Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 263KB pdf

---

School Meals (Scotland) Bill

The next item is the committee's stage 1 report on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. Members will have an up-to-date copy of the report. We discussed this item in public last week and we are discussing it in public this week, which means that the draft report is not a private paper. The report has been redrafted since last week and we are keen to finalise it today. We would like to publish the report on Friday. That means that we must agree all amendments this afternoon, if possible. Do members want to pick up on particular points, or should we work through the report page by page?

Let us do it page by page.

That will save us going back and forward through the report.

Are we using the copy that has just been produced, rather than any of the copies that went before?

Yes. I hope that we are all considering the same report—we shall soon see. Let us begin at the first page.

One Plus submitted further evidence of a survey of schoolchildren. It might be useful to include that in paragraph 7, on page 2.

Are there any comments on pages 3 or 4?

There is a point that Mike Russell raised that has been omitted. In paragraph 18, line 2, we decided to say "many schools". I pay attention to what Mike Russell says.

I am overwhelmed by the fact that Jackie Baillie notes what I say—I am even slightly worried.

Are there any comments on page 5?

In paragraph 22, we say that we

"would ask the Scottish Executive and local authorities to discourage the availability of commercial soft drinks in schools."

I would have thought that that should go with the recommendations in paragraph 85.

Fine. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Our recommendations should also question the widespread use of vending machines. Both those points should be in our recommendations.

Yes. Do members have any comments on page 6?

In paragraph 28, it is unnecessarily sweeping to say:

"It is also deeply disappointing that the standard of nutrition is such that this debate is necessary."

Perhaps we should say that the standard of nutrition in many places is such that the debate is necessary. As the paragraph stands, it implies that the standard is poor everywhere, but that is not true, as we know.

Absolutely. We will include the phrase "in many places". Do members have any comments on page 7?

I wonder about the use of the phrase "potent weapon" in paragraph 33. It refers to one of the strategies, and although the committee agreed that it is an important strategy, I accept Tommy Sheridan's reservation that it is only one of many strategies. However, I will not go to the wall on it.

Perhaps we should replace that phrase with the word "useful".

Members indicated agreement.

Do members have any further comments on page 7?

Yes, convener. The second half of paragraph 34 starts:

"The committee would also urge the Executive to extend the use of swipe card technology to all schools and to recognise the point made by Edinburgh City Council and extend the use in schools to help increase take up."

The point that City of Edinburgh Council was making is that the use of swipe cards has not increased uptake; therefore, we need to reword the sentence. The council talked about a whole-school approach to the use of swipe cards. The sentence needs to be tweaked, otherwise we will be pointing in two different directions simultaneously.

Members indicated agreement.

Do members have any comments on page 8?

Have we received notice of any different point of view from Glasgow City Council, as mentioned in paragraph 38?

No.

So that was a red herring—if I may use that culinary term.

Do members have any comments on pages 9 and 10? No. Are there any comments on page 11?

Yes. I am slightly unsure where

"although the Committee recognises that there is no agreed definition of child poverty"

in paragraph 53 comes from. The Executive has set out a range of definitions of child poverty. Rather than use the phrase "no agreed", we should refer to a basket of definitions. Alternatively, we could remove the sentence entirely, as it does not add to anything.

The paragraph works without it, because the next line says what the figure of 30 per cent is based on. The sentence in brackets should be removed.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I also ask that, after the first sentence of paragraph 54, which talks about the percentage

"of children … living in relative income poverty",

we also include the percentage of children living in absolute income poverty.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any comments on paragraphs 55 or 56?

I take issue with the Executive with regard to paragraph 56—I am making a habit of this. It is true that the working families tax credit does not, to quote the Executive's letter,

"‘compensate' parents for paying for school meals."

It does, however, include a calculation for meals. As such, it is available for 52 weeks of the year, not for the 38 or 36 weeks covering the school terms. The information is therefore incorrect. It is correct for child tax credit and working tax credit but, in calculating the amounts for working families tax credit, consideration is given to the cost of meals.

I am not sure. If the Executive says that that is not the case—

Is the Executive always right, Mike?

No.

Aha! I thought that Mike was going to say that it was.

Having worked as Jackie Baillie's straight man for that line, I return to the important point. Unless there is a regulation to counter the Executive's claim as shown in paragraph 54 of the draft report, I would be inclined to go with the Government, which may know what it is talking about—it does not know often, but it does sometimes.

When we consider the calculation for how benefits are made up, working families tax credit always indicates everybody's life costs. That includes meal provision. That is how the calculation is devised. I am not going to go to the wall over this, but the wording is just inaccurate. If Mike Russell wants to be party to an inaccurate committee report, I am happy.

No, I am happy to bow to the knowledge of Jackie Baillie as former Minister for Social Justice. However, the Executive says:

"neither the existing WFTC, the Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit that will be in use from April 2003 contain a specific element to ‘compensate' parents for paying for school meals."

That is slightly different from what Jackie Baillie is talking about.

It is slightly different in that parents are not compensated directly for school meals. We need, however, to ask whether a cost for meals is included in the tax credit.

