Official Report 381KB pdf
The next item on our agenda is the Scottish Government's proposed free school meals pilot. We now have an opportunity to take evidence on the pilot from the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram. We have an opportunity to question him in the light of evidence that we took from stakeholders last week, and to follow up some of the points that we pursued with his officials last week.
Thank you, convener. This is my first visit to the committee—let us hope that it is a productive one for all concerned.
Thank you for your opening statement. Could you comment further on the meeting between Government officials and representatives of local authorities that are involved in the pilot? You said that all parents of children who are eligible to benefit from the trial have been written to and advised of their entitlement. Is not it a bit premature for those letters to have been issued, given that the trial has not yet received parliamentary approval? The committee is to vote on the draft order only this morning, and Parliament will also have to vote on it. It seems that an attempt is being made to ride roughshod over Parliament. It is unacceptable for us not to be given the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's legislative proposals.
I must disagree with you, convener—we are not prejudging the committee's or Parliament's decision. A lead-in time is necessary to make the arrangements for any trial. We cannot just turn the trial on and off like a switch, so it is only sensible that we make appropriate arrangements for local authorities to launch the trial after the October break, as we told the committee we wanted to do. Obviously, if the committee does not approve the trial, the local authorities will write to the parents and tell them that it will not happen. I argue that we have simply proceeded sensibly.
Was not that a rather presumptuous way of proceeding?
No.
A lead-in time is always required for legislative change. We should choose the lead-in time and then base the time of application of the decision on that. Would not it have been more appropriate for the Scottish Executive to have introduced the entitlement in November or December, once the parliamentary authorities had had the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the legislative proposals, rather than make local authorities work to a rather tight timescale and assume that the committee and Parliament will endorse your proposals?
No—I have made no such assumption. A window of opportunity is clearly available to run the free school meals pilot in this financial year and we have the resources to do so, which is why we signalled our intention to the committee and to all concerned. Basically, we have been setting up the process. We have given proper advance warning to the local authorities, which are taking sensible steps to put the trial in place. However, we have not prejudged the committee's or Parliament's decisions. As I said, if the committee or Parliament votes down our free school meals pilot, the local authorities will be stood down.
You have prejudged, because the parents of the children who would be eligible have received letters advising them that they are eligible. However, they are not eligible, because Parliament and the committee have not been given the opportunity to reach a decision. You said in response to one of my questions that, should Parliament choose not to approve the proposal, letters would be sent to the parents to advise them of withdrawal of the provision. However, they do not have an entitlement at present; they have been advised prematurely of an entitlement. It was inappropriate to write to the parents in advance of the committee considering the matter today and Parliament considering it later.
I hear what you say and I will check the text of the letters that the local authorities have issued to parents. If the letters use presumptuous language, I will apologise for that, but that was not the intention.
I would be grateful if you could provide the committee with any examples of occasions on which the previous Administration wrote to members of the public to advise them of a change to legislation prior to a decision on the legislation being taken by the parliamentary authorities.
Yes, we could do that, convener.
I will add my concerns to those that the convener raised. An issue arises about procedures. The minister is right that the debate is important; Scotland, the committee and Parliament must have the debate, because the future health of the nation is at stake. I was impressed by some of the evidence that we took last week, so it is a great surprise suddenly to find that letters have already been issued that make it clear to parents that they are entitled to free school meals for their children. I find that difficult to accept, when the committee has not taken more evidence or debated the issue, prior to the matter going to Parliament.
I disagree. I notice that the committee discussed last week how to involve parents in the culture change that I talked about. We need to involve them from the outset, so it is appropriate for local authorities to tell parents that the pilot is coming up.
Do you accept that, because the issue is so important, the committee still had questions on it at the end of our previous discussion that we wanted to be answered before we could judge whether the measure was good or bad?
Absolutely.
Now that the letters have been issued, it would be extremely difficult to tell parents, "Sorry, this letter was inaccurate. We've got to withdraw the provision." The situation is bizarre.
On reflection, perhaps it might have been better to wait to issue the letters after today's meeting. I will check that with officials. If the committee knocks us back today, the only people with egg on their faces are likely to be the Government.
