School Meals (Scotland) Bill
The next item on the agenda is consideration of the committee's approach to the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. Members have received a briefing paper for this item. Although the current deadline for consideration of stage 1 is 10 May, I believe that there have been discussions among the business managers and clerks about moving that deadline to sometime in June. The paper raises a series of points on which I invite members to comment.
I am aware that the paper probably omits any time scale because the issue of allotting parliamentary time to the bill is still under discussion. However, I would welcome further clarification of that point.
The second half of the part of the paper entitled "Cost" suggests that
"There would … be regional variation in the financial impact"
of the bill, which means that provision might vary across the board. I believe strongly that we need to plan on the basis of 100 per cent take-up, because universal entitlement to school meals will mean a universal cost.
Equally, under the part of the paper entitled "Effect on School Management", we need to consider whether catering organisations will be able to cope with the increase. At the moment, they provide for only 49 per cent of pupils throughout Scotland. It would also be useful to receive evidence from local authorities that have introduced alternative schemes such as switch cards. Indeed, I recommend that we consider East Dunbartonshire Council, which has introduced useful schemes in Bishopbriggs.
There might be an omission in the part entitled "Written evidence". It occurred to me that we should probably also talk to parents, because they are a critical part of the process. I wonder whether we should also discuss the matter with the Scottish School Board Association or other appropriate organisations.
Another critical issue that has not been covered is the behaviour patterns of children. If we give out school meals—free or otherwise—children will demonstrate acceptance or refusal by taking them or by going elsewhere. The bill and the committee have failed to consider such behaviour.
Finally, I seek confirmation that we will receive a shortlist of advisers from which to select.
Yes.
Thank you.
I am certain that everyone accepts that there are things wrong in the present situation and that there are considerable difficulties with child nutrition, with adequate provision of nutrition in schools and in ensuring that children have the best opportunity to eat healthily. However, whether the bill is the right solution to those problems is the matter for debate.
I have a difficulty with the issues on which it is suggested the committee should take oral evidence, on page 6 of the paper. It strikes me that that cannot be done in a mechanistic way that will rule out some aspects from consideration by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I seek an assurance that, even though we will major on the issues that are set out in the paper, it will be open to us to take and assess evidence on child nutrition. After all, the committee deals with children and education and there is a children and education department. Even if the Local Government Committee takes evidence on cost and uptake, we should be able to consider that, because elements of cost will have to be met through education budgets. Spending priorities in education budgets is an issue. I am concerned about the breakdown of subjects as outlined in the paper and—as a member of the lead committee—I would not feel happy if we did not consider the bill in its totality. I hope that the paper will be changed to take account of that sentiment.
Jackie Baillie mentioned a shortlist of experts. We want to bring experts together. I will reserve judgment until I have seen experts' reports. The approach that has been outlined is the right way forward.
I agree with what all other members have said. I am concerned about removing from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee consideration of child nutrition, cost and uptake—those matters must be examined.
I am also interested in organisation. We are considering the appointment of an adviser to examine the bill's financial implications. Most people in schools—head teachers and so on—do not know what they will do if all the kids have school lunches. We must look at how to deal with the infrastructure and related issues. Although finance is important, it is a secondary concern—whether the bill will work is more important. It would be a negative thing to get hung up on the appointment of a financial adviser. That said, it would be helpful to have an opportunity to consider suitable advisers.
I share Mike Russell's concern about oral evidence. Although we are all able to attend meetings of other committees to hear the evidence that they take—as long as attendance does not conflict with the meetings of the committees of which we are members—and can read the written evidence and accounts of the cross-examination of that evidence, we must avoid a situation in which gaps open up. I listened to some of the evidence that was given on Nicola Sturgeon's Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill. The Health and Community Care Committee allowed the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to consider the advertising aspects of the bill. It was noticeable that nobody from the advertising industry gave evidence; the only people speaking for the tobacco industry were tobacco industry employees. That appeared to amount to a gap in the evidence, which was not picked up on. There should have been cross-examination on that aspect.
If we leave child nutrition to the Health and Community Care Committee and cost and uptake to the Local Government Committee, we might feel—because we might not be able to attend the relevant meetings—that the cross-examination on some areas is inadequate. As Mike Russell said, we must leave ourselves the option of exploring some of those issues.
We must consider the views of children when we take evidence. As a committee, we have taken a lead in seeking the views of children—in school or elsewhere—on many occasions. We had a children's parliament here a good year and a half ago. One of the most important topics of debate among the children who attended that event was school dinners—particularly the portions, as I recall. It was clear that children have strong views on school dinners. I am sure that we could elicit their views on the bill.
Not only the public sector is involved in the provision of school meals. The private sector is involved in catering—please excuse the pun—for school dinners and it might have a view. Nestlé produces a great deal of research into children's nutrition. We must cast our net wide to include as many views as possible.
I support most of what has been said, particularly the idea that we should consider the bill holistically. We should not pretend that consideration can be split up among different committees. We must draw information from everywhere.
I was at a dinner hosted by the Food Standards Agency last week. Local authority caterers, who run the school meals and hospital meals services, attended that meeting. There are many issues about the changes to catering that will be necessary if local authority caterers need to do many more pre-packed meals, for example. We need to consider such issues.
I do not want to hold the committee back. I support what has been said. The appointment of advisers will be necessary to draw all the evidence together.
The paper suggests that we call immediately for written evidence. It is suggested that the deadline for submission of written evidence should be the end of April. Once we have considered that evidence, it would be appropriate to consider from whom else we wish to take oral evidence. That oral evidence can be taken by 21 May.
The paper also suggests that we appoint two advisers. Jackie Baillie has rightly said that we should be clear about and discuss who those advisers will be. We should commit ourselves in principle to appointing two advisers. We will come up with names at the appropriate time. The committee would select the two advisers from a short list on 23 April.
Will the advisers whom we appoint serve some of the other committees as well?
They can do that.
On Mike Russell's comments, we can explore any area that we wish to. We should explore the issues that Mike Russell raised, if appropriate. I do not disagree with him on what our reference points should be.
We need to consider extending the timetable for stage 1. It is likely that the final stage 1 report will be signed off on June 18. In order to allow for the report to be printed, the extension will be until 27 June rather than until 10 May. We have had discussions with the Parliamentary Bureau and the business managers to try to address that matter.
On what Jackie Baillie said, it would be helpful to take evidence from local authorities that have tried to modernise the way in which youngsters are registered for school meals. One of the key elements of the bill is a legitimate attempt to try to reduce the stigma that is associated with eating school meals. We should take evidence on the removal of that stigma.
We should consider local authorities that have attempted different ways of providing the service. The largest authority in Scotland has tried fuel zones, which some folk consider to be innovative and other folk have questions about. The two complementary parts of that scheme were aimed at addressing take-up of school meals in the poorest area in Scotland. It might be worth inviting the director of that service to tell us why that approach was taken and how the bill fits with that broad strategy.
It would be worth considering the cost to local authorities of delivering such services. The argument is not about costs; it is about organisation and ensuring that resources get to the appropriate places. It would be helpful to find out not only how local authorities have delivered particular approaches, but what the costs are. It would also be helpful to examine the softer indicators of the benefits of such services.
Do we accept the recommendations in the paper?
Members indicated agreement.