scales.
How many of those children would qualify if eligibility were extended to families who receive the maximum child tax credit?
The gap between the number of children who live in poverty and the number of children who receive a free school meal is estimated to be roughly 94,000. The Government suggests that its policy to extend entitlement will reach an additional 40,000 children, so it will go a long way towards bridging that gap. It will not fully bridge the gap, nor will it get round the barrier that means testing presents to people taking up their benefit. Although it is an extremely important step in the right direction that complements the universal approach for children in P1 to P3, it will not, by itself, ensure that every child gets a decent school meal regardless of their home circumstances.
You say that the policy will not address the issue of people not taking up their entitlement. We have just had a pilot of universal entitlement to free school meals, but we saw only a 4 per cent increase in take-up among those who were already entitled to free school meals—the introduction of universal provision had an impact of only a 4 per cent increase in that group. That is not exactly impressive, is it?
I think that an increase of 4.4 percentage points is impressive, especially given that the level of take-up among P1 to P3 pupils is higher to start with. The other evidence about children enjoying their meal more as a result of eating alongside friends who otherwise would not have taken a free school meal is also important. It is recognised that we are trying to change the whole approach to eating in school. Allowing children to eat alongside and share the same food as their friends, regardless of their background, is an important part of that.
Last week, we asked the people responsible for the survey whether they could measure the impact on stigma. They said that they could not—they did not assess that. Are we not reading into the survey what we want to see?
I suppose that I am trying to interpret it. I do not think that they were not asked to consider stigma. Whatever you call it, the universal approach has removed a barrier that was preventing at least those children in the 4.4 percentage point gap from receiving free school meals.
You say "at least", but it is only 4.4 per cent. It is a very small number for a very expensive policy.
There are three aspects to the policy. Although the Government might not say this, from my point of view the policy is beneficial because it increases take-up by children who are already entitled to a free school meal under the current narrow means test. It also ensures that children who are officially recognised as living in poverty but not currently entitled to a free school meal are now far, far more likely to get a—free—school meal. There is also another aspect, which we might get on to later.
You said, "far, far more likely"—it is a 4 per cent increase. How does that mean it is "far, far more likely"?
In the first group of children, who are already entitled to the means-tested benefit, there has been a substantial increase in take-up. In the second group, who are living in poverty but currently not entitled to a free school meal, far more get a free school meal, which is a positive impact. There is also the wider issue is that the policy is aimed at improving health outcomes for children across the board—not just those who are living in poverty.
I am not unsympathetic to any of the arguments. In an ideal world I would be entirely behind you and the policy would be fantastic, but we are considering how the evidence from the pilot supports the policies that you have laid out.
A significant proportion of those covered are children who live in poverty. From an anti-poverty perspective, that is particularly important to us.
I agree that there were many positives and encouraging signs. I suppose the question is about what the evidence proves. Do Tam Baillie and Marion Macleod want to comment? I was hogging the conversation with Mr Dickie.
The question brings us back to the business of having two policy objectives at the same time. The evidence shows that there is a rather modest impact on poor families, but behind that is another policy that is targeted much more at families who are living in poverty—the overall eligibility for free school meals. That is why we made specific mention of that in our evidence.
On the opportunity cost of this policy as compared with other measures, we must also take into account the potential cost of not introducing a measure that has a demonstrable impact on the problems that we are all trying to resolve. Long-term health outcomes might come from the changes in family eating patterns in deprived communities that John Dickie described. Those will bring long-term benefits for adult health as well as child health. Not going ahead with the policy would incur across-the-board costs in terms of school exclusions, additional support for children whose difficult behaviour and poor concentration are partly due to poor nutrition, impacts on adult health and adult eating habits and the impact on the high incidence of heart disease and certain forms of cancer in deprived communities. Such longer-term impacts might be correlated with the take-up of free school meals. We need to consider not just the cost of implementing this policy as opposed to some other measure but the cost of doing so as against the potential costs that will be incurred by not taking such measures.
I concur with the points that Tam Baillie made. Aberlour Child Care Trust is a service provider as well as an organisation that seeks to influence policy. We see a large number of children who live in poverty who, by the age of primary 1, are already beginning to show a health deficit as compared with their more affluent peers.
In her written submission, Marion Macleod states:
We understand that it was included in the concordat and that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has confirmed that.
