Official Report 198KB pdf
We are meeting to discuss the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. The meeting was being held in private, but it is now being held in public. I understand that everyone now has a copy of the draft stage 1 report. I am not sure how the committee wishes to work through this. We could go through the report page by page, although members may wish to make some observations at the start.
I am broadly content with the report as it stands. There are one or two little tweaks that each of us might want to call out to you, convener, but I do not think that it is necessary to go through it paragraph by paragraph.
You indicated at our previous meeting that you intended to do that. Have you a written copy of what you propose?
I have been unfit for so much of the past few days that I do not have a written copy of what I want to say. However, I point out that I did not attend Mr Sheridan's recent celebration or indeed any of the other ones—I had my own little private festival.
You sad soul.
It is sad. I have not got a copy, but what I want to include will literally be two sentences, the first of which will start, "On a division", although I cannot predict the outcome of that division yet, of course.
I will not dissent from what Mike Russell has suggested other than on a procedural note. I am not sure whether the correct way of recording the difference of views is to do so in the text of the report or as a footnote, as the Health and Community Care Committee did. I just want to clarify that procedural point, as we agreed at the previous meeting that the facility to include something along those lines exists.
I, too, do not disagree with most of the report, although some of it needs to be strengthened slightly. It has been suggested that we have just one recommendation on the bill, but we have taken a lot of evidence, on which we should be making recommendations to the Executive.
We will return to the issue of making clear recommendations.
As the member who has probably disagreed with the committee most often in the production of our reports and who has had that disagreement minuted, I would say that the form has normally been to minute any disagreement in a number of paragraphs and to record it at the report's conclusion. I think that this is the first time that such a situation has arisen in relation to a recommendation on a bill and I would quite readily accept a different procedure in this context. I am more comfortable with the difference of opinion being minuted in the body of the report. If Mike Russell wants a record of the difference of opinion, that may be put in the conclusion.
I would like to know what progress has been made on a couple of matters. Have we had a response from the Executive about initiatives in Sweden and Finland or a response from Tommy Sheridan on the cost benefit analysis, as requested? I presume that the expert panel report is with the minister, because it was alleged that it would be complete by the end of May. Will the committee see it before it is signed off?
We have not yet had a response from the Executive on the questions that the committee asked. Mr Sheridan submitted a response to the committee's previous request and drew our attention to evidence that had been submitted. I have had no indication that we are to expect any information on the expert panel report in time for the completion of the committee's report.
Clearly, we have expectations of the panel report. Irene McGugan is suggesting that we need that report to allow us to complete our report and Karen Whitefield would like us to consider our recommendations to the Executive bearing in mind the recommendations of the panel.
I endorse what Karen Whitefield said about one or two recommendations that we might make. In the expectation that the expert panel will come to the conclusions that were hinted at in the evidence that we heard, we ought to say to the Executive that, whatever happens to the bill, the panel's recommendations must be taken seriously. Although we would not say that the Executive has to implement all the panel's recommendations, we could put it on record that we expect the Executive to respond positively to those recommendations.
Karen Whitefield and Ian Jenkins are right. The one problem is that our report is a report to the Parliament on a piece of legislation; it is not a report to the Executive on its policies. Having heard the evidence, we can say what we believe and what we recommend, but we will have to draw that to the attention of the Executive separately. If the bill proceeds, it will be taken up in debate; if it does not proceed, it may be necessary to send an extract of our report to the Executive or, before the summer recess, to spend part of a meeting agreeing a letter to the Executive.
I have had a quick read of the committee's draft report and I wonder whether the committee would consider rewriting the sections on stigma. In evidence to this committee and to the Health and Community Care Committee, One Plus and the Child Poverty Action Group clearly tried to alert members to the fact that upwards of 80,000 children from families officially defined as living in low-income households are excluded from free school meals. The One Plus figure is now 123,000. On stigma, the committee's report refers only to the introduction of swipe cards. It does not refer to extending entitlement. The report therefore does not deal with the poverty element of the bill, which is a major element. In the hope that the conclusion may be different, I ask the committee to reconsider and to strengthen the recommendations on stigma.
We are in danger of picking out key phrases, whereas we must go through the report page by page. Tommy Sheridan has highlighted an emphasis that the committee would not have made. That process will be useful.
I emphasise Jackie Baillie's point about the expert panel. At times, the bill's sponsor has had an unfortunate tendency to denigrate those who hold a different opinion from his. I have spoken to members of the expert panel and heard what has been said about them. It is undoubted that they are examining the same matters with a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment. It would be wrong to downgrade their commitment to some of the bill's principles simply because they do not support all the bill's principles. That point should be made strongly.
We have a job to do now. We need to look through the report and agree on issues. We may want to agree to and sign off a page at a time. We must decide how we deal with Mike Russell's view on how the bill should progress. Is that your personal view or the SNP's view, Mike?
My colleague Irene McGugan confirms that it is the party view and I am happy to agree with that.
I should not have asked my question.
He has just been whipped.
