Official Report 256KB pdf
We will hear from two panels of witnesses. I welcome our first panel of the morning. We are joined by Dave Watson, of Unison Scotland, and George MacBride, of the Educational Institute of Scotland. Thank you for attending the committee this morning.
Yes. We were satisfied with the prelegislative consultation, to which we responded, and we think that the current consultation allows people to make their views known.
We were probably less satisfied with the formal consultation. We have a problem with the fact that the Scottish Executive Education Department has not quite grasped the fact that there are staff other than teachers who work in schools. It would be nice if the department recognised that there are now thousands of various types of support staff in schools, who have a keen interest in the issue.
As you will both be aware, much of what is proposed in the bill is based on the hungry for success programme, which is being introduced in schools throughout Scotland. The bill would place hungry for success on a statutory footing. Do you believe that legislation in the area is required?
Yes, our position is that legislation is required. Although hungry for success has had a large degree of success in particular areas—particularly in procurement and in the quality of food and its nutritional value—we must recognise that that good practice has not been universally followed in Scotland. There is good and not-so-good practice in the area. We must also recognise that hungry for success has not delivered the higher take-up of nutritious school meals that we might have wished for. On that basis, we think that legislation is probably the right approach.
We agree that legislation is the right approach, for the reasons that have just been stated. However, we do not see the bill as concerned solely with school meals; it is also about health-promoting schools. Creating a legislative basis for that concept is an important function of the bill.
I have one more general question to you both. The bill will have an impact on employees in our schools. We will probably touch on some specific examples of that later in our questioning. Do you have any general points that you would like to raise with the committee about the potential impact of the bill on employees?
Yes. In general, the bill will place a range of different demands on staff in schools. We must recognise that a significant amount of administrative time and effort will be required of school administrative staff, who are not generously provided for in Scotland's schools. Charging for school meals and other food will require the collection of cash, so security will be an issue, especially in the larger schools. There is an issue for classroom assistants in relation to the impact on discipline when pupils do not get the right nutrition. Last—but, by no means least—there are issues for the school meals staff, who care passionately about the service that they deliver and are keen to make progress to provide more nutritious meals to a much larger number of the school population.
The bill will probably have fewer direct impacts on teachers. As Dave Watson said, much of the impact will be on Unison members.
My final question is for Dave Watson. Do you believe that the Executive is aware of Unison's specific concerns about the impact of the bill on employees? Are you in discussions with the Executive about the role of guidance, rather than the provisions in the bill, in addressing some of the issues that you have touched on?
We have flagged up those issues historically. As I hinted earlier, the level of dialogue on the matter is not as good as it might be. There is a cultural issue in relation to the Education Department's approach to other staff who work in the education service. Frankly, it could be better.
Mr MacBride talked in positive terms about health-promoting schools. Can both witnesses talk about either their members' experience of working with health-promoting schools or about the definition of such schools in the bill?
Fundamentally, we strongly welcome the definition in the bill, as we share the broad concept of health promotion. It is not only about physical health, important though that is; it is also about one's emotional, mental and social well-being. In the on-going work on a curriculum for excellence, one of the areas that is being developed is called "health and well-being". We think that that will be central, in educational terms, to the development of health-promoting schools.
We, too, welcome the definition in the bill. We have other members who work in schools, such as school nurses, who have a role in the health-promoting school. We also have a wider membership interest in the area. Many of our members who work in the health service and in community care have an interest in the promotion of health in schools through health promotion staff, and so on.
I have a quick supplementary. George MacBride is right to say that it is appropriate that the definition of a health-promoting school is broad, but the definition seems to be extremely broad. The concept of social health and well-being could be taken to mean numerous things. What is your understanding of it?
Our understanding of that would be that not only when they leave school, but as they go through school our young people should be confident, able to interact socially with a wide range of other people and capable of being assertive but not aggressive, and should have developed the social skills that allow them to express themselves orally confidently and effectively. All those areas are part of social confidence. We acknowledge that many youngsters have a wide range of social skills, but may not be aware of them. It is important that we make young people aware of their social skills so that they can build on them and develop them.
We would largely agree with that. A broad definition—backed up, of course, by flexible guidance—provides a holistic approach.
My question fits in with Patrick Harvie's. I have listened carefully to what the witnesses have said about health-promoting schools and have read both their submissions, in which concerns are expressed about the school estate. Both organisations make the point that it is not just in the older schools, but in the new schools that have been built under public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives that health promotion activities will not be possible because of how the buildings have been built. Unison says that "intervention is needed". Will you expand on that? It seems that buildings' unsuitability might defeat the purpose of the bill.
Yes. We have highlighted the issue for some time. Older schools had facilities that were designed for the purpose of preparing fresh produce. Best practice has shown that with a dedicated area, a school can do a great deal to make its food attractive and to get pupils to take it up.