I have several questions, convener—do you want to take questions just about procedural aspects first, or are we asking questions about general issues?
You can move on.
I will ask about the procedure first. I represent many constituents who have received the form and the tear-off slip, and my constituency includes one of the local authorities that are in the process of hiring staff and purchasing equipment, as you said. When you notified councils of your intention to deliver the pilot, did you stress to them that their hiring staff and purchasing equipment involved a risk, because Parliament had not authorised the pilot?
Yes.
If so, I would have been grateful if we had received written notification of that—I understand that the risk of Parliament's not giving authorisation was not included in any of Scottish Borders Council's preparatory work.
I personally phoned the leaders of Scottish Borders Council and other councils to outline the process that would be required, which included the parliamentary approval process. Councils were well aware that we had to obtain the approval of the committee and Parliament for the draft order.
On that basis, do you criticise local authorities for acting before authorisation was given?
No.
That is a curious state of affairs.
What date is this? We have two or three weeks before the October recess. For local authorities just to switch on a pilot without making suitable preparations or giving parents and others suitable warnings would be asking a lot of local authorities. It is only sensible that they make such preparations.
That is the nub of the issue. You took the policy decision that the pilot should start after the October holidays. The Administration's response to the Subordinate Legislation Committee's questions was telling. It shows that you had considered the options. The Government said that it had
Yes. We have made no bones about it; there is a window of opportunity and resources are available to run a free school meals pilot between October and March of the current financial year, so we have laid a suitable order to make that happen.
You said that money had been set aside for that purpose. Why not give that money to complement the work that the councils are doing with the hungry for success programme?
Because we want to conduct a free school meals pilot.
If the pilot is successful, will it be rolled out nationally?
Obviously the intention of a pilot is to consider practicalities and identify constraints or obstacles to a national roll-out. If those are insuperable, we will not roll out the programme nationally, but if we can establish that it is feasible and we can plan a national roll-out, we will do it.
For clarity, is it correct that the Government intends that if the pilot is successful, or there are no "obstacles to … roll-out", all P1 to P3 pupils will have free school meals?
That is our intention, yes.
How much will that cost?
That will depend on the outcome agreements and the spending review process that we are currently going through. I think that we have a figure of £70 million; is that right?
No, it is not that much.
I am sorry; it is around the £40 million mark.
Last week the committee was told £46 million.
The figure will depend upon uptake. I would have to double check, but I think that the figure was £30 million to £46 million.
Officials also told us last week that there are no objective criteria for judging the pilot's success. Are you saying that the pilot will be judged a success if there are no insuperable practical barriers to roll-out?
Indeed. We also want to measure whether uptake of meals improves significantly, and we want to examine attitudes and behaviours of pupils and parents. We should get enough evidence to determine whether we can improve levels of healthy eating. It should be remembered that the purpose of the measure is to change Scotland's current culture of eating habits, and we should be able to gather some evidence of that during the trial.
During last week's meeting, the committee members and officials discussed the experience in Hull where, within the six-month period, there were divergent levels of take-up. Officials told us that take-up of meals dropped and then it picked up, but that happened outside the six-month window. Are you confident that six months is sufficient for a trial, given the previous examples where it has not been sufficient time to highlight what you called emergent trends and behaviour?
We have plenty evidence that healthy eating has positive health outcomes, so we are not looking to establish that the pilot will lead to positive health outcomes; we know that it will. We are trying to establish the practicalities of rolling out a national programme, whether there are any obstacles to that, whether it would be value for money, whether there would be an impact on average or marginal costs, and so on. We also want to establish what kind of behaviour, or changes in behaviour, we can expect or try to promote.
Good morning, minister. I am a little concerned about how you intend to use the pilot. What baseline information do you hold on schools in the local authorities that will be involved that will allow you to assess the pilot's merits, once the results are available?
There are basic statistics for school meals take-up, for example.
