Food for Good
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-742, in the name of Mark Ballard, on food for good.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends UNISON on the production of its "Food for Good Charter" and considers that NHS Scotland should adopt the targets set out therein for organic produce, animal welfare and fair trade and accept the UNISON Food for Good recommendations on meat quality, five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, recycling and composting, patients not profit, resources, real food and fair pay as policy.
I start by thanking all those colleagues who have chosen to stay behind for this debate on what is a very important issue. The national health service is one of the largest purchasers of food in the country and I think that Unison's report—its food for good charter—is a brilliant document. Unison should be heartily commended for the work that it has done in raising the issues that the charter highlights.
The proposals in the charter represent a major test of the Government's resolve on many issues, from supporting local food markets, fair trade and recycling to delivering on promises of fair pay for public sector workers and environmental justice. There is also the obvious point that we need to deliver healthy food to patients in Scotland. Scotland needs food that is good for health, good for the environment and good for the economy. Unison's 10-point food for good charter and the NHS's massive food-purchasing power could help to fast-track the delivery of a good food economy for Scotland. That is why I commend Unison for its work.
I will highlight some of the points that Unison raised in its charter. It starts with organic food, which is the fastest-growing part of the food economy in Scotland. We must ensure that NHS food is free of toxic chemicals, pesticides, steroids, antibiotics and additives and the NHS should be declared a genetically-modified-food free zone. There should be an organic option on its menus, which would mean a major increase in organic food procurement on the part of the NHS. The charter includes targets on organic food procurement of 5 per cent by 2005 and 10 per cent by 2010, which I think are achievable targets. Staff and patients must have the right to reject food that is contaminated with excessive levels of additives or with pesticides—they must have that choice.
In relation to animal welfare, we need to take positive action to promote the highest standards of food quality. We need decent quality meat. Take the economy sausage, which is the cheapest sausage that can be produced. It is all too often served in local authority and other public sector outlets throughout Scotland and it is the kind of sausage that is only about 50 per cent meat. Of that 50 per cent, 30 per cent will be pork fat with a bit of gel and 20 per cent will be made up of mechanically recovered meat. What of the other 50 per cent of the sausage? That will consist of water and soya mixed with preservatives, flavourings, phosphates and sugar, which are in there in an attempt to make such sausages at least slightly palatable. That, however, is not a recipe for good food; it is a recipe for profits and nothing else. Decent quality food and nothing else should be served in NHS and other public sector outlets. Healthy food must be enticing, accessible and varied—the healthy option on the menu must not be the boring option.
The food for good charter also deals with buying Fairtrade goods and products. We have the opportunity to buy Fairtrade tea and coffee in the Parliament so, if we have that choice, staff and patients in the NHS should also have the choice to buy Fairtrade tea and coffee, which deliver environmental justice. We now know the impact that the purchasing decisions that we make can have on the economies that produce the goods.
In the member's quest for food for good does he think that taste should be a factor? When did he last taste the Fairtrade coffee and tea in the Parliament's tea room?
I have made the choice to drink only Fairtrade tea and coffee. I think that it tastes better and that it is better for the environment and the people who produce it. That is why I choose Fairtrade options and why I encourage other people to do likewise.
The third point in the charter is on recycling and composting. Major public services are well placed not only to reduce waste but to save money by doing so. Recycling in the NHS should match the targets that the Executive has set for domestic waste, which is 55 per cent recycling of waste by 2020. The NHS is about patients, not profits. The provision of nutritious and safe food to patients should always be the number 1 priority; however, since privatisation profit has inevitably become the number 1 priority of the companies that supply the food.
Does Mark Ballard agree that farmed salmon is good for you, as Unison confirmed to me by e-mail this afternoon?
I believe that we need further investigation of the impact of toxic chemicals in food. We should take the organic choice, which is what the first point in the Unison charter is about, because it ensures that the food is as free as possible from additives and contamination.
Patients, not profit, should be considered first in respect of food in the NHS, but privatisation means that profits come first for the food producers. That has to change. All too often the companies that were brought in to provide food in hospitals have been found wanting and have not been able to meet their contractual obligations. That is another reason why we have to move away from the failed Tory privatisation of services and towards focusing on food that is produced for patients, rather than for profit.
Scottish patients deserve fresh food that is prepared by local chefs using Scottish produce, where possible. A target to use seasonal local produce would help to reduce food costs. Also, such produce is the healthiest food for our bodies, especially if it is organic.