I endorse what Dave Watson said and point out to the committee that PPP contracts are so restrictive that even a desire to move one 13A power point necessitates a debate about the lifetime impact that that will have on the building and the cost to the contractor. There have been situations in schools in which a wish to put down a square metre of carpet has been the subject of intense discussion. The system is incredibly rigid. The key issue is that, because of the drive to keep down costs, areas with multipurpose functions are built, with the result that in some new PPP-build schools the dining area is also the school's main thoroughfare for parts of the day and is the place in which events such as school gatherings and assemblies are held. Such a part of the building cannot serve the purpose of a dedicated, attractive area in which to eat one's food. Few of us would want to go to a restaurant or a cafe that was also a thoroughfare.
People do that all the time in shopping centres—they eat when they are sitting in a thoroughfare. In Cumbernauld, there is a highly successful school that was not built under a PPP contract and which has a multipurpose space that is used extremely effectively.
The short answer is yes. I understand that that is what the bill will do. We are happy to endorse that proposal, provided that things are done in a supportive way. Avoiding conflicts is important.
I agree. We think that such coverage is vital, particularly in areas in which there have been problems for many years—for example, the provision of inappropriate food as a result of commercial sponsorship has been a difficulty. However, flexibility is important, which is why we think that it is right that the bill does not attempt to define what will be covered in minute detail. The best way of dealing with the matter is by secondary legislation, which will allow flexible guidance to be developed that meets current research standards and takes into account the experience of our members in dealing with such issues.
This morning, the committee held a videoconference with young people who live in a school hostel in Shetland. We were told that four meals a day must be served there and that the proposals should not be too restrictive. Do members of the organisations that you represent work in such situations? Can you say something further about that?
We have members who are houseparents and members who have similar functions in hospitals, particularly on the islands. I was an officer on Shetland for several years and I dealt with the hostels there. Those hostels provide a different challenge to that which is provided by a traditional school environment—in many ways, the challenges are more akin to those that can arise in social work settings, in which there are issues to do with continuity of care and longer care.
The committee has pursued with Scottish Executive officials the scope of the bill and the schools that will be covered by it. Currently, the bill covers local authority and grant-aided schools, but Unison's submission suggests that private schools should also be covered. The Scottish Executive has said that private schools do not come within the bill's scope because it is not normal practice for the Executive to impose legislative burdens on the independent sector. Will you say something about that? I am also interested in your views on the effects on the private nursery sector.
I understand that the provisions will apply only where the state contributes to education. However, we see the bill as predominantly a public health measure and therefore we see no reason why private or independent schools cannot be covered by it. Private clubs are not excluded from the provisions of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, for example, and we see no reason for excluding private or independent schools from the provisions of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill, which is about promoting good practice. We may come on to this later, but the evidence that we have seen indicates that the problem of childhood obesity is not limited to state schools and to the children who attend them. It is an issue for all children, so we see no reason for excluding the paying sector.
Neither do we see any reason for excluding the paying sector. I will make two points. First, SEED is being a little disingenuous when it says that it places no legislative burdens on private schools. A great deal of legislation, including a bill that was passed two years ago, deals specifically with private schooling. Private schools are regulated by law in many ways. Secondly, this year one of the key themes of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in its inspection of the nursery or pre-five sector, including both the private and public sectors, is healthy eating and nutrition. The precedents exist, and we have no difficulty with the bill being extended to cover the private sector, beyond the very limited coverage that it already provides for places bought by way of private provision by local authorities.
As the good people of Shetland reminded us, the bill is about meals and snacks at school. What benefits will the proposed power for education authorities to provide snacks at school, either free or at a charge, bring to children?
It will bring very positive benefits. The provision of free fruit in Glasgow primary schools has had a major impact on the attitude of children in many schools towards eating fruit. They eat it with enthusiasm and keenness during the school day. The bill will support practice of that sort. It should also deal with the issue that Dave Watson has raised: the provision in many schools of vending machines that in the recent past have sold—and sometimes still sell—unhealthy food. There is clear financial pressure on schools, because often a profit is made from such machines. We welcome the fact that some authorities, such as Glasgow City Council, have taken steps to remove vending machines that sell high-sugar drinks and snacks and to replace them with machines that sell healthy snacks and fresh water. This is an important power in the bill and is part of a package of measures.
I agree. There is good practice at the moment—Glasgow City Council is the example that is often cited. Breakfast is a particularly important meal. We should ensure that children have the right nutrition when they start the day. Earlier I hinted at the fact that having the right nutrition in place impacts on issues such as discipline and behaviour in schools. Although there is good practice, the bill clarifies the legal powers that exist and ensures that there is no doubt that local authorities have the power to provide healthy snacks to children. Good practice will spread across Scotland as a result.
We have received evidence that when schools try to change over immediately to healthy vending machines, children walk away. Do you think that a gradualist approach should be adopted?
We had the same experience when people wanted to get our school meals staff to change the culture overnight. The thrust of the bill is not about making a change. We will not have less obese children and better nutritional standards overnight just because we pass legislation. We must recognise that we are in the business of culture change. The experience on the ground is that when we change things gradually, we get people used to a different way of working. The evidence demonstrates that the changeover period has been successful.
Experience shows that it is important to encourage people and to give them rewards, not just sanctions. We must build in reward schemes, so that youngsters who eat a healthy diet are rewarded for doing so, until it becomes part of their normal culture.