I have no personal views.
Liar, liar.
Did you give your individual view or the view of both you and Irene McGugan?
I trust that my colleague will support me.
She might—who knows? We must consider how we deal with paragraph 72 and whether a footnote is necessary. We will follow our previous practice for dealing with such matters.
The relevant document is our report on the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The practice that we followed for that report worked rather well.
We must also consider any recommendations for the Executive's expert panel, the availability of milk and water, which Tommy Sheridan talked about, and our expectations of the Executive. I take on board Mike Russell's point that the report is to Parliament, not to the Executive.
There are very few changes to make.
Points have been made about the recommendations. Perhaps we can highlight matters that we want to cover. The last page of the report contains the recommendations.
Do we
It is always helpful to have teachers present. I have a red pen here.
Sorry, I have a point on paragraph 4, in the interest of fairness. The report makes the point that the bill asks for nutritional standards to be set by the Scottish ministers, but the bill clearly states that that should be done on the basis of consultation with—to use Jackie Baillie's phrase—the stakeholders. We are not asking Scottish ministers to make up nutritional standards; we are asking Scottish ministers to define Scottish standards after a consultation exercise. That is an important point. Some people have criticised the bill for not covering nutritional standards, but that is because I cannot include nutritional standards in the bill. I want to consult others.
Do members have a view?
I am happy with that.
I am not terribly happy with that, because the bill is clear. Section 1(5) of the bill proposes new subsection (6) to section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and states:
Are there any other views?
I think that Mr Sheridan is asking that that aspect of the bill be pointed out in our report. I do not view it as particularly contentious. I am quite surprised by Mike Russell's view.
As that point is not the one about which there is most debate, dropping in an appropriate couple of words, such as "in consultation", would not cause me any difficulty.
I propose the insertion at the top of page 2 of the words: "Scottish ministers should set nutritional standards in consultation with other bodies, which would be adhered to by local authorities."
Are members happy with that?
Are there any comments on paragraph 5, on oral evidence? Paragraph 6? Paragraph 7? Paragraph 8? Paragraph 9?
This may be a moot point, but for the benefit of people who have not been involved with the issue before, if we say
If we stated "a school meal in the middle of the day", that would be more accurate than what Jackie Baillie has just proposed. The bill seeks to provide not all school meals free of charge, but a free school meal in the middle of the day.
I am happy to accept that correction.
In the usual spirit of co-operation.
Indeed.
Does Mike Russell have school dinner or does he have lunch?
I think that we all have lunch.
It is school dinners, Brian. You are absolutely right.
I think that that is what the bill seeks to provide. That is what it says.
In the interests of accuracy, I accept that.
Do we view universality as one of the principles of the bill?
That is an interesting question, which I am happy to debate with you later, Mr Jenkins.
I am asking you now.
And I am saying that I am happy to debate it with you later.
Martin, what have we agreed?
The committee has agreed that there is no consensus on providing all meals to all pupils free of charge in the middle of the day. We could use slightly better wording.
The wording should be: "There is no consensus as to whether or not the provision of a free nutritious school meal in the middle of the day to all pupils is capable of achieving those intentions."
Are there any comments on paragraph 11?
Paragraph 11 is a clumsy sentence, and I am not sure where it is going:
The sentence has a comma between "educational achievement" and "on poor nutritional standards".
I know, but do the arguments that are put forward to support the bill centre on poor nutritional standards?
It would be better to put "poor nutritional standards" first. The phrase would read, "poor nutritional standards, the link between poverty, ill health and educational achievement"—
That is followed by
I think that the phrase should be, "the Bill's intention to address all of these issues", rather than
So the word "intention" should be included. That makes sense. Are members happy with that?
Will you read that back so that we are clear, Martin?
The suggested version would read: "The arguments put forward to support the Bill centre on poor nutritional standards, on the link between poverty, ill health and low educational achievement, and on the Bill's intention effectively to address all of these issues."
No, it should read: "on the Bill's intention to address all of these issues."
Is that okay?
We had better keep in the word "effectively".
I do not think so. By definition—
Okay. Fair enough.
We come to paragraph 12.
The fourth line contains a "who" that should not be there. It is in the phrase,
We can talk about that later, as there is also an issue about the uptake of school meals. We need to make it clear that those who are entitled to free school meals do not necessarily take them. We need to come back to that. Do members agree to that?
We come to paragraph 13.
Part of the debate that regularly came up in evidence concerns the difficulty of moving from receipt of benefits to receipt of tax credits, to which paragraph 13 refers. It was pointed out—not by One Plus, but during the committee's deliberations—that the working families tax credit contains an allowance for school meals. I know that some people believe that the allowance is not large enough or that there are problems with delivering it in that way. Nevertheless, if we are putting forward one side of the argument in paragraph 13, we need to acknowledge, either in that paragraph or elsewhere, that the allowance exists.
Paragraph 53 covers some of those issues. I was going to make similar points about numbers and estimates when we got to that point.