The NHS, as the biggest purchaser of food in Scotland, can be a real force for good in delivering local jobs. However, Edinburgh's new private finance initiative hospital brings in its food frozen from Wales. How can that make sense? The only reason why that is happening is that no company in Scotland was able to meet the low price targets that have been set by Lothian NHS Board. That is not acceptable. We need real healthy food to be delivered to patients.
I turn to fair pay for those who make the food. The Greens support Unison's petition for better pay for catering workers. The Scottish NHS should seek to retain and recruit a well motivated and highly trained work force in its kitchens. The Executive must act on the Scottish Low Pay Unit's report, which revealed the true and unacceptable extent of low pay in catering in the NHS.
Are you reasonably close to the end so that you can finish, Mr Ballard?
The Executive must enter negotiations with Unison for a satisfactory pay deal. Finally, I turn to proper resources. No longer should NHS catering budgets be the first call for savings; that is a false economy. Food for good and food for health requires proper resourcing. The Scottish Executive should accept the charter and secure good food within the Scottish NHS. I urge members of all parties to support the charter and to unite behind it, because it is a key way in which to deliver a good food economy for Scotland, which we all want to see for the environment, the economy and health.
"Finally" is one of my favourite words.
I draw the attention of members to my entry in the register of members' interests and I apologise in advance because I shall be leaving before the end of the debate to attend another meeting.
I thank Mark Ballard for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important subject of food, something that I am looking forward to indulging in a little later this evening, as usual.
Unison has done an excellent job with its food charter. Like that union, I believe that there are three important strands in producing healthy, quality foods with respect to animal welfare and fair trade. I prefer the Fairtrade coffee that comes from Columbia to that that comes from Kenya and I think that the fair trade movement provides a lot of choice within its boundaries, which I commend.
We have to use our procurement system in a constructive way to deliver on our objectives, but the NHS is but one strand of the considerable public procurement budget. I understand that food for patients currently costs about £55 million a year. If we extend that, it becomes an extremely substantial figure.
We want to aspire to higher standards of welfare and production; in many ways, our standards are higher than those of other countries in the European Union and they are much higher than those of countries further afield. That is particularly the case with regard to pigs: the cost of pig-meat production in Scotland is higher than it is elsewhere because our welfare requirements are higher. At present, procurement practice discriminates against buying that higher quality food.
Local production means local employment, which is often not taken into account in relation to tenders. Of course, local employment means more money circulating in local areas. If we procure food locally, we reduce food miles and we reduce pointless consumption of fuel.
It is a matter of grave disappointment to me—as an SNP member—that I have to commend the situation that has been brought about by the English Government as being substantially in advance of that which exists, at this point, in Scotland. Procurement in the NHS in Scotland concentrates on procurement departments and procedures. In England, however, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a sustainable food procurement initiative that includes five priority objectives: to raise production and processing standards; to increase tenders from small and local producers; to increase consumption of healthy and nutritious food; to reduce adverse environmental impacts of production and supply; and to increase the capacity of small and local suppliers to meet demand. That is what we are after in Scotland.
The English have also addressed the difficult issue of how that interacts with European Union procurement policy and have solved the problem by referring to standard schemes. By the way, the English are being entirely fair to us and the guidelines list a series of Scottish standard schemes, for which I commend them. The point is made—in relation to the EU's procurement rules—that we are permitted to specify delivery frequencies, freshness and taste as criteria that might give local suppliers a competitive advantage provided that a foreign supplier is not denied the opportunity to compete on equal terms by setting up here. That is quite legitimate.
I commend the DEFRA guidelines to the Executive. If it lifted them and copied them, we would probably be happy. Only a word or two would have to be changed.
I congratulate Mark Ballard on securing this debate and thank Unison for raising the issue. Before I start, I declare an interest as a member of Unison and a graduate of the Scottish hospital catering school. I will not tell members how many years old my qualifications are—suffice it to say that I got them a long time ago.
However, the issues that are faced by chefs in the NHS today are the same issues that I faced many years ago. I started in the national health service as an apprentice chef and I then transferred to the trainee chefs scheme, which provided in-house training for the NHS and gave its own qualification to supplement the City and Guilds qualifications that trainees had already obtained. It is unfortunate that that scheme has not survived due to the need to reduce costs and to keep the private contractor wolf from the door.
