Official Report 279KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is oral evidence on the general principles of the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. We have received written submissions. A Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper was posted by e-mail today and hard copies of it are available for members. A note from Tommy Sheridan, who is one of the sponsors of the bill, is also available for members—it has previously been e-mailed. Spare copies of the bill will be available.
The Association of Public Service Excellence thanks the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on the bill. I will be brief, as I am aware that the committee has a number of submissions to discuss.
As Des Murray said, there are two parts to the proposal. The first part relates to nutritious meals. We have absolutely no quibble with the provision of nutritious meals—we entirely support that. The second part relates to the provision of meals free of charge. We want to raise a small number of practical issues. If meals were free, would uptake of the school meals service rise? At the moment, the assumption is untested. There are practical limitations in serving meals to all pupils. Currently, most schools have nothing like 100 per cent uptake. If uptake of school meals were to rise dramatically, the question is whether facilities could cope. Would capital be made available to upgrade facilities? It is well known in the school meals business that queueing is as important to schoolchildren as it is to other consumers. There are issues in respect of facilities and capital investment.
Does Fergus Chambers or David Melvin wish to contribute?
I think that our invitation to attend today's meeting was based on Glasgow City Council's reputation for having made a fairly radical move in its school meals service over recent years. After reorganisation, we had a good look at the service, which then had an uptake of about 32 per cent. Over recent years, we have developed a concept called "fuel zone", which has received a lot of positive—and some negative—press. Having more than doubled the uptake of meals, we have a good track record in improving the popularity of the service.
Will you expand on your view that making school meals free would devalue the service? Supporters of the bill would say that it will probably have the contrary effect. Will you also expand on the pressure the bill would place on the education service, as opposed to the school meals service? We have quite a lot of evidence on the difference that it would make to catering facilities.
There is much evidence that, if we provide something for free, it does not necessarily attract a value. When Glasgow City Council first developed its fuel zone concept, one of the first schools to convert to the concept was Lourdes Secondary School in the south side of Glasgow. One day, we decided to have a fruit promotion. The head teacher announced over the intercom that every customer that day would receive a free item of fruit and the offer was publicised widely in the school. Only 30 per cent of customers took their free item of fruit, although it was offered to all at the point of sale.
I am conscious that you cannot legislate for the behaviour of children—indeed, my daughter insists on having a packed lunch rather than a school meal. You say that you have doubled the uptake in Glasgow. Was that across the board or was the increase evident only among those who receive free school meals? Was the scheme attractive to children generally?
Between 1996 and 2001, the uptake in secondary schools went from 32 per cent to 66 or 67 per cent. In primary schools, where the level of uptake was always higher, we have gone from 58 per cent to 64 or 65 per cent. The biggest increase in uptake has been in the area of cash sales, although there has also been an increase in free school meal uptake. The rise is due partly to the fact that we have improved the service and increased the popularity and the acceptability of the system. Our research suggested that the number 1 problem was not the food but the queues, so we decided that speed of service was essential. Furthermore, we have converted eight of our 29 schools to cashless systems, which has reduced the stigma attached to free school meals. The panel that the Scottish Executive has set up is encouraging local authorities to bid for further funding to support more investment in cashless systems.
I would like to talk about those young people who do not currently eat school dinners. You say that you have increased the uptake in secondary schools from 32 per cent to 66 or 67 per cent. Have you any information—or have you an opinion—about which groups compose the remaining 34 per cent? What might influence them? That will be of major interest to the committee if we are to encourage them to attend.
We have conducted two programmes of research in that area. One was in 1996-97, when we were not at all happy with the situation that the unitary authority had inherited. The other was last year, and involved a survey of 2,000 secondary school children in Glasgow. I do not have the detail of the statistics, but the general trends are the same: the number 1 problem was queuing. If we are unable to put kids through quickly—to put it crudely—and they have to stand in a queue for 10 or 15 minutes, they will be turned off. The second point was that the facilities have to be modern and not institutionalised. The third point was that we have to provide food that is acceptable to young people. I will not use the term "fast food". Let us call it "modern food that is served quickly". I do not think that there is such a thing as "fast food" and modern food that is served quickly can be extremely healthy.
I am interested in the idea of a stigma being attached to paying. What percentage of children are entitled to free school meals? Of those, what percentage choose not to have them? Do we know whether they have anything to eat at all? Do they prefer to pay—in a sense, to reverse the stigma—because it is cooler to spend money? I have seen schoolchildren going to Chinese takeaways where there is a special deal of a meat or chow mein dish with a can of juice at an all-in price.
I will split my answer between the primary and secondary markets. In Glasgow, the entitlement to free school meals in the primary sector is 43 per cent. We currently serve 80 per cent of that 43 per cent, so the gap is 20 per cent, but we must also take into account the absence rate. I am not sure what the absence rate is in Glasgow, but if we assume that it is 5 or 6 per cent, that leaves about 14 or 15 per cent of children in the primary school sector who are not using the free school meal service to which they are entitled. Those children may go home or they may go elsewhere—and I agree that it may be more popular or attractive to them to use cash and go to a local outlet.
Fergus Chambers is speaking for Glasgow; I will speak for my authority in Dumfries and Galloway. Although my area makes quite a contrast with Glasgow, many of the aspirations and preferences of children in Dumfries and Galloway do not differ too much from those of children in Glasgow. Many of Fergus's points apply equally well to almost any authority in Scotland, but he did not mention one or two important points. One is how far away the chippy is, which can be an important consideration when you are designing a new school; and another is the weather. Our experience is that the volume of school meal business is far more sensitive to the weather than it is to price.
I would like to ask each of the witnesses a couple of questions—and Fergus Chambers will forgive me if I use different terminology because I am a wee bit troubled by the use of the term "customer" when we are talking about schoolchildren.
The Association of Public Service Excellence has as members the 32 local authorities in Scotland and Tayside Contracts, which represents Perth and Kinross, Angus and Dundee. We did not give them set questions in the consultation. We simply informed all the statutory authorities and Tayside Contracts last Tuesday that we were coming to present evidence and would welcome any views that they wanted to express on the bill. I said at the outset that none of the submissions that we got back had a fundamental problem with the underlying principles of the bill. The problems arose in relation to the capacity of the services to deliver and the potential impact of the legislation. We had 16 individual responses from various authorities; the opinions that we have expressed are a consensus of those 16 viewpoints.
I represent Glasgow City Council. The time scale for the request for a submission from the council did not allow enough time for it to go through our education committee. However, I have met colleagues in my department and the director of education and I have consulted my convener and elected members. Likewise, the director of education has consulted his convener and elected members—it is his name that is on the submission to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The comments that I have been relaying are attached to that submission.
What name was on the submission?
Ken Corsar, the director of education for Glasgow.
I thought that Jimmy Andrews's name was on the evidence that I received.
I do not have the covering note, but Jimmy Andrews would have signed the note on behalf of Ken Corsar, the director of education.
