Scottish Parliament, 14 March 2007

331 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Official Report 14 March 2007

Time for Reflection

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. Our first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Father John Keenan, of the Catholic chaplaincy of the University of Glasgow.

Point of Order

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Last Thursday, Parliament voted to impose a sanction on Brian Monteith MSP on the recommendation of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. Many who were present in the chamber were puzzled by the exchanges between Brian Monteith and members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. Indeed, in her contribution, Margo MacDonald remarked that

"Brian Monteith was not given the chance to face his detractors and accusers."

She went on to say:

"I thought that the chance to do that was a basic element of what we call justice."—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; c 33015.]

Indeed, it is, Presiding Officer. I believe that the proper procedure as laid down in the Standards Committee's 12th report 2002, made during the previous session of Parliament, might not have been followed. On 30 January 2003, Parliament agreed the report, which states:

"The Clerk will also ask the member whether or not the member wishes to appear before the Standards Committee to make representations about the Standards Commissioner's findings in fact or the Standards Commissioner's conclusion."

That procedure was put into the code of conduct to ensure that any MSP who is facing censure is able to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee in person if they wish to do so. It is also incorporated into the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's report on changes to the code of conduct, which we are to debate here later today.

Page 48 of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's report on Mr Monteith contains the text of an e-mail from him that states:

"I write to confirm that I would wish to appear before the Committee at a later date to make representations about the Standards Commissioner's conclusion".

He then went on to say:

"I will be pleased to provide further written evidence in advance of any further consideration or prior to my oral evidence if it is required."

At last Thursday's debate, Mr Monteith argued that he had been denied the opportunity to make a representation to the committee in person. If that was true, it would undermine the whole process and bring Parliament into disrepute. Was Mr Monteith denied his right to appear in person before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, according to our rules?

One interpretation of Mr Monteith's e-mail is that he was not requesting to appear in person, but that is not Mr Monteith's interpretation. He believes that his e-mail was quite clear and that he made a request to appear before the committee in person.

Presiding Officer, if Mr Monteith was denied his right to appear in person before the committee, in accordance with our rules, after he expressly requested such an appearance, then there can be no doubt that our rules were broken. If, on the other hand, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee interpreted his e-mail as being rather ambivalent and not a request to speak to the committee, then our rules have not been broken. Even if the latter is the case, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee members should have ensured that there was no doubt about the issue. At the very least, it would have been unhelpful to give the impression that Mr Monteith was not allowed to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to confront the evidence in person.

Presiding Officer, I would appreciate it if you would consider this issue and ensure that the rules of this Parliament, as outlined in the Standards Committee's 12th report 2002, which was incorporated into the code of conduct, have been complied with, namely that a member—any member—who is subject to a complaint under stage 3 of the complaints process, has the opportunity to appear before the committee if he or she so wishes.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I thank Mr Rumbles for his advance notification of the point of order and for the considerate way in which he has advanced his argument. That has enabled me to look into the matter and to refer to and read last week's Official Report .

Although it is not for me to adjudicate on the process that was followed, I confirm that, as stated by the convener last week, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee met its obligations under the code of conduct in full.

I also confirm that in such matters, a member is entitled under the code to be asked to appear in front of the committee.

Business Motion

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-5748, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 2: 1 hour 5 minutes Groups 3 to 5: 1 hour 35 minutes.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. Members should have with them SP Bill 68A as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list that contains the amendments that I have selected for debate, and the groupings that I have agreed.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this morning. The period for voting in the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Group 1 is on duties in relation to the promotion of health. Amendment 21 is the only amendment in the group.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Part 1 of the bill explains that various bodies, including the Scottish ministers and local education authorities, will have duties to ensure that all schools become health promoting, or at least to try to ensure that. It then goes on to explain what a health-promoting school is. Amendment 21 qualifies that definition by stating that advertising and sponsorship by companies that promote or produce food that would not qualify to be sold and eaten in school should not be allowed and that if it is, the school would not be defined as a health-promoting school.

There are probably some of us who think that schools should be ad-free zones and that it is simply not appropriate for marketing to take place in schools. There might be a range of views about that, but we should make it clear that the promotion, advertising or sponsorship of brands and products that do not meet the requirements for food and drink that are sold in school should not be allowed.

Research by Which?, which I believe has been circulated to members, shows that a number of large multinationals and conglomerates that produce food and drink for sale throughout society—and which therefore do not need the school market to make a profit—are using increasingly underhand and manipulative methods to get their messages across and to get their brands promoted in schools. We should be worried if the mixed messages that are put across in schools associate those brands with major sporting events or with the idea of health and fitness, for example. Health-promoting schools should provide clear information to schoolchildren about what is in the interests of their health. That applies not just to the dining environment and the food and drink that they consume, but to the messages that they receive in school. If those messages are mixed, we have a problem.

Amendment 21 is useful. It would not prohibit advertising and sponsorship—I am not sure that the bill could do that—but it would make it clear that we do not consider such activity to be appropriate in what we call health-promoting schools and it would give ministers and local authorities the impetus to ensure that it does not take place in schools.

I move amendment 21.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I pay tribute to my colleague Shona Robison, whose proposal for a member's bill to remove junk food and fizzy drinks from schools was a precursor to the drive towards health-promoting schools, which has received cross-party support.

Amendment 21 makes the point that schools must not send out mixed messages and that we should not say to children, "Do as I say, not as I do." We must tackle the sending out of mixed messages in schools. The minister might be able to tell us whether the proposal on advertising could be effected by regulation rather than by being incorporated in the bill, but I am sympathetic to the idea of ensuring that we send out a clear message to young people about what is healthy and what is unhealthy.

We expect a great deal of our schools. We want them to promote the eco-school agenda that we all support and to be health promoting, but we also want them to deal with basic numeracy and literacy. We know that some schools complain that Government initiatives from on high consistently interfere with basic education. When we promote health-promoting schools, we should remember that we must ensure that teachers have the time to teach and are supported in doing so. They cannot always be called on to compensate for bad parenting.

I support amendment 21.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Fiona Hyslop's point that teachers need the time to teach and cannot spend all their time compensating for some of the problems that come from the home and from children's upbringing is valid, although it would be foolish to underestimate the significance of the role that school education can play in helping to shape and develop children's lives.

I understand that amendment 21 was lodged out of a concern about pupils receiving mixed messages on healthy eating as a result of corporate sponsorship in schools, but I do not think that it is necessary because, as Fiona Hyslop suggested, the bill will address that issue.