Are there practical and staff resource issues that education authorities may face if they seek to make full use of the power? I am thinking of issues such as the need to extend the school day so that kids can come in for breakfast, the need for extra catering staff, and the safe storage of food.
There is no getting away from the fact that providing nutritious food in schools at different times of the day raises staffing issues. The cost of that falls on local authorities. As members will be aware from other evidence that has been given, local authorities rightly feel that their budgets are under considerable pressure. One thing to highlight is the fact that many of the Scottish Executive initiatives come with short-term funding, which is fine because it enables some innovative developments. However, once that short-term period has passed, there is a need to ensure that, if an initiative is working, the funding for it is continued. So if the initiative is seen to be good—and healthy eating is a good initiative—the Executive must ensure that long-term funding is put in place so that schools can respond to that change over a long term.
We endorse that, but I stress that school meals staff do a heroic job with very limited budgets for the amount of food they have to provide. They work creatively with those budgets. The whole school meals service is underfunded, and that needs to be addressed.
Before I ask my questions, I draw the committee's attention to my entry in the register of interests and my membership of Unison.
There are competing pressures. We agree that there should be a duty on education authorities to increase the uptake of school lunches. Our written evidence proposes a couple of ways in which that could be done. One way might be not through the bill, but through Parliament and the Executive investigating the role of planning or licensing legislation and restricting junk food outlets—I stress that I am saying "junk food" and not "fast food"—in the immediate vicinity of schools, or stopping them from operating during school meal times.
We agree that the issue needs to be put in its wider context, and I entirely agree with the EIS's position on junk food vans; there are areas of licensing that might be used to do something about that.
A number of questions follow on from what the witnesses have said. Mr MacBride made the point about junk food vans; the committee has a lot of sympathy with the idea of getting them out of the vicinity of schools. While I was visiting schools in my constituency and other parts of Scotland, it struck me that some young people will walk a considerable distance out of school to obtain food from another place. The problem is not just the van outside; people are prepared to walk pretty far. They may be entitled to a free school meal, but they choose not to have it. How we can break that? We cannot shut every retail unit in the vicinity that sells food. Are there any examples of initiatives to encourage young people to remain in school for lunch that could be followed throughout Scotland?
There is no one answer to that; if there were a magic answer, presumably someone would have thought of it already. The process is incremental: first, one has to start by ensuring that the locus in which school meals are eaten is attractive. Some schools and education authorities have done a lot of work to make those areas more attractive through the furnishings, the provision of plasma screens and background music and so on. A second important aspect is creating a pleasant culture and atmosphere in the school dining room. Issues that can be dealt with include plants, the ways in which youngsters are brought into the area, and systems to avoid long queues, which can make people impatient. There are important aspects of staff training to ensure that dining rooms are welcoming areas. I repeat that the quality of service that is provided by dining room staff in this country is exceptionally high.
Many initiatives have been tried in that area, a lot of which have tended to focus on the marketing approach. They are important, but as George MacBride said, the approach has to be introduced into the whole life of the school. It is not just a case of, "That would be something nice to do. Let's have some clever marketing ploys." We have offered iPods in Glasgow and other such initiatives. They are worth while, and we should always be trying further ones, but they have had limited success.
Both witnesses have talked about the physical constraints in schools, irrespective of the construction method. I do not think that I have been into a single primary school, including the primary school that I attended, in which the gym hall does not double up as the dining hall—that is how our primary schools have been built. Given the physical constraints, in both the design of the building and the schools' staffing resources, do we have the capacity—particularly in secondary schools—for a massive increase in the uptake of school lunches?
Some schools would find a massive increase extremely difficult. Schools would have to consider timetabling, so that there was more than one dinner session. Otherwise, they would have the problem—which is certainly off-putting for some youngsters—of massive queues building up and folk thinking, "I'm not going to stand at the back of this. I'm off to get something somewhere else." That would impact on the organisation of the school. Although I do not know of any cases in Scotland, some schools in England operate timetables that allow for two or even three different dinner sittings. That is a practical issue to investigate rather than one of principle.
I agree. Physical capacity is important, but we need to address other capacity issues. One such issue that is close to our heart is the training of school meals staff. There have been some good initiatives, but it was admitted in the initial evaluation of hungry for success that the training of such staff had not been as successful as people would have liked and that not enough effort had been made. Our members are passionate about improving training and standards. There is great willingness to do that and we hope that the bill will place more emphasis on addressing that capacity issue.
Mr MacBride made a point about restrictions on the sale of junk food in the zone around schools. Unison also supported that idea in its written submission. Does that not sit a bit uneasily with the incremental culture change in schools about which Mr Watson spoke? Rather than local authorities banning food vans, should we not encourage them to work with those businesses to try to get them to improve what they are doing? One local authority to which we spoke earlier this week plans to approach such vans and offer the employees training as a foot in the door to having a relationship that will help to encourage the vans to offer healthier choices.
That would be a helpful initiative. When we raised the issue previously, we said that it was for further discussion, debate and investigation. If what you suggest is a way into dealing with the matter and it leads to improvements, we would be happy for it to be followed up.