I just wanted to establish the fact that the council itself has not arrived at a decision.
The matter has not been through committee.
I see.
There is sympathy, rather than support, for some of the principles of the bill. However, in my opinion—and this is a personal opinion—you cannot simply pass a bill to give everything away unless you consider the wider implications for service delivery and whether it will be successful in the longer term. You are right to talk about the fruit and breakfast club initiatives in Glasgow, but the free breakfast club initiative in the 20 pilot schools in Glasgow attracted an average uptake of 30 per cent. Although it is free for all, only 30 per cent want it.
I must interrupt you there, because I think that you are in danger of misleading the committee. Tell us how long the free breakfast initiative has been going and whether it is available in all schools yet.
I said that 20 schools were part of the pilot scheme, which we are about to roll out across the council.
Would you agree that it is a bit premature to talk about the success or otherwise of the initiative?
No, I would not. Twenty schools make a pretty representative pilot scheme. We will do as much promotion work as we can to increase uptake, because that is in our best interests. However, if we are giving the service away free but only 30 per cent actually want it, that supports the argument that I raised earlier. Glasgow has scored well on its free fruit initiative, which is quite well documented. Just giving fruit away free three times a week to 60,500 children would not have been successful, but we have built it into the curriculum and the item of fruit is used as a learning tool every day in the classroom. It might be used to support learning about climate, geography, colours or shape—it is made fun for the children so it has value and is extremely popular. There were cherry tomatoes on day one, but nobody wanted to know about them.
I have visited a number of the schools in Glasgow and am well aware of how popular the free fruit initiative is. In fact, primary school head teachers are telling me that it is so successful that it is leading to the pupils asking their parents to purchase fruit as well. That runs counter to the logic of your argument that providing something free devalues it. That does not seem to be the case with the free fruit initiative. Are you arguing that Glasgow City Council is wrong to provide free breakfasts because that devalues the breakfast service?
Not at all. Glasgow is prioritising its funding as best it can within current resources. I am not saying that because Glasgow gives fruit away free it should give everything away free. The fruit initiative is successful because it has been built into the curriculum. It is not just a case of, "Here is a banana—take it." Children are being taught about the banana in the classroom. Interaction is taking place, which is fun for the children. That is why the initiative is valuable and successful. The uptake is extremely high.
I am sure that you accept that those who support the School Meals (Scotland) Bill would also want it to be included in the curriculum. Your comments are welcome and I am sure that they support the provision of free school meals and making that part of the curriculum. You suggested that there is no evidence that providing a service free improves take-up.
It does not improve the take-up of school meals.
You did not specify that. You said that you would provide examples from the food service. You can check your evidence on that.
Not at all. In Glasgow, we are making best use of the resources that are available. If those figures were put into the school meals service, it would not be able to cope.
Fergus Chambers and Richard Blackburn are the most likely candidates for answering my questions. What efforts are made at the point of delivery to ensure that the stigma that children who receive free school meals feel is diminished as far as possible?
I will go first. The issue of stigma does not arise where a cashless system is in use, because nobody knows who receives a free meal and who pays cash. Not enough is being done by the system—if I can call it that—where free meal tickets are used. Everyone has elements of responsibility to reduce the stigma as much as possible, although we will never be able to eliminate it.
Will you explain how the cashless system works?
At the point of sale, the tills can take a debit card—in Glasgow the technology is slightly different; the tills take a debit card rather than a smart card. A child who qualifies for a free school meal has the value of the meal credited to the card each day. The child goes to the point of sale and hands over their card, which is swiped through. The cash-paying customer also has the card—it looks identical. At any time during the day, they can visit a validator machine to insert coins, which puts credit on to the card. Alternatively, their parents can send a cheque in. Whether one is a cash-paying pupil or a free meal child, one goes to the point of sale and one is treated in exactly the same way—nobody knows who is who and therefore there is no stigma.
That could apply to the cash cafeteria as well.
Yes. That applies to the system in many schools in many authorities.
What system operates in Dumfries and Galloway?
We have no smart card technology. Without it, we can only make the effort to ensure that there is no differentiation between those who use tickets—or whatever system operates—and others. We do not believe that that is a huge problem in rural areas, partly because all the pupils know one another well in those areas. I think that there is much to be said for the smart card system. It is fair to say that most authorities do not have such a system, because installation requires a fair capital investment. However, such a system has other advantages. It can speed up queues, and throughput times are important.
The system can also encourage young people to eat more nutritious foods. In the Angus Council area, an advantage is given for eating nutritious foods as opposed to less nutritious foods.
The system offers all sorts of possibilities, such as bonus points for some items. Perhaps smart card technology would not encompass confectionery. The system is flexible. Unfortunately, many authorities have been shy of adopting it, because there were one or two bad experiences of it in the early days.
Would that be an investment worth making in developing services? Would investment in that system be more worth making than investment in some provisions in the bill?
My personal view—it is nothing more—is that the system is very advantageous. The technology has improved greatly and could have many spin-offs. It would fit with the general direction in which we are going, which is to remove exclusive measures.
In secondary schools, the system is useful, but in primary schools, the problem is bigger. It is more difficult for primary 1 and 2 pupils to use cards and put money in machines. In secondary schools, however, the system would eliminate the stigma that is associated with free school meals.
The vesting date of the bill is 31 December 2003, so the bill would come into effect for the term that started in January 2004. Between now and then, could you make the necessary changes to implement the bill, to which nobody denies that they are sympathetic? If so, what would the cost be for individual authorities and throughout Scotland?
We have given some broad figures. The problem is more in the logistics. In many schools, it would be difficult to change existing facilities to cope with that system. We would have to consider the education process and a split lunch time, which most education authorities have stopped using. The support facilities would have to be considered. In several places, existing facilities could not cope, so rebuilding some areas or making some investment would be required to deal with that.
In Glasgow, we have been through a rebuilding programme with a public-private partnership. Reconfiguring buildings in that time frame would present even more problems.
The longer the lead time, the better. Some practical capacity issues would have to be dealt with, which we have mentioned before. One problem with a dining room in a school is that, if it is used only as a dining room, it is empty for 95 per cent of the time, which is not a terribly attractive use of space. On the other hand, a double sitting can have knock-on effects for bus contracts in a rural area, for example.
How much would it cost?
That is a difficult question, which I hoped I would not be asked. I have simply an order-of-magnitude answer that I worked out on the back of an envelope and based on the situation in Dumfries and Galloway. On the revenue side, the cost would be about £75 million a year. That estimate might be out by a factor of a third either way, but it is not out by 100 per cent. A sum of that magnitude would be involved. Some capital investment would also be required if we were to use smart card technology and make improvements to kitchen and dining facilities. A total figure of around £100 million would not be an unreasonable estimate for the continuing implementation costs.
One of your colleagues is looking askance—his figures must be different.