We intend to gather baseline information before the trial starts. We will measure uptake of school meals in the P1 to P3 age group and in the P4 to P7 age group. We also intend to talk to catering managers, head teachers and other teachers to get their impressions of the situation before and after the trial. We will gather information from the local authorities on costs, capacity issues and so on. They have already agreed to provide us with information before and after the pilot.
You seem to be exercised by preparation for the trial; that is why you have allowed local authorities to provide notification of it at this stage. Do you have sufficient time to gather baseline information between now and the start of the trial?
Absolutely.
What do you think about the fact that letters are being sent to parents that suggest that parents will nominate themselves to take part in the evaluation of the programme that Ipsos MORI will carry out?
That is an established research methodology, so I am happy to go along with it.
Are you concerned that parents who have more time and are more vocal will put themselves forward while the parents of more vulnerable children, who do not have the time or facility to get involved, will not? We may not learn the lessons that we seek to learn.
I do not accept that. We put out a fairly detailed research brief, and the research organisation that we have commissioned has a good track record. As well as undertaking a general sweep of parents' and pupils' views, we will conduct 10 intensive case studies of individual schools, in which the parents of every child who is involved in the trial will be approached and asked to respond to questions.
What are the case studies intended to show?
Ten of the schools that are involved in the pilot will be chosen. We will focus on four variables: deprivation and free school meal eligibility; rurality; size of school; and previous levels of uptake of school meals. We will aim to look at a mix of facilities—schools in which all the children eat in a canteen and schools in which other areas are also used. All those factors will be brought to bear, so that we can get a clear and detailed picture of what is happening, what works and what does not work.
You will have heard the evidence that children's charities gave at last week's meeting of the committee. Do you share the charities' concern that to provide free school meals for P1 to P3 is perhaps to intervene too late to be able to change habits that have been established?
Guidance to pre-schools and nurseries was issued—in August last year, I think—and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care has been asked to inspect on standards. The care commission will soon produce its report on what is happening out there. I intend to review the report, and if we need to take further action to encourage healthier eating pre-school, we will do so.
We are not discussing the provision of free school meals for the first time. We should remember that in the previous session of the Parliament there were contentious debates about how to approach the issue. Will the pilot add to work that was done through hungry for change?
Do you mean hungry for success? Yes, it will add to that work.
Sorry. I wrote the wrong title in my notes.
As I said, we must try to change the culture of eating habits in Scotland. We cannot change culture by targeting resources on small or not-so-small groups; we have to do it across the piece. Last week, witnesses who gave evidence to the committee on behalf of charities said that if we want culture change it is appropriate to take the road towards universal provision. We are not suggesting that we go beyond primary 1 to primary 3. However, as I said, the early years of nursery and pre-school followed by primary classes 1 to 3 offer the best chance that we have to bring about a culture change.
Charities including the Child Poverty Action Group, the Poverty Alliance, Save the Children and One Parent Families Scotland said that the pilot
Yes. We are receiving a warm response from local authorities, headteachers and parents, who acknowledge the benefits that such a move would have for their children.
Given the budgets that are available, time is constrained. A six-month pilot must be run between October and March, before money stops being available.
That is right.
Therefore, in the circumstances of this debate, we are trying to move forward with good will. If that good will was reflected, we would have been expecting the charities that gave evidence last week not to demur—and they did not say that there should not be a pilot.
Indeed.
Minister, I want to follow on from the evidence that we heard last week. The two policy objectives of improving health and tackling poverty through universal application appear to be conflated. You have heard some other concerns about the pilot, but mine is that the pilot will be an expensive way of proving not very much. It will not take us much further forward. In particular, it will not test any alternatives to the policy in the Scottish National Party manifesto—universality for P1 to P3 and a targeted programme for years above that.
I made the point earlier that the diet generally made available to youngsters is not very healthy—and that goes across the socioeconomic groups. The likelihood is that children who do not currently eat school meals eat less nutritious meals. The feedback that I have seen from the Hull pilot, for example, shows that packed lunches taken into school are full of not very nutritious food.
I will come back to that in a second, but I want to pursue the impact on health. You are saying, in effect, that the pilot does not test that in the sense that it is built on the assumption that a school meal is a healthy option. It will not give you any further information on health benefits.