Ancillary workers have never had the opportunity to continue to develop in their professions—chefs have clearly been disadvantaged in that area. If we are serious about the contribution that chefs make to health improvement, that needs to be addressed and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on that. If we accept that catering is a distinct profession in the national health service, pay and conditions must reflect the professionalism that is shown in it day in, day out.
The opportunities that are available to the NHS in Scotland to improve the health of the Scottish people are many. Health improvement should not just be words in leaflets, but should be demonstrated at every opportunity. It is not sufficient to direct patients as to what diet they should follow; demonstrations of how food should be prepared and cooked would also be of benefit. The availability of produce and its cost are seen as major factors by many people in Scotland who try to follow the diet that is prescribed by the medical profession, but a nutritious diet is not beyond the pocket of everyone. Education in eating habits will be significant if we want to address the lifestyle health issues that face Scotland. Fresh vegetables are not more expensive than frozen or processed vegetables and the nutritional value of fresh vegetables is significantly greater than that of frozen or processed produce. Also, fresh vegetables need to be properly cooked.
The spin-offs from people buying local produce for the local economy should not be forgotten. The NHS is one of the largest purchasers of commodities, yet much purchasing and procurement to provide meals to patients and staff is done through national contracts on the basis of cost. Local suppliers can provide better-quality fresh produce to local hospitals and they can do so more regularly. Best value is supposed to encompass quality and the quality of food is no exception.
In my area, the health board's in-house catering service has won many awards for the quality of its meals for patients and staff. I take this opportunity to congratulate it on achieving those awards and I thank its staff for the service that they provide daily to my constituents. If Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board can do that, other boards can, and they should raise their game as part of the performance assessment framework.
I have touched on only some of the issues that are raised in Unison's NHS food for good charter, but time is not on my side. I commend the charter and I sincerely hope that the minister will direct the NHS to adopt it for the benefit of patients and the catering profession. That will lead to a healthier Scotland that is supported by a valued NHS catering staff.
Dr Douglas Watt worked in the health service all his life. He is now a constituent of mine, being retired in Lochaline. He spent 28 years as a consultant physician in Lancashire and was then the medical director of an NHS trust. He suffered a heart attack not long ago and was treated at the Belford hospital, which he described as excellent. Because of complications in his condition, he was then taken to the Edinburgh royal infirmary. I should say that he received excellent medical attention there but, other than that, that is where his problems truly began, as has been described in the newspapers. Dr Watt described the food as "too horrible to imagine". The food, which is provided by Consort Healthcare under the PFI scheme, it is made not in Edinburgh or Lothian but in Wales and then transported and reheated—according to Dr Watt, it is inedible. He was in the hospital for a long time and lost a substantial amount of weight. The message seems to be that, because of this presumably unintended consequence of PFI, someone goes into hospital and is treated by excellent professionals but then faces the real risk to their health in the food.
The point that I make is not facetious or frivolous, but serious. Although it is one that I have addressed at length with the minister and David Bolton, it has not been answered. I would like to know whether the minister can do anything differently. Does he have any powers to do so, or have they all been handed over—given away by the democratically elected Government to a PFI company?
My second point is one to which I alluded earlier. I have been eating farmed salmon all my life, and so have most people whom I know. Despite what we read in the papers—that farmed salmon is more dangerous that any poisonous substance yet known to man—people are, surprisingly, living longer and longer. That is despite their consuming that ultra-dangerous commodity that we hear about from the friends of the Greens.
Some recent publicity followed research that was commissioned by the Pew institute. The Pew institute believes in direct action and has already destroyed a number of industries and jobs in America through its calculated and deliberate so-called environmental campaigns. Yet the truth is that the institute's work was deliberately misleading: it was flawed and it misused the guidelines of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
I assume from his argument that the member believes that dioxin levels in salmon are declining over time. On what basis does he hold that view?
The views that I hold are shared by more than 5,000 scientists, including Phil Guzelian, professor of medicine. He states that, in relation to the chemicals involved, the incidence is
"about 100 times lower than the safe amounts recommended".
That speaks for itself.
I was delighted when Unison confirmed to me today that, unlike the sponsor of the motion, it thinks that farmed salmon is good for us. It is apparently rich in omega 3 fatty acids—that does not particularly bother me, but it is apparently good for us. It is excellent for bone health in developing infants and for a range of diseases and ailments. Scottish farmed salmon also tastes good and supports more than 6,000 jobs—in my constituency and elsewhere—which the Greens want to destroy, suggesting no alternative whatever. I am delighted to set the record straight.