The question is therefore not whether some money is available but whether the money is sufficient. That is the crux of the argument. The Government has the right to introduce policies whether I agree whole-heartedly or just partially with them, but it is disingenuous of the Government to introduce policies that it will fund only partially.
I am not prepared to express an opinion on that. It is clear that assessments of the appropriate figure diverge widely. The answer depends on what is done. Our submission suggests that other models and methods of calculating the cost might be considered, which include reducing the availability of several choices in every school at every meal time. We should consider how more economical and more effective provision has been achieved elsewhere.
In the previous parliamentary session, we costed universal free school meals for all primary school children at £73 million, so I have no reason to doubt the figures that have been put out. I restate that we understand that free school meals are a Scottish Government and local government commitment that has been agreed as part of the concordat and the underlying funding settlement.
Councils do not say that they will not implement the policy—far from it—but they dispute whether the policy has been fully funded, which affects the choices that they must make. Whether or not you are willing to give us figures or argue the case, it is important to the committee to establish whether councils have the money for the policy. If not, we are asking councils to choose between not implementing free school meals and cutting other education budgets. That is the reality.
I reiterate what I said about funding: we are disappointed that this has become a controversial measure. The Government and COSLA appear to concur that the policy has been agreed and that the funding was included in the settlement for local government. Beyond that, my organisation does not want to comment. It is clear that the cost of the policy depends on what is provided.
Whatever else I might comment on, I have to confess that I am not an expert on local government finance—I know that I might live to regret that statement. You ask whether there is enough money in the settlement. You should put that question to the Government, COSLA and local authorities. There are obviously differences of opinion, but that is where that question is properly answered.
If that is Ken Macintosh being not unsympathetic, I would hate to see him if he was unsympathetic, given his passionate questioning.
Children in Scotland has gathered a lot of evidence about the methodology of the provision, in early years and throughout school, in different parts of Europe. I have brought with me copies of one of our publications, which outlines a number of schemes. I do not want to be drawn into commenting on the specific impact of the measure because other countries do lots of other things differently from Scotland and unless its specific impact can be considered through the extraction of other variables, it is difficult to say that developments are attributable to this measure as opposed to other measures.
Cross-country comparisons are difficult for the reasons Marion Macleod outlined, but we have three years'-worth of data from Hull. That study came up with conclusions about reducing differences in children's health behaviours and changing their health perceptions. It found that free school meals created much calmer environments in the school classroom. That was not found in the Scottish pilots because it was not part of the research brief.
Even though the pilot in Hull was only a two-year programme, it was a longer period than was evaluated in Scotland and the evaluation examined health, behaviour and readiness to learn. Professor Derek Colquhoun, who led the team of evaluators for the Hull free school meals approach, concluded that it had a
The Hull pilot study undertook quite detailed analysis of the contents of children's lunch boxes to find out whether they had a high sugar, salt or fat content. Regardless of where we go with the policy of free school meals, there are useful lessons for us to learn from that pilot study in improving the overall food intake of our children. There may be clues in that work as to the kind of targeting that we should do and the kind of education that we need to provide to parents on how to fill a lunch box for children. There will still be children who take lunch boxes to school, regardless of where we go with the policy.
This policy, or a variant of it, has been given credit for transforming the entire dietary pattern of Finland, where people have been given nutritional food throughout their school lives. Finland had the highest rate of heart attacks in the world only 20 or so years ago, but that has now been substantially reduced.
My question follows on from what Kenny Gibson has just said. Your written submissions do not mention your grave concerns about the abhorrent level of poverty that exists in Scotland. Given that the Parliament does not have all the powers to alter the level of poverty in Scotland, can you talk generally about the principles of the legislation as a social democratic, progressive measure and a social leveller? Perhaps Marion Macleod has something to add about the Scandinavian model and those countries' approach to the policy of free school meals.
Different countries have different approaches within the Scandinavian system, some of which are predicated more on indirect taxation and less on direct taxation. That is not necessarily going to target those who are in most need. Nevertheless, if a Government is going to do something that will have an impact, it is important that it resources it appropriately and to the necessary level.
We have not discussed the benefit of the relief to family budgets. At the moment, a family with two young children in, say, primary 1 and primary 3 could pay up to £18 a week for school meals. That family could be living below the recognised poverty line on a very low income but could be excluded from free school meal entitlement because a member of the family works a few hours a week. They will be £18 a week better off as a result of receiving the benefit, which will allow them to pay bills and allow the children to engage in other activities. The impact of poverty on such families will be relieved. Given the powers of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the measure seems to me to be an effective way of relieving pressure on some of our poorest families. It will not only ensure that children in such families get the benefits of healthy school meals; those families will also have more money in their pockets to spend on other essentials.