We come to paragraph 16. We need to consider water and how we—
Are we going to take the recommendations out of the report after we have gone through the paragraphs, at the end of each section or at the end of the report?
We should do that at the end of the report, because the basis of the recommendations are at the end and just need to be teased out and made more prominent.
That would give us a final section on what we want the Executive to consider, although we are not reporting to the Executive. Can we make the first recommendation the point that Karen Whitefield made—that water should be available freely to all pupils in schools?
Yes, drinking water should be available freely.
It is absolutely incredible that in the 21st century children cannot get free drinking water.
Will the committee strengthen that point somewhere in the report and emphasise that water should be made available freely in appropriate places? Someone in the education department in Glasgow told me that children could go to the toilet to get drinking water, which we are opposed to. Will the committee specify that, as some people might say that water is available in the toilets?
We heard from Judith Gillespie that lots of children tend not to drink water at school, because they do not want to go to the toilets to get water.
I am aware that some schools label their own bottled water and sell it. I am referring to still drinking water. If pupils want to drink carbonated water, schools should be free to charge for it.
Ordinary drinking water should be available.
What we call tap water.
Good Scottish tap water.
Still drinking water.
There is nothing wrong with selling bottled mineral water with the school name on the bottle, but that should not be the only source of water available.
Tap drinking water should be available. It is not just at lunch time that children might want a drink of water; water should be available at break time, too. If water is not available, children are more likely to drink cans of juice, for example.
We are almost suggesting that we need water fountains and I do not think that we need to be so specific in a general recommendation.
Some people do not like using water fountains.
I want to be specific because, unlike in an ordinary report to the Executive, we are dealing with legislation. Being specific is important, because people may intentionally misconstrue what we say.
Okay.
We understand the recommendation. It would be the first of a list of recommendations at the end of the report, which should be prefaced by a comment saying that, although the report is not to the Executive, we will make the following recommendations to the Executive.
Yes. Are there any comments on paragraphs 17 or 18?
We should say "many schools" rather than simply
Yes. "Many" is the right word.
I cannot find that bit.
The responses are not here.
I would like to see how many schools responded. I would be surprised if that applied to most schools.
We do not have that information. It came out earlier.
We have received responses to the question about the provision of water from a significant number of local authorities and we can make a copy available in a few minutes.
Thank you. We can come back to that.
Paragraph 20 would give us another throw-out recommendation.
For the committee's information, Glasgow City Council is today considering changing its report. The administration has expressed concern about the report that was initially submitted. The committee will receive an additional paper.
It will be too late.
It will be too late, because we need to submit our report.
I am saying that you should not set too much store by Glasgow City Council's report—I know that you have not relied on it so much—because it will be changed.
Paragraph 20?
The throw-out recommendation is that any practice that stigmatises or identifies children, such as handing out meal tickets, should be eliminated.
A later and much bigger section deals with stigma.
Yes. However, I think that we should include what I suggested in the list of throw-out recommendations.
Yes.
We say that it is "incumbent upon the Executive" to eradicate such practises, but we should include local authorities in that. I do not see why that line should refer just to the Executive.
It is a way of allowing the Executive to say to local authorities that such practises should be eradicated.
Local authorities need guidance from the Executive.
Okay.
Are there any comments on paragraph 21?
This is another paragraph that will lead to a recommendation on milk. In particular, we need to ask the Executive for clarification about giving milk not necessarily to every child, but perhaps to a particular age group that might benefit from receiving free school milk. That might be children under seven or primary school children. Other committee members have made that point.
Yes. I believe that we have asked the Executive to address that point. At paragraph 21, instead of saying
We cannot cope with two on the committee.
Be quiet. I am just a surrogate one.
Yes.
I note that I asked for that information during a public meeting of the committee. The request should stand.
Can we toughen up our stance on fizzy and sugary drinks? We should tell the Executive that every effort should be made to minimise the availability of such drinks in schools. Dalziel High School sells fizzy water in such a way that it is much more attractive for pupils to buy that than to buy Coke or other drinks. For three reasons, we should ask for the supply of fizzy and sugary drinks to be diminished. First, such drinks are responsible for dental caries. Secondly, they have an effect on health. Thirdly, we know that caffeine-based drinks often have an effect on behaviour. That is why I never touch them. We should encourage the Executive to take "all steps possible" to reduce the availability of commercial soft drinks on school premises.
I cannot support the insertion of the words "all steps possible", as such steps would include legislation.
We could ask the Executive to take "whatever steps possible" to reduce the availability of commercial soft drinks on school premises.
I would prefer us to use the word "encourage".
All right.
There is substantial evidence relating to the use of vending machines in schools. Either here or in a separate paragraph we could tease out the points that Michael Russell makes and question the use of vending machines in schools—for the sale of sugary drinks, in particular, but also for the sale of sweeties and things of that nature.
We should discourage the use of vending machines. We should also discourage the sale of commercial soft drinks on school premises.