I am authorised by the Liberal Democrats to say that our policies fully support the Unison document. I congratulate Mark Ballard on securing the debate. It was decided at our parliamentary group meeting yesterday that I am our gluttony spokesperson and, as such, I am entitled to speak officially on this subject. I was also lobbied by somebody who, like me, is an enthusiast for fair trade. He said that Fairtrade now makes biscuits and asked whether we could have Fairtrade biscuits with our coffee. I throw that into the pot for whatever it is worth.
I would like to concentrate on the need to buy local produce, which is the most important thing. We can have different views about organic products and so on, and people are entitled to their opinions; however, it is essential that we buy quality local produce. The national health service, as a huge purchaser, can obviously play a big part in providing the basis for local people to develop and market their produce better. It is essential that we have better labelling, monitoring of standards and accreditation, so that people know what they are getting and that it is a good, local Scottish product that is definitely up to standard. That would save lots of travelling and polluting the skies with aeroplanes, and it would also create local jobs. Essentially, it would produce better food, as good Scottish products are of a quality that is unsurpassed in any country.
The English are better than us at farmers' markets; indeed, they have a long tradition of small market towns. However, although the Scots have not been as good at such things, farmers' markets are developing in Scotland and we need to encourage them. After all, if the NHS purchased more local product, it might encourage local people to patronise the markets more. They have a big role to play.
Stewart Stevenson mentioned pigs. I was lobbied on that issue when I represented a constituency that included a large pig farm. It was quite clear that, because we had higher standards, the farmer had to spend more money to meet them. As a result, all sorts of people bought cheaper, less well-managed pigs from countries abroad. We must support our own people as far as animals and other products are concerned, which might mean that the NHS has to spend more money. Although that might be a difficulty for the minister, it might not require all that much additional money. I would have thought that, if the NHS purchased in bulk, it could secure good prices for the local product.
Unison could extend its excellent work into two particular areas, the first of which is sustainability. If that is done correctly, it can create jobs. Secondly, designing its buildings in an environmentally correct way would save the NHS a lot of money and make life more pleasant for the people who work in them. Unison is very much on the right track. If we supported it, we could perhaps go even further together.
I congratulate Mark Ballard on securing this debate, which opens up an area that the Parliament has not had a chance to discuss in quite a while.
As a Conservative, I am committed to the principle of providing good and nutritious food in Scotland's hospitals. Given Audit Scotland's findings and some of Fergus Ewing's earlier comments, that principle is especially important. According to figures for November 2003, one in three patients in Scotland loses weight while they are in hospital and, more seriously, one in 10 becomes malnourished.
I am happy to welcome a number of positive points in the food for good charter. For example, I have no problems with the principle behind animal welfare, meat quality, recycling and composting and the provision of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Such suggestions are entirely appropriate with regard to any approach to feeding people in hospital. However, local circumstances should be taken into account wherever possible in deciding the extent to which any proposals should be adopted.
It should be up to individual health boards to make decisions about what food to provide. That said, I believe that fresh food should be given wherever possible and would therefore be pleased to see more consideration of local product options.
I have rather more to say about organic targets. For a start, I do not approve of such targets being imposed rigidly. The provision of organic produce should be driven by demand for it from NHS patients and staff.
Does the member agree with the charter's call for menus to include an organic choice that patients and staff can choose if they wish? Providing such a choice would require the NHS to purchase more organic produce.
I believe that demand should be catered for where it is proven to exist. However, where I differ from Mark Ballard—and indeed have differed from his party in the past—is that I believe that we would be making a mistake if we were to drive for organic as the first choice in providing what is described as quality food. Fergus Ewing and other members have already raised the issue of the quality of Scottish salmon. The Green party should be embarrassed by how quickly it was willing to jump on some poor-quality research and exploit it for little more than its own political ends.
I believe that a problem with the general principle—
Will the member take an intervention?
No thanks.
There is also a problem with the general principle that appears to be applied by Mark Ballard. As a result of his own prejudices, he assumes that all other food that is produced in Scotland is somehow of inferior quality to organic food. I must inform him that Scotland uses a range of production methods to produce some of the highest-quality food using the highest welfare and hygiene standards anywhere in the world. It is essential that we accept the principle that Scottish food is good. No single production method should be given pre-eminence over the rest.
For that reason, although I support in principle many aspects of the food for good programme and congratulate Unison on bringing the issue to the country's attention, I ask that we remember that the quality of our food is the highest available anywhere in Europe. We should defend the interests of those who produce that food and those who process it.
