Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The first item of business in today's second meeting of the Parliament is a debate on motion S2M-119, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I will not dwell on the matter, because we have been through the issues in considerable detail.
The Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill proposes a technical amendment to section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The bill seeks to remedy an unintended consequence of recent changes to the benefit and tax systems for eligibility for free school meals. The bill will ensure that children and young people who were previously entitled to free school meals will continue to be entitled to them.
We have issued guidance to local authorities that sets out interim administrative arrangements to ensure that no children lose their entitlement to free school meals in this transitional year. However, those administrative arrangements cannot be sustained beyond a short period and the bill is necessary to give the arrangements legal force. As I have said repeatedly, it is important to have the legislation in place before children return to school in August.
The bill provides for an order-making power. We have taken that approach to allow Parliament the necessary flexibility to keep pace with changes to the tax and benefits system, without requiring changes to primary legislation on every occasion. We intend to use those powers to prescribe entitlement to free school meals for children of families who receive child tax credit but not working tax credit, and who have an annual income, as assessed by the Inland Revenue, of below £13,230.
That measure will maintain, as far as possible, the status quo for entitlement to free school lunches. It will protect the interests of children who are in danger of losing entitlement and, beneficially, will entitle for the first time children of students and of families with savings but very low incomes. The move will ensure that families in Scotland have the same entitlement to free school meals as those in England and Wales have.
I urge Parliament to support the bill, and I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I support the bill, regardless of the arguments at stages 1 and 2. As Euan Robson has said more than once, the bill is technical. However, it has allowed us to do what the Parliament should do, which is to scrutinise and call to account the Government and to look for opportunities to pursue creative policy ideas that otherwise would not be possible. We could have been saying that the time and effort of the civil service, the ministers, MSPs and parliamentary staff have been wasted in covering up a Westminster problem. However, the way in which members from different parties have taken the opportunity to try to pursue a genuine, positive policy agenda is a tribute to the Parliament. That is something that we should always look to do.
The problem with the bill was the fact that, although we could be creative on the income side, we could not be creative on the nutrition side. It is essential that we do not lose sight of the agenda regarding the nutritional aspects of the provision of school meals. The more familiar that I become with this issue, the more that I am convinced that we should, and must, pursue the provision of breakfast clubs. I look forward to the Parliament revisiting the issue again and again.
The use of affirmative instruments is a way forward in calling the Government automatically to account to the parliamentary committees. However, I recognise the issues surrounding the time scale and I acknowledge the fact that when we have to fix a loophole, we must fix it quickly and properly. I accept the minister's points on that.
I return to the central issue of how the Parliament can work to change people's lives. If we can change anybody's lives, we should try to change the lives of people who are in need, especially those who have disabilities. I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to do that during today's debate. If we are to tackle poverty as we should, we should make every effort and take every opportunity to do so. I ask the minister to reflect on his comments about not wanting to close the gap between those who are living in poverty and those who receive free school meals. We have a duty and responsibility to close that gap. In all sincerity, I ask the minister to reconsider his comments and, when he returns with the regulations on his figures, to produce something a bit more positive. Setting the threshold at the Scottish median income would be a possibility.
As part of our housekeeping, we should find out how and when the problem arose. In a useful intervention at stage 1, Brian Monteith pointed out the fact that the loophole had been known about for some time. We should not pass the bill without ensuring that there is some accountability about why it happened, without ensuring that it never happens again and without ensuring that we will not have to use parliamentary time yet again to cover up a mistake that was made at Westminster. If we had powers over tax and benefits, the process would have been much simpler and we could have decided things here in Scotland.
The minister is absolutely right to have produced the bill. He had to do it to put right the position that arose out of the changes to the benefits system. Moreover, the bill extends the entitlement to free school meals to some 7,000 more children.
There has been a major debate about where the cut-off point should be, and most of our discussions today have been about that. We believe that those who can afford to pay—such as MSPs—should pay, and the saved funds should be channelled to those who need them most. Given the finite nature of the education budget, universal free school meal provision does not represent the best use of resources. Nonetheless, the bill represents a step forward.
This is an important bill, which allows us to close the loophole. It is good to know that Euan Robson can say "technical bill" as well as he used to say "formally moved".
The bill has raised several issues that we will need to continue to explore, especially in relation to eligibility and extending the qualification for free school meals. Some Labour members will certainly want to explore those issues in the future. The bill has also given us an opportunity to remember that we need to continue to review the issues around nutritional standards. I believe that such standards should be statutory, and I would like the Executive to continue to consider introducing nutritional standards for school meals. Unless we improve the nutritional standard of school meals, we will not improve the diet and health of our young people.
We have a very poor diet, and the question of how we can improve it is complex. However, the introduction of statutory nutritional standards for school meals would play an important part in that. The Executive should be aware that there are concerns that we need to continue to assess eligibility criteria. Labour members will certainly return to that issue.