We are not looking for further information on health benefits, because there is a huge literature on them. We already know that healthy eating leads to better health; that is a given. In the pilot, we are looking at the practicalities of trying to roll out universal provision nationally. What are the obstacles to that? What are the problems with dining room capacities? We want to try to establish what we need to do to sort out those types of issues for the national roll-out.
You said earlier that you are committed to extending entitlement. I take it that that means extending it into the P4 to P7 range, or perhaps secondary school as well.
Yes—across the piece.
What is your thinking about how you target entitlement? What device will you use to extend the range of free school meals? What information will you gain from the pilot that will help to inform that process?
The way to do it is by passport benefits. I think that the entitlement just now is based on income support, jobseekers allowance and child care tax credit, so the way to extend it would be to move to maximum working tax credit, which was in the Labour Party manifesto, I think. It is our intention to move down that road.
That is interesting. Our manifesto said that that would cover nearly 100,000 children.
To some extent, the difference in figures is down to the fact we are also introducing universality in P1 to P3. I acknowledge that there is a discrepancy, but I think that that is the source.
That is interesting and useful.
Will you clarify for me, minister, whether it is the Government's intention to roll out nationally universal free school meals for P1 to P3 and extend eligibility through benefits to all pupils whose families are on the maximum working tax credit?
Yes, that is the intention.
What would be the total cost of that? The officials told us that the top element—the universal entitlement in P1 to P3—was £46 million. What is the cost of extending eligibility to all pupils whose families are on the maximum working tax credit?
That would be in the region of £16 million to £31 million, based on a 70 per cent to 100 per cent uptake. At current uptake rates, it would be about £17 million, if we average out the cost of meals throughout the country. The uptake right now is 67.5 per cent.
Is that on top of the £46 million?
Yes.
Do you agree that the need for free school meals has added importance given that Scotland is second only to America in obesity levels? How much support will parents be given in the pilots?
As you know, the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 places a duty on local authorities to promote the uptake of school meals. To do that, local authorities have to establish a relationship with parents, fully inform them of what they are trying to do and try to involve them as much as possible in healthy eating initiatives. I am keen that that should develop to the extent that the healthy eating that happens in school comes back into the home.
Last week we heard that the example of the Nordic countries, where health and well-being are paramount and universal free school meals have been used as a tool to maintain health, will be considered. Are you keen to pursue that?
Indeed. In the previous session I was a member of the Education Committee and undertook a visit to Sweden to see at first hand the terrific work that is being done there. I think that Ken Macintosh accompanied me.
No, I stayed at home.
I would like Scotland to move towards the Swedish model. It will not happen overnight—it has taken Sweden 20 to 25 years to get to the point that it has reached. However, that is the direction in which we should go.
Do you think that the pilot is critical if Scotland is to emulate the successes that the small Nordic countries have achieved?
Indeed. I want to build on the measures that the previous Administration introduced and to take them further.
Aileen Campbell has already asked some of the questions that I intended to put to you, so I will get right to the point. I was horrified to read in the media this morning about the obesity figures for Scotland in relation to the rest of the world. We are second only to America, which is startling. If our young people's obesity problems are a time bomb—that is how they were described this morning—surely it is best for the pilot to start sooner rather than later. If we have only six months between October and the new financial year, we should use that time to start the process with children in P1 to P3, so that by the time they get to fourth, fifth and sixth year we have begun to address the problem of obesity, which seems to hit kids between the ages of 14 and 18. I hope that you will agree that, although the pilot is for only six months, it is not a short-term method of dealing with the problem. Rather, it is the first step in a long-term culture change.
I agree absolutely. Exercise is another means of addressing the obesity problem. However, as I indicated in my opening remarks, there is no time to lose. Our eating habits and health outcomes are extremely poor. Through the hungry for success programme, the previous Administration started to change that. I want to take the programme further and to move Scotland forward.
Would you be alarmed if the return rate of forms in one of the pilot areas—for example, the Borders—was slow and low, because parents know and have been told that the provision of universal free school meals is not permanent, but for only six months?