As a direct result of evidence given to the committee, Glasgow City Council has decided to end fizzy drinks sponsorship within its schools. That shows that the evidence-taking sessions on the bill have had a positive effect in at least one local authority area. The committee is on the right track as far as fizzy drinks are concerned.
That is why we are seeking further information from the Executive.
The School Meals (Scotland) Bill says that milk should be supplied free to all children. We have asked to be provided with different optimal ranges and costs within those.
We have received a report from our nutritional adviser that indicates that the benefits of milk consumption are twofold. The paper states:
I accept that drinking too many fizzy and sugary drinks is bad for kids in some respects. However, we need to be careful about making recommendations when we do not have all the evidence for the effect that they will have. I suspect that, if we banned Coke and other drinks from school premises, more children would leave the school to buy them, along with other snacks. We might undermine some of the good measures that we are trying to promote by making the school appear a less sympathetic or cool place for children to eat.
We have made a number of recommendations on the provision of water and milk. I am keen to ensure that we are happy with the wording of paragraphs 21 and 22. What do we have there, Martin?
We might have to come back to the committee with the proposed wording.
Are we taking the first line of paragraph 22 out?
Yes. You want to obtain information on the stage at which it is particularly crucial to drink milk, although there is evidence about its benefits at any age.
We have already asked for that information.
The committee would like every effort to be made to encourage local authorities to minimise the availability of commercial soft drinks, in the interests of improved dental health, health generally and child behaviour.
Discourage but not ban.
Yes. We will reword the paragraphs to reflect those views and bring them back to the committee next week.
The next section of the report deals with nutritional standards and the work of the expert panel. Are we content with paragraph 23?
I do not want to die in a ditch over this issue, but it might be helpful if we included an annexe that detailed the expert panel's remit, composition and time scale, given that we have spoken a lot about the expert panel and our recommendations will be phrased in that context.
Are we agreed to include that annexe?
If there are no further comments on the paragraphs in this section, we will move to the next section, which deals with stigma. Are there any comments on paragraph 29?
Paragraph 29 contains this sentence:
The report deals with the issue later.
Okay.
Are there any comments on paragraph 30? Paragraph 31? Paragraph 32? Paragraph 33?
The paragraphs in the section that deals with stigma do not seem to reflect the experience of our visit to Leith Academy, which we might want to flag up, although we are reporting primarily on the basis of evidence that was given to us. We might be content with the later reference to Leith Academy in the report, but I think that, as the pupils in Leith Academy told us that stigma was not an issue for them, it might be reasonable to refer to that at this point. I know that that school provides only a snapshot, but it is one that we are happy to use elsewhere in the report.
It would be useful to drop in a reference to that school, but equally we should recognise that it cannot be the sole source of evidence. We surveyed children who attended the Parliament. I am not sure where the paragraph about that is in the report, but it would be useful to have a handle on the number of children and the ranking that they put on the issues that were most important to them. If the survey substantiates what we found out anecdotally at Leith Academy, it becomes more useful as an exercise. I appreciate that that will not be done until our next meeting, but it would be useful to drop in that detail.
It would be helpful even if we could have a paragraph that referred to the visit as an annexe to the report. It is an important part of what we did.
Where are we in terms of the survey and survey information?
We have the information, but we have not yet made it available to members.
When will we get it?
The information arrived after the draft report was sent to the committee. Members will have it before Tuesday. The survey information will be included in the written evidence that is to form an annexe to the report.
Given Brian Monteith's point, it is important that we see the results, which will give us an insight into the issue of stigma.
We can e-mail the information to members before Tuesday.
That is fine.
I appeal to the committee to change the first sentence of paragraph 33, which is bold but does not recognise the arguments on stigma that One Plus and the CPAG have made. The sentence reads:
Are there other views on that point?
I would prefer to use "reduce stigma". It might seem a moot point, but "eliminate" may be too strong and absolute a word. Stigma is attached to so many different aspects of schools. The swipe card for school meals does not have the potential to eliminate stigma, but it could reduce it.
We are talking about potential. I am not going to die in a ditch over this, but the swipe card does have the potential to eliminate stigma.
I do not agree. It is not possible to eliminate stigma. Kids are clever at spotting it.
Yes, but in the context of—
I do not see why we cannot say "reduce". It is not possible to eliminate stigma totally, but we can reduce it and make it less hurtful. I agree with Tommy that it is putting it too strongly to use the word "eliminate". Stigma cannot be eliminated at a stroke.
The phrase "help to overcome" would appear to be moderately strong.
"Help to overcome", "eliminate" or "reduce"—where are we?
I would suggest "help to overcome".
I am quite happy with that compromise. Peace has broken out. I thought that there was war.
I know a line in a song with that—
We can help to overcome.
I note that, in the middle of paragraph 33, the report says:
Why not?
Well, that would not seem to be sensible for small schools. The wording of that paragraph should read something like: "The Executive should consider extending the use of swipe cards to all large schools."
No.