Scott Barrie made the point earlier that even if junk food vans were not outside schools, pupils would go further afield. Banning vans from operating outside schools is a limited measure, but it should be part of a series of measures to incentivise the uptake of school meals and nutritious food in schools. That would not be going over the top. We should take measures to deal with not just the vans, but the other food outlets in the area. Pupils do not just go to the chip shop; they go to the cake shops and many others.
On a point of information, I declare an interest as a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
I note the witnesses' position on free school meals, about which one of my colleagues will ask them specifically in a moment. My question is about the proposed duty on education authorities to ensure that the identity of pupils who receive free school meals is protected. Will that have any impact on increasing the uptake of free school meals by pupils who are entitled to them?
I am not sure that having such a duty will lead to an increase in uptake. One would hope so and it is a necessary condition to increase uptake, but I am not sure whether it is sufficient. Even if it does not lead to an increase in uptake, pupils have a right to anonymity. Education authorities and schools on their behalf must develop anonymous systems. Large secondary schools in large authority areas have been provided with such systems that operate effectively and efficiently and they ensure the anonymity of youngsters. I am not sure that that is the case in smaller schools, or that it is as easy to organise in smaller schools, but we endorse whole-heartedly the principle of anonymity. If anonymity increases uptake that is a benefit, but it is a right in itself.
I agree. We think that it is necessary to introduce a duty in that area. You will hear evidence that supports a voluntary approach, but statistics show that 71 per cent of secondary schools and only 40 per cent of primary schools have introduced anonymised systems for free school meals. Some might say that that is still a lot of schools, but it means that three out of 10 secondary schools and six out of 10 primary schools do not have those systems.
Mr MacBride said that some schools have introduced effective systems. Can you highlight any other evidence of good practice?
It might be invidious for me to refer only to Glasgow but, having been employed there until recently, I know it best of the 32 local authorities. The fuel zone system in Glasgow secondary schools ensures complete anonymity because pupils use the same card to pay for food at playtimes and intervals—if they have money to do so—and to get a free meal. Moreover, for people who are concerned about such matters, it is extremely difficult to use the system fraudulently. The software that supports the system might be fairly crude, but it guarantees anonymity and gives youngsters flexibility.
I can point to certain cashless and ticket-based systems that have been introduced. However, they are not cost-free options. Our members, presumably, will have to administer such systems, which involves significant time and cost burdens and means that other things in the school simply do not get done.
A recent television report highlighted the use of palm-print identification, particularly for primary schoolchildren, who might well lose their cards. What are your views on such a proposal?
I am not happy about going down such a route. Instead, we should put in place fallback systems and teach youngsters—who will, after all, lose their cards from time to time—how to be accountable. Palm-print or fingerprint recognition has also been proposed for library borrowing in schools, but I believe that, as far as the broad health-promoting schools concept is concerned, making everyone look like a suspect would not be a healthy move.
I agree.
I have lost my card on several occasions.
But you are a suspect, Jamie.
My questions are mostly for Dave Watson. Why do you support universal free school meal provision, given the cost implications and the Executive's strong argument that resources can be more effectively used by targeting the children and families who are most in need?
The debate boils down to where we are on the spectrum between universal and targeted provision. You will not be surprised to learn that Unison tends to favour universal provision—for free school meals, for prescription charges and for many other things. I accept that it is outwith the remit of the Communities Committee—and, in fact, of the Parliament—but resource issues could be addressed through the tax system.
I think that my second question has been covered. The Hull experience is interesting. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that the rich simply eat more chips than the poor.
Well, no—but there does not seem to be a huge difference across the different groups. Obesity problems may apply to different extents, but they apply across the board. We have to address the problems for all kids, not just those from certain socioeconomic groups.
I had three questions, but Dave Watson has just answered two of them.
That is good, because I must remind everyone that the witnesses are going to the Education Committee as well, so we have only got until 11.30.
I will be quick.
We welcome your attendance and participation at the committee, but I ask that you restrict your comments to asking questions.
Dave Watson has answered the question about Unison's support for free school meals. My other question is about procurement. How should local authorities go about procurement? For example, are you aware that in Rome the procurement arrangements mean that most of the food that comes into schools for school meals comes from within 30 miles of the school? You mentioned private sector contracts. How would we tackle the issue in relation both to the Executive's bill and to the circumstances that would have prevailed under my bill?
Procurement is an important issue, which I hope that the committee takes on board, whatever its views are on other issues. There are some good examples of best practice. It is always invidious to pick out one local authority, but members may have seen some of the work that has been done by East Ayrshire Council.
Some committee members visited East Ayrshire on Monday and saw the excellent work that the council is doing.
We flag up that council's work as an excellent example. In our submission, we also highlight the work that has been done by WWF, which showed that there can be an impressive 40 per cent reduction in the ecological footprint of school food when we get procurement right. We emphasise to the Executive that while the McClelland report and other procurement initiatives are fine, there is a risk that they will drive centralised procurement to make savings. Local procurement has merit in both supporting communities and addressing environmental impacts. Getting children in schools involved in procurement issues also brings to their attention the importance of addressing the ecological footprint and environmental issues.
