Hansard

This is another big—and important—group of amendments and I hope that the committee will bear with me again as I take a little time to introduce them. Providing young children in early learning and childcare with a healthy free school lunch helps to raise attainment, reduce inequality gaps, and improve the health and wellbeing of children at that crucial stage in their development. The purpose of amendment 114 is to make the provision of a free school lunch under section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and as restated under part 3 of the bill, equally applicable to young children who receive their entitlement to early learning and childcare at partner providers. Currently, only young children who attend education authority establishments and who meet the relevant criteria are eligible for free school lunches. It is important to rectify the discrepancy that exists in the legislation with regard to partner providers and the entitlement to a free school lunch, which will become increasingly relevant as more young children attend in the middle of the day as a result of increased flexibility; they may also attend more partner providers at this time. Amendment 115 will enable an education authority to secure the provision of a free school lunch. Amendments 116 to 118, 120 and 123 are consequential to amendment 115. They will mean that the education authority can pass funding and arrangements for free school lunches and other food and drink on to others, such as partner providers, and they will not have to provide that directly themselves. Amendments 121 and 122 will ensure that education authorities have the maximum flexibility with regard to where lunches and food or drink for children at their own or partner provider settings can be provided. Amendment 119 will ensure that education authorities are not responsible for providing facilities for the consumption of food or drink that children bring to partner providers. That keeps the requirements on education authorities with respect to partner providers proportionate. Amendment 123 will ensure, for the sake of consistency, that responsibility for determining what is suitable for consumption in “the middle of the day” remains with local authorities. Amendment 125 seeks to make minor technical amendments to sections 56A and 56E of the 1980 act in consequence of the new version of section 53. Those amendments are required to maintain the current position in relation to nutritional requirements and sustainable development. The Scottish Government provides free school lunch provision where it can within current budget constraints. We will take all opportunities to expand that provision where we can. Amendments 124 and 168 create a regulation-making power, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, to enable the Scottish ministers to require local authorities to provide meals other than a lunch. For example, our more vulnerable two, three and four-year-olds could receive a breakfast or tea instead of a lunch if that better suited the time of their session. We have worked with stakeholders to make sure that the amendments in my name that relate to free school meals are proportionate and manageable for education authorities and their partner providers to implement. The stakeholders that we have consulted include COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the National Day Nurseries Association and the Scottish Childminding Association, and there is consensus on the benefits to be gained by children as a result of the proposed changes to free school meal provision. To that effect, funding has already been agreed and allocated to education authorities to support voluntary implementation of the provision of free school lunches to eligible pre-school children at partner providers from August 2015, pending parliamentary approval of the amendments. Mary Scanlon’s amendments 166 and 167 deal with free school meals for primary school children. Amendment 166 seeks to require education authorities to provide a free school lunch to all pupils in P1 to P3. Amendment 167 seems to negate amendment 166 by seeking to require education authorities to provide a free school lunch to all pupils in primary education. Perhaps Mary Scanlon will clarify her intentions when she speaks to her amendments. I do not think that it is necessary to amend the 1980 act in the way that Mary Scanlon’s amendments propose for a number of reasons. First, in January this year, we extended free school lunches to all children in P1 to P3. That can save families around £380 a year per child. I am proud of the action that we have taken in recent years to extend free school meal eligibility. Secondly, in section 53 of the 1980 act ministers already have a regulation-making power that allows them to extend the category of pupils who receive a free school lunch to other school years. Targeting our limited resources to provide for the youngest schoolchildren gives them the opportunity to benefit from a nutritious meal at a crucial stage of their education and to develop healthy eating habits that can be sustained as they grow older. The latest statistics demonstrate that the extension of free school lunches to children in P1 to P3 is having a huge impact. More than 129,000 P1 to P3 pupils are now benefiting from a healthy and nutritious free school lunch, and almost 99,000 more primary school children are taking a free school meal. 13:45 The extension of free school lunches has been fully funded by the Government and £70.5 million of revenue funding has been provided over 2014-15 and 2015-16 to ensure that the policy can be delivered in partnership with local government. That has ensured that implementation has been