It would be wrong to give an exemption to schools. We should be asking schools to open up negotiations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities so that the local authorities can become involved in taking decisions about the kind of swipe card system that they are to introduce in schools. We should also ask schools to discuss whether the card should be used only for school meals or whether it could also be used for the school library and for other school activities. We might want to add that point to our recommendations.
I agree with Karen Whitefield's comments about the wider application of swipe cards. I also remember Craig Clements from Angus Council confirming to the committee that Angus now has an entirely cashless system, even though it has a considerable rural population and a number of very small schools.
There are very strong arguments for ensuring that all schools are involved. The people of the Yarrow valley have the right to participate in technology as much as others. More important, the stigma in a small school could be much greater than the stigma in a large school. As a result, the use of a cashless system in a small school is vital. Moreover, I would not be surprised if we reach the stage where children have such cards from the start to the end of their school career, and therefore it seems daft to eliminate small schools from the scheme, only to have them catch up later on.
Forgive me—I take back some of my comments. I was just thinking that installing equipment in small schools might not be the best way of spending money.
That could also be a side recommendation at the end of the report.
Do members have any comments on paragraph 34, which deals with nutritional standards and uptake?
The sentence that begins "Although in oral evidence" does not go anywhere. Instead, we should have a sentence that begins something like: "However, we should note that, in oral evidence, John McAllion stated that".
Are members fine with that?
I note that the bill's intention is to eliminate stigma.
Do members have comments on paragraphs 35 and 36?
No.
Do members have any comments on paragraph 37?
I have a minor point about the last sentence. Can we change "of" to "on"?
Do members have any comments on paragraph 38?
Are we
I think that we should just recognise that it is difficult to legislate. If we say that it is "impossible to legislate", we might as well all go home. Are we going home?
Fine.
Could the committee flag up the sentence
I am very nervous about doing that. Are we saying that nutrition should be taught in schools? By and large, that happens already. We do not have a national curriculum. Are we recommending that something should be part of a national curriculum that we do not have? We would have great difficulty in doing so. We could certainly encourage spreading awareness of nutrition in schools. However, I am always very wary about saying that we should teach a certain subject in schools. Ian Jenkins knows what I am talking about. Such provisions are added willy-nilly by politicians and do not bear any resemblance to what actually happens in schools.
Well, you did not challenge the sentence.
I am grateful that you have drawn it to my attention, because it should be challenged.
I agree with the sentence, because I think that nutrition should be an integral part of the school curriculum. The evidence that we received from home economics teachers when we were developing the bill was that the subject was clearly a denigrated part of the curriculum and was no longer encouraged. When no one challenged the sentence, I was hoping that it would become a future recommendation.
As Mike Russell pointed out, we do not have a national curriculum.
I am content with the sentence as it is expressed, because it is vague. However, I would have some difficulty if it were made less vague or made into a firm recommendation.
People might be more comfortable with the sentence if the term "school curriculum" were changed to "education process". However, the point is that we were taken with Gillian Kynoch's approach to the whole issue. We are talking not just about a meal but about how meals are wrapped into a whole-school approach. If we reflect on that in our recommendation on nutritional standards by dropping in a line about a whole-school approach, that should cover the committee's views.
It is the misuse of the word "curriculum" that is the problem. If we said that nutrition should become an integral part of school education, or something like that, it would solve the problem.
We could change "the school curriculum" to "the five-to-14 guidelines".
That would be worse.
That would be a flexible way of ensuring that nutrition could be dealt with within the curriculum. That is what you are arguing for.
The trouble is that the world of primary schoolteachers would rise up and lynch you, because there is so much in the five-to-14 curriculum that it would not be possible to squeeze in a chip, let alone anything else.
It would define what you mean; otherwise you would just be talking hogwash.
With the greatest respect, Mr Monteith, I leave that to you. We should be saying what Jackie Baillie and Gillian Kynoch are saying—the whole-school experience is the issue. To move towards inclusion in the five-to-14 curriculum would be to move in the wrong direction altogether.
Five-to-14 is the curriculum.
Five-to-14 is not appropriate in this instance.
The problem is the word "curriculum".
That is what we are going to take out.
We have agreed to take out the word "curriculum". We are looking for a whole-school approach.
We should say: "The committee also concurs with Gillian Kynoch's view that the provision of food in schools should form part of a whole-school approach". Then we should take out the first two sentences of Gillian Kynoch's quote and start with the phrase "Whole-school approach".
Is that agreed?
The end of Gillian Kynoch's quote makes reference to
Do members have any points on paragraphs 39, 40, 41 or 42?
I have a small point. The final word on page 8 should be "healthy".
Well done. Is there anything to say about paragraphs 43, 44, 45 or 46?
Will we keep in the words in bold in paragraph 46 if we do not receive further evidence?
The phrase, "We have not yet received this", was put in bold to draw the matter to members' attention.
The request has already been made.
We have not received further evidence and we are finalising the report, so I presume that we should say: "He was happy to provide further evidence that there was no causal link, although such evidence had not been received by the time the report was agreed by the committee."