We endorse that position. The first criterion to be addressed is that of the nutritional quality of the food, but once a number of suppliers can meet the appropriate nutritional standards, positive weighting can be given to those that are local, those that supply ethically traded produce, those that are environmentally sound and those that are not wasteful in their use of packaging. Positive weighting should be given to all those factors to balance the issues of cost.
That concludes our questions. We have covered our lines of questioning, but if you can think of any relevant subject areas that have not been covered you may raise them with us now. If you cannot think of any now but do so later, by all means feel free to write to us and we will consider your subsequent written evidence.
I think that we have covered everything.
That is helpful.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses, who represent the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are joined by Councillor Charles Gray of North Lanarkshire Council, who is COSLA's education spokesperson, Councillor John McGinty, Michael O'Neill and Robert Nicol. I thank them for coming.
As we told the Finance Committee, the consultation was appropriate. The process was a bit short, but that does not bother us, because the bill follows on successfully from and is akin to the hungry for success policy, which was adopted some time ago. Progress so far has been reasonably good. We support the bill, which recommends and will put on a statutory basis many of the measures that we have successfully introduced.
The witness from Unison on the previous panel highlighted the organisation's concerns about the consultation. He said that when the Executive consults on education matters, it predominantly consults teaching staff and does not always consider other staff in the school setting. As local authorities are responsible for the direct delivery of education and for the wider provision of services in schools, do you believe that all the relevant matters were consulted on sufficiently?
I would say so. I cannot speak for every local authority in Scotland, but that has been the case in my authority. Inspectors from the catering department carry out quarterly visits to schools to check up on efficiency and the quality of the meals. Head teachers and other members of staff who are involved in the provision of meals write a one or two-page report that is returned to the resource sub-committee in our education department, to ensure that the quality, quantity and timekeeping of the meals have been right.
The hungry for success programme is being implemented in Scotland's schools, but the bill will put that programme on a statutory footing. Is that the appropriate approach?
It has got to be, now that the bill is halfway through the process, and we have said that we will support it. It is good that the bill will give a legal basis for some of the hungry for success measures. However, we seek flexibility to allow in certain circumstances for the phasing in of provisions, particularly those that do not necessarily go in the same direction as the hungry for success programme, such as those on sweets and fizzy drinks. A fair amount of income is derived from the sale of such items in schools, so we must act sensibly and look for alternatives. We expect the programme of elimination of such items in schools to be phased in.
I have some questions on the aspect of the bill that deals with schools and hospitals becoming health promoting. What is your current experience of the concept of health-promoting schools? Will putting that concept on a statutory basis be a positive move? Will it bring any advantages over the current situation?
My colleagues may want to add to my answer. We believe that it is right to have a statutory basis. Every authority in Scotland accepts the policy of health promotion for schools. Some are doing that more or better than others, but implementation of the bill would be most helpful.
Health-promoting schools have been an effective and positive initiative. In our council area, the initiative has been embraced by all our schools and we have aimed to embed it in the curriculum in West Lothian's education structure. For example, it features in our local improvement plan, which allows an update and a report to be given on progress. The practical experience of health-promoting schools has been positive.
Perhaps I, too, should declare an interest, as members did earlier, as I chaired the expert panel on school meals that produced "Hungry for Success: A Whole School Approach to School Meals in Scotland", so I have a vested interest in ensuring that it works. If it does not, I will certainly be in trouble in North Lanarkshire.
I will ask the same question as I asked of the representatives of Unison and the EIS about the school estate; I do not know whether you heard their evidence. Your submission says:
Some of it.
Did you hear the evidence about the school estate?
Yes.
The evidence from Unison seemed to be that costs often dictate the building of schools and whether they use multipurpose areas, which would work against having attractive dining and snack areas—I hope that I am paraphrasing properly. The EIS gave pretty well the same evidence. Will you comment on that? Is joined-up working going on to ensure that the schools that are being built are healthy?
Joined-up working certainly might have taken place between the two unions, but I am not sure whether what they said was wholly accurate. My authority is building 26 new schools under the PPP arrangements. We have concentrated on the facilities that youngsters will enjoy when they eat lunch. In new schools, the number of kids who take lunch has improved.
A number of issues will be of interest to the committee. My colleagues in various parts of the country, not least North Lanarkshire, have made me aware of schemes that are under way, and I am also aware of what is happening in other parts of the country in my capacity as a member of the executive of the Association of Directors of Education Scotland. It is probably fair to say that a focus on the nature of the dining hall has been important in all the schemes for school rebuilding. I heard what George MacBride had to say, and I agreed with much of it. As I learned when I chaired the expert panel, for the most part the reason for the lower uptake of meals in secondary schools has nothing to do with stigma; it is simply to do with adolescence. Fifteen-year-olds want to get out of the school; they do not want to be regimented.
It is interesting to hear that, because we have been hearing conflicting evidence and I think that I will have to investigate the issue further. Do all the members of the panel agree with Mr O'Neill's view?