The bill will require all schools to be health-promoting schools. A health-promoting school will need to ensure that any advertising, marketing or sponsorship complies with the health-promotion ethos, and the regulations on the nutritional standards of food and drink will limit what can be sold in schools. It is unclear in what situation a school would advertise a product that it could not even provide.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It would be helpful if the minister could explain whether the restrictions on the advertising of products that do not meet the requirements on nutrition extend to the promotion of brands that are associated with burger bars, chocolate, fizzy drinks and so on.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will come to that point in a moment.

Regardless of whether a school would advertise a product that it could not provide, a health-promoting school should promote physical well-being, which the advertising of an unhealthy product clearly would not. I am sure that Patrick Harvie is aware that the Office of Communications has introduced new rules on broadcast advertising for children and that, in the light of that, the Advertising Standards Authority has confirmed that its code will be revised.

Proposed new subsection (6)(b), which amendment 21 seeks to insert in to section 1, would require schools not to accept sponsorship from any company that manufactured food or drink that did not meet the requirements on nutrition. That means that a company that produced even one product that did not meet those requirements would be unable to promote any of its products that met the requirements.

I do not support that concept, because the bill's purpose is not to condemn or punish manufacturers for producing products that do not meet our requirements; it is about ensuring that what happens in and around schools promotes good health and well-being. It aims to ensure that each item of food and drink offered in schools is sufficiently healthy. I do not think that amendment 21 would contribute to that aim because, rather than targeting products that breach the regulations on nutrition, it seeks—unfairly—to target manufacturers associated with particular brands, as Patrick Harvie suggested in his intervention. Apart from anything else, such a restraint on trade might not comply with European Union law. However, that is a side issue at this stage.

In addition, amendment 21 would discourage companies from developing new and healthy products. If they could not promote such products in schools, they might stop developing them entirely, which is not something with which we would want to associate ourselves.

The guidance on commercial activities in schools that has already been issued to local authorities and schools includes consideration of what should be taken into account when sponsorship for commercial organisations is agreed. It notes that commercial activities in schools can be positive, can provide schools with funding, materials and equipment and can build links between schools and the business community. It advises that commercial activity should be viewed cautiously because, in some cases, a company or product might be in conflict with a school's ethos and educational aims. In other words, schools should ca' canny when they make such decisions.

My view is that decisions that schools take about sponsorship or any other commercial activity should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should not be legislated against by a blanket amendment such as Patrick Harvie's. Amendment 21 gives undue prominence to an aspect of health promotion that can be dealt with more appropriately and more flexibly in guidance.

The requirement that our bill places on schools to be health promoting precludes the provision of food and drink that do not meet the requirements on nutrition. Given that that is the case, it is not clear why a school would wish to advertise such a product but, if it proceeded to do so, it would certainly be in breach of the health-promotion duty and would be inspected negatively as a result.

Proposed new subsection (6)(a), which amendment 21 seeks to insert into section 1, is unnecessary. In addition, amendment 21 could have legal complications. I do not think that the bill needs Patrick Harvie's amendment. I hope that he has been reassured by what I have said and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I welcome and agree with much of what the minister said about the promotion and advertising of products that do not meet the requirements on nutrition, but I am disappointed that he has not gone beyond that and that he does not agree with the principle that we should not allow the promotion of brands that are closely associated with, and largely dependent on sales of products that do not meet those requirements.

If there were campaigns to promote lethargy or other forms of unhealthy activity in schools, we would be deeply worried. We should be equally worried about a campaign to promote a drinks manufacturer, most of the sales of which come from products that do not meet the requirements. Even if it produces some products that can be sold in schools, the promotion of its brand is not restricted to the promotion of those healthier products.

I do not agree with the minister that the amendment would in some way inhibit the development of new products. We are placing nutrition requirements on the food and drink that can be sold in schools. There will always be some money to be made by manufacturers seeking to meet that need and to have their products sold in schools. They will come forward with the healthier brands; in fact, many of them have already put those healthier brands on the market. However, they depend for their continued profits on promoting all their products, including the unhealthy ones.

I accept the argument that teachers need time to teach and should not be overly distracted by other matters, but I am not sure that the amendment is relevant to that. I also disagree with the idea that the amendment is about condemning or punishing manufacturers. We should put out of our heads completely the notion that the bill is about condemning or rewarding manufacturers. It is about creating healthier environments for children and young people. If we are to do that, it is right that we should target specific brands that, for the bulk of their profits, rely on the promotion and sale of food and drink that we do not regard as healthy enough to sell to children.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There will be a division. Since this is the first division in these proceedings, there will be a five-minute suspension.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We will proceed with the division, which will be a 30-second division.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Group 2 is on free school meals and snacks. Amendment 1, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is grouped with amendments 6, 22 to 24, 3, 4, 14 to 20, 25, 7, 26 and 9. If amendment 1 is agreed to, amendment 6 will be pre-empted. Time is tight, so I ask speakers to limit themselves to four minutes.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members of the Communities Committee will know that similar amendments were discussed during stage 2, but I make no apology for bringing amendments 1, 22, 3 and 4 to the chamber today. The bill will allow local authorities the flexibility either to provide free breakfasts, fruit and snacks or to charge for them, but it does not allow local authorities to decide whether to charge for school meals. The new section that the Executive has added to the bill says that an education authority can provide anything other than school lunches free of charge. However, as amended, section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 will say that local authorities must charge pupils for lunches. I am not the only person to consider it bizarre that local authorities are allowed the flexibility to determine whether to provide free snacks and breakfasts but will not have the same flexibility to provide free school meals.

If amendment 1 is not agreed to, the bill will provide less flexibility than exists in England. Free school meals have been piloted in Hull. Unfortunately, when the Liberal Democrats took over Hull City Council, they stopped that experiment, much to the annoyance of the Labour members of the council, who wanted the experiment to continue. South of the border, in Hull, Labour MPs, Labour councillors and Labour activists argue for the flexibility to have a pilot in Hull, while in Scotland we are being denied that same flexibility. It is a matter of consistency.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The member said that the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull stopped the experiment, but that is not the case. The administration continued the experiment until the end of the pilot period so that it could do a proper assessment of it. I hope that the member will withdraw her comment, which was misleading.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is not my understanding. I accept what the member says, but it is clear that the experiment was to go no further and that the council was going to stop it, regardless of whether the evaluation confirmed the initial finding that the experiment was working well and having a positive impact on children's health.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 38,000 children in Scotland live in poverty but are denied free school meals. My colleague Christine Grahame will say more about that, but her amendments at stage 2 were not supported by the Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative members of the Communities Committee, who argued that provision should not be extended. The Minister for Education and Young People said that ministers already have powers to extend eligibility for free school meals, and all committee members, except the SNP and Green members, voted against Christine Grahame's amendments. A week later, however, the First Minister told the Child Poverty Action Group that the group of children who were covered by the amendments that his colleagues voted against would now get free school meals. The SNP believes that the matter should be covered in the bill.