We could do two things. If the evidence has not been received by 11 June, we can note that. If we receive it by 11 June, we can drop in a paragraph about what it says.
Is that acceptable?
Do any points arise on paragraphs 47, 48 or 49?
I am slightly uncomfortable with paragraph 49, because I believe that it is too absolute in linking poor diet and lack of exercise to becoming overweight and obese. Although there is no doubt that that link has been established, the belief that there is a genetic link has also been established. Paragraph 49 suggests that poor diet is the only factor and I feel that there needs to be a bit more explanation.
Surely the final sentence of the paragraph qualifies the assertion.
That is right. We should not get into the nature versus nurture debate. Paragraph 49 takes a reasonable balance between the two views.
I am happy to leave it alone.
Is there anything on paragraphs 50, 51 or 52?
I have a point relating to paragraphs 52, 53 or 54 that we need to drop in somewhere. It goes back to Brian Monteith's earlier point. There was considerable discussion about the number of children in poverty. We had a figure of 80,000 children who are losing out. Today Tommy Sheridan has given us a new figure of 120,000. I indicated that we would like information on the working families tax credit and on the amount that is included for a school meal. We should note the fact that the credit is paid not only for the 38 weeks of the year for which schools sit, but for 52 weeks. It would be useful to have a handle on the number of people in Scotland who are eligible, as the credit represents a different way of providing for school meals. Again, we asked the Executive for the information, so perhaps someone could stomp their feet to find out what is going on. Brian Monteith is right that the issue was brought out in the evidence and it is missing from this part of the report.
It is relevant. We want to weigh it up, but we do not know the hard facts. It is important that we take it into account.
My point is on paragraph 56. I would like the word "necessarily" in the penultimate line to be changed to "automatically". I do not want to dissent from anything in this report except the final conclusion. However, it would be difficult to sign up to that paragraph as it would appear that I was agreeing with something that I then disagreed with. The word "automatically" would make it easier to sign up to that paragraph.
I accept that.
I understand that One Plus has submitted additional information, which I could make available to committee members. Accepting the Scottish Executive's definitions at all times, in relation to low-income households, One Plus gives a tabular breakdown that shows that some 82,740 children are officially in low-income households but are excluded from the entitlement to free school meals. The submission then shows the number of children who are entitled to free school meals but do not take them and the number of families who are entitled to income support but do not claim it. That comes to an extra 40,000 children, which is where the figure of 123,000 comes from. One Plus estimates that a minimum of 82,000 children are missing out and that as many as 123,000 children from low-income households are missing out. I can make that information available to all members, although I understood that it had been sent to the committee.
We do not have it. If it could be made available, we could agree the paragraph.
Yes, but I am keen to get the Executive's information as well, so that we can reach a balanced view.
I asked the Executive for its figures six months ago. I am still waiting.
Let us see whether we have more success.
We will make the point stamping our feet and shouting loudly to get the information that we need from the Executive.
Not for the first time.
That deals with paragraphs 52, 53, 54 and 55. Mike Russell wants to make a change to paragraph 56, which we have agreed. We move on to equal opportunities and paragraph 57. Do members have any comments on paragraph 57?
Paragraph 58 is on the financial memorandum.
Can we insert something about it not being possible for local authorities to meet the costs without additional assistance? That is an important point, but it is not stated specifically anywhere else in the financial section. The second line should say that local authorities are clear that they could not implement the provisions of the bill without additional help from the Scottish Executive. We do not want implementation to appear to be possible without additional resources.
Does that mean that the financial memorandum is not telling the truth? It says:
Ian Jenkins is a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and understands such things better than I do.
Members may not be aware that a member's bill does not fit standing orders if it demands any of our revenue. A member's bill cannot say that its implementation would cost the Scottish Executive X amount of money. If it did, it would be ruled out of order, as an individual member cannot commit money from the budget. However, the Scottish Executive has said that, if a member's bill is ever passed, it will not stand in the way of the financial consequences. The financial memorandum is not dishonest; it had to be written in that way to abide by the Parliament's standing orders. Throughout the process, we have stressed that we do not expect local authorities to pick up the tab.
That must be said specifically.
Do members have any comments on paragraphs 59, 60 or 61?
Do members have any comments on paragraph 62?
The capital issue is interesting. We noted the absence of figures and local government arrangements, but no local authority is in any doubt that substantial capital outlay would have to be made. That needs to be noted. That was a common theme in evidence from every local authority.
Would you agree to balance that statement? The expert panel's declared intention is to increase the uptake of school meals.
I am happy to do that. Paragraph 62 starts:
We move to paragraph 63.
Paragraph 63 mentions "savings", which I do not think is a good word in this context. The
I believe that I will have to put the last sentence to a division, because I cannot see a way of altering it and, although I do not entirely disagree with it, as it stands it would negate my position. I had thought to add the words "the bill as submitted", but I am not sure that the committee would be happy with that, because that is not the point that is being made.
Which paragraph are you talking about?