achieved without having to call on the powers that the Scottish ministers have under the 1980 act to impose a duty on education authorities to provide school lunches. Instead, the policy is being delivered by virtue of the new discretionary powers that local authorities have to provide free school lunches to children. The Government intends to fund the policy fully in the future, subject to future spending reviews. Provided that our existing agreement with local authorities continues to ensure implementation of that important policy, there will be no need for ministers to exercise the regulation-making powers, or for primary legislation as proposed by Ms Scanlon. However, the Government is absolutely clear that, if any local authority suggests reneging on that commitment, we will not hesitate to use our regulation-making powers to ensure that all local authorities provide free school meals for all children in P1 to P3 in their schools. I have met the Child Poverty Action Group, which makes it clear in its report “The Cost of the School Day” that continuing to provide free school meals to children in P1 to P3 is of the utmost importance as the cost of school meals remains a huge financial barrier for families in Scotland. Having said that, the provision for P1 to P3 is what is affordable, given the tight constraints that have been set on budgets from Westminster, and we are not in a position—and nor are local authorities—to fully fund the cost of free school meals to children beyond primary 3. Of course, children who qualify for free school lunches as a result of existing benefits-related criteria will continue to do so, and we will continue to focus our efforts on protecting entitlement to free school lunches under the UK Government’s welfare reforms. I now move on from free school meals to the issue of school clothing, which is another financial barrier to education. Again, I recently discussed the matter with the Child Poverty Action Group. The policy behind amendment 169, which I announced last week, will provide welcome support for families who are impacted by austerity, will put money back into the pockets of families who need it most and—importantly—will ensure that all children and young people have suitable clothing to enable them to learn and thrive at school. Crucially, the policy will provide consistency of approach throughout Scotland. Although local authorities currently have a general duty to make provision, it is clear from our discussions with a number of organisations that there is inconsistency throughout Scotland and it is unacceptable that any child should lose out. Amendment 169 gives ministers the power through regulations to place local authorities under a duty to pay a grant of a specified amount for the provision of clothing for certain pupils under certain conditions. We need to support the children and young people who need help the most and it is both sensible and timely to put those powers in place now. The description of these pupils is still to be agreed and I look forward to continuing those discussions with COSLA. I fully intend to work in partnership with COSLA to agree a minimum level of grant provision throughout Scotland. Provided that agreement can be reached to ensure implementation, there will be no need to call on the enabling powers in amendment 169. Amendment 169 future proofs our legislative framework. It allows local authorities to meet the needs of the children and young people for whom they are responsible through the provision of school clothing grants, and it allows the Government to amend or extend entitlement to school clothing grants if required in the future. Amendment 168, to which I have already referred, makes the new regulation-making power subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure that the Parliament is afforded sufficient scrutiny of any change to the policy on the provision of school clothing grants. Providing the children and young people who need help most with school clothing grants will help to remove barriers to education, reduce inequality gaps, raise attainment and improve children’s health and wellbeing. Amendment 170, in Mary Scanlon’s name, would not allow ministers to specify an amount of grant but would provide only for a grant to be paid to certain pupils, so the same level of disparity and inconsistency would continue to exist throughout Scotland. Families will still suffer from a postcode lottery, because amendment 170 does not allow for a minimum amount for school clothing grants to be set nationally. Furthermore, amendment 169, in my name, can offer more flexibility to make different provision for different purposes. For example, a different amount of grant could be set for primary school pupils compared with secondary school pupils. I just cite that as an example—it is not necessarily a proposal. Amendment 170 allows for no such flexibility. Amendment 170 also has an internal contradiction. New section 54(2) of the 1980 act, which the amendment would introduce, would impose a duty on authorities to “provide pupils falling within subsection (3) with a school clothing grant.” New section 54(6) would provide that the school clothing grant can only be paid “to the parents of a pupil”. It does not recognise that the pupil themselves may be in receipt of a specified benefit and, therefore, that the grant should be paid directly to them, not to a parent. Amendment 174 is a minor technical amendment, which amends the long title of the bill to reflect the inclusion of the new regulation-making powers relating to clothing grants. I ask members to support all my amendments in this group. Given what I have said, I ask Mrs Scanlon not to move her amendments. I move amendment 114.