Provision of School Lunches (Disapplication of the Requirement to Charge) (Scotland) Order 2007 (Draft)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-587, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the draft Provision of School Lunches (Disapplication of the Requirement to Charge) (Scotland) Order 2007.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Provision of School Lunches (Disapplication of the Requirement to Charge) (Scotland) Order 2007 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
I call on Adam Ingram to speak to the motion.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I had anticipated winding up the debate, but I will do as instructed.
Research that was published last week shows that Scotland is second only to America in levels of obesity in the population. That poses a serious threat to the health of our nation, which is why we have made tackling the problem a high priority, particularly early in life. Many factors contribute to obesity, including diet, exercise, culture and environment, and they must all be taken into account in the prevention and treatment of the problem.
The Parliament is aware that, last week, I set out new standards for food and drink in schools, which will build on the hungry for success initiative. The new regulations go further than that initiative and will remove unhealthy food and drinks from vending machines as well as improving the standard of school lunches. However, we want to do more, as a matter of urgency, to improve our children's diet.
Poor diet is a serious problem that needs to be addressed now. That is why we want to conduct a trial of free nutritious school lunches for all primary 1 to primary 3 children in five local authority areas. We want to establish whether the provision of free healthy school lunches to that age group will help to bring about a shift towards healthy eating habits and social behaviour both at home and in school.
As I told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee last week, we do not expect immediate and specific health benefits to be demonstrated during the trial. There is already plenty of evidence that a healthier diet leads to long-term health benefits. Rather, the trial will enable us to detect emerging trends in changes in attitudes and behaviours by pupils and parents in relation to school meals and healthy eating.
Is the minister aware of the very successful school holiday meals programme and the reported difficulties that local authorities, such as East Renfrewshire Council, have in funding such programmes? Rather than trial the school meals programme, which is a manifesto commitment, why not fund the proven school holiday meal entitlements in areas such as East Renfrewshire?
I commend East Renfrewshire Council for the work that it has done, but I do not believe that it is an either/or situation.
Many people outside Parliament are looking forward to the outcomes of the trial. The Child Poverty Action Group, the Association of Head Teachers and Deputes in Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, Save the Children, the Church of Scotland, One Parent Families Scotland, the Scottish Churches social inclusion network and Children in Scotland are among the many groups that support the trial.
I listened to the concerns that were raised at last week's meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that we had prejudged the will of Parliament by asking the local authorities involved to be ready to launch the trial after the October break, but we have not prejudged Parliament's decision. The local authorities involved were well aware that Parliament would ultimately decide whether the trial would go ahead. They have made appropriate plans, including informing parents, so that the trial can begin after the October break if—and only if—Parliament approves the draft order. If Parliament votes against the motion, the local authorities will be stood down.
We will learn lessons from the concerns that were raised by members about the local authorities informing families about the trial before Parliament had debated the draft order, but I hope that Parliament will pardon us, as the committee did last week, for our enthusiasm to take action to improve the diet of our children and will approve the draft order. That will allow us to proceed.
I shall comment on the Executive's pilot for free school meals in primary 1 to primary 3 in five local authority areas. The minister is aware that several organisations such as Barnardo's Scotland, Children in Scotland and the Aberlour Child Care Trust have expressed concern that the pilot does not address child poverty. That concern was also raised by Labour committee members, among others. In his evidence, the minister denied that there was a link between obesity and deprivation and referred to a survey by the Food Standards Agency to support his view. The same report states:
"Generally, those on low income were less likely to eat wholemeal bread and vegetables. They tended to drink more soft drinks (not diet drinks) and eat more processed meats, whole milk and sugar."
That does not sound like a denial of a link between obesity and deprivation.
I draw the minister's attention to a report from ISD Scotland, released on 25 September, to which Executive members contributed. The report states that it is estimated that
"around a fifth of cases of obesity in Scotland can be attributed to deprivation."
Does the minister accept that there is a link between deprivation and obesity?
Under pressure from Labour committee members, the minister said that he intended to extend entitlement better to target child poverty. He said that
"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."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 26 September 2007; c 119.]
Will the minister confirm that he is adopting the Labour Party manifesto? If he is, I welcome the Government's new-found commitment to tackling child poverty.
I think that parliamentary colleagues are aware of the remarks that I have made recently in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee and the chamber. I share the cross-party view that the problem of unhealthy eating among our schoolchildren is extremely important, and that it must be a major priority in this parliamentary session.
I have listened to compelling evidence that reflects the extent of the problem and to the opinions of groups that are best placed to understand what must be done. I have also listened to the Government's proposals, and was minded to support the pilot scheme, which will test the effects of offering free school meals in five council areas, because it seemed to me to have a great deal of merit. I was persuaded that it might play an important role in the development of future policy.
Given the Government's statements on the issue, I expected, as a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, that I would have the opportunity to hear a bit more about the merits or otherwise not only of what has been proposed, but of other proposals that may lead to more healthy eating. As we all know, there are conflicting views—perhaps reinforced by this morning's report on a similar issue that was issued as a result of an Office for Standards in Education pilot—about how best to tackle the problem. Therefore, I was concerned and frustrated to find that the Government had already sanctioned the pilot prior to any full discussion in the committee or the Parliament and that it had given the go-ahead for Scottish Borders Council to issue letters—dated 28 August—to tell parents that free school meals would be available for their children from October until next March. As a result, the committee was redundant and the judgment of MSPs was compromised.
I hope that members agree that that is not the most democratic way of operating or—more important—the best way to ensure that there is public trust. I repeat my likely support for the pilot, but want to put on record once more, as I did at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on 26 September, that there must be correct procedures by which the Government allows Parliament to debate important policies.