The question would seem to be more appropriately targeted at the second bit of the Government's policy on eligibility for free school meals. We whole-heartedly support the anti-poverty measures that can have an impact in Scotland.
Tam Baillie has stolen my thunder. We would say exactly what he said.
We are all working in bizarre times, with the £500 billion roll-out for banks that we are hearing about. That puts things in perspective. Considering that Trident costs so much as well, we want to place the costs in context.
The crucial thing is that the policy secured agreement between the Scottish Government and local government, through COSLA. My anxiety was that the policy's benefits were being overlooked in the dispute about funding. I am keen for people to turn their attention back to the evaluation and to note what I think were extraordinary outcomes—increased take-up, the impact on those who were already entitled to free school meals, the disproportionate impact on families in the most deprived areas, the potential to change behaviour and the change in attitudes towards healthy food. We need to consider the benefits of the approach to free school meals.
Nobody is expecting a blank cheque from Government. There are tight budgetary settlements, and priorities have to be made. However, the framework within which we are operating consists of a concordat struck between central Government and local government. Councils must make their own priority decisions, so it would be best for you to ask them about the implementation of the policy.
All local authorities have prepared a single outcome agreement for the Government, in which they have identified how they intend to meet the Government's strategic objectives locally. Tam Baillie is right to point out that the school meals policy is included in the concordat. It is up to local authorities and their local partners to decide how they wish to proceed. We all have to make difficult financial and political decisions. It is not for us to tell the Scottish Government or local authorities what their priorities should be. We are trying to reflect on our experience. In Aberlour's case, that is both as a service provider and as an organisation seeking to influence policy.
In the Hull pilot, the local council was urged to work with parents to improve children's overall diet. Last week, Ipsos MORI told us that parents wanted more support and help, although it was not known what type of help to provide for parents. Given your experience of working with families and parents, do you have any ideas about what support, methods or techniques might be used?
A whole raft of measures could be used. Some of them are well documented and well evidenced. For example, there are many off-the-peg parenting programmes that have been tried and tested and well evaluated. Those programmes demonstrate more effective parenting to parents in particular risk groups such as very young parents, substance misusers or parents who have been involved in the child protection system. Nutrition is part of good parenting and will form part of any parenting improvement programme. Through the national child care strategy and sure start funding, many local authorities in Scotland have introduced healthy eating and good approaches to early nutrition for families. I do not have all the outcomes of the programmes to hand, but they will be readily available. Were I to inquire of various local authorities, I think that I would find not only that support had been provided—albeit on a limited scale—but that it had had a beneficial impact on the quality of early nutrition.
Aberlour recognises that support for parents is vital at all stages of children's lives. To support the Government's strategic objectives, a number of policy frameworks and strategies have recently been introduced. For example, the early years and early intervention framework, the initiatives on preventing offending by young people, and the drug and alcohol strategies all place great importance on support for parents.
I would also like to emphasise the point from the Hull study about the importance of the link with home. An early years framework is just about to be published. That will provide an excellent opportunity for us to consider the support that we give to parents. Anything that we can do to improve the links between schools and families will go a long way towards having complementary policies on a whole host of fronts, including free school meals.
A few years ago, CPAG published a book called "Recipe for Change: a good practice guide to school meals". I remember an example from a London local authority where the school kitchens were used during holidays; parents and their children were able to use the kitchens to develop their skills in healthy cooking. There are many examples of good practice in Scotland and across the United Kingdom that show ways of engaging with parents and supporting them.
With all the arguments about percentages, the meeting has been a bit like being in a statistics class. A difficulty with empirical research is that people tend to measure what they are hoping to achieve. That has been reflected in some comments from the witnesses. I assume that the provisions in this order will be implemented, but have your organisations been able to comment on how specific, measurable aspects will be monitored? Have you also been able to comment on some of the more nebulous benefits—the wider social aspirations—to which some of you have referred?
If the policy is rolled out, rigorous research must be built into it. Baseline data must be gathered, and we would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the design of that research. Good research will be essential in order to demonstrate the benefits of the policy.