My amendments would give local authorities the flexibility to determine what is right for their area, to decide whether pupils should pay for school meals and to run pilot schemes and evaluate the importance of free school meals.

I move amendment 1.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

My amendment 6 proposes universal provision of free, nutritious school meals. We support universal provision because, if we are to give children the chance to have nutritious school meals, we should ensure that all children get the chance to eat those meals.

I begin by thanking the free school meals campaign. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Child Poverty Action Group, One Plus, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women's committee, Unison and the many others who joined the campaign. I thank them for the solid support that they have provided since 2001, when Tommy Sheridan first raised the matter in a member's bill.

Capability Scotland states:

"Capability Scotland's own research—through our 1 in 4 poll which surveys a panel of disabled people, their family members and carers across Scotland—shows the following:

Nearly 40% of respondents had an income of less than £200 per week State benefits were the main source of income for nearly 70% of respondents Nevertheless, two thirds of families with children did not receive free school meals".

Such anomalies crop up throughout the benefits system, but extending means testing to ensure that more children are given free school meals is not the answer. The answer is to ensure that no child is left without a free, nutritious school meal.

Capability Scotland goes on to state:

"disabled families do not generally receive free school meals, despite an increased chance of living in poverty."

It points out that many disabled children have special dietary needs and that their diet would be helped if they were given free school meals.

Research by Save the Children shows that the families of many children who live in the most severe and persistent poverty do not receive benefits and therefore the children are not guaranteed to receive free school meals. I might have said this before in other debates, but I do not apologise for saying it again. In my past experience in education, I encountered families who would not fill in forms for free school meals. They refused to do so, for whatever reason—we can perhaps work out what the reasons were. That meant that the children were not given access to a decent meal and staff had to provide for them quietly at dinner time with sandwiches to take home because they were not being fed. Eventually, the children ended up at the sheriff court and were taken into care, but for about 18 months they were not provided with good meals. It is important to ensure that everyone is caught by the safety net.

We are all concerned about the figures on child obesity. What better way is there to ensure that all our children are healthy than to educate them about food and provide them with a free, nutritious school meal? Finland does that, and it has made a huge difference to the health of the nation. We can do it as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the amount of money that would be required is minimal in comparison with the long-term health benefits for the nation.

I make no apology for proposing universal provision of free school meals. I hope that members will support my amendments 6, 23, 24, 7 and 9. I am sympathetic to the other amendments in the group, but universality is the best way forward.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

When we ask parents what they want for their children, one or two will say, "I want wee Kenny to play for Scotland", or, "I'd like Kylie to win 'The X Factor'", but most parents say, "I want them to be happy and healthy." Given the recent United Nations Children's Fund report, which showed that our children are the unhappiest in the developed world, we, including us in the Parliament, stand condemned. Today, however, we have a chance to help parents with their second wish.

Bad food equals bad health. Good food equals good health. It is not rocket science—that is what members of the Westminster Parliament are debating today. The universal provision of free, healthy school meals works, but members should not just take my word for that. In the public gallery today is Jo Pike from the University of Hull, who, with Derek Colquhoun, evaluated Hull City Council's free school meals programme for three years. Jo Pike will be presenting the evidence today, and every MSP who is interested in child health or educational attainment should listen to her or read her research. It states that the city of Hull is experiencing calmer classrooms in which children are more enthusiastic and more confident socially, and Professor Colquhoun states that children's learning, social relationships, behaviour and health have improved.

The Executive's arguments against the provision of free, healthy school meals across the board are appalling. As I said at stage 2, we know from the bill that the Executive is not against universality. The minister is in favour of free fruit—a banana and an apple costing 40p—and free breakfasts for all children in primary schools. Those cost £1 each, but he is opposed to spending £1.15 to provide children with free school lunches because he does not want to give them to rich kids. If he is to be consistent, he should take the banana, the apple, the toast and the cornflakes off the rich kids. He is not against universality, and he has the money to provide free school lunches. The Executive's underspend has been £1.4 billion in the four years for which I have been an MSP—it has more than enough money to provide £70 million per year to pay for free school meals.

Every single MSP has the power to change people's lives. Let us use that power and do something for our children's future and their health. My amendments 14 and 15 are two small amendments, but they are one big leap for the health of our children. I ask members to support my amendments for free, healthy school meals.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I refer to the comments that I made on my amendments at stage 2.

During stage 1, Barnardo's Scotland referred to the

"difference between the percentage of children who live in poverty—23 per cent—and the percentage of children who are eligible for free school meals, which is 18 per cent".

Barnardo's further commented:

"It seems strange that an anti-poverty measure is set at a level that excludes an awful lot of children who it is accepted live in poverty."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 22 November 2006; c 4331.]

I am also obliged to Save the Children for its paper entitled "Children Can't Wait", which advises that there are currently 240,000 children in Scotland who live in poverty.

The SNP seeks to extend the provision of free school meals to children whose families are on a wide range of benefits other than the current qualifying benefits, which I understand are income support, income-based jobseekers allowance and support for asylum seekers. My amendments seek to extend eligibility to children whose families are on low incomes and receive the following benefits: the working tax credit, because the parents are getting back into the jobs market; the lone parents benefit run-on; council tax benefit; housing benefit; and local housing allowance, which I understand applies instead of housing benefit in some areas, such as Argyll. We all know how difficult it is to access benefits in Scotland, so the people concerned are very needy.

Jack McConnell, who has been in power for eight years but who has now been pushed into a corner by the Scottish National Party, said recently that the Executive

"will, in the first year of the next Parliament, extend entitlement and reverse the shameful decision made by the Tories to cut school meals."

It is not my position ever to defend the Tories, and I am not doing that. However, I want members to consider who is really to blame. Jack McConnell said that he would extend entitlement

"to families on maximum working tax credit"

in order to

"give nearly 100,000 kids"—

his word—

"access to a free healthy meal, and ... improve their lives."

In the debate on the Education (School Meals) Scotland Bill in June 2003, my colleague, Fiona Hyslop, proposed those very measures, yet the Labour and Liberal Democrat Government voted against them. I smell an election coming. The Executive parties feel that they have to do something, just as they did for the nurses.

When I lodged my amendments at stage 2, Scott Barrie said of children in Glasgow:

"They were already entitled to free meals but sought to go outwith the school to the local shops or wherever to get snacks or meals. We really need to address that point. A number of people who are entitled to free school meals do not take them. By extending provision, there is no guarantee that the very people we want to reach are the ones who would actually take up free meals."