I am talking about the last sentence of paragraph 64.
We are talking about paragraph 63. We will finish dealing with it first.
Go back to sleep.
We were dealing with the word "savings". Do you have an alternative?
"Positive effects", or something like that. "Savings" suggests money, whereas I think that the positive effects would be educational.
I have a separate point about capital budget costs, but I will go with the point about savings first.
Are there any other views on how that should be dealt with? Can we leave it as it is?
I am just asking if the term "positive effects" would do.
Yes.
One of the issues that was raised with me when I visited schools was the effect on the school day and the length of time that would be required to deliver school meals to all. There are two ways around that. The dinner time break could be extended so that there could be enough sittings to deliver the meals. Alternatively, the dining halls could be extended to hold bigger sittings. Consequently, there would be a cost in school time and educational time, or there would be a financial cost. We have not touched on educational time and that needs to be considered in the context of the whole report. However, we must flag up the point that there could be a cost for schools—even those that have dining halls—that have to undertake additional works in order to cater for the whole school. Many schools do not do that. We need to insert a sentence about that in paragraph 62 or 63.
I mentioned that to Cathy Peattie. There would be administrative complications for the school and the way in which staff are used. There are practical implications for the running of the school. I was not going to mention that when we were talking about paragraphs 62 and 63, because they do not seem to be about money. However, I intended to mention it at some point because it must be mentioned. This might be as good a place as any for it to be inserted.
We could mention it here, or include it as a paragraph somewhere else.
In the interests of balance, I argue that it is an either/or situation. The declared intention of the expert panel is to improve uptake. If uptake is improved, the administrative problems increase. Therefore, any sentence that is inserted must make the point that increased costs could be a consequence anyway. The effect would be more pronounced if the increase in uptake was 100 per cent, but even if uptake goes to 60 per cent, there will be an effect.
We move to the section headed "Overall views on the Bill".
We still have to deal with paragraph 64.
Sorry—I did not do that deliberately.
There is a difficulty with the last sentence of paragraph 64. I propose an alternative, which I would like to put to a division—"The committee accepts that there are many different way of tackling child poverty. Those must be prioritised in terms of available public resources. Nonetheless, the benefits that could accrue from a properly targeted bill of this nature could be significant." If the alternative is disagreed to, I would like it to be noted as having been offered.
That assumes, of course, that universality is not one of the key principles of the bill. I have a couple of suggestions for amending paragraph 64, before we even start talking about divisions. We are not a terribly divisive committee, but there is an opportunity for that to change. Lines 6 to 8 of paragraph 64 are another example of a sentence that declares something but then does not go anywhere. The sentence states that the committee
Unless you are Fergus Chambers.
You objected to the word "consumers", so I am being careful with my language.
Is Mike Russell happy with Jackie Baillie's suggestions?
No. The time has come for an exercise in democratic voting. We are talking about all the words after "unacceptably high." My amendment would allow the paragraph to stand as it is up to "required for this." From there on, I would substitute—in the light of Jackie Baillie's observation, I have slightly altered my original wording—the following words: "The committee accepts that there are many different ways of tackling child poverty and that these must be prioritised in terms of available public resources. Nonetheless, the benefits that may accrue from a properly targeted and resourced initiative, building on the general principles of this bill, could be significant."
I suggest "properly targeted and resourced initiative"—full stop.
Exactly. There should be a full stop at that point.
The disagreement is whether universality is a key principle of the bill. I argue that it is. In essence, you are saying that at stage 2 you will amend the bill so that there is no universal provision.
No. I am not saying that.
But that is what your proposed change says.
Are you saying that you would accept the wording, "The committee accepts that there are many different ways of tackling child poverty and that these must be priorities in terms of available public resources. Nonetheless, the benefits that may accrue from a properly targeted and resourced initiative could be significant"?
Yes.
Yes.
Fine. Well, I am happy with that.
That is not controversial at all.
No, it is not. I am fine with that.
So we can substitute that wording for the original wording.
Yes.
Could you just read that out again, son? I am not wide awake yet.
Sorry. Do you want me to read out the bits that were in invisible ink, too?
Read out the whole thing again, pal.
Please read it out again, for the record.
It reads, "The committee also believes that the levels of child poverty are unacceptably high and the Executive must do a lot more to tackle this. Resources will be required for this. The committee accepts that there are many different ways of tackling child poverty and that these must be prioritised in terms of available public resources. Nonetheless, the benefits that may accrue from a properly targeted and resourced initiative could be significant."
That is fine, except that we should take out, "and the Executive must do a lot more to tackle this. Resources will be required for this."
Okay. I will accept that.
Those aspects are self-evident. Declaratory statements do not help.
Okay.
We do not have a division.
Not yet.
I was so looking forward to it, as well.
Members will deliberate their position on the general principles of the bill in a moment. I would have hoped that the committee would at least discuss the fact that several Executive initiatives to tackle poverty have been universal, such as free personal care for the elderly, central heating and bus passes. Those are universal, and it is from that point of view that the bill's principle of universality comes.