We would have great difficulty in estimating the costs unless you told us what you wanted us to include. If you are talking about changing the education system to support the provision of free school meals, I will need to consult colleagues on the figures. I might be able to give you the real cost if there was 100 per cent uptake of the service; I might be able to guesstimate how much more kitchen equipment would be required; and I might be able to tell you whether new buildings would be required for dining rooms. However, I could not comment on the cost of the changes to the education system that would be required to support the policy. That is difficult to cost.
In Glasgow, 11 new secondary schools have just been built to provide the capacity that is required now. We would need to go through the whole process again if we had to ask them to change their facilities. That possibility was never allowed for in the costings that we have projected for the next 30 years.
One might argue that that is a good argument against PPP.
You talk about dining areas being used only as dining areas, but in many schools they are used as assembly halls and gyms. If the school lunch period were extended, those spaces would not be available for other purposes.
The transportation of meals is a big issue that concerns most local authorities. I fear less for the food safety side of things, however, as the school meals service is lucky to have many dedicated and qualified professionals. The necessary checks and balances exist in the system.
I want to develop further the point about the nutritional value of meals. Although it is legitimate for us to be talking about improving uptake and debating whether school meals should be free, there might have been an assumption that, at the very least, the meals that are provided are of a high nutritional standard. However, that is obviously not the case. Why is that? How has that situation come about? Is it to do with the money that is available to provide school meals? Is it to do with training caterers so that they know what a quality, balanced meal looks like? Is it that there has been pressure to provide food that the children want to have? Most important, will the bill address the situation and the reasons that have brought it about?
That is a huge subject—how long do you have?
You have three minutes, basically.
Irene McGugan said that it is obvious that the meals that are provided are not of a high nutritional standard. I do not agree. In many authorities in Scotland, school meals, particularly in primary schools, are of a nutritional standard pretty close to whatever standards are likely to be put in place next year. There is a huge debate—between caterers, educationists, parents and head teachers—about whether one can force a child to choose a particular meal. If a secondary school child is asked what they want to eat for dinner, nine times out of 10 they will say that they want a Chinese, an Indian, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a Kentucky Fried Chicken or any of the other sexy high street brands with which we have to compete. There are huge pressures on the service and on the staff. There are also huge pressures on the pupils or the customers, if I can call them that—
"Pupils" is better.
They are being bombarded with all sorts of marketing messages, which puts pressure on them. The school meals service has to strike a balance between offering as nutritious a meal as possible and offering choice. If we dictate to a secondary school child what they have to eat, they will vote with their feet.
I will add the perspective of a rural authority. On the question of who is the customer, the conventional wisdom has always been that, in primary schools, the customer is the parent whereas, in secondary schools, the customer is the pupil. Recently, we surveyed parents of primary school pupils and asked what their top three priorities for school meals were. We found that the top priority was nutritious content to the meal, the second was that the child should want to eat the food and the third was price.
I am conscious that we are running behind schedule. I know that one member of the committee has not yet been able to ask questions. If Brian Monteith and Ian Jenkins have brief questions, we will deal with them.
"Pupils" will do.
I have a question for Mr Chambers. There was some discussion of the difficulties caused by the layout of the 11 new schools and their delivery through PPPs. Does the difficulty arise because you have new schools or because of the method by which their building was financed?
I did not know that the debate was going to cover those issues as well.
Accusations have been levelled that the funding mechanism is a problem. We must establish whether that is the case.
Fergus Chambers can have a go at answering that, although he will need to seek advice from his director of finance.
The funding mechanism is not the problem. However, there is a limit on the capacity of the new school dining halls. We cannot simply extend them—the land is no longer available because they are on new locations. The situation is difficult.
My other question—
I thought that we were sharing the questions between you and Ian Jenkins.
If we are sharing them, I could ask him to ask the question for me. However, the point that I was going to make has already been answered.
If the Parliament or the committee felt that Tommy Sheridan's bill was impractical and had gone too far, we could offer free school meals just to all primary school pupils. Would that be a big step forward and could it be coped with more readily? Would it be more achievable?
The short answer is no. It would probably be a bigger problem, because the dining halls in primary schools tend to be used for other purposes. I suggest that about 80 per cent of the dining halls in Glasgow are used immediately prior to and immediately after the lunch service. If there were greater pressure on the service through an initiative such as the one that you suggest, that would present bigger problems in primary schools than it would in secondary schools.
I have a question on whether the content of the meals is of sufficient nutritional value. You mentioned that chips are no longer as popular as they were. The meal deal on the days on which I visited Holyrood Secondary School and Lourdes Secondary School—which, as you know, are the two biggest schools in Glasgow, if not in Scotland—was chips, cheese baguette and Coca- Cola or hamburger, chips and Coca-Cola. It seems that there is a wee bit of a difference between what you are saying and the reality.
Any nutritional expert would tell you that one meal in isolation is not nutritious. Nutrition is about the balance of a meal and a person's overall intake over a three-week or four-week period. That intake may well contain fish, chips and peas, which happens to be the second most popular meal in Glasgow. To be frank, I would prefer a diner to select that than to have the chip option every day. Fish, chips and peas is a traditional meal and contains some decent nutrition. Peas are nutritious—there is no doubt about that—and we all know of the benefits of fish, albeit that it is fried in that meal.
What would you advise the kids to drink with that meal?
There are many choices. They could drink water or they could drink milk. Are you asking about secondary schools?
Yes.
Fizzy drinks are popular in secondary schools. We know from experience that, if we ban fizzy drinks, the customers—sorry, diners—vote with their feet and go elsewhere or bring them into the school.
Is it not totally inadequate that the meal that I have just mentioned amounts to £1.10, which means that those who are on free meal tickets do not have enough to buy anything to drink?
To answer your first point, I think that you are talking about what might have been called the mega-meal deal rather than the meal deal, which tends not to have chips.
No. The meal of the day is the £1.10 option—
Let me stop Fergus Chambers and Tommy Sheridan at that point. The committee is not here to go through the nuances of the menu of every school in Scotland. Some legitimate issues have been raised, but there are avenues outside the committee for dealing with them. The specific issue that we wanted to address is the nutritional role of the meals available for children in primary and secondary schools. Fergus Chambers has provided enough information to answer that question adequately. I want to move on—
Can I not ask my question about what the kids are supposed to drink?
Before we started, I said that each member could ask one question. We are only on to the third question. With due respect, it is right and proper that we move on. There will be other chances to elaborate on the issues with other speakers this afternoon. I am conscious that Cathy Peattie wants to ask a question and that we are 20 minutes over time.
At the beginning of your evidence, you said that people generally welcomed the theory of universal free school meals but that, in practice, universal free school meals might cause difficulties for the management of schools and for educationists. I suggest that the only difficulties are with the management, not with educationists. However, the background papers and lobbying that I have received make it clear that the issue is about how we provide our kids with better nutrition. We need to encourage them to eat the right foods and to drink water instead of Coke, for example.