I support enthusiastically this small but necessary piece of legislation. I want to follow on from what Karen Gillon said. During the first debate on the bill, I mentioned the nutritional quality of what is being served in school meals. Subsequently, as members will have noted, a serious proposal for the possible taxation of salt, fat and sugar in processed foods has emerged from the House of Commons. The Executive should pursue that theme vigorously in relation to the meals and breakfasts that are being served in our schools to establish the levels of salt, fat and sugar in those meals and to establish ways of drastically reducing such levels in the future.
The bill was needed to close a loophole. Work had to be done and we had to agree to it today. Therefore, I am pleased to support the bill.
There has been a great debate around the issue of free school meals. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee investigated the subject last year and several issues arose from that work. It is clear that free school meals carry a stigma and I suggest that there are several reasons for that. The main issue is that one in five of children who are entitled to free school meals do not take them. The committee agreed that there is a need to consider why that is the case. We should consider those reasons, which include cultural issues, peer-group pressure, the poor quality of food, nutritional standards—I agree with Karen Gillon that we must consider those—and overcrowding and queues.
The uptake of free school meals in primary schools is relatively high, but at secondary school teenagers choose to go outwith the school for lunch. People say that youngsters can be forced to go to school meals, but I do not think that that is possible. Youngsters of between 12 and 15 want to go out with their pals for lunch; they go to a high street and have a sandwich or whatever. They do not necessarily want to take free school meals. Introducing free school meals for teenagers is not the way forward. Certainly, the young people to whom the Education, Culture and Sport Committee spoke did not relish that idea.
There are other ways of targeting nutritional standards. I know that people do not necessarily like the idea, but I think that breakfast clubs would be a viable way forward, as would making drinking water available to all children in schools and giving children access to milk and free or cheap fruit.
The debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill that took place at this time last year created a number of positive discussions on issues such as the provision of drinking water for children in schools. I visited a primary 6 class the other day and all the children had bottles of water. There was a water container in the corner of the classroom for the bairns' use. Such provision is important. In addition, people have started to consider the nutritional standards of school meals, which is a step forward. We must continue to monitor such issues.
The Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill is important because we need to close a loophole. We should never have had to do that, but we had to. Another 7,000 children will benefit from the bill and I support it.
I, too, support the bill. We know that it is a technical amendment to sort out the consequences of the introduction of the changes to the child tax credit. There has been criticism of the way in which the bill has arrived, but I think that it is clear that the ability of the Parliament to legislate speedily and effectively when necessary has been demonstrated by the bill's progress.
The wider debate today has been the universalist argument versus the targeted-provision argument. I, as a Liberal Democrat, have no particular position on or caution about universalism. We went for universal provision in the case of tuition fees and such provision is similarly appropriate in other situations. I view the measure as a practical matter to be considered for a particular situation. Some people want to extend entitlement a little bit and some want to make it universal, but we must consider the arguments.
The argument for universal entitlement to free school meals is unlike the argument for universal provision in other situations. The Scottish National Party has a difficulty on the issue of the universal provision of free school meals because that measure was not in the party's manifesto; it is trying to establish a position on the issue at this stage. However, with the greatest respect to Fiona Hyslop, I do not think that the SNP has been successful in that endeavour.
While the SNP is the indignation tendency, the SSP, of course, is the outrage tendency. I sometimes think that the SSP's members would get their points across better if they were not outraged about everything and if they were prepared to consider that other people were perfectly genuine in their approach to topics and shared their desire to make things better for the people of Scotland.
The original School Meals (Scotland) Bill was given a fair run by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in the previous session. A number of interesting points were made during the consultation process. For example, Angus Council said:
"the concept of providing free school meals for all pupils is one which the Parliament is advised to approach with some caution—not least because the process of translating such a concept into the reality of all children actually consuming the meals provided for them may prove to be exceptionally challenging."
That correct insight has underlain some of the speeches today. We are dealing with issues of eligibility, uptake, stigma, choice, competition and nutrition.
A number of welcome developments have taken place recently, such as the experiment run by Glasgow City Council, which Tommy Sheridan mentioned. Breakfast clubs that have been run have been welcomed across the chamber. Another extremely important development is that it is becoming cool among young people to drink water. That might signal what could be the most important change in our approach, as it shows the potential for changing people's habits, in primary school in particular.
We need to attack all the aspects that are involved, across the board. The issue is not only to do with stigma, uptake or nutrition; there is a series of elements that work together. We must work with the grain of what is happening in schools and what happens as people become teenagers and expand their outlook.
The debate has been useful and I am sure that it will continue in the Education Committee in due course. However, today we are dealing with a technical bill that has to be passed to allow us to make a specific improvement.
I echo a point that Karen Gillon made. I do not think that we need to regard our present position on school meal eligibility as the final word on the matter. We are dealing with a practical matter that could be reconsidered if certain difficulties were to emerge in the course of further debate.
We must make the most of the limited resources that we have. As was said earlier today, we must speak the language of priorities.
Today we are dealing with a missed opportunity. This technical bill provided an open door to expand eligibility either to other children whose parents are in receipt of a range of benefits, as suggested by the SNP and supported by the SSP, or to all children, but I am afraid that that opportunity has not been taken.