I am glad to be able to support the principles of the food for good charter. By debating the issue in the Parliament, we are taking steps towards setting a target for the NHS to have the charter put in place. As Mark Ballard said, such a target is needed quickly both by those who work in the NHS and by the patients who consume its products. As has been pointed out, the dangers from entering hospital sometimes relate to the care that is given in terms of the food that the patient has to eat—although that is not to disparage the medical help and treatment that people receive. If we are to remove that danger from hospitals, something must be done quickly to set a target on this important issue.
As a Highlands MSP, I will mention briefly a number of local concerns that relate to the issue. Because there are central buying processes, Highland NHS Board has a hand in choosing the food that is bought for schools. Such bulk buying is one of the means that are used to keep down costs. However, given that food needs to be bought for prisons and other public institutions, I hope that Unison's charter could also be considered for other related public enterprises. Perhaps the minister will have some wise words for us on that, given that the requirement on education authorities to go down the road of using the buying power and purchasing arrangements of the NHS has led to similar problems about the quality of food that is available in school canteens.
The issue about whether food comes from local suppliers is bound up with the whole question of seasonality. On the issue of choice, the question is not just whether there is an organic choice but whether there is any choice on the menu in hospitals. Those who do not care to eat salmon—farmed or otherwise—ought to have a choice.
Does Rob Gibson agree that the recent article that raised concerns about the levels of potentially toxic chemicals in farmed salmon was in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Does he accept that those of us who seek to investigate the facts behind that article do so in the interests of preserving the Scottish farmed-salmon industry rather than of undermining it? Unless we are certain of the facts, there will continue to be concerns.
I understand that there are problems with the feed for farmed salmon in the present context. I also understand that the Pew institute is interested in promoting American business and in perhaps introducing GM soya that contains omega 3. My party opposes the use of GM feed for salmon and I would oppose that all the way down the line.
It is important that we proceed to adopt the charter and make it possible for local suppliers to do so. The means of contracting in the NHS must be changed to allow that to take place. That will take a little more money, but it will support many more jobs at local level.
I have spoken for longer than I thought I would. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to take part in the debate.
I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders that the debate be extended by 10 minutes, to allow all speakers to take part. I have consulted the minister, who has an important early-evening engagement but is willing for the debate to be extended by that amount of time, if any member cares to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that Members' Business on 28 January 2004 be extended by up to 10 minutes.—[Shiona Baird.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank Mark Ballard for proposing this important topic for debate tonight and the 23 MSPs who signed the motion that I lodged on the topic last year.
It is disappointing that Fergus Ewing has hijacked the debate and turned it into a discussion about salmon. There will be further opportunities to debate that issue. I reassure Fergus Ewing that if we wanted to do down the industry I, along with my colleague Eleanor Scott, would not have met and had talks with representatives of Scottish Quality Salmon two weeks ago. The Green party wants to see figures on the long-term trend in dioxin levels in salmon. I have asked the Scottish Executive for the relevant figures, but those have not been forthcoming. I want reassurance on the issue.
I return to the subject that we are debating. There are those who will see the Unison food for good charter as an expensive green wish list. I do not see it in that way, because I believe that food plays a central role in our society. With food, we have a real opportunity to start to join up some public policy. The adoption of the food for good charter in the NHS and in other institutions, such as schools, would help us to meet targets in other areas of Scottish Executive policy. Institutions are becoming increasingly important, because every day we eat more of our food in institutions.
I will give three examples of the significant benefits of joining up food policy. Organic food has been mentioned. Promoting organic food in our public institutions can help us to deliver our environment policy, to reduce pollution, to deliver biodiversity improvements and to increase the number of jobs in local areas.
Secondly, if we start to procure food that is grown, processed and prepared locally, we can start to develop local food economies in our rural areas. We can ensure that wealth circulates in our rural areas and does not drain away. Through local procurement, we can deliver economic regeneration opportunities. Forth Valley Food Links in my constituency is an excellent pilot project that is trying to develop a local food economy. We need such work to be extended across Scotland.
My third example relates to nutritional quality. If we can get food of high nutritional quality, we will, of course, be promoting health. We have an opportunity to introduce patients—who are also consumers—to new patterns of consumption. One of our greatest challenges in Scotland is to develop a positive food culture. We cannot do that just through adverts on television. We need our institutions to set an example.