We have had a wee run of hearing from Fergus Chambers and Richard Blackburn, so we shall let Des Murray have a say.
If I may clarify what was said at the outset, we stated that APSE and its members support the underlying principle of improving the nutritional content of school meals and increasing the provision of school meals. However, if the question is whether we think that the School Meals (Scotland) Bill is the best way of achieving that aim, I would have to say that our members have raised massive questions about capacity, as the committee has heard.
Let me add slightly to that. If the question was phrased, "Is the current school meals service failing?" my reply would be, "Most certainly not." There is a far higher uptake of school meals today than there has been over the past 20 years. Genuine efforts have been made to look at the nutritional value of the meals and to make the service responsive to the customer—however that person might be defined. Efforts have also been made to try to build in school meals as part of the total educational experience of the child, which is particularly important in the primary school.
I need to know whether you are in favour of the proposition. You seem to be facing in two different directions at the one time, so I am a bit confused.
That is probably a fair comment, but we are not trying to prejudge the political priority that might be put on increasing the subsidy to school meals. At the moment, school meals are subsidised through the grant-aided expenditure system. The proposal is that they should be subsidised 100 per cent. In essence, that would mean that other opportunities would be forgone. That is a political issue. We are saying that, if that is the direction in which people choose to go, there are a number of practical issues that we would like to bring to the committee's attention so that they are included in the planning process.
Thank you—
Convener, I have waited until the end to ask my question.
Okay. Mind you, this will be your third question.
To increase uptake and improve nutrition, would universal free school meals be needed or could the various authorities do that?
I can give only my personal opinion, which is that the introduction of universal free school meals will not result in 100 per cent uptake. There will always be some students who choose to go elsewhere. It is well known from the surveys that what many students—especially in secondary schools—bring into their thinking is the desire simply to be out of the school at lunch time.
Does Fergus Chambers also want to respond?
I will summarise my view by saying that, although the bill contains measures that everyone would support, I would far rather wait to find out what comes out of the Scottish Executive expert panel before answering the question. There are options, but we are only three or four months away from knowing how practical those options would be. I stress again that many Scottish authorities currently have a low uptake of all meals, whether they are free or need to be paid for by cash. Simply giving the meals away free will not improve the popularity of the service. Other issues need to be taken into account.
I thank the witnesses who have given evidence this afternoon. We have gone on for much longer than was anticipated in our schedule, but I have tried to ensure that all members of the committee could contribute.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I call the meeting to order and thank everyone for their patience. Today's meeting is lengthy, but that is right and proper. With us is Danny Phillips of the Child Poverty Action Group. I thought that Danny would have other people beside him, but he is absolutely alone, looking isolated.
I will try to keep my statement short, so that we can proceed with questions. The CPAG believes that the School Meals (Scotland) Bill can make a significant impact on what we believe are unacceptably high levels of child poverty and on diet-related ill health.
We will reverse the order in which members ask questions. You are not getting in for 28 minutes, Jackie, right? I call Cathy Peattie.
We all agree that we need to consider a joined-up way of dealing with child poverty. You are right about a strategy that looks at all the issues. You talked about fighting the stigma of claiming free school meals. As well as playing an important role in fighting that stigma, would the bill deal with poverty? Could the bill give the impression that we are fighting the stigma and that that is enough?
One of the problems that we face in organising campaigns against child poverty is the low level of outrage about the prevalence of child poverty in the country—we are constantly concerned about that. Members know what the figures are: 30 per cent of our children are affected. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Executive has not prioritised the issue—things have been done and the trend is slowly reversing.
You also spoke about universal standards and about parents monitoring to ensure that the standards are good. How do you respond to the argument that the most articulate parents would do the monitoring and that it would be those parents who would insist that their kids had access to free school meals because they were entitled to them? Some kids might still fall through the net. Rather than providing free school meals across the board, would it not be better to redistribute wealth a little and to find other ways of supporting the kids who need more support, better nutrition and so on?
I do not necessarily disagree with what you say. You are suggesting that it might be better to target the system towards the poorer children. We must think about such policy issues.
How do we ensure that the children about whom we are concerned do not continue to opt out of the system, by going to the chip shop or not having lunch, for example?
I am not suggesting that if we implemented free, nutritious meals next week, all children would rush over and start eating them. We have a huge problem.
Your paper makes an important contribution to the debate. One statement, on page 1 of the paper, stuck out strongly.
What I tried to do in points 5 to 10 of the paper was to give separate examples of why that system is wrong.
One of the problems with the bill is the lack of definition of nutritious meals. However, are you saying that if we wish to provide nutritious meals to children, the only way to do that is by means of a universal benefit, as any other way would mean that people could fall through the safety net?
A universal system would be the most effective.
With respect, you are saying more than that. You are saying that that is the only way to reach as many of the children who need nutritious meals as possible. Your paper says that there will still be losers through any other system, even those who simply do not take up their entitlement.
Yes. I have tried to show that if a system is targeted by means testing, not all children who live in poverty in Scotland will be reached. I do not know whether I understand your question, but that is what I am saying.
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but you have given a wider critique of the benefits system and the society in which we live than simply a critique of the school meals system. Is that right?
The school meals system is tied to our benefits system. There is entitlement through the benefit system. There are problems in tying entitlement to a means-tested benefit. I presume that I agree with you.
You have given a wider critique of society and how we deal with such issues. School meals are one example.
I am simply trying to point out the difficulties involved in means-testing benefits and linking a service to means-tested benefits. The Child Poverty Action Group has supported the tax credit system, for example, which has means-tested elements. We think that that system can start to tackle some of the huge structural problems with child poverty. I am not saying that all systems need to be universal or that all means-tested systems are necessarily bad, but if a means-tested system is chosen, it must be accepted that there will be problems with it.
I have questions related to those that I asked earlier. How did the CPAG arrive at its support for the bill? What consultation was carried out? For whom are you speaking? If you have figures, will you elaborate on them? That is difficult, but we know that children whose parents receive income support qualify for free school meals. Do you know how many thousands of other children from low-income backgrounds do not qualify for free school meals? Do you have any international comparisons that indicate that the measure that you sponsor could be successful? As part of your research for the bill, what personal experience do you have of consuming free school meals?
I will try to remember all those questions—the member should tell me if I do not answer one. CPAG's policy was set by its executive committee. We have around 5,000 members throughout the UK and I think that the membership in Scotland is between 400 and 500. What was your next question?
Do you have any figures relating to those who are officially poor, but not—
Figures have been difficult to ascertain. I understand that there is a technical difficulty in putting a figure on how many children live in poverty in Scotland, although that may have been rectified recently. There was a technical difficulty when I last wrote to the Scottish Executive to ask about figures. Roughly 300,000 children live in poverty and there is around a 19 per cent uptake of free school meals. Therefore, there is about a 10 per cent difference. It would be difficult to put that in figures, but we are talking about in the region of 80,000 to 100,000 children. Certainly, there seems to be a 10 per cent difference between the two.
