I reiterate what I have said throughout the process. This is a framework bill: it sets a framework for the good food nation plans. Many of the amendments in this group provide for specific details or matters that plans would have to contain.
For example, amendment 64, in Monica Lennon’s name, is on universal free school meals. I thank Monica Lennon for meeting me to discuss her intention to lodge such an amendment at stage 3. The issue is of great importance to her, as it is to me and to other members of the Parliament.
Our programme for government set out our ambitions to provide free school breakfasts and lunches to local authority primary school pupils in Scotland all year round, and to all children in state-funded special schools in Scotland. We have made significant progress against that commitment: Scotland offers the most generous provision of free school lunches in the UK, and local authority pupils in primary classes 1 to 5 and in special schools already benefit from the offer of universal free school meals.
We are fully committed to the expansion of free school meals over the course of this parliamentary session and we will continue to work with local authorities to plan for that over the next academic year.
I will come back to the detail of amendment 64. First, I will give my view on other amendments in the group. My view on putting outcomes, indicators and targets in the bill remains the same: it is challenging to ensure that such measures are and remain up to date and meaningful if they are set out in primary legislation.
There is also a risk that future food plans would focus on those targets and neglect other, equally important considerations. We want the plans to cover the whole of the good food nation vision, which is wide ranging. For that reason, I am firmly of the view that the place for the level of detail that is envisaged is in the plans themselves. That is also the considered view of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in its stage 1 report. The committee thought that the bill should contain high-level objectives but not detailed targets and outcomes.
I lodged amendment 18 in response to concerns from some stakeholders and committee members that there is no clear recognition of the role that the private sector plays in the food supply chain. The good food nation plans will contain policies and initiatives that inevitably involve or affect the private sector in different ways. Amendment 18 will require the Scottish ministers to set out, in the national good food nation plan, how they intend to ensure that implementation of the policies in section 1(3)(c) is informed by the views of the private sector.
I want to address concerns about amendment 18 that have been voiced by some stakeholders in recent days. I want to be clear that it is not about giving food companies a hand in creating Government policy. Rather, it is about making sure that we properly take into account the views of those who grow, process, transport and sell food on how we implement the policies that are decided by the Government. Given the significant role that businesses of all sizes play in the food supply chain, no Government policy would succeed without at least understanding the views of business on how such a policy would work in practice. In essence, the duty is to garner those views, not necessarily to act on them.
I also draw members’ attention to the definition of the “food business sector” in section 14(1). It includes everyone that is involved in the food industry, regardless of size or role. The aim is to recognise the role that the private sector plays across the supply chain and to provide a mechanism by which the views of the food business sector will inform the implementation of the policies in the plan.
Amendment 20, in my name, would amend section 1(5) to clarify that the requirement to have regard to the list of high-level outcomes in that subsection applies when determining the content of the national good food nation plan, in so far as that is required by section 1(3).
Brian Whittle’s amendments 2 and 3 would place procurement targets in the bill. For example, amendment 2 would require the Scottish Government’s “Central Scotland Excel contract” to
“procure at least 60% of food from within the UK by 2025”.
The amendments are similar to amendments that were lodged at stage 2 and which were not agreed to. As I set out at stage 2, strict rules on procurement may mean that the intended aim cannot be achieved. The trade and co-operation agreement with the EU contains a duty of non-discrimination in procurement. Amendments 2 and 3 are not compatible with our international obligations, and that is why I am unable to support them. However, the Scottish Government supports the use of procurement to improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of our areas, and we promote and facilitate the procurement of healthy, fresh and seasonal produce in contracts for food and catering.
Amendment 1, in Brian Whittle’s name, sets out a series of outcomes that the national good food nation plan would have to include, including targets on food waste and food processing capacity.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 48 and 65 make reference to Food for Life accreditation, setting out that that should be one of the indicators used to assess progress in achieving the outcomes of the good food nation plans. Amendment 66 would require local authorities to set out in their good food nation plans their plans to achieve accreditation under the Food for Life scheme.
I absolutely support the aims and objectives of the Food for Life programme, and I acknowledge the great work that has been done through it, which means that 18 local authorities now have Food for Life accreditation. However, it is not appropriate to set out such a level of detail in the bill. The process of obtaining Food for Life accreditation is a policy initiative that is best dealt with at the local authority level. Local authorities will set out the indicators against which progress against the outcomes that are set out in their plans will be measured. Given that the good food nation plans are yet to be drafted and, in particular, that consultation on local plans has not yet taken place, setting out an indicator in legislation is problematic.
I also bring to members’ attention the fact that the reference in Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 65 should be to subsection (4)(b) of section 7, rather than to subsection 3(b), as the amendment states.
My view on amendments 1, 48, 65 and 66 is as I have set out throughout the bill process. The bill is a framework, and the appropriate place for such a level of detail is in the plans themselves. I therefore ask members not to support those amendments.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63 would require a relevant authority to set out how it
“intends to work with other relevant authorities in its area to share good practice and to secure the achievement of the outcomes for individuals in receipt of social care.”
However, it is not clear how the amendment would work in practice.