Elements of the Unison food for good charter would lead to an increase in expenditure in the NHS, but many aspects of it would require only a refocusing of procurement policies and would not necessarily result in higher expenditure. We must bear in mind the fact that, although the introduction of the charter might bring some higher costs in the NHS, those costs would be offset by savings elsewhere in the Executive's budget.
I highlight a commitment made by the Executive in the previous session in its "Organic Action Plan". The plan contains a commitment to a public procurement strategy for organic food, but the response from the Scottish Executive Health Department to Unison contains no such commitment. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, made no such commitment in the chamber on 8 January, when I asked him about a public procurement strategy for organic food. We want what has already been promised—a strategy for local and organic food procurement. Stewart Stevenson has already mentioned the DEFRA guidance. Why cannot the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department produce similar guidance on the procurement of local food in Scotland? I want the Executive to work with the charter, rather than just to rebut it, and to consider the public policy gains that can be delivered across departments and the savings that we can make as well as the costs.
I am proud to be a member of Unison. I am also proud to see Unison representatives in the public gallery.
Fergus Ewing, unfortunately, elevated salmon into the debate. I do not apologise for similarly elevating into the debate questions of pay, privatisation and lack of resources. I have intimate experience of the consequences of under-resourcing and privatisation in relation to Sodexho, which is one of the companies that have made vast profits from the privatisation of catering in the national health service.
Glasgow royal infirmary and Edinburgh royal infirmary have their food transported from the Tilbury valley in Wales, using cook-chill equipment. Many health and safety reports have commented on that practice. However, what is frightening is the number of complaints about the food's quality, temperature and portion sizes and its ability to be consumed in hospital wards—a situation that is made worse by the inadequate staffing levels in the NHS in general. In the cook-chill method, the food is frequently too hot. When there are vulnerable elderly patients on a ward that is under-staffed and where nurses are busy running round, the over-hot food often does not reach the patients' mouths because staff do not have the time to spend with the patients to help them to eat it. The cook-chill practice must be wiped out. Food must be cooked on hospital premises, with proper equipment, by qualified chefs whose rewards and pay are commensurate with the high-quality job that they do.
At the new Edinburgh royal infirmary, ward staff cannot get access to cooking facilities because the private company that does the cooking owns those facilities. Rather than the cooking facilities being for staff to use, they are for the private company to use. Does Carolyn Leckie agree that such situations are a scandal?
I agree. The profit motive means that it is in the interests of the private company to monopolise the provision of food, and that is exactly what happens. The company controls the quality, availability and price of the food and it pockets the profits. It is time to stop that haemorrhage.
Capital investment is required in hospital kitchens across the country, which are dilapidated. There is a big gap in resourcing to provide the facilities that can deliver food on the premises. What action is the minister taking on that and what finances will be made available to remedy the situation?
What does the minister think that chefs and catering workers are worth? They are certainly worth a lot more than the £5 to £6 an hour that they are on just now. It is an absolute disgrace that they are forced to work 50-odd or 60-odd hours a week—sometimes more—to supplement their poor basic pay. It is time that their pay was increased and their working hours were reduced. What are the minister's plans for tackling that?
References were made, rightly, to malnutrition and weight loss in patients. Donald Gorrie referred to being a glutton. There would be no use in him being a glutton if he was a patient in the NHS—he would be given short shrift.
Patients, like our schoolchildren, deserve decent, healthy food that is cooked on the premises. They should have free, healthy meals. What has the Executive to say about that? I give my whole-hearted support to the charter, but with specific reference to uprating pay, getting rid of privatisation and increasing the resources that are necessary to deliver good-quality food. We need investment in equipment, we must reverse all privatisation efforts and we must send the Sodexhos of this country packing.
I thank Mark Ballard for introducing this debate on food, which is long overdue. Food is one of the most important topics in the country and it is important to have the chance to spend time debating it. I also thank Unison for its charter, which has succinctly introduced a number of points, on a range of issues, which needed saying. I think that many members support those points and I hope that all members will support them once they hear the arguments.
In preparation for tonight's debate, I was looking at a website called betterhospitalfood.com. It said:
"Food is not simply a means of satisfying hunger—it is a token of exchange between hospital and patient, and it matters tremendously how it is made available to patients, how it is prepared and how it is served."
What that means is that there is a contract between the hospital, the NHS and the patient; that is an extremely important point.
Members have made a number of interesting points. In particular, I want to mention Rob Gibson's point about other groups—not just hospitals but schools, prisons and other public sector areas. I hope that the debate on providing good food will not just be about the NHS, but that it will spread out into a wider debate on how we supply food to people in the public sector, from children right through to those in old people's homes.