The other question related to international comparisons.
The working group received two examples. The situation in Finland seems to be well documented—free school meals seem to have made significant changes to dietary health there. Sweden also has a free school meals system and there is good uptake by children. The food is nutritious and the children eat it. The system seems to be an integral part of Sweden's strategy to combat child poverty.
What about your personal experience?
I have eaten in several fuel zones in Glasgow and many things struck me. First, charging children for water is an absolute disgrace. I went to one school where a bottle of water cost 47p. At the next school that I visited I told the kids that I had paid 47p for water and they told me that it cost them 60p for a bottle of water. That is unacceptable. At one school, I had the meal of the day, which was fish, chips and peas. It was not particularly appetising and was extremely salty, so the first thing that I wanted after eating it was a drink. When I go to a fuel zone, I try to experience the free school meal, but I have to admit that the last time that I went I had to cheat and buy a bottle of water. There is something about providing meals within a fast-food environment that the children like, but that seems to have been done at the expense of the nutritional value of the meals.
Is there a problem that free school meals might encourage more of that? Youngsters will turn away from certain things. I am not saying that they are right to do so. To contradict what Tommy Sheridan was saying, youngsters regard themselves as customers and if they want Coca-Cola they will get it wherever they can. I regret that, but it is a fact. They will not respond to food that is unattractive, just because it is free.
I wonder whether that attitude is something that we should encourage in our education system? Surely the education system should encourage children to eat healthily. That is why we have placed as much importance as we can in the bill on having nutritional standards. If we set nutritional standards with nutrition experts and follow that with a consultation process that includes children, parents and other interests, we might get a system where children eat healthy food.
I do not want to preach a doctrine of despair in that regard, but the psychology of the thing is more complicated than we might think.
You are an eternal optimist then, Ian.
Absolutely. I am a Liberal Democrat.
I am looking forward to your attempts at designer clothing, after that contribution.
Before I ask a question, I would like to clarify a couple of points. Do not benefits such as the working families tax credit already contain a calculation for an amount for school meals? Instead of being made to qualify for school meals, are not children given a cash equivalent through the working families tax credit? That is my understanding.
That is debatable. When the family income supplement changed to the working families tax credit and families lost their entitlement to free school meals, we were told that there was an element of the award that enabled families to buy school meals. However, no work has been done on the adequacy of our benefits system, although it is universally accepted that the benefits are inadequate. There seems to be a process of trying to put more money into them, but your point is debatable.
I was merely suggesting that qualification perhaps comes in a different way. If a cash alternative is provided through people's benefits, that starts to address the issue.
Yes, you are right. I am sorry. A third of children who live in poverty do not have a legal entitlement to free school meals.
I now move on to my questions. I acknowledge Ian Jenkins's point and I worry that we attempt to legislate for the behaviour of children, although that is nigh on impossible. Increasingly, children want to exercise choice. I agree with you about nutritional standards and that that choice can be a healthy one. However, do you think that legislation would achieve the same ends as the initiatives in some parts of Scotland to deal with issues of attractiveness, to remove the stigma of free school meals and to increase choice? I am talking about the positive examples, such as schools' providing free water, rather than water costing 47p or 60p?
That would go some way towards achieving those ends. Swipe cards have been mentioned. It is important to point out that swipe cards are used in only a minority of schools—maybe two to four schools in certain areas, although I could be wrong. The evidence is not conclusive that swipe cards remove the stigma completely. We have spoken to children who have said that they still know who is receiving free school meals and that there are still problems with the system.
We may be in danger of confusing the uptake with the stigma. I find that uptake is predominantly about pupils—or diners or whatever we are going to call them—exercising choice. It comes down to what is provided at school compared with what is available at the nearest retail outlet, or to the pressure that kids exert on their parents to give them a packed lunch because they prefer that to what is available at school.
I am not an expert on nutrition but, in paragraphs 31 to 34 of my submission, I have tried to outline how we can learn from work that has already been done on nutritional standards. The work of the Caroline Walker Trust, which has been recommended by the Department for Education and Skills, could be used as a benchmark. Guidelines have been set for energy and a selected range of nutrients, which are markers for the quality of the diet and have roles in the maintenance of health.
The expert panel is considering this matter in the round and is taking evidence from a variety of sources. Would it not be better to wait for the outcome of its research rather than pressing ahead with the bill?
The press has asked me whether I support the work of the expert panel and I have said yes. If pressure that we may have exerted has had anything to do with the setting up of that panel, then I am pleased. My slight problem is that the work is being done before the main principles of the service that we want to provide have been established. I feel that the work should be done after those principles have been established. We can decide now whether we want to have a universal free service with high nutritional standards. The expert panel can then play a significant role in working out how we can provide that service and how we can set nutritional standards. It may also be able to consider school management and other issues. That panel could have a considerable role, but I do not think that that affects the principles that the bill argues for.
That is helpful. Thank you.
I am conscious that we have spent a bit of time on that subject, so I thank Danny Phillips for covering a wide range of questions. I appreciate that it must be quite difficult to sit there on your own with everyone looking at you. Well done and thank you for your time.
We welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss the issue of school meals. As you say, a 10,000-signature petition was submitted to the Parliament by the STUC women's committee. I know that you also have copies of the Official Report of the evidence given some time ago to the Public Petitions Committee by Linda Shanahan and Rozanne Foyer.
Does anyone wish to add to what Grahame Smith said?
Members of the STUC women's committee petitioned on the streets on the provision of free school meals. We got involved when we heard about the bill from the CPAG. To be honest, we were not convinced to start with, which is one of the reasons why we thought we would ask children and their parents as well as the associated trade unions.
I invite questions from committee members.
Linda Shanahan talked about speaking to children, which is the right thing to do. The committee hopes that it listens to children, too. Did not some children say that there was no way that they would go into a dining room and buy anything, regardless of whether the quality was upped, the price was lowered, a jazzy surround was created or music was played? Did some children say that there were better places or places that they preferred to the school dining room at lunch time?
Yes. Some children said that, but passing the bill—as I sincerely hope that the Scottish Parliament will—would be a start. We could start to work on those attitudes. When I was a child—it was a while ago, but I still remember it—and my mother gave me my dinner money, I preferred to spend all that money at the chip shop on Monday and starve for the rest of the week. If free school meals are provided, parents will expect their children to take those meals. If education is provided to support nutritional values, that will be not a short-term but a long-term measure. We can use that to look forward for future generations.
Would the fact that meals were free be the single biggest factor in increasing uptake?
Yes. Providing money for a child to have a school meal is a worry for parents who are on a low income and particularly for single parents. If a family has three children, £27 a week must be found from benefits or from a low income to provide meals. Some people decide to make a packed lunch, as that is cheaper. The provision of meals for children in school creates much worry. If the meals are nutritional and free, parents will expect their children to take them up. I hope that education would be behind that to encourage children to take them up. As I said, the measure would not be for the short term. The aim would take a few years to accomplish.