I do not follow your question.
If the return rate of forms from parents opting into the pilot is low because they have been told that provision is for only six months, will you be concerned that the pilot is in no way an accurate gauge of parents' intentions regarding take-up?
I do not think that the return rate will be low. I hope that in the pilot areas we will be able to continue universal provision of free school meals in P1 to P3, but I cannot guarantee that. As you well know, in the context of the spending review we are in the process of trying to reach outcome agreements with local authorities. However, the intention is to continue provision.
That comes down to the priority status the policy is given. Committee members have warmly welcomed the pilot and cited other bodies that welcome it. You talked about your intention and said that what happens will depend on the spending review, but you announced the pilot in advance of announcements on the spending review. It is news to parents in my constituency that the programme might be continued in the Borders after March. That is brand new information—
I cannot give that guarantee. It would be irresponsible of me to do so, because we must assess the outcome of the pilot. All that I can say is that, if the pilot is successful, our intention is to roll it on in the five pilot areas.
Options are emerging as the meeting goes on. You said that if the pilot is successful the programme might be rolled out in just the pilot areas rather than nationwide. Parents in my area have been told that the pilot will last six months, but in a month's time when the results of the spending review are known they might be told that the programme will be rolled out. They have not been told whether there will be universal provision in other council areas, so I am not sure about the status of universal provision for constituents of mine in Penicuik in Midlothian—neighbouring the Borders—where universal provision is not being piloted.
Which bits of that will I pick up on?
To follow on from Mary Mulligan's point, can I be clear that you are not publishing the absolute criteria for how you will gauge success?
I do not know what criteria you are looking for. We have been specific about the areas in which we are looking for information.
That is contrary to what we were told by your officials last week. The current take-up of free school meals in the Scottish Borders Council area is 33 per cent. The council has been given an indicative level for the financing of the pilot of more than 80 per cent, but that is just indicative. We do not know how that pilot will be judged a success because you have not given a target for take-up. I am suspicious that you will decide whether the pilot has been successful when you realise how much money you have from the spending review, rather than publish the criteria now on targets for take-up, which would allow an objective, independent analysis of whether the pilot is successful.
We would love a target of 100 per cent, but we are trying to establish from the pilot the take-up rates that we can expect and what we can do to bolster those rates with the introduction of universal provision. The notion that we pick a figure out of the air and say that that is the target that we are aiming for in the pilot is frankly not relevant.
Minister, is this just a case of, "We'll introduce a pilot and see what happens", or do you have specific criteria on which you will judge its success or otherwise? If you have specific criteria, what are they?
If you want, I can read out the research objectives for the record.
We have them. What we want to know is how you will judge the pilot's success. You can have objectives, but how will you measure whether the policy has been successful?
Basically, we do that from the results of both the quantitative and qualitative research. The qualitative research will focus on parents, children, headteachers and schools. We will get feedback from them on the benefits that they see from the pilot. That will be extremely important and will give us information on whether we can achieve a culture change. A culture change is not susceptible to figures or to saying, "We'll achieve 60 per cent here and 30 per cent there." We have to see the attitudes and behaviours developing, and we should be able to identify them within a six-month pilot. That is the key.
So, if the take-up falls in any local authority area where the pilot is being run, will the Executive deem it to be a failure?
It would certainly call into question the rolling out.
Are you aware that, when the free school meals pilot was run in Hull, there was an immediate downturn in take-up?
Yes, but there were very specific circumstances. You might recall that Jamie Oliver was on television at that time demonstrating how most school meals were absolutely appalling—children were served up turkey twizzlers and the like. Parents were obviously put off asking their children to take school meals. Since then, with the introduction of nutritious school meals, the take-up rate in Hull has gone up dramatically. I understand that it is at 65 per cent.
We may not; we need to wait and see. You have made clear today your position that if uptake falls, the pilot will be deemed unsuccessful. By what other criteria will you judge the initiative's success or failure?
I have already indicated that we are looking for some positive feedback on changes in attitudes and behaviours that would indicate the level of culture change that we want to bring about.