In relation to our local provision, I would echo what Mr McNeill said. In refurbishing and improving, or rebuilding, our schools, we aim to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that we can adequately accommodate the young people who will learn and receive their education there. We also aim to improve their experience of dining, if that can be achieved. Two schools in our council area will be rebuilt and we know that, because of population growth, we will probably have to build another two or three secondary schools in the next 10 to 15 years. That provides an opportunity to consider the dining experience for young people. Mr O'Neill referred to the cultural aspect and why children stay in or go out of schools, and the rebuilding programme gives us the opportunity to address those issues. We can take away some of the regimentation and make the experience much more attractive for children who have lunch in school.
We have been talking about the policy to drive up school meals uptake. I do not think that there are any specific targets or statutory guidelines, but what level of uptake of school meals would you be happy to see, given the issues that have been raised, particularly by the expert panel?
That is an interesting question. COSLA has made a plea about not setting targets. In Scotland, we have a habit of setting targets, which can become inappropriate and so do not drive the agenda. I am not sure that we want targets for uptake; the challenge is to get young people to eat more healthily. A child does not have to have a school dinner to do that; they can bring a packed lunch to school—there is nothing wrong with that. In North Lanarkshire, in conjunction with local industry—the EIS has also been doing work on this—we produced a healthy packed lunch leaflet to ensure that parents understand. Part of the problem of overcrowding can be solved by fifth and sixth-year pupils pre-ordering meals and eating them in their common rooms or bringing packed lunches. The issue is not the uptake of school meals; it is about pupils eating healthily, recognising that that can happen in a number of different ways and at a number of different times.
Councillor Gray will be pleased to know that, just before he came in, I stood up for schools in North Lanarkshire and pointed out the benefits of the joint campuses and dining facilities. I am glad that he was able to back that up.
There was no collusion.
Let us move on to the provisions on nutritional standards. COSLA's submission states that you were only recently provided with a copy of the nutritional standards and so were unable to comment on them in any detail. Do you perceive any benefits to giving the nutritional standards a statutory basis?
In fact, the standards knit very well with the current provision of lunches under the hungry for success/healthy eating agenda. The situation might be slightly different for snacks and breakfast clubs. We find that the provision of breakfast can be expensive, but we are doing it all the same. It is a pretty plain meal, so we have no great concern about that. Not every school in every authority is managing to do that, but we are making progress and there is an increase in the provision of breakfast.
Does anyone else have a comment on that?
I repeat what I said earlier. COSLA's view is that the nutritional standards are not much different from the nutrient standards in "Hungry for Success", which is to be welcomed. Scotland was well ahead of the game when we launched "Hungry for Success", which set standards that were much better than those south of the border, before Jamie Oliver started his campaign. For our country, there is something symbolic about having those standards embedded in statute; it sends out a signal. It is a symbolic gesture that is worth making rather than a practical measure—although, in practice, the standards will be used in schools and will be inspected and commented on. Their being in statute will perhaps help that.
Michael O'Neill must have been speaking to Moira at St Patrick's primary school. The other day, she said that the school was providing healthy meals long before Jamie Oliver was on the television.
When I chaired the expert panel, I said that my expertise did not stretch to that. The panel comprised dieticians, researchers and people who knew a lot more about that. Colleagues such as Fergus Chambers, who appeared before the Finance Committee recently, were also there.
It is worth noting the alacrity with which local authorities and schools responded to "Hungry for Success" and the promotion of healthy eating in schools. It would be fairly easy to allow a degree of flexibility on some of the things in the bill that have been talked about; schools would not have to be hide bound by the standards. If there was some flexibility, the alacrity and enthusiasm would not wane.
COSLA's submission suggests that the introduction of healthy snacks and drinks should be phased to reduce the risk of young people going to the chip shop, the baker's or corner shops to spend their money. There seems to be a lot of sympathy for that. If you have not had the opportunity to consider the recommendations in detail, we would be happy to hear from you in writing, but do you think that the proposals on phasing get it right?
Yes. The phasing seems reasonably appropriate. The issue for schools, rather than authorities, will be twofold. First, they will not want to drive young people out of school. The argument is that if we want to create healthy lifestyles and encourage young people to choose to eat healthily, they need to be in school. The first thing is to keep them in school to attempt to help them. If they leave school to buy things outside, we have lost them. That is an argument for a phased approach.
I hope that it is cool. I remember warm school milk.
I remember that, too. The water is chilled.
I would certainly endorse the phased approach as a way of assisting a change in culture. It is interesting that the background paperwork emphasises the need to give young people choice. We must also recognise that we need to make an impact on their dietary choices by bringing about a cultural change in the choices that they make. The phased approach that has been described, whereby machines gradually convert from one type of product to another, will have more chance of success and will be more effective at capturing young people and ensuring that they make the healthy choice. At the end of the day, that is what we are trying to promote.
On that point about vending machines, I see that the COSLA submission states:
The position will vary from council to council. The issue is perhaps complicated by the fact that the vending machine sits alongside the school tuck shop. I appreciate that there is a difference between the two things, but schools have always run tuck shops, which also provide money for the school. Some schools might have no vending machines because they have a tuck shop instead, whereas other schools might have no tuck shop but have vending machines. Many local authorities throughout the country have offered to take over the school tuck shop to turn it into a healthy tuck shop. In the schools that already have healthy tuck shops, the financial impact of the bill will be minimised because youngsters already buy healthy foods such as grain bars, Nutribars, water and fruit either from the tuck shop or from the vending machines.