Barnardo's was not directly involved in the pilots. The work was driven through monitoring what was happening in primary schools. We have already touched on some of the areas that need to be picked up on. We have to consider the overall impact of a free school meal on what a child eats during the day. We have already said that many factors will influence that. I would be interested in ensuring that the research picks up the actual impact. It is difficult to isolate one particular input and to extrapolate from it general improvements in health. The pilots had quite a limited research brief. If we are going for roll-out, I would like much more attention to be paid to longer-term health outcomes.
I agree. It is important that we put in place at the outset a system to measure the longer-term impact on attainment, health and children's wellbeing. We welcome the opportunity to contribute ideas about how that might be done. Given that other parts of the UK are now considering a universal approach to free school meals, we have an opportunity to improve things for children right across the UK by illustrating the benefits of what we are doing in Scotland. If evidence of the impact of the policy in Scotland helps to do that, that will be an additional benefit for children elsewhere in the UK.
I agree with my colleagues, but I want to add a couple of points. First, other things can be done—and, no doubt, will be done in some local authority areas—to support and give best effect to such a policy. Potentially useful comparisons could be made in relation to the impact of the provision of school meals per se, as opposed to the provision of school meals alongside or after ancillary measures to support improved take-up among those who are currently eligible for but not taking up school meals and improved take-up among children living in poverty who are not currently eligible for school meals but who might take them if they became available.
Given the complexity of the issues that we have discussed, would it be better to roll out the proposal through primary legislation, rather than through a Scottish statutory instrument?
The crucial thing for us is that the policy is rolled out. I am not an expert on the legislative process. The important thing for us is that we use the most efficient and effective legislative mechanism to ensure that roll-out takes place as soon as possible in the timescale that is agreed by the Scottish Government and local authorities. The SSI seems to enable that to happen and, therefore, to be an effective mechanism.
It is true that we are talking about a power, rather than a duty. The risk in taking that approach is that we could end up with a patchwork quilt of provision.
Exactly my point.
The Government and COSLA have responsibility for ensuring that there is uniform, rather than patchy, provision, because the overall objective is to improve the health of all children in Scotland.
I agree. The important thing is that every child in primaries 1 to 3 should benefit from the proposal. If the approach does not work in that regard, it should be reviewed and primary legislation should be used, if that is what is seen to be necessary.
We have heard strong arguments in favour of the policy this morning. However, as a parent, I keep returning to the fact that my daughter, who will start school in 2010 as the child of two MSPs, will receive a free school meal for three years. I am not sure that that is the best way to target resources if we are serious about tackling child poverty in Scotland.
We would want to emphasise the importance of those measures as well. Clearly, difficult budgetary decisions must be made. Those who make them have to do so on the basis of the best evidence that is available. This morning, we have given a fair airing to the limitations of some of the evidence, but we have also indicated areas in which evidence could be gathered to deliver a better and more comprehensive picture of the impact of the measure and, indeed, to suggest other measures that might go along with it.
We have been supportive of the introduction of breakfast clubs and of the delivery of school meals during the school holidays, which some local authorities have done. The approaches that we are discussing are not mutually exclusive but can all help to ensure that children in poverty and children in general get healthy food during the day.
I go back to the idea of extending free school meals to those who receive maximum tax credits. You identified a gap of 94,000 children and said that extending entitlement in that way would manage to reach 40,000 of those children. Why does the gap exist? What could be done to include all the children whom you have identified as living in poverty in an alternative policy, or should there just be a further extension? Could you identify the extent of that extension?
The bottom line is that the universal approach is the most efficient and effective way of getting healthy school meals to children living in poverty, as well as other children. Removing the barrier of the means test is the most effective way of doing it. Pragmatically, we recognise and welcome the extension of the roll-out to children in primaries 1 to 3 as another important step in the right direction. However, the best way to ensure that all our children, but particularly those living at risk of poverty, get a healthy meal during the school day is to remove the means test.
Claire Baker's question hits at the universal versus the targeted approach. It should be remembered that we will still have a targeted approach to applying anti-poverty measures. Whether that will bridge the whole gap is the question that you are asking, which brings into question the relative priorities of a universal approach for primaries 1 to 3 and a targeted approach. I have said already that we think that the priority should be to alleviate poverty for those children who live in poverty.
John Dickie made the point about children's educational experience and the absence of universal provision of free school meals impacting on those children who have most difficulty in the education system anyway.
That concludes the committee's questions. Thank you very much for your attendance and for your answers. I am sure that the committee will return to the subject.
Meeting continued in private until 13:19.