I congratulate the STUC, its women's committee and its youth committee for some excellent work on the bill and the concerns. I do not have to ask the question that I have asked everybody else, because Grahame Smith has made it clear that he is speaking on behalf of his affiliates and is not giving a personal opinion.
I do not think that narrow politics has been an issue for us. We were impressed by the strength of the arguments behind the proposition, rather than by who presented the arguments. Like Linda Shanahan, I was sceptical about the idea. I asked why we should devote limited resources to providing free school meals for children whose parents can afford to give them nutritious meals. Linda Shanahan said that, and Frances McInnes had the same view.
I want to start by picking up on Tommy Sheridan's last comments, because I think that it is important that support for a bill is based on what the bill sets out to achieve and its efficacy. The committee has a responsibility to take evidence and scrutinise. We do not all view matters through the prism of individual personalities. It is important to make that clear.
We cannot separate them; they are all related. We have considered what we are trying to achieve. As I said earlier, we are trying to achieve a measure that will improve child health and welfare. We believe that the best way of doing that is the universal provision of free school meals that are nutritionally sound. I do not think that it is wise to separate out the various aspects. The issue needs to be considered in its totality. We have considered the arguments for and against the measure in their totality.
I return to the question of either/or. We were getting written and oral evidence that universal provision would guarantee uptake, but we have heard that that is not the case. How would you ensure that uptake was improved?
My colleagues might want to comment on that. Our view is that universal provision would guarantee increased uptake. Our assessment of that is based on experiences with other universal benefits—if I can put it that way—of which uptake is higher than that of means-tested benefits. To say that uptake would not increase is speculation. I do not think that, as was said earlier, the measure stands on its own and that simply making the order will mean that uptake will naturally follow. We made the point that the measure must be viewed as part of the overall educational experience.
The universality of provision and the nutritional aspects of meals are equally important. I take a long-term view. A substantial number of children in a Glasgow hospital were found to be suffering the effects of malnutrition. In other parts of the country, children are developing adult forms of diabetes because they have a bad diet and continually eat pizzas, chips and all the things that we know that children should not eat. The experience in America indicates that that will only get worse unless we do something about it.
I was interested to hear from a previous witness that England has introduced the Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches) (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1777). I am a member of the national school meals forum—I am the member from Scotland. We recently discussed problems of implementation. I acknowledge that England has slightly different problems because of devolved budgets in schools and far higher uptake of private finance initiative schemes and public-private partnership schemes.
I have a tiny question on your view on the budget consequences of the bill. I am not talking about costs, because they will be quantified in different ways. As many of the witnesses know, the revenue expenditure for local authorities goes into grant-aided expenditure. That expenditure is not hypothecated; local authorities can and do choose to vary the amounts that they spend on school meals—whether they spend more or less—and tackle other education priorities. Should that funding be hypothecated—that is, ring fenced—so that it can be used only for school meals?
Yes.
There is no dissent.
So, the STUC is in favour of hypothecation.
With respect, it is unfair for Jackie Baillie to make that comment. We were asked a specific question, which we answered. In this instance, hypothecation might be the most appropriate way forward, but that should not be taken as an indication that the STUC supports hypothecation in general. We have given evidence on local government finance and our position on hypothecation.
That clarification is helpful. We are conscious that hypothecation raises issues about how to address needs.
I have a question for Linda Shanahan. I am particularly touched by your concern about the stigma that is attached to free school meals and that the bill should seek to remove that stigma to help to ensure good nutrition.
There is a course in Hobbesian philosophy behind that point, but it would be useful to hear a response to that.
I did not hear all the evidence that Fergus Chambers of Glasgow City Council gave, but I recall speaking to Fergus about three or four years ago. He explained that one of the ideas behind the fuel zone was to keep children in school, which would require a holistic approach to implementing the bill and incorporating it into education. It is about diet and making food appealing to children which, if it can be done, will encourage them to stay in school.
Now for philosophy paper 2—do you want to ask the next question, Brian?
No—I will leave Oakeshott to Duncan Hamilton.
Fair enough.
I will pick up on the matter of children staying in schools at lunch time. I am aware that in various parts of England, in particular Yorkshire, children are simply not allowed to leave school at lunch time. Perhaps not allowing children to leave the school area would be a better approach.
That would have to be linked to giving children a reason to stay in school. As long as there is an appealing meal for children to stay for, I agree.
I am a bit concerned about the "appealing meal". Frances McInnes highlighted the nutritional value of school meals, which we have heard is not particularly high, although I know that it is higher in some areas. A lot of research says that it is good for us to drink lots of water, but our kids must pay for water. I can understand the desire for free drinks and so on.
That is the point that I tried to make in response to an earlier question. We cannot separate those matters out. I agree entirely that there is no point in providing a bad service, whether it is universally free or not. We must ensure that a universal service is good. If it is not, we will build up all sorts of other problems that relate to take-up and so on.
Children will tell you what they think are good nutritional meals—I know that you have been speaking to children and all sorts of other people—but those are not necessarily the same meals that would be chosen by the providers. For instance, I know young vegetarian women for whom there are no options in school meals.
We must recognise children's rights. We must give them the right to a nutritious free school meal. We must consult them and treat them in a way that is not patronising, that does not involve talking down to them and that does not make assumptions about what they are going to say or think. We have to start giving children in Scotland rights.
What if we do all that and the children still opt out?
We will not know whether they will opt out until we try. We have considered the evidence and believe that the measure is worth trying. The evidence suggests that it will be beneficial.
Last year, the Scottish Parliament introduced free care for the elderly and did not ask whether people were going to opt out of that.
Kids with money in their hands opt out of school dinners. Kids opt out of free school meals—I accept the issue about the stigma—and some of the other things that are available. We all know that kids opt out of things, but I want them not to. My question is not flippant: what will we do if they opt out?
I would be surprised if, even with universal provision, 100 per cent of pupils took advantage of free school meals. However, a far higher percentage would take advantage of school meals if they were universally free.
I agree with you about children's rights. However, should they have the right to buy non-nutritious school meals at any time? Should they have the right to buy, for example, Mars bars in schools? That is debatable.
You will appreciate that we are not planners. We have experts to provide a view on such matters. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of those experts to determine the most appropriate way of ensuring that the right facilities are available. There are several implementation issues that need to be considered. In considering those issues, it is important that the staff who are involved are consulted, as well as the pupils and parents. Frances McInnes may want to comment on the implementation issues.
The logistical and implementation problems are real and will need to be addressed. There have always been space problems in schools, concerning dining areas, gyms or whatever. We must approach the problem not only from the point of view of the catering service, but from the educational perspective. The whole food issue must be brought into education, not just the question of whether school meals are free. We need to educate not only the children, but the parents, the people who work in the service and the managers. We need to implement change through education.