Who will say whether there have been changes in behaviour? How will you measure them?
That is what the research is all about. In essence, that is why we have commissioned the researchers to conduct the research and find out for us.
If somebody said that they liked getting a school meal and that it made them feel more positive, would that be considered qualitative data on which we will judge the initiative's failure or success?
No. As I was a professional consultant in my previous life, I know that there are standard research methodologies for qualitative research—questionnaire surveys, for example. It is not a question of anecdotal evidence but of being able to analyse the evidence that one collects.
I think that there is unanimity in the committee that childhood obesity is an extremely important issue. As Christina McKelvie rightly says, it is all over the newspapers and we must do something about it. I fully accept that the pilot may—I stress the word "may" carefully—be important in addressing it, but so may other things, and the jury is out. Forgive me for saying so, but some of the answers that have been given this morning are a little vague. The jury's decision on the qualitative analysis of the pilot scheme is important. I return to the fact that it is a discourtesy to the committee and the Parliament not to have debated the full implications of the pilot and the other options before you sent the letters out.
I understand your concerns, but there was no intention to be presumptuous about the final decisions that will be taken by the committee or the Parliament. We are talking about standard practice for trying to prepare local authorities for the introduction of a scheme. If the committee or the Parliament decides against the scheme, the local authorities will have to be stood down.
Are you confident that the information that is provided in the letter to parents is entirely accurate?
I have not seen the letter, so I cannot say that.
On the criteria for the pilot, you said earlier that a universal approach is necessary for a culture change. You have made a policy decision in favour of a universal approach. If you have made that decision, the only thing that the pilot could indicate is that it is wrong. Therefore, the standard of the pilot is critical, which is why there have been questions about it. You said that you would expect significant uptake. The objective is simply to measure the change in uptake, but it is fair to ask about more than whether uptake falls or increases. To judge the success or failure of a pilot, we require more than simply a measure of its impact; we require an objective to be met against the value-for-money test. If you want to roll out a £46 million scheme, for the Parliament to be satisfied that it is value for money you would have to have clear targets by which you were able to judge it.
You are looking for a numeric target. I am saying that we have one or two such targets, but I am looking for evidence of significant changes in attitude and behaviour. That is appropriate to the pilot's overall objective, which is to ascertain whether we can achieve the culture change of moving to healthier eating habits. I suggest that such an approach is not unusual and has been applied to other parts of government many times. It is not deficient not to have several statistical targets that determine whether to roll on from a pilot into a national programme.
We heard last week that the new nutritional guidelines will come into force early next year and that councils are gearing up for that. All the councils that are involved in the pilot are gearing up—Scottish Borders Council certainly is. How will you judge the difference between increased uptake because of the food quality and its heavy promotion in schools and in the local authority's area and increased uptake because of the pilot? You have talked about the impact of a promotional campaign and of food quality, rather than the cost of a meal, on uptake.
That will be one of the issues that the research will address. We know that the uptake of free school meals is double the uptake of meals that children have to pay for, so I assume that the uptake of free school meals in the pilot will be significant. Other variables play in that—I have given the committee an idea of those in relation to the case studies that we are doing. We can gather a rich data set during the pilot that will inform a national roll-out and establish best practice models to allow us to provide guidance.
You have said that you want a culture change in eating habits across the board. It is clear that we will not see that outcome from a six-month pilot study. I suggest that culture change will not be achieved solely by offering free school meals. Do you have other measures in mind? If so, will you run them at the same time as the pilot project?
As I have said, we are not considering the pilot in isolation. I want to deepen several measures that flow from the previous Administration's hungry for success programme.
Will you be a bit clearer about what they are?
I await a report from the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care that will tell me how well nutritional outcomes under the standards for health and well-being are being met by our guidance on healthy eating in nurseries and pre-school provision. That is one element. The second element is universal provision in the early primary years—P1 to P3. The third element is extending eligibility for free school meals to alleviate poverty. That is the approach that we are taking to building on what has gone before.
That concludes the committee's questions to the minister, whom I thank for his answers.
Previous
Interests