He continued:

"That is where we should be concentrating our efforts, certainly at the start. We should see whether that makes a difference before we spend resources in a way that might not achieve what we all want to achieve."—[Official Report, Communities Committee, 13 February 2007; c 4569.]

I suppose that Jack McConnell has had a word in his ear since then.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There are three arguments for free school meals: the need to tackle poverty; the need to tackle obesity, which is a health issue; and the need to address nutrition and learning. In order to cover those three areas, the SNP wants to exempt more families from having to pay for school meals. Tricia Marwick's amendments will allow flexibility for local authorities; Christine Grahame's amendments will tackle the issue of poverty and passported benefits; and my amendments 25 and 26 will allow for national pilots, to enable local authorities in certain areas to run free school meal pilot schemes. The SNP is committed to piloting the universal provision of free school meals in primary 1 to primary 3.

The arguments are clear. If we are to tackle our obesity time bomb, we must ensure that our young people develop their palates in their early years—at nursery and primary school—to get a taste for good food that will lead them to take up school meals later in life. We know that, because of the problems of public-private partnership schemes, many schools do not have kitchens to enable free, nutritious school meals to be produced on site. That is why we must have pilot schemes. A good Government is one that does the right thing when it starts its period in government, not one that, at the tail end or last gasp of its period in government, suddenly decides to extend the provision of free school meals to tackle poverty. Liberal Democrat and Labour members should hang their heads in shame for refusing to support, when they had the chance in 2003, the extension of free school meals to children whose families are in receipt of passported benefits.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I will not.

Let us take a bold step now and say that we want universal provision of school meals in this country. However, let us take a pragmatic approach and pilot that to see what works and where. In particular, we should look at the nutrition and learning aspects, as the bill already goes some way towards addressing the obesity agenda. I think that the next agenda that the Parliament should address is what we are feeding our children and how it affects their ability to learn.

This is an opportunity for us to tackle those issues and to tackle poverty by extending provision to children whose families are in receipt of passported benefits. This is also an opportunity to tackle obesity by developing children's palates so that they favour nutritious meals in their early years, with universal provision piloted in the first three years of nursery. Although we have some way to go, we should not be feeble but should take a bold step and vote for the SNP amendments.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We are discussing a progressive piece of legislation that could be made much better if we supported amendments that would enable the universal provision of free school meals. I do not understand the objection to giving local authorities the discretion to do that.

Child obesity is a ticking time bomb. I secured a members' business debate on the issue about a year ago. There is no quick fix to the problem. The positive health changes that took place in Finland happened more than 30 years after the introduction of free school meals. The sooner we start, the sooner we will get on with making those changes. There is no point in my spelling out the obvious health benefits of free school meals, as they have been well rehearsed for years in the Parliament. It is clear to me that the improvements in health would offset any costs and would be well worth the price we would pay.

It is essential that we tackle childhood dietary health. One of the most direct and achievable means of doing that is by providing free, healthy meals to all children at lunch time in state schools—at the very least, in primary schools—for which we ought to establish pilot schemes. I believe in the universal provision of free school meals, but I think that pilot schemes would be a way forward to show that the policy would work and would be of benefit to our children's health.

Universal provision seems to be accepted in many areas. For example, there is free bus travel for the elderly, there is the central heating allowance for the over-60s and there are free nursery places for three and four-year-olds. Indeed, the national health service is provided universally—and we provide free food to people who use that service. The bill accepts the need to provide healthy snacks in our schools, as happens.

I do not believe that we can afford to means test children on something that directly affects their health and the future health of the Scottish population. Ever the optimist, I think that we will, eventually, get around to providing free lunches for all children in our state schools. The bill is good and progressive. Those who, over the years, have campaigned for changes ought to be congratulated on getting the bill introduced and, I hope, passed today. I have consistently supported the universal provision of free school meals and I will continue to do so.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I appreciate why those who were members in the first session of the Parliament may feel that we have had the argument about the provision of free school meals too many times, but I feel that it would be wrong to pass the bill without debating the issue—not least because even the First Minister has now changed his position on extending the scope of free school meals. It is therefore right for us to have the debate even just one more time.

The two issues that I think the minister needs to address are the contradictions in the Executive's position for which I find no explanation. The first is the fact that there is universal provision of free school breakfasts, snacks and fruit but an absolute prohibition on the same approach being taken to lunches simply because they are served in the middle of the day. I cannot find any explanation in any of the minister's statements in the Official Reports of our stage 1 and stage 2 proceedings that clarifies why a fundamentally different approach must be written into law simply because food is served at a particular time of day. The only explanation that I can conceive of is that the Executive's approach is based on cost alone.

The second contradiction that I still cannot get my head round is that it is now accepted that food in schools is not merely an optional extra but an integral part of the education experience. Food in schools is about teaching children to have a healthier relationship with food that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. Why should lunch be the one aspect of children's education experience that is not provided for universally?

I understand the targeting argument—that we should target our resources on those who most need them—but why does that not apply to the provision of jotters in schools? Why do we not charge wealthy parents when their children sit exams in schools? Why do we not charge wealthy parents when their children attend school? I believe that education should be universally provided and collectively paid for. I am sure that the minister believes that as well.

Can the minister give us one reason why we should continue to create two classes of school pupil? Why should we continue to distinguish between those who are entitled to all their education free at the point of use and those who are charged for one aspect of it? We keep tying ourselves up in knots by trying to produce anonymous systems to cover up the distinction that we have created in the classroom. Why do we not simply remove the distinction? That would be simpler, more convenient and easier to administer. It would also be the right thing to do.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have heard the arguments and I have listened carefully to the debate, especially Christine Grahame's speech.

My major concern is the number of children who do not take up the free school meals to which they are currently entitled. We need to consider that issue seriously. I genuinely feel that parents who can afford it should provide school meals for their children. I do not agree with universality.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Can we not do both those things? Can we not find ways to encourage take-up of free school meals among children who are currently eligible for them and extend eligibility? We could do both—at least, the SNP could.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My view is that we can and should actively encourage children to stay in school at lunch time so that they can get involved in various activities and, one would hope, take up school lunches. Having worked in schools recently, I have seen the state of the resources in schools and the shortages of text books and information technology facilities. If the children of parents who can afford to pay for their school lunches are to be given lunches for free, that lack of resources will continue.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have listened carefully to the member's argument. He said that parents who can afford to pay for their children's school lunches should do so. Does he also argue that parents who can afford to pay for breakfasts, snacks and fruit should pay for them?

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am concentrating on lunches.