Ian Jenkins talked about logistics. It is common sense to stagger lunch breaks so that all children can enjoy a free school meal. The bill would also create employment opportunities in the school meals provision service in cooking, serving and supervising children. It will tackle social exclusion through employment opportunities as well as through providing nutritious meals for children.
It was interesting to hear evidence that suggested that the use of PFI/PPP schemes in constructing schools might cause problems for amending school facilities. It will be a shame if positive initiatives in the next 30 years founder on the rocks of PFI or PPP schemes.
We had to clarify that issue. Because I allowed Jackie Baillie some licence, I allowed Grahame Smith a little licence, too.
I was making a legitimate point, convener.
Thank you for your evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We welcome our next set of witnesses. I know that some of you have been here since the beginning of the meeting and I thank you for your patience. I welcome back to the committee Councillor Helen Law, education spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—at this rate you will become a permanent member of the committee, Helen. I welcome: Councillor Eric Gotts from East Dunbartonshire Council; Craig Clement, head of education services at Angus Council; and Keith Downton, principal officer of client services at the City of Edinburgh Council.
We welcome the opportunity to give evidence on the bill, elements of which we support—COSLA acknowledges the benefits of nutritious school meals and the need to address the stigma that results in non-take-up by those who are entitled to free meals, but we are opposed to the bill. We should wait for the recommendations of the expert panel on school meals before we progress with the bill.
One of the points that has been made in favour of this bill is that it would remove the stigma attached to means testing and that that would lead to an uptake in the number of pupils eating nutritious meals. COSLA believes that the problem of stigma should be addressed by other means and advocates whole-heartedly use of the swipe card system. That is being put into practice in many local authorities.
Edinburgh's response to the bill has gained a certain amount of notoriety as it is slightly more positive than that of some other councils. I have not heard all the discussion this afternoon so I do not know whether this has been mentioned, but there is already a universally available and free nutritional benefit in schools: milk that is given to nursery-aged pupils through the welfare milk scheme. In Edinburgh, that has a 91 per cent take-up.
I have a question for my old friend Helen Law—and it is not about free meals for the children of striking miners. Your paper talks about additional costs of £160 to £202 million a year. Does that cost include the loss of income from those who pay for their meals? If so, what is that amount?
I will ask Craig Clement to break down the costs for you.
I understand that the costs include the increase that will result from the increase in the take-up of meals and the loss of the income that is accrued by authorities. It does not include capital costs associated with extending dining halls and so on.
Could you furnish the committee with a breakdown of those costs?
Yes.
Clearly, a lot of the concern about school meals is to do with ensuring that our children get appropriate nutrition that will lead to a healthier lifestyle. We have heard that children often do not get healthy meals at school, and I was appalled to read recently that some children have to pay for water. If we offer universal free school meals, is there a danger that we will simply extend a bad service? Is the service bad, or would you defend it?
There is a lot of good service in Scotland but there is room for improvement. I would welcome the introduction of standards that applied across the country. We will have to concentrate more on our breakfast clubs and after-school clubs. At the moment, there are myriad funding initiatives, and schools and councils have to go through 50 hoops, some of them on fire, just to get some funding together. We would welcome a block of funding, tied to outcome agreements, so that we can target the poorest areas. We have to ensure that our poorest children, as well as getting a free school meal during the day, get breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, together with another meal.
That does not answer the question of how to improve nutrition and improve the service for the children who use it.
As Eric Gotts said, the cashless system improves the service by reducing queues. Many kids I have spoken to say that it is not the quality or the price of the food that puts them off, but the long queues.
Most authorities offer choice, and that choice includes nutritious food. It has been said that the people at the end of the queue get very little. Authorities address that problem in different ways. Some schools have a rota system so that each year gets to be first on different days. The situation is not totally satisfactory but it is not as bad as the advocates of this bill paint it.
You have said that you feel that the bill could be stronger. How? What would be the ideal bill?
An ideal bill would deal with destigmatisation and with improving nutrition, and it might lift the threshold for free school meals—although I appreciate that that will be for Westminster to decide. The working families tax credit could include something for free school meals, but it might be better to go back to the old system where more young people got a free meal automatically. I appreciate that the Scottish Parliament cannot lift the threshold itself, but putting pressure on Westminster would be helpful.
There are short-term and long-term solutions. One idea to consider is that of introducing price differentials: nutritious meals could be made cheaper than less nutritious meals. I would not be against the idea of a pilot scheme to determine whether what the bill's supporters advocate would work in practice.
Thank you, Eric. That point is a good lead-in to the question that I was going to ask. The STUC witnesses in particular talked about a long-term educational process. Do you feel that schools and local authorities have a role in that educational process when the poor health of some of Scotland's children is undeniable? Do you have sympathy at all for the view that addressing that poor health with this bill will offset the costs and difficulties of implementing the bill?
We have the health improvement fund but, as I said earlier, there are so many different funds, pots of money, things to be bid for and plans to be put forward that a great deal of bureaucracy is required to make all that happen. Simplification, so that those initiatives are available in all schools, would be helpful.
Clearly, there is a role for local government. At the end of the day, it is in charge of providing school meals. There is no simple solution. As committee members have said, we should wait and see what comes out of the expert panel on nutrition and school meals, part of whose remit is to examine diet and nutrition. Let us see what suggestions come from the panel rather than hang all our policies on one simple policy, that is, free school meals for all.
Each of the witnesses will be aware that the purpose of the stage 1 consultation on and analysis of a bill is to examine the general principles of the bill rather than the details. What is the position of each of you on the general principles of the bill? Do you believe that those principles should be supported? Do you think that the bill would improve nutritional intake in schools?
Given that we are providing the COSLA response, it should be a collective response. The response is that we support some of the issues in the bill but not all of them.
What do you mean by saying that this is COSLA's submission? How did COSLA arrive at this submission?
In a number of ways. We consulted councillors and had a meeting of the education conveners. The bill was on the agenda of the executive meeting of those conveners on 12 April. Our submission is the collective response from that meeting.
If I say to you that of the 32 items of written evidence, 14 were from councils, and of those 14, eight councils expressed support for the general principles of the bill, five said that they were neutral and one was opposed—and that one is not even a member of COSLA—can you explain how the majority of COSLA members appear to support the general principles, but you are here on behalf of COSLA to tell us that you are opposed to the general principles?
There are 29 member councils, as you no doubt are aware, and we are expressing their collective view. With regard to the written evidence, it is down to interpretation. Many councils have said, "We support the general principles, but we are concerned about the resources. If resources were available, we would rather they were targeted at areas of need, that is, at poor families and the poorest communities." You might regard that as support for what you are saying, but I regard it as COSLA considering the poorest communities first and not wanting to go for universal provision at this time.
It is a matter of record, Helen. I told you that five councils submitted neutral submissions that presented views similar to those that you have outlined, that is, they said, "The bill could be an improvement, but if there are more resources perhaps we should do this or that." I have put them down as neutral. I am talking about eight councils expressing support for something, but you are here telling me that the collective view of COSLA—
That is democracy, Tommy. People get together to express a common view. You take account of some being in favour and some being against, but the common view prevails.