Paragraph 51 of the explanatory notes to the bill states:
Tuck shops as such are not part of the catering budget and are nothing to do with the local authority. Tuck shops are run by the school and the funding that they generate is separate and belongs to the school. Although they are financially regulated by the authority, they are not part of the authority's funds. Contracts with vending machines companies have been entered into by schools directly rather than by the local authority. The issue relates to the decisions of the devolved school management.
I want to move on to a problem that keeps coming up in evidence, which is the selling of food by mobile vans and shops close to schools. Could the Scottish Executive do anything to tackle the problem of children purchasing unhealthy food from such places?
A licensing scheme of some kind for vans could be considered, and the proprietors might be persuaded to check the fat and sugar content of what they sell. A van appeared in my area some time ago, but it did not last long because the kids did not want the big cream buns and so on that it was selling very cheaply.
Do local authorities have sufficient powers under the current licensing regime to deal with that, or would they need additional legislation?
I think they have sufficient powers. Licensing committees are inclined to be independent, as they work under licensing rather than local government laws. Perhaps one or two authorities have been slow to realise that there should be a link between their granting licences for food vans and the vans' proximity to schools. We are probably too late in a lot of cases, but when applications come up for relicensing, local authorities could give consideration to refusing them sensibly.
Local authorities also have a general duty to promote well-being. If the powers under the licensing laws were not enough to meet the duty to promote healthy schools, the general duty would be sufficient to tackle the problem of mobile vans and vending outlets in schools' immediate area. Would you support that?
Yes.
I would like to add to that and to endorse George MacBride's comments. Although we would welcome the opportunity to move vans away—head teachers write to me all the time about that—there are two points to remember. First, as George said, it will not solve the problem: if the children have to walk 500 yards further, they will do it. I taught in a school near a row of shops—such shops are not going to close at lunch time.
The Executive has written to all directors and chief executives to highlight the work of East Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire councils. They have carried out work to implement policies on some of the issues that we have been talking about, including restricting how vans operate outside schools. It will be for local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate for them to go down that road, but there are case studies that the Executive is attempting to highlight. Local authorities will examine whether those approaches are suited to their areas.
COSLA's submission suggests that there may be a downward trend in uptake of school meals, especially in secondary schools, as a result of implementing the healthy nutrition standards. Can local authorities take action in the short term to prevent that, or will kids continue to vote with their feet?
I am less cynical about the iPod incentive than previous witnesses were. There are a number of things that we can do. The first point that I would like to make is one that I have made frequently and which perhaps gets lost as a result of our Scottishness—our tendency to focus on the negative. Five or six years ago, before "Hungry for Success" was published, pupils in schools were eating burgers and chips. Uptake of schools meals could be 100 per cent, but it was of 100 per cent unhealthy food. Uptake may have dropped, but all those who eat school meals are eating healthy meals. That is a huge success that we should not forget. We should acknowledge that pupils in primary and secondary schools across Scotland are now getting healthy meals, free fruit and water. There has been a slight drop-off, but the majority of pupils are getting those things.
Will uptake increase in the longer term, or should we not target that? Mr O'Neill made the glass-half-full argument—the children who are eating school meals are now eating healthily. Will the bill increase the number of kids who take school meals, or should that not be a priority?
The bill should—as it will—place a duty on local authorities to increase uptake. It is pointless to put a figure on that because, as we have discussed, provision of healthy packed lunches will vary among schools. Every youngster in a school may be eating healthily, but more of them may have packed lunches than have school lunches, or vice versa. Rather than there being a specific target, there should be a duty for local authorities to increase uptake and to ensure that youngsters eat healthily, perhaps through packed lunches being healthier.
I agree that we should not have targets for uptake of school meals. As Michael O'Neill said, the bill seems to exclude nurseries. We are providing healthy food in nurseries, which is where the work starts. We started hungry for success in primary schools. In the medium term there should be an increase in the uptake of meals, simply because the children who have had meals will be coming through from the nurseries to the primaries to the high schools, which are now blessed with facilities that they did not have a long time ago.
Children's experience in the early years of their education will have an impact on the choices that they make. Local authorities are working harder and smarter at trying to make meals attractive, which has to be part of the overall process. We discussed earlier how to make children want to become engaged with the whole experience, which is critical.
I have a brief question on procurement, which Frances Curran asked the previous witnesses about. We all know about European procurement rules. I am interested in what East Ayrshire Council does. Does COSLA provide guidance to local authorities on how to draft contracts to source local, organic, quality produce—which all adds to the eating experience—rather than mass-produced stuff?
I am aware of what East Ayrshire Council is doing and what the Highland Council has done through the Soil Association. We do not share good practice or provide guidance, but through giving evidence and our work with partners, we can highlight where councils are doing innovative things.
As we all know, the bill is not just about school lunches but snacks. What benefits to children will the proposed power of education authorities to provide snacks—either free or at a charge—bring?