I am a little disappointed by the time that has been allocated for the debate, given the critical nature of the subject matter. Major issues are involved. There is no doubt that radical attention must be paid to the issue of obesity, but Liberal Democrats are not convinced that offering universal free school meals is the way forward.
In that context, I have several questions for the minister. Why is there no sensible baseline for measuring the extent to which the pilot is effective in addressing health issues? Why is there no measure of the likely wastage through disposals after the uptake of meals? Rather than the rather simplistic and crude urban-rural method that seems to have been adopted, why was the pilot scheme not targeted on known areas of multiple deprivation? Finally, it is implicit in the SNP's approach that it plans to roll out the pilot if the evidence supports doing so. What consideration has the minister given to the cost of doing that?
The Liberal Democrats are content to support the motion, but the way in which the pilot has been cobbled together and seemingly rushed through—that has been referred to—is not a democratic way in which to proceed. Members and the public at large have not welcomed the approach that has been taken. The approach gives the public no confidence in the Administration's ability to act in a democratic way.
Many people have waited for what has been proposed for quite a time, and promoters of previous school meals bills—professionals and politicians—will be delighted that we seem to be making progress.
There is background to consider. An extensive evaluation has been carried out very professionally in Hull, which I think confirmed that the uptake of school meals will increase. If members wish to hear about that, a half-day conference in Dundee next Tuesday will deal with it; I thought that I would plug that conference in the short space of time that is available to me. What has been proposed is part of the Government's overall programme to improve the life chances of our youngsters. In particular, the stigma of means testing for school meals will be removed. There is an opportunity to improve the quality of children's diets, and the motion should be welcomed on all sides.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this short debate, although I regret that it is necessary. As we have heard, at its meetings on 19 and 26 September, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee considered subordinate legislation to enable the Scottish Government to conduct its school meals pilot scheme. It is not my intention to revisit the issues that were considered by the committee in its scrutiny of this policy initiative. I wish to raise the concerns of the majority of committee members that the Scottish Government has acted presumptuously by instructing the local authorities that are involved in the pilot scheme to send letters to the parents of children in primary 1 to primary 3 advising them of their children's entitlement to a free school lunch.
Although it is absolutely right and proper that Scottish Government officials have liaised with the local authorities that are involved in the pilot scheme, we must remember that the timetable for implementation has been set by the Government and that, in establishing the timetable, parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal should have been factored in. It is, therefore, unacceptable that anyone was advised of a new entitlement before Parliament had had an opportunity to consider the policy. I am concerned that the actions of the Government in relation to this order were disrespectful to both the committee, which I convene, and the Parliament as a whole.
When the new Government took office, it stressed to the Parliament and the people of Scotland that it was committed to working in partnership with Scotland's people and her Parliament. Unfortunately, the Government's actions in its handling of the school meals pilot scheme have not matched the pledge that was made by Alex Salmond in this chamber that his Government would
"respect and include the Parliament in the governance of Scotland over the next four years"
and that it would
"appeal for support across the chamber policy by policy."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 36.]
Unfortunately, those words do not match the experiences of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee and the Parliament to date.
I hope that the minister and the new Administration will reflect carefully on the points that have been made in the debate. I hope that they will remember the vital work of the Parliament's committees and their role in ensuring proper scrutiny of legislation. I also hope that they will listen to Parliament, giving us the space and respect that we require to debate and consider Scotland's legislation properly. It is vital that the Government assures Parliament that it will never act in this way again.
On a point of clarification, Presiding Officer. Karen Whitefield mentioned that—
That is not a point of order. Please sit down.
Well, she spoke—
Please sit down.
Parliament knows that I am a stickler for the rules and regulations of the chamber. Therefore, I hope that the minister will take it in good part when I say that it was not exactly sensible or diplomatic to conduct business in this way. Having said that, I doubt that any member will vote against a measure that will definitely test the nutritional road that we should be on with regard to future Scots.
Let me cut to the chase and ask the minister a question that I would have asked had we been able to have a full debate on the matter in the chamber. Has he thought of extending the parameters of the pilot scheme to include the supermarkets and shops where the children's parents buy their food? Although a pilot scheme for school meals is well intentioned and will provide excellent research material, it would be sensible to try to rope in the real villains of the piece—the people who make a huge profit out of selling bad food—and get them on board. I wonder whether that has been attempted. Could it be attempted in any of the local authority areas that have been selected for the pilot scheme?
Having said that, I wish the pilot scheme all the best.
I offer the minister a brief opportunity to wind up, if he would like to do so. Minister, you can have two minutes at the maximum.
I will pick up on a couple of Rhona Brankin's points. We have adopted a universal approach for several reasons, the first of which is that we cannot change the culture or the population's eating habits by targeting resources on a few people; we have to take a universal approach. Poor diet and childhood obesity are not unique to poorer families. Rhona Brankin quoted selectively from the Food Standards Agency, but its report indicated that, overall, the types of food that are eaten by people on low incomes are quite similar to those that are eaten by the general population.
Secondly, it was a bit rich for Rhona Brankin to boast about Labour's commitment to extend eligibility when, in the previous session of Parliament, it failed to accept Fiona Hyslop's amendment to the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill on that very issue. Once again, the Scottish National Party is ahead of the Labour game.
I understand the concerns of Elizabeth Smith, Karen Whitefield and Margo MacDonald and acknowledge that it would have been better to hold back the local authorities from issuing their letter until after the committee meeting last week.
Will the minister take an intervention?
He does not have time.
I assure Parliament that no disrespect or presumption was intended. I would therefore be grateful if Parliament could support this very welcome measure.