Alex Johnstone talked about his dislike of targets in the organic food sector. Perhaps if we called them performance indicators he would like them better.
No, no.
Targets make a difference. When we set targets, they drive up quality, whether that be in renewable energy or in council performance areas such as the recruitment of staff or even the collection of council tax.
Does Stewart Maxwell accept that, when we are talking about a particular production method and a type of food that is produced by that method, the situation is different from some of the other examples that he gave? That production system working, from the primary producer to the end supplier and the consumer, depends entirely on its being demand led. If we overproduce as the result of an unrealistic target, we will undermine the system. The system must be demand led from start to finish.
I accept that demand is extremely important, if not critical, in the whole process, but it is important that we understand the targets and set them at the right level. It does not mean that we should not set the targets.
Finance and the costs involved have been mentioned by a number of members, but that aspect is not just about the contract price that is paid by the NHS to a private sector contractor for food that has been driven from Wales to Edinburgh. It is about all the other costs, in the widest sense, and the charter covers many of those areas. We are talking about costs to the economy, to the environment and to individual patients.
This is a short debate, so I will not be able to cover many of the points that I wanted to cover, but I would like to mention the area of organics and, particularly, GM products. I absolutely oppose the use of GM products. The precautionary principle must apply in that area as it does elsewhere.
The five-portions-a-day target is excellent, although I would like to see it higher. I think that five portions a day should be a minimum, not a maximum. The examples that Stewart Stevenson gave from England are pertinent, as are the examples from Scandinavia. The Finnish berry projects showed exactly what can be achieved by using food to improve a nation's health. Finland used to have some of the worst heart disease and coronary problems in the whole of Europe, but the Finns used food as a crucial factor in bringing about a change in culture. They used food in schools and in the home and, through education and the use of local produce, they made a difference to their nation's health. That is what we should be considering.
I commend the document that Unison has produced and I hope that everyone will support it.
I join other members in congratulating Mark Ballard on securing the debate. This is an important subject and the Executive welcomes the opportunity to respond to the debate.
The constructive speeches that have been made this evening have led to some startling revelations. We have heard Stewart Stevenson praising a Westminster initiative—previously considered heresy. I am sorry that he has left, but I assure him that any brownie points that he loses in the SNP for that contribution we will make up on this side of the chamber. We have heard Margaret Jamieson tell us of her renowned culinary skills, and people who have attended her dinner parties in Ayrshire are aware of them. Tragically, however, I have never had an invitation, although I still await such a happy event.
We have heard Fergus Ewing's comments and, later in my speech, I will be able to offer him the reassurance that he seeks. He made a pertinent and strident defence of the Scottish salmon industry and, unusually, I agree 100 per cent with him. Therefore, the debate has already produced some rather strange outcomes.
I am glad to say that a great deal is happening in the national health service in Scotland that is very much in line with Unison's charter and with the points that members have made during the debate.
Unison's charter states that high-quality, nutritious food in hospitals is very important for the welfare of patients. I am happy to agree 100 per cent with that statement. I would go further and say that the provision of high-quality nutritional care is crucial to the well-being and recovery of patients. Such care covers not only food quality and presentation but menu planning, nutritional content, preparation of special diets and assistance with feeding where necessary. More important, it means assessing each patient as an individual and ensuring that their requirements are met. That is the real challenge and it is one that we are tackling through the clinical standards for food, fluid and nutritional care.
I am happy to provide the reassurances that Mr Ewing sought. The Executive gave a commitment in the health white paper that was published in December 2000 to improve the quality of nutritional care that is provided in Scotland's hospitals. We also said that we would introduce national performance specifications for catering services and develop service standards on hospital food. Following wide consultation, NHS Quality Improvement Scotland has recently issued standards on food, fluid and nutritional care in hospitals. I am grateful to everyone—including a number of patient representatives and members of the public—who contributed to the development of those standards.
Does the minister think that it is possible to combine cooking food in Wales, freezing it, transporting it to Scotland, microwaving it and serving it to patients with the principles that he has described? I do not believe that cook-chill food is compatible with the principles that he has described. I would like to hear his opinion.
What is important is that we produce the standards and rigorously monitor them. Obviously, anything that failed to ensure that the standards were applied would be a matter on which we would take action. We have no evidence to suggest that the current methods of procuring food militate against the implementation of those standards.