I can see the arguments, but I believe that school resources will suffer if parents who can afford to pay for their children's school lunches are not required to pay for them.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I seek clarification from the minister. Obviously, there are political arguments about these issues, but I suggest that we should try to pass laws that are reasonably sensible whatever the politics behind them.

The bill will introduce the new concept of time-ism, rather like ageism and racism. Activities that are carried out at certain times of the day will be considered good and worthy, but exactly the same activities that are carried out at other times of the day will be illegal.

Let us imagine that a slightly bolshie head teacher or director of education decides that a school or schools will provide all pupils with a free meal at, say, 2.30. Would such a delayed lunch break—it would need to be called an afternoon break rather than a lunch break—be legitimate? Alternatively, might schools be able to provide a large free meal in the morning break? The bill allows education authorities to provide free food

"other than in the middle of the day".

What is the middle of the day? I suggest that a cantankerous head teacher—I would quite enjoy the role—would be able to challenge that in the courts. Will the minister clarify what the period of no free food will be?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

It is helpful to get it on record that the Scottish National Party wants to take the bold step of running a pilot. "Let's run a pilot and then—mibbes aye, mibbes no—we might or might not go ahead. We are taking the bold step." I thank Fiona Hyslop for that clarification.

I will try to address the various points that have been made in the debate. We have discussed at stages 1 and 2 and on many other occasions the fact that the bill is about the content of the food that is provided in schools and encouraging healthy eating. Those who would extend eligibility for free school meals to people who receive particular benefits—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The First Minister has said that he wants to do that.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will come to what the First Minister has said in a minute.

We do not need to legislate to extend eligibility for free school meals because we already have the powers to do that. The First Minister has made it clear that the people of Scotland must decide whether they want to go down the route of universal free school meals provision or whether they want resources to be targeted. He has also, on behalf of the Labour party, made a particular offer that will be part of the political process. However, we have made a commitment in the current parliamentary session to change the nature of the food that is provided in schools.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

In a second.

We have made a commitment to try to change children's attitudes towards the eating of food and their perceptions of what is good for them. The bill is about healthy eating in schools rather than free school meals.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

In a moment. Let me proceed.

We have made our position perfectly clear. We do not support universal free school meals. We want to target resources where they are most needed and that is what we are doing. The bill is about improving the quality of meals—

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

In a moment.

The bill is about improving people's understanding so that they start to develop a healthy lifestyle. Many families can afford to pay for their children's school meals. Subsidising such families would use money that would otherwise be used to help those in need. That point would hold equally true in any pilot of free school meals provision.

On this issue, the SNP makes David Cameron look like an amateur when it comes to flip-flops. Very creatively, the SNP seems to have developed a different policy for each day of the school week. For Mondays, the SNP can offer its previous policy of free school meals for all. For Tuesdays, its decision is to vote against free school meals. For Wednesdays, it proposes a pilot project for free school meals. For Thursdays, it can offer Christine Grahame's option of extending free school meals to those who are on other benefits. For Fridays, it wants to go down the route that Tricia Marwick has proposed. At least Tommy Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne, Frances Curran and others have been consistent in their arguments.

Parliament has already twice debated and rejected the universal provision of free school meals.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I will give way to Tommy Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

The minister said that eligibility for free school meals can be extended through regulations, and does not require primary legislation. It could have been done at any time in the past eight years. Will he tell the Parliament whether the Labour party was prevented from extending eligibility just now, on the eve of an election, by its Liberal Democrat partners?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. The First Minister has said that such an extension will be part of the Labour party's offer to the people of Scotland. In coalition, we have governed responsibly. We have looked at the resources that are available to us and we have made decisions about priorities. Tommy Sheridan and others suggest that everything in Scotland could be free at all times and for all people. The beneficiaries of that type of policy are sitting in this chamber.

We have made decisions that will improve Scottish education and we are seeing the clear results of them. The schools that I have visited have an atmosphere that is completely different from what Dave Petrie described. The people in the schools that I have visited are thanking us for the extra money. They thank us for the decision to allow free whiteboards to be put into every school.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No.

Schools are thanking us for providing extra money to make a difference. We are now seeing real improvements in Scottish education. In fact, teachers themselves have commented on the contrast between the situation under the Conservatives and what is happening now.

The bill provides an opportunity for the Parliament to change young children's habits and attitudes as they develop and move through adolescence into adulthood.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No.

Amendment 8, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, would require local authorities to provide fruit or milk in primary and nursery schools free of charge. The bill already gives local authorities the power to do that, if they so wish. Indeed, the new power gives them the flexibility to decide on the approach that is best for them. If a local authority wants to provide free milk to all primary school pupils or free fruit to all nursery pupils, the bill gives them the power to do that. I am therefore not clear how to interpret Rosemary Byrne's amendments.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No.

For example, it appears that if an authority wanted to provide free fruit to some schools because of health or social circumstances, amendments 23 and 24 would require it to extend that provision to all primary and nursery schools. The amendments are simply not clear, and local authorities might decide not to provide free milk or fruit in any circumstances if they feel that they will be compelled to extend such provision to all.

Our flexible and responsible approach will make a real difference to the quality of provision in schools and it builds on our solid and steady progress since 1999.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One can always tell when Hugh Henry is rattled or saying something he does not quite believe in: he becomes more and more gratuitously insulting. That has happened today and it happened during the Communities Committee's stage 2 consideration of the bill when he was faced with exactly the same amendments and did not know how to handle them. Perhaps the fact that Jack McConnell ca'd the feet from under him two weeks later makes the point better than I can.

The minister has said that the bill provides flexibility. Indeed it does; it gives local authorities the flexibility to provide free breakfasts, free fruit and free milk. But it does not give local authorities the flexibility to introduce pilot schemes in specific geographical or demographic areas and to evaluate for themselves the case for free school meals. That is the crux of the matter, and the minister has consistently failed to answer questions on that point from Patrick Harvie, from Frances Curran, from Donald Gorrie and from Elaine C—I am sorry, Elaine Smith. [Laughter.] I am sorry; I should not have used the C word in the chamber.

The minister has refused to answer questions on this point at stage 1, at stage 2 and now at stage 3. Why will he not give local authorities the flexibility to introduce pilot schemes? He said that the bill does not need to set out the powers required to meet the intentions behind Christine Grahame's amendments, because ministers already have them. As Fiona Hyslop said, if ministers have had those powers all this time, why have they not suggested, before now, extending free school meal provision and bringing the very poorest children in Scotland within its ambit?