I will add to what Helen Law said. I attended the meeting of COSLA at which the education conveners were well represented. In fact, there was not a single voice of dissent at that meeting. We support the principle of encouraging young people to eat well, but we do not feel that the bill is the key to unlock that or that it is the best way forward.
For clarification, Eric, I am not suggesting for a moment that you are misrepresenting what happened at your meeting on 12 April, but I am saying that when local authorities have examined the general principles of the bill, the majority of them have expressed support for those principles. You have expressed what the education conveners of COSLA feel. With the greatest respect, Helen, that does not represent the best aspect of democracy, given that you are supposed to represent local authorities, not just education conveners.
I will clarify that. I assure Tommy Sheridan that when we go to a COSLA meeting, we do not represent only ourselves. We consult widely before we go. That is important.
We are not giving our personal views. We are representing the collective position, which is not easy.
I have spoken to eight councils that are members of COSLA, and none has said that COSLA consulted it for the evidence. I suggest that COSLA sorts that out, because COSLA does not appear to be representing the views of local authorities that have undertaken consultation.
Like any conveners, when education conveners attend COSLA meetings, they bring with them the representative views of their councils, which are fed through the COSLA system. I dispute Tommy Sheridan's suggestion that there was a lack of democracy. Of the 29 councils, more than 20 were present at the meeting. Perhaps the eight councils to which Tommy Sheridan alludes were not represented—I do not know. People are expected to attend. A collective view was taken from the majority that was present and we have expressed that view.
Given that the matter is under contention, I suggest that you take it back to COSLA to obtain a clearer view so that we can clarify it for ourselves next week. That would be more useful than playing ping-pong with the matter.
I would be happy to take the matter back to COSLA. As Eric Gotts said, there was no dispute when the matter was debated. In fact, I was surprised that the view was supported unanimously.
I am sure that members wish to ask more questions. Ian Jenkins has generously waived the right to ask a question, because of the time available.
I will talk quickly—I get the hint. Keith Downton has been quiet recently, and I would hate for him to have attended without talking. In my experience, nursery children are more prone to suggestion and instruction than primary or teenage children are. Perhaps it is difficult to draw a direct analogy between universal school milk provision and universal free meal provision, because that does not factor in children's behaviour. I am dead interested in how children's behaviour can be adapted—for reasons other than the purpose behind the bill. Do you have any suggestions?
You adapt children's behaviour by starting with them young.
On adaptation of behaviour, one must consult young people at all levels in schools. Such consultation has often led to councils adapting their school dining rooms to achieve a more cafe-style ambience and has resulted in changes in menus. It is important to learn from the ground and to work upwards, rather than to impose something from the top. That is why I think that imposing universal free school meals will not work.
I agree with that 100 per cent. There must be a whole-school approach to school meals. That is only one part of health promotion in schools. Consultation of pupils—through pupil councils, surveys or school meal committees—is essential. School meal committees have been set up in some schools to examine what is on the menu and to consider how the dining hall could be improved. I support the remarks that Councillor Gotts made about consultation.
I promise that I have only two more questions. I have knowledge of East Dunbartonshire Council's cashless system, which makes use of a swipe card, and have learned that the swipe card system had the effect of removing stigma. Eric Gotts said that East Dunbartonshire can monitor people's dietary habits from the information that the card provides, which is interesting from a nutritional point of view. Do you do that monitoring to help you to meet the demand that the children generate or with a view to changing the patterns of demand that are associated with choice and nutritional quality?
Both factors are important. I will give a slightly ridiculous example. When a parent doubted that their youngster spent so much on school meals, we were able to give the parent a breakdown of what their child had eaten on every day of the week. The card is quite an interesting monitoring tool.
Tommy Sheridan has promised me a wee question.
I have a brief question and a very quick supplementary to it. I did not see anything in your written evidence about the effectiveness of the swipe card system. What evidence do you have that introducing the swipe card system improves the uptake of free school meals?
I can speak about my authority, but I cannot speak more widely than that. There is no doubt that the swipe card system has made some difference. One of the problems is that in different authorities different percentages of pupils are on free school meals. In our authority, the percentage is quite low at only 10 per cent; that is probably not typical. Uptake has been reasonable. I think that Angus Council has more information.
All our schools are now on the cashless system; the final school adopted the system last week. Take-up of free school meals has varied—in some schools it has gone up from below 50 per cent to more than 90 per cent. In the seven schools on which we have done analysis, uptake of entitlement to free school meals has increased by about 20 per cent on average.
Is there any COSLA evidence on that? You represent all our local authorities.
That statistical evidence can certainly be supplied. Not every local authority has yet gone down the swipe card road. I alluded to the fact that our local authorities are diverse and often have different opinions. It is unusual to achieve consensus.
I suggest that to assist Tommy Sheridan we should get information from the local authorities that have adopted swipe cards.
I have the figures from Edinburgh—Keith Downton might be able to confirm them. Only two schools in Edinburgh use the swipe card system and the evidence seems to be that the uptake of free school meals from 2001-02 fell from 49.3 per cent to 44.8 per cent. The panacea that the witnesses are talking about does not seem to be proven in the case of Edinburgh.
Those are the figures that were revealed by the snapshot of the school meals census. However, there would be the same variation—if not a greater one—in the general run of high schools. We have one high school that has a high percentage of pupils who are eligible for free school meals, but which turns over slightly more than 40 per cent, and another school that turns over 96 per cent. It is not for me to say what the difference is, but I think that much of it is down to the school staff and the head teacher.
Perhaps Craig Clement could add something to that. I do not think that swipe cards are a panacea. I can remember the stigma of having free school meals—as a kid, I sat with white dinner tickets when everyone else had brown ones.
I am happy to give the committee the statistics for Angus, if that would be helpful.
The figures for the whole of Scotland would be great.
That would be useful. If I am allowed to say anything, I suggest that the point about local leadership taking responsibility is interesting.
The question is about money. At present, GAE is not hypothecated. Some local authorities spend more than their GAE allocation on school meals and some spend less and divert the money to other educational priorities. How does COSLA determine its policy on charging for school meals? Should the GAE allocation be hypothecated?
I will answer your second question first. Members will know COSLA's view on hypothecation. If we are given the resources and we agree on an outcome, we will deliver on that outcome. The collective figure that is spent on school meals is substantially above the collective GAE allocation. I do not have the individual breakdown, but I understand that the allocation for school meals is just over £60 million and that councils spend £84 million.
I thank the witnesses and members for their patience. It is now quarter to six, so we have been here for three and a half hours. The evidence session has been good. We have heard a range of opinions that will assist the committee. I wish committee members well in exploring the issue in the next few evidence sessions.
Meeting closed at 17:42.
Previous
Petitions