Could we add a few words, instead of eliminating that sentence?

Fine. I would be happy with that.

It would say something like "although there is an element of funding for meals".

But in working families tax credit, not in the child tax credit or working tax credit.

So we could just add those words.

Yes.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any comments about paragraphs 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 or 62, which cover equal opportunities? Turning to the part dealing with the financial memorandum, are there any comments on paragraphs 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 or 68?

The fourth sentence of paragraph 68 begins:

"However, the Committee also recognises that if the school day were lengthened to accommodate a longer lunch hour or a staggered lunch hour".

I would rather it said "altered" instead of "lengthened".

The paragraph continues:

"then there could be costs in terms of teaching time and administrative costs".

Although that is using the word "costs" in a way that is not exactly accurate, that is fair enough, and there would indeed be effects

"in terms of teaching time and administrative costs".

I would use the word "effects" instead of "costs".

And you want to use the word "altered" instead of "lengthened" in relation to the school day.

Yes, because lengthening the day is only one way of altering it.

Are there any comments on paragraph 69?

Should the last sentence not read "may accrue from a proper targeted and resourced initiative" and not

"may accrue for a proper targeted and resources initiative"?

Yes. Thank you, Jackie. Turning to the overall views on the bill, are there any comments on paragraphs 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 or 79? Under subordinate legislation, are there any comments on paragraphs 80, 81, 82, 83 or 84? Turning to our recommendations, are there any comments on paragraph 85?

We are adding to the recommendations.

Where will we do that?

We need to move the reference to vending machines and soft drinks in paragraph 22 to paragraph 85, as it fits there more naturally.

We need to drop the corresponding reference between paragraphs 70 and 78.

Do members have any comments on the first or second bullet points?

I would like to make a point about the final footnote in the report. Paragraph 87 states:

"As stated in paragraph 79, the Committee is not convinced that the Bill is capable of addressing all of the complex issues of uptake, nutritional standards and child poverty as the sponsors of the Bill say it seeks to do."

However, the fact that Irene McGugan and I voted against the recommendation that the Parliament does not agree the general principles of the bill is recorded in a footnote to paragraph 88. That could be interpreted as meaning that we did not dissent from paragraph 79, which I regard as a general statement. The paragraph states that the committee

"is not convinced that the Bill is capable of addressing all of the complex issues of uptake, nutritional standards and child poverty".

I accept that the bill does not do that, because of the way in which it is drafted. However, that is not the reason why the majority of committee members have recommended that the Parliament should not agree the general principles of the bill.

Will Michael Russell repeat what he has just said?

Paragraph 87 starts with the words

"As stated in paragraph 79".

Paragraph 88 is the nub of the point to which Irene McGugan and I have dissented. Some might argue that we should have dissented to paragraph 79.

But you did not.

Yes, because I read paragraph 79 as stating logically and clearly that we are not convinced that the bill will achieve its aims. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the bill. I support the bill at stage 1, because I believe that it can be changed. My dissent is not inconsistent with paragraph 79, but only with paragraph 88. Do you see what I mean?

Yes.

Mike Russell is dancing on the head of a pin again.

No, I am making an important point. We should delete paragraph 87, which makes a point that is already stated in paragraph 79.

Could the footnote read, "On a division, Michael Russell and Irene McGugan voted against paragraph 88 of the report"?

That would not change things. I would like to delete paragraph 87, which repeats what is said in paragraph 79.

That is fine.

Does Mike Russell still agree to paragraph 79?

Yes, because it states an opinion. I agree that the bill as drafted is not capable of achieving its aims.

Will members clarify what amendments we have agreed to make to paragraph 85?

We need to move the reference to vending machines and soft drinks in paragraph 22 to the recommendations.

The second bullet point in paragraph 85 refers to "milk" rather than "free milk".

The bullet point states that

"milk should be made available".

Our intention was that free milk should be provided.

At our previous meeting, I made clear that I would not agree to that.

Can we divide on the issue? I am strongly of the opinion that we said that free milk should be provided. Age was the only qualification on that.

As a supporter of local authority education, I believe that it should be for local authorities to decide whether to provide free milk.

If we say that milk should be freely available, Brian Monteith can think what he likes.

We should amend the report to say that free milk should be available.

Do we agree to amend the report to state that "free milk should be available"?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)

Against

Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

That upsets me, but there we are.

Brian Monteith is the natural heir and successor to Margaret Thatcher, who was the previous person to take milk away from children.

He has a great deal to live up to.

I am surprised that Mike Russell took so long to make that point.

I was working my way up to it.

The bullet point at the top of page 17 should not be there.

I thank Ian Jenkins for raising that issue.

I assume that in the final report all the bullet points will appear on the same page.

The report will be finalised with the amendments that we have agreed today. The stage 1 debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill will take place next Thursday afternoon at 3.30 pm.

I move a motion of congratulations to the convener, who has guided us through a report that was more difficult than many that we have considered.

Thank you.

I presume that we will publish the report instead of launching it, because it is already in the public domain.

Yes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—