It is important to say that NHS Scotland's performance against those standards will be assessed and monitored independently of the individual NHS boards, and the first reports will be published next year.
In addition, a national nutritional and catering specification is being developed to support hospital dietitians, catering managers and staff in meeting the new standards. We are very keen that patients' views should be taken into account during that consideration.
I believe that there will be an important role for the new Scottish health council in ensuring that boards effectively discharge their responsibilities for involving patients in checking up on the quality of hospital food.
Of course, Unison's charter is a wide-ranging document, which touches on many issues besides nutritional care in hospitals. It has certainly stimulated much interest. Not all the issues that it raises fall within the remit of Scottish or, indeed, United Kingdom ministers, but I will deal with some of the specific issues.
Members will be pleased to hear that the Executive has made a commitment, as part of the Scottish Executive's organic action plan, to promote organic food and farming and increase the proportion of organic food available in Scotland. The Executive has committed itself to helping the Scottish organic sector to achieve its potential to supply at least 70 per cent of Scottish demand for home-grown organic products. Since May 2001, more than £5.3 million has been awarded to projects under the processing and marketing grant schemes and the marketing development scheme. Ultimately, the choice of whether to purchase organic produce is made by the consumer, but what matters for nutritional care in hospitals is that there is healthy wholesome food—whether it is from organic or other sources.
I also welcome Unison's recognition of the importance of animal welfare in relation to animal produce. It is important that meat and meat products should be derived from livestock that are healthy and reared under conditions of good animal husbandry. Many Scottish producers are members of farm assurance schemes and meet the standards set by Quality Meat Scotland, including those relating to animal welfare. Scotland has a good record when it comes to farm animal welfare—there is a wide range of effective legislation—and we continue to seek improvements in that area.
On meat quality, we whole-heartedly support the enforcement of food safety standards and high quality in the food chain through improved farm standards, rigorous monitoring of food quality control regimes and more effective restaurant and food premises inspection.
There is a national dietary target in Scotland of five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, which is in line with World Health Organisation recommendations. As the charter suggests, locally available fruit and vegetables can contribute towards the maintenance of a sustainable supply of fresh produce to help to achieve that target.
New guidance on public sector procurement, aligned with the sustainable development programme, will help to maximise opportunities for the local food sector. The Scottish Executive's document "Improving Health in Scotland—the Challenge" emphasises the importance of workplace health. NHS boards, like all Scottish employers, are encouraged to support the healthy living campaign and to put in place local diet and nutrition policies to support that. At national level, the Scotland's health at work and Scottish healthy choices award schemes encourage healthy eating in the workplace.
There is also a debate around the issue of patients not profit. Clearly, catering services in the NHS in Scotland must be run for the benefit of patients' health and welfare. What matters is the service's quality and responsiveness, rather than its provider. The provision of catering services should and will remain a matter for local decision making, subject to the need for services to meet the rigorous standards that we are putting in place. I am happy to make it clear that the Executive regards the achievement of best value in catering services as a key objective. Securing services at the lowest cost is certainly not an objective. It is important that standards are met and that patient care is assured.
Pay has been mentioned, both in this debate and in the Unison charter.
The minister talks about best value. Will he tell me how many potatoes and bits of fruit are lost as a result of private companies' profit margins? How much of that food could be put on patients' plates if those profits were removed?
Perhaps the minister will also respond to my earlier questions. How much is a chef worth? How much capital investment is he prepared to put into kitchens to bring them up to scratch?
The life of a deputy health minister is a fairly busy one—too busy to allow him to go round Scotland counting potatoes and fruit.
New arrangements for determining pay in the NHS are already being taken forward through the agenda for change pay modernisation package, which will modernise pay structures. The agenda for change programme has been developed in partnership with trade unions and professional groups and we hope that, after the forthcoming staff ballots, we will have the go-ahead to roll out the system throughout Scotland later in the year.
We are determined to continue to drive up the quality of patient care in the NHS in Scotland. Our approach to setting and reviewing performance against catering standards is very much in line with the points that have been made in the Unison charter and in today's debate. Hand in hand with that, the NHS is expected to demonstrate commitment to driving forward health improvement in its work force.
There is much to commend in the food for good charter and I congratulate Unison on its ability to contextualise national policies for its membership. I encourage Unison to continue to build its effective partnership with its members and their employers in the public sector and to continue to build on what is learned from the charter, so that it can deliver on health improvement for its members and lead by example for the rest of this nation's population.
Meeting closed at 18:08.