I have no difficulty with the principle of universality.
We will move on. Do members have anything to say on paragraphs 65 or 66?
I have a general remark on the section of the report entitled "Overall views on the Bill". We should be clearer about what we are saying at this point, because this section will generate the recommendations. Although I have specific amendments to the paragraphs, I suspect that, in the light of what has been said, the paragraphs will need to be rejigged to give them different emphasis.
If we are taking the section as a whole, I have a comment on paragraph 72. I do not want to play down either side, but it is slightly overstating the matter to say:
Absolutely.
What is Mike Russell's suggestion?
I suggest that paragraph 72 should not refer to the bill. We should say that the expert panel will be of significance, but we should not make any comment to the detriment of the bill.
That is fair.
Are there any comments on paragraphs 67 or 68?
I have a minor point on paragraph 68. Rather than say
The word "through" before the comma in line 3 is not necessary.
Are there any comments on paragraphs 69 or 70?
The second-last line in paragraph 70 should read "stay" instead of "say".
The word "necessarily" in paragraph 70 would be better as "automatically".
We should also remove "if not impossible" in that paragraph.
Yes. That is daft.
We should change "the committee is concerned" to "the committee believes".
Are there any comments on paragraph 71?
In the third line, we should replace "are" with "may be", because the sentence expresses the committee's opinion.
Can we also deal with the first line of paragraph 72, which Tommy Sheridan mentioned? It should say, "the committee noted the work of the expert panel, as outlined in evidence, and felt that it would make a useful contribution."
That would be better, given that the committee has not yet seen the work.
Can we go back to paragraph 71? It should state, "could limit the amount of money which might otherwise be available" because we do not know that the money is available. We should also replace "are more able to address" with "would be more likely to address".
I have already suggested that we change that to, "may be more able to address".
Sorry. I missed that.
In paragraph 72, we have agreed to replace "has been impressed with" with "has noted".
In the final sentence of that paragraph we should put, "the committee believes that the approach being taken by the expert panel is likely to be of impact and significance."
Could we say that we would expect the Executive to give positive support to the—
That could come under the recommendations.
Given that we have not even seen the report yet—
What about paragraph 73, which deals with subordinate legislation?
I have no comments, as we have not yet received the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report.
We will hold over our discussion on that paragraph, and on paragraphs 74 to 77, until our next meeting.
I thank the convener for allowing me to sit through the meeting. I hope that the committee will vote to support the bill.
For Tommy Sheridan to leave the meeting now is like someone leaving a football match at the 89th minute.
He would have missed Ireland's goal.
Indeed.
Our discussion will be recorded in the Official Report—members should stop talking about football.
Yes. I ask members to behave, please. Let us return to the recommendations.
I suggest that, based on the redrafted paragraphs 60 to 70—or whatever—which deal with our overall views on the bill, we should begin the paragraph on our recommendations with a reference to the expert panel. We should also include the specific recommendations that we have teased out on free water and milk—subject to further information—on the removal of stigma, on the use of swipe cards in all schools and on nutritional standards. We should build in the whole-school approach, based on nutrient groups and the need for robust monitoring—which came through clearly in evidence—by an appropriate organisation such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. That would neatly tidy up our recommendations into the areas that the expert panel is considering. I would also like us to note that the committee wishes to discuss the conclusions that the expert panel reaches.
Without entering into that debate, I said earlier that I have no difficulty with the principle of universality—I have difficulty only with how universality is defined. In the circumstances, I agree entirely with Jackie Baillie, right down to her last point.
As I took a comfort break when the committee discussed the issue of free milk, I seek clarification on the committee's recommendation on that issue. I am happy to second Jackie Baillie's proposal for the conclusion of our report.
I have some credibility—
You used to have some credibility.
I suggested that we should make a recommendation about the provision of free milk, subject to further information.
So we are not recommending—
No. We will need to come back to that issue on 11 June. The view of the committee is clear. We want to make a recommendation on the provision of free milk, but we have yet to determine at which age free milk should be targeted. We must discuss that point further.
Jackie Baillie highlighted a number of recommendations. I think that the committee is happy to accept all her recommendations, except for the final sentence.
I want to delete the word "not" from "does not agree".
I assume that the rest of the committee does not want to delete the word "not".
Can we vote?
The man is desperate to vote. I do not want a vote.
We must, for the record.
For the record, he is voting on only one word.
We will vote on the word "not".
So the committee is voting on Jackie Baillie's suggestion.
Yes. We will vote on Jackie Baillie's suggestion that the committee agrees the second recommendation.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0. The suggestion is therefore agreed to.
Are members agreed?
Martin Verity and I need to get together to discuss letters to the Executive. We also need information. We will consider the matter next Tuesday.
What other items are on the agenda next Tuesday?
The committee will start to take evidence for its inquiry into the purposes of education.
We will also consider the proposal for a committee bill on a commissioner for children and young people.
Meeting continued in private until 12:18.