I take encouragement from the comments that have been made by Robert Brown and Karen Gillon to the effect that the door has not been closed. However, that is not what the minister said. Therefore, I hope that those members will be prepared to shake their respective political parties into some action on the question of eligibility. As I said, probably early next year there will be a debate in this chamber on a free school meals bill. At that point, if the Executive parties have not taken action to extend eligibility in the way that they think might be required, members will again be faced with the prospect of voting for universality. If members of those parties are serious about extending eligibility, while remaining opposed to universality, I advise them to get their skates on and get proposals through their parties in order that this Parliament can make a decision to extend eligibility to at least the 100,000 children who are living in low-income families and are deemed by us to be living in poverty but who are denied free school meals.
Robert Brown talked about the evidence that Angus Council submitted in relation to the School Meals (Scotland) Bill, and urged us to be cautious about universal provision. I ask Robert Brown to be cautious about the evidence that we receive from local authorities. He will remember that Glasgow City Council gave evidence that it saw no benefit in universal provision. Of course, the council went on to introduce free breakfasts and free school meals at all primary schools. A great deal of politicking is involved in local authority submissions. The reality on the ground is sometimes different from the submissions that are made.
I hope that we will examine what is happening in Glasgow and consider the uptake of free school meals in the primary school sector. I invite the minister to agree to set up a monitoring group or committee that will examine the success or otherwise of the universal provision of free school meals in Glasgow's primaries. If it is successful, the minister and the Executive should make a serious commitment to fighting to extend that good practice to the whole of Scotland.
We will support this technical bill, but we hope that the Parliament will not close the door on improving the school meals service further through better nutritional standards and the universal method of delivery.
I was delighted that the minister indicated that the Executive has produced costings for at least some of the amendments. Had the Parliament agreed to the amendment that linked eligibility for free school meals to receipt of housing benefit, it would have gone a long way towards closing the gap between the 20 per cent of schoolchildren who are eligible for free school meals, the 15 per cent who take up their entitlement and the 30 per cent who all of us believe should have access to free school meals, because they are in poverty.
I note with interest that various members from the Executive parties have indicated a willingness to explore further the possibility of extending the eligibility criteria. That is very welcome. It is perhaps unfortunate that this technical measure has had to be introduced—I put it as kindly as that. However, the bill has at least served as the vehicle for our having a significant debate on the grounds for eligibility for free school meals.
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that universal provision is appropriate. I happen not to agree with that position. To paraphrase a point that was made by Robert Brown, universal provision may be made, but universal consumption may not necessarily follow. The bill offers no advance in the quality of nutrition. It does not introduce any of the wider anti-poverty measures that are necessary. There has been widespread support for the idea of breakfast clubs and some support for the provision of free school meals. Provision of free water is another sensible measure that could be taken, at fairly modest cost. Free fruit should also be provided.
We need to take people out of poverty, instead of addressing their needs through the provision of individual items. If we had a much more positive child care strategy, we could lift a large number of families out of child poverty. Rather than funding universal provision of free school meals, I would prefer to help people to help themselves. The money might be better spent in improving child care provision than in providing free school meals.
Nevertheless, the SNP is delighted to support the technical measure that is before us today. We look forward to engaging in further debate on this matter over the next four years.
This has been an interesting and lively afternoon. It has been good to have a number of issues raised on the back of what all members have grasped is a technical measure.
The debate emphasised a number of core issues that are important to all members. I agree with Robert Brown that all of us, in our different ways, have the health of our children firmly at heart. I recognise that members all round the chamber believe that genuinely. We all want to make certain that the children who are most in need receive the assistance to which they are entitled, and that is at the heart of the bill. We need to protect the interests of our most vulnerable children and ensure that they continue to have the entitlement to free school meals. If the bill is passed—I think that it will be and I am grateful for the support for that from all quarters—we will be able to establish free school meals on their proper basis from August.
I am conscious of the time so I will respond briefly to one or two points that have been made. I cannot remember who mentioned breakfast clubs, but they are important. I recall visiting one in Burnfoot in Hawick, which is in my constituency, and saw the difference that it had made.
I say to Fiona Hyslop and Karen Gillon that I am interested to hear members' views on statutory nutritional standards and eligibility, although I do not say that I will necessarily move thereafter. I am interested to hear what members have to say and I apologise if I gave the impression to the contrary. I am always pleased to have face-to-face meetings with Brian Adam and I agree with the point that he made latterly about taking people out of poverty. That seems an important way forward in addressing problems. I did not quite follow what Mr Sheridan said about practice in Glasgow and his proposal, but if he will write to me about it I will certainly respond to him.
The bill will ensure that we continue with the status quo. We will have the added beneficial effect that 7,000 extra children will be affected. I believe that it is important that we have introduced the bill and, as Robert Brown said, it shows that the Parliament can respond to an unfortunate situation. As I said in the stage 1 debate, the financial year 2003-04 was a transitional year. When it was realised that we needed to take action, we did so. I would be grateful if the Parliament would support the motion to pass the bill to ensure continuity of provision.