For example, the wording “in its area” is difficult to interpret. Does it mean working with relevant authorities within exactly the same area, with those whose boundaries overlap the area, or with those that are adjacent to the local authority? The amendment includes wording that is specific to social care, and it is not clear whether the sharing of good practice is a general requirement or is specific to social care. For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 63.
Several amendments relate to the provision of food in schools. Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 17 would add to section 1 a requirement for the Scottish ministers to set out
“the policies which”
they
“intend to pursue in order to reduce child poverty, including the delivery of free school breakfasts in all Scottish schools.”
Section 1(5) of the bill, as amended at stage 2, already requires that when
“determining the content of the national good food nation plan, the Scottish ministers must have regard ... to the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes in relation to ... child poverty.”
The policies to reduce child poverty will be set out in the plan itself, which, as I previously set out, is the appropriate place for the detail of those policies.
The wording of amendment 17 would require Scottish ministers to set out how they would ensure the provision of free breakfasts for all schools in Scotland, including those that would not be under the control of local authorities. I query how that would target those children who are in most need of that support.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 19 would require the national good food nation plan to
“set out how the Scottish ministers will ensure the free supply of milk to children in pre-school, nurseries and primary schools.”
The Scottish Government has committed to delivering a universal Scottish free school meal scheme to local authority primary and special schools, and to developing a pilot in local authority secondary schools. The wording of amendment 19 would also require Scottish ministers to set out how they would ensure the supply of free milk to primary schools not under the control of local authorities, which is outwith the scope of our current commitment.
As I have set out previously, this is a framework bill and it would not be appropriate to be prescriptive in the bill about which specific policies should be contained in the plans. Monica Lennon lodged similar amendments in relation to free school milk at stage 2, but they were not agreed to for the same reasons that I have just outlined.
Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 29 would require local authorities, when formulating their good food nation plans, to ensure
“flexibility in meal provision”
and, in particular, not to
“restrict the ability of residents in any school hostels operated by the local authority to make choices in relation to their meals.”
Evening meals that are provided in hostels that are run by local authorities must comply with the nutrient standards that are set out in the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020, which help ensure that young people are provided with an appropriate amount of energy and key nutrients to support their healthy growth and development.
The food and drink standards that are set out in the regulations also apply at mealtimes and are designed to limit the amount of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar that is provided as part of a balanced diet. The regulations are already flexible enough to allow school hostel caterers to design menus that meet the needs and preferences of hostel residents.
In relation to Brian Whittle’s amendment 3, which would require that
“free school meals provided by the local authority are locally sourced”,
I refer to my earlier comments about the strict rules around procurement, but also to the good work that has already been carried out under the Food for Life accreditation scheme, which promotes the use of local food. That work is already under way and there are plans to run a pilot programme that will look at expanding Food for Life into the wider public sector.
I turn to Monica Lennon’s amendment 64, which would require
“a relevant authority’s good food nation plan”
to
“set out how the relevant authority intends to ensure the provision of universal free school meals for all children and young people ... high uptake of universal free school meals ... free of stigma”
and “high-quality, nutritious food” during school holidays.
However, careful consideration is required so that such a requirement, which might not achieve the desired aim, is not added to legislation. As I have noted throughout the bill process, the bill is a framework bill and the place for the detail is in the good food nation plans themselves.
I do not believe that the wording of the amendment that Monica Lennon lodged achieves the intended aim. The proposed amendment applies to all relevant authorities, including local authorities, health boards and all bodies that are specified in regulations under section 7(2), which would have to include in their plans how they intend to ensure the provision of universal free school meals. However, health boards have no role in the provision of school meals to pupils and, as such, amendment 64 would require them to explain how they would do something that they ultimately have no responsibility to do.
In relation to local authorities, the amendment is not just restricted to the pupils at schools under the authority’s control, so it would require that aspect of the plan to extend to independent schools and grant-aided schools.
Monica Lennon’s amendment 64 would not impose a direct duty on a relevant authority to provide universal free school meals, but it would require a relevant authority to include in its plan how it intends to ensure the provision of universal free school meals and other matters that are set out in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment.
Where legislation seeks to impose a legal duty on a person or body, the duty should be express, clear and unambiguous, in relation to not only the fact that a duty is being imposed but the terms of the duty. A duty could not be created by an amendment in the proposed way, which would require relevant authorities to explain in their plan how they would ensure something that they currently have no duty to do.
16:30
Paragraph (c), on the provision of meals during school holidays, would ensure something that is not yet a right in Scots law. The requirement in paragraph (b) to set out how the authority would ensure the “high uptake” of free school meals and how that would be done “free of stigma” duplicates the existing legal duty to provide free school meals.
There are duties on education authorities in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, under section 53A, on “promotion of school lunches”, and section 53B, on
“protection of identity of pupils receiving school lunches”.
In contrast with the 1980 act, there is no definition in amendment 64 of “school meal” and no reference to free school meals being provided to pupils in attendance at schools. Instead, it refers to “children and young people”. Therefore, it is really unclear what is intended. For example, should the provision extend to independent schools and the home education of children and young people? How does it relate to the 1980 act duties?
I hope that I have explained the significant issues with those amendments. I strongly urge members not to accept them, for the reasons that I have set out.