That is a helpful question. In a sense, we already have that power under the power to advance well-being, but in my experience, the power is difficult to use. The clarity of the new power will be helpful, because it will mean that we will not always have to think how we can do it. I suspect that the strongest focus will be on breakfast clubs and services and on local authorities helping schools with healthy tuck-shops, healthy vending or the extension of the free fruit initiative. The clarity of the new power will allow authorities to act without having to consider how to get round legislation.
You said that you had breakfast clubs, which might have resource implications, given that the school would have to open early. Would authorities face any practical or staff resource difficulties in making full use of the power? I am thinking along the lines of extra staff, such as catering staff, staff flexibility, safe storage of food, volume of food and so on.
Breakfast clubs are fairly simple. They usually provide tea and toast and that kind of thing. It is remarkable that, where breakfast clubs have been launched in schools, the teaching and catering staff are tremendously enthusiastic to come in 15 to 20 minutes early to make sure that the children get what is good for them. There might be long-term resource problems if there was a dramatic increase in provision of snack-type breakfasts because local authorities would have to find the money and such provision is becoming expensive, but the picture as regards staff resources is good.
There is good will from staff.
Yes.
The breakfast clubs initiative has been hugely successful throughout the country and the cost is minimal because what they provide is a light breakfast. In larger schools, the staff costs are often subsumed because the staff would be there anyway, although there are some resource implications in smaller schools and rural schools, where extra staff have to be supplied. There will be resource issues in the long term.
I represent the Highlands and Islands, where we have the unusual situation of kids being picked up by bus sometimes before 8 o'clock in the morning. I do not know how practical it would be to provide breakfast when they arrive at school, just before they are taught. If the school day was extended, that would have significant implications for them. I appreciate that things are more straightforward in urban areas, but in rural areas there are difficulties with breakfast clubs.
The witnesses anticipated most of the questions that I was going to ask, but I have a specific question on COSLA's written submission, which states that the duty to promote school lunches
There are a number of aspects to the question. Every local authority in Scotland prepares a school estates management plan and submits it to the Executive. At present, the school estate is being upgraded throughout the country. If a school is scheduled for new build in 2010, that is when it will get a better dining hall or cafeteria, not sooner. The reference in our submission is to timing. If the bill stated that every school must implement the change by 2009 but a particular school was in the programme for upgrading in 2010, the work on that school would not be brought forward because it is part of a huge multimillion-pound capital investment. Therefore, one aspect of the question is to do with the timing of the school estate refurbishment that is taking place throughout the country, which involves big money.
Schools have capacity issues. There could be space in schools in education authorities that have declining rolls to offer additional capacity should the need arise, but if numbers are growing and space is tight in the school estate, it is much more of a challenge. That militates against the one-size-fits-all approach; flexibility would allow for any gradual ramping-up to take place and be managed.
COSLA says in its submission that
Anonymous systems work to an extent, but it is difficult to hide the anonymity side of things. Perhaps that is what we were getting at in our submission. On the other hand, we are moving quickly towards a cashless system. Every high school in my authority has one and some large primary schools also have them. There are still difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. The social aspect might give occasional cause for concern, but it is not a serious worry.
It would be unhelpful if the bill contained a duty to maintain anonymity. Reflecting on the comments from the EIS, I say that it would be impossible no matter what we do. The cashless system and the Young Scot card have worked well. Everyone to whom I speak says that those provisions have removed the stigma because nobody knows how the card has been topped up.
I have two brief questions. When I walked through the station today, I saw a banner headline in the children's newspaper First News, perhaps you have seen it. It said, "Kids say no to Jamie O". The article referred to children in England, but I bought and read it anyway. That is where the debate is at. Fergus Chambers, who gave evidence recently to the Finance Committee, raised serious concerns about the drop-off and uptake levels in school meals as hungry for success is adopted in secondary schools. I acknowledge that there is a difference between what happens in primary and secondary schools.
Perhaps the Scottish reaction is that we should be listening to Gordon Ramsay, rather than to Jamie Oliver, although there might be too much use of the F-word. In the west of Scotland, where I come from, that might be okay.
I understand why local authorities are reluctant to support free healthy school meals across the board if they are asked to find the money for that. However, if the Executive were funding that, would that alter your view?
I think that I would rather have the 400 teachers and 800 special needs auxiliaries to target young people who really need that help.
The measures in the bill will apply to local authorities and grant-aided schools. You said that it is important to set standards when young people are at nursery—to educate their palates, if I can put words in your mouth. Private schools and nurseries are excluded from the legislation. Should we include them?
If that is a political question, perhaps we should let the politicians answer it.
The simple answer is that it should be extended to them.
In our original consultation submission, we suggested that the standards should be extended to independent schools.
Clearly, the intention of the legislation is to provide a baseline of minimum standards for young people in Scotland—that should be applied regardless of where that child happens to be educated.
That concludes the committee's questions. If you have any further points to raise, you can write to us.
We will make that part of our homework.
I thank you for your attendance.
Meeting continued in private until 12:31.
Previous
Items in Private