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that the Liberal Democrat partners in the Executive have prevented the Labour Party from taking such action? Labour has wanted to introduce this provision for eight years now, and has waited until the eve of the election to push ahead with it. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are to blame.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I cannot wholly accept Tommy Sheridan's premise. Labour is the majority party, so it is responsible for denying the very poorest children in Scotland that extension of free school meals.

The SNP wants members to vote for Christine Grahame's amendments because they will make these matters clear in the bill. The SNP Government that will be in place after May will be quite happy to be locked into those provisions and happy not to give ministers flexibility to decide whether to give the very poorest children free school meals. After all, what ministers can give, they can take away. That is why we need legislation on the matter, why these provisions need to be set out in the bill and why I urge every member who cares about the very poorest children in our society—

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. The member can sit down, because he does not care.

I urge every member who actually cares about the very poorest children in our society to vote for the SNP amendments.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are members agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 73, Abstentions 20.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 71, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 22 disagreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 72, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 71, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Frances Curran].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 73, Abstentions 20.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Frances Curran].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 71, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Amendment 19 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Christine Grahame].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 73, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

Amendment 25 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 73, Abstentions 3.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 12, Against 72, Abstentions 21.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 3 is on the promotion of school breakfasts. Amendment 8, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, is the only amendment in the group.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

Amendment 8 would ensure equality for all children and young people in our schools. Many schools in the most middle-class areas have breakfast clubs, but many schools in deprived areas do not. The bill will allow local authorities to decide where to have breakfast clubs, but I want all children to have access to a good, healthy breakfast at school if that is a requirement for their families—[ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order. There is far too much noise.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

The minister talked about improvements in Scottish education, but where is the equality of provision? In some schools, children are given breakfast and start their school day with an exercise programme; in other schools that does not happen. All the research proves that a good breakfast is one of the best ways of ensuring that children can concentrate in school and are open to learning. During the years when I taught, I saw children arrive at school without having had a good breakfast. They were unable to concentrate and they could not wait until the morning interval, when they would eat a packet of crisps or some other rubbish.

Amendment 8 is important, because it sends a message that all children are entitled to a healthy breakfast, instead of just the children in areas in which it has been decided to provide a breakfast club. Amendment 8 is about equality, and would ensure that no child fell through the net and spent the morning sitting in a classroom feeling hungry and unable to concentrate on their studies. We could easily firm up the approach in the bill by agreeing to amendment 8.

I move amendment 8.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Amendment 8 arises from a concern—which I share—about children who do not receive a proper breakfast at home. However, the bill provides a tool to ensure that pupils who need a school breakfast can get one, by giving local authorities the power to provide breakfasts and snacks. The new power will give authorities the flexibility to decide on the best approach locally. The bill will also give authorities the power to provide an additional snack at any time of day, for any reason, if it thinks that that is needed.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

Does that mean that if there is a requirement from parents for a breakfast club providing free breakfasts at a school in any local authority area, they will get it?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. The bill gives the power to provide free breakfasts to local authorities, not to parents. It is for local authorities to decide whether a school should provide free breakfasts. It would be absurd to give parents the power to decide how money is spent, when local authorities have the budgetary responsibility.

Our approach is flexible. Authorities will be free to decide on the best methods to suit local circumstances. Particular social or health issues might lead authorities to take measures in part of their area that are not needed elsewhere. Some authorities may take different approaches, perhaps by providing free breakfasts for those who need them or by extending the supply of free fruit beyond P1 and P2. Such decisions are best left to local decision makers.

Schools and local authorities should not assume all parents' responsibilities. Many parents give their children a healthy breakfast before they head off to school and many young people would rather make their breakfast at home than have breakfast at school.

Amendment 8 could be interpreted to mean that all local authorities must provide breakfast clubs for all pupils. For the reasons that I set out, such a decision should not be made centrally for every school in Scotland.

The bill will give authorities the power to address local priorities and to provide healthy school breakfasts if they think that pupils need them. I oppose amendment 8.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

I am disappointed by the minister's response. I used the word "requirement" because a child who requires a healthy breakfast in school should be able to get one. Amendment 8 would ensure that no child goes without.

Parents have a large say in whether a school has a breakfast club. I have visited breakfast clubs and am well aware that most were started as a result of requests from parents. The minister should consider what currently happens. He is a bit out of touch.

I press amendment 8.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

There will be a division.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 disagreed to.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Group 4 is on the protection of the identity of pupils receiving free school lunches. Amendment 27, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is the only amendment in the group.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Section 8 will place a duty on local authorities to introduce anonymised systems to protect the identity of pupils who receive free school lunches. The bill does not specify what kind of anonymised systems should be put in place, but it is clear that many schools, in seeking to fulfil the duty, will opt for biometric systems, which are already in place in some schools for a range of purposes. It is clear that there will be an increase—possibly a substantial one—in the use of biometric systems.

In the Communities Committee at stage 2 and before that in the Parliament, I raised questions about how the systems ought to operate. I feel instinctively that biometric systems are probably unnecessary and not very welcome in schools, but if schools decide that they want to go along that route, that is well and good and we should consider how the systems will operate. The principles that I asked about were on issues such as parental consent and whether biometric data would be kept centrally in a database or on site in schools' local systems.

I have raised a range of issues, but the crucial one is parental consent. The Executive has said repeatedly that parental consent is an essential prerequisite if schools are to collect biometric data. However, having probed that a little further, it seems that consent is in no way essential and is not really a prerequisite. Instead, it seems to be an optional extra—it is regarded as a matter of good practice for schools to obtain parental consent before they take children's fingerprints. To me, that is not enough, which is why I suggested at stage 2 that we write into legislation a requirement on schools to obtain parental consent. The Communities Committee and the Executive took the opposite view.

Another approach that I suggested was that ministers should issue guidance on how biometric systems ought to operate and what the boundaries should be for their use. Again, I was not successful in persuading the committee on that. My suggestion at stage 3 is that we take a smaller step in the same direction: I am asking for a code of conduct, which, unlike regulations, would not be binding, although it would give a clear steer from the Executive on issues such as parental consent.

The minister might be able to answer a question that I asked at stage 2 and to which I did not receive an answer. The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency is currently working on guidance for United Kingdom ministers on how biometric systems will operate in schools and the boundaries for them. Will the minister say whether those guidelines will apply in Scotland and, if not, whether the Executive is minded to produce guidelines, in which case there would perhaps be room for negotiation or compromise? However, if no such guidelines are being worked on in Scotland, it is reasonable to ask the Executive to produce a code of conduct, which is what amendment 27 does.

I move amendment 27.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Amendment 27 is reasonable. The Executive was right to produce measures on anonymity and protecting the identity of those who receive free school meals. However, the measures have raised concerns about the type of information that can be captured and how it will be used. It is therefore appropriate that a code of conduct is produced. The issue could usefully be discussed by the new parent forums in schools. It is exactly the sort of item that the forums should have on their agendas, to allow parents to discuss what they find acceptable or unacceptable in relation to the information that is kept about their children and how it is captured. Patrick Harvie makes a reasonable request.

I am interested in the minister's response to Patrick Harvie's question about what work the Government is doing to produce guidance on biometric information issues generally. Amendment 27 would provide a reasonable compromise, as we need an understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable and of the reasons why information is kept and how it is kept. In that spirit, I hope that the minister will agree to amendment 27.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Throughout the bill's passage, I have had concerns about biometrics and anonymised systems. The minister has not yet persuaded me that the serious issues that surround the collection of biometric information from children have been addressed. Patrick Harvie's amendment 27 would be a step toward achieving coherence among the very many systems that might be up and running in future. Before any systems get up and running, we need guidance or guidelines to be put in place. I urge the minister to respond positively to Patrick Harvie and to accept amendment 27, as it is necessary.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We want authorities and schools to introduce anonymised systems to help ensure that pupils who are entitled to free school meals get the benefit of them. If stigma is a barrier, we want to remove it. Section 8 will tackle that. However, as Patrick Harvie is aware, the bill will not require local authorities to introduce or use any particular system in protecting the identity of those who receive free school meals and nor will it require authorities to collect biometric information. The decision about which anonymised system to use will be for schools and authorities, therefore it is not appropriate to amend the bill to put duties on ministers to publish a code about biometric data when the bill will not require authorities to collect such data.

In any case, amendment 27 is completely unnecessary, as the normal rules of data protection—in particular, those in the Data Protection Act 1998—provide safeguards on the collection and use of personal data. The amendment would impose a different set of rules for biometric data that are collected for a particular purpose, even though the existing provisions are adequate and well established.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister confirm that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not require parents to be consulted on the issue or require their consent for their children to be fingerprinted? Does he acknowledge that, for some parents, it is deeply disturbing and worrying for their children to come home and simply tell them that such information has been gathered? Would it not be reasonable for Executive ministers, as their colleagues at Westminster have done, to set boundaries within which the systems should operate?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I would be alarmed if the situation that Patrick Harvie describes actually occurred. If he writes to me setting out a specific incident, I will investigate it. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides safeguards on the collection and use of personal data.

On Patrick Harvie's earlier point about how a biometric system would operate at UK level, the guidelines for any system that has UK-wide application would apply here, too. However, if the guidelines are purely for a system in England and Wales, that is a matter for them and we will make our decisions here, which is what devolution is all about, as I am sure Patrick Harvie would agree.

When we debated the issue at stage 2, I set out our views on biometric systems and consent, but I will state them again for the record. Our position is that, if an authority decides to use a biometric system, as a matter of good practice, parental consent will be an essential prerequisite before schools collect any biometric information. Children who do not use the system—either because they or their parents do not consent or for any other reason—should not be disadvantaged.

As I said, Patrick Harvie's amendment 27 is not necessary. Section 8 is not about biometric data; it is about protecting the identity of pupils who receive free school meals. Some schools might decide to adopt biometric systems to help them to comply with their duties, but others will adopt different methods.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No thanks.

Biometric systems have broader applications than simply protecting identity. I understand Patrick Harvie's views on such systems, but I question whether the bill is the appropriate context for a debate on how the systems should be used. I oppose Patrick Harvie's amendment 27.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I have been fairly consistent throughout our debates in giving ministers an opportunity to address this issue in a different context from the bill, and I am deeply disappointed that ministers have continued to suggest that there is no need to address it.

The minister is incredibly unclear on the Becta guidelines. In essence, he has told us that, if the guidelines apply at United Kingdom level, they will apply in Scotland, and that if they do not, they will not. That is not an answer to the question, "Do they?", and it is not an answer to the question, "Will they?" The minister is unable to tell us whether the guidelines that are currently being devised by UK ministers will apply here. That leaves us in complete limbo. We are unclear whether any boundaries will be placed on the operation of systems, beyond the boundaries in the existing data protection legislation. As I have made clear, that legislation does not lay down any essential prerequisites. To describe consent as an "essential prerequisite" is surely to imply either that it is Government policy to be enforced in some way or that it is in legislation, but neither is the case.

In a moment, I will press amendment 27, although I know that it will not be supported by the majority of members. However, I ask even members who oppose my amendment to agree that, in the next session of Parliament, there must be scope for a wide debate on the use of surveillance technologies in schools. Such technologies have the potential to threaten and undermine the school environment as well as individual pupils' civil liberties.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 disagreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 11, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Because the clock has beaten us, I am required to use my power, under rule 9.8.4A(a), to extend the time limit to allow members who will be moving amendments in the fifth group of amendments, and the minister, to speak. No one else will be able to speak.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The fifth group of amendments is on food and drink: guidance about sustainable development.

Amendment 28, in the name of John Home Robertson, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I will be moving amendment 28, but before doing so I draw members' attention to a declaration of interest—I am a sleeping partner in a family farming business.

My amendments 28 to 30 would add consideration of the carbon footprint and food miles to the agenda for the guidance on the procurement of food for schools. There is a depressing assumption that European competition rules require public agencies to buy everything through big, remote procurement and distribution companies, so that school pupils, hospital patients and even MSPs are all doomed to get the same palletised and desiccated fare on their dinner plates. Well, some local authorities have demonstrated that it does not have to be like that.

Members of the committee who visited Hurlford primary school found that East Ayrshire Council is buying vegetables, dairy produce, bread, meat and fish directly from local producers. Children there are getting healthy, fresh and appetising food. At the same time, they are learning lessons about food production in their home area. The council is getting good value for money, too. Furthermore, because the food has not had to be trucked to and from depots in Lincolnshire or Essex, there is a saving in carbon emissions into the bargain.

I congratulate councils such as East Ayrshire Council and North Lanarkshire Council that are already procuring local food. I have already spoken to East Lothian Council and the National Farmers Union Scotland in East Lothian about the case for a similar food initiative for schools in my constituency.

Proper consideration of the location of food and drink sources, and of transport costs and distances, must be relevant. The objective of my amendments 28 to 30 is to help to promote the local procurement of local food and drink for schools throughout Scotland, and I hope that colleagues will support the proposal.

I move amendment 28.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The addition of section 8A by the Executive was welcome. As John Home Robertson has suggested, the whole committee was impressed by the work of the Soil Association's food for life programme and by the local authorities that are working with it. All members of the committee expressed support for that and called on the Executive to ensure that issues such as sustainability, local procurement and the use of organic and unprocessed food and drink were addressed by the bill. It is therefore good that section 8A was added.

My amendment 31 is just a wee tweak. In the committee's stage 1 report, we agreed that the Executive's position on reissuing existing guidance on local procurement and sustainability was not enough. We need strengthened guidance, because reissuing guidance that has existed for a number of years and has not done the job will not be enough.

Amendment 31 asks ministers to annually review their guidance and reissue strengthened guidance as they see appropriate. That would be a reasonable step, given that sustainability and sustainable development are relatively dynamic and fluid policy areas, the interpretation and understanding of which change from time to time. It would be reasonable to expect ministers to keep abreast of any such changes and to feed them into the guidance on sustainable development in the procurement of food in schools.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

We are committed to sustainable development and we affirmed that commitment by lodging amendments on sustainable development at stage 2.

We are all aware of the excellent work that has taken place in East Ayrshire Council within the context of the existing non-statutory guidance. However, the bill now provides for statutory guidance to be issued on sustainable development. That will mean that local authorities will have a statutory duty to have regard to that guidance when procuring food and drink or catering services for schools. The guidance will include advice on objectives such as local sourcing, waste and packaging issues, fair trade food and sustainability assurance schemes. It will also include advice on how to pursue those various objectives while staying within European Union procurement law.

Although our overarching priority is to ensure that healthy food is provided, John Home Robertson's amendments 28 to 30 aim to ensure that, in providing it, authorities also take account of relevant sustainability objectives. At stage 2, John Home Robertson's amendment on sustainable development guidance caused me some concern, because it stated that guidance had to include consideration of local produce, and I was worried about EU procurement rules. However, amendments 28 to 30 address the concerns that I expressed, and I am confident that they pose no problem, so I will be happy to support them.

I turn now to Patrick Harvie's amendment 31. As a matter of good policy practice, the Executive keeps guidance under review. One of the benefits of having guidance is that it is flexible: we can revise it in light of developments in sustainable development policy, food policy or procurement rules. One of the main reasons why the Executive has supported the introduction of a power to issue guidance, rather than a duty under the bill, is for that very reason of flexibility.

Amendment 31 is silent on the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to revise and reissue the guidance. In effect, it would leave ministers in the same position as at present. How the process would be monitored and enforced is also unclear. I support Patrick Harvie's intention that the guidance should be reviewed, and I assure him that that will happen as a matter of good practice. However, amendment 31 is unnecessary and I will oppose it.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[John Home Robertson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 72, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 disagreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That concludes consideration of amendments.

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5695, in the name of Hugh Henry, that the Parliament agrees that the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

One marked feature of this country is our poor health record. Our citizens die earlier than do citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom and of the world and our health is generally poorer. Much of that is self-inflicted. It starts from childhood and relates to how our children are brought up, what they eat and a lack of exercise and fitness.

In a broad range of matters, we have tried to address that chronic and appalling health record. We took the bold but correct decision to ban smoking in public places, which will contribute significantly. We are considering raising the age at which our young people can buy cigarettes. We are encouraging more exercise and physical activity in our schools. We are encouraging a healthier lifestyle from childhood through to adulthood. As has been suggested, it is clear that the problem starts in the home, but we need to reflect on the significant contribution that schools make to the way in which our children develop.

In this country, we are criticised if we do something and criticised if we do not, so in a sense we can never win. Some ask what the point of the bill is, whereas others ask why it does not go further. The bill marks a significant milestone in the approach that we are taking to improving our citizens' health and well-being. Yes, we still need to do something profound with adults and with people who are in their late teens but, while we consider that, it is right to take the first steps to tackle the problem at the earliest age. The bill will do that.

Improving the health of people in Scotland is a key priority. In debate on the bill, we have outlined the action that we want to take on several fronts. We can reflect with some pride on what we have done in the past few years—I have outlined some of that. We have set a target of all schools becoming health promoting by the end of the year and the hungry for success initiative has revolutionised school meals.

We know that there is more to good health than simply good nutrition. I have spoken about the contribution that sport and physical activity make, which is why our active schools programme provides for that.

I was delighted that, in its stage 1 report, the Communities Committee agreed that the bill was a necessary next step, but not a final step, in our wider health improvement agenda. During the passage of the bill, we have considered carefully the committee's opinion and tried to acknowledge its concerns about the bill as introduced. I thank committee members for scrutinising the bill and for their contribution. I also thank all the people who helped to shape the bill through the parliamentary process.

I found invaluable the contribution of the many outside organisations that have good food and good health at the core of their objectives. It was fascinating to learn that, notwithstanding our desire to have the bill passed, good things are happening in parts of Scotland. Our bill is stronger for the work of the committee, its clerks, outside organisations and others.

The bill will ensure that schools understand their central role in helping children and young people to make healthy choices through a range of actions and activities. It will make health promotion a central required purpose of schooling rather than an add-on or an aspiration. A school will need to consider health promotion in all its activities and take a whole-school approach to that. The bill will also place a duty on education authorities to ensure that nutritious and balanced food and drink are provided in schools. That is our priority for school food and drink.

One of the committee's recommendations in its stage 1 report was that the Executive should more proactively encourage local authorities to consider sustainable development criteria when procuring food or catering services. We heeded the committee's call and lodged a stage 2 amendment that, along with the amendments in the name of John Home Robertson today, has strengthened the bill to reflect the commitment of the Parliament and the Executive to sustainable development and fair and ethical trading. It is to their credit that some local authorities, of which East Ayrshire Council is but one, are already taking those steps. Several external agencies, such as the Soil Association and Oxfam, are also deeply committed to sustainable development and to fair and ethical trading. I welcome the changes to the bill. First and foremost, the bill will ensure that healthy food is served in our schools. It will also ensure that, while that happens, local authorities take account of other sustainability objectives.

We understand that improving school food is not enough by itself and that we need to promote healthy eating and school meals actively to pupils. The bill provides for that. In particular, we want to encourage all families who are entitled to free school meals to take advantage of their entitlement and to do so without the fear of stigma. The bill will require education authorities to protect the identity of those who are eligible.

The promotion by schools of healthy eating for their pupils provides the opportunity for lifestyle changes. We have heard anecdotal evidence that some youngsters who have attended primary schools that promote health eating continue healthy eating habits at secondary school. I hope that we have made changes that they will continue with for the rest of their lives.

I hope that some of our school pupils will become ambassadors for the message and will take it back into the home to encourage their parents. We have anecdotal evidence that children are placing pressure on their parents as a result of the measures.

All of us and our country will benefit from the bill and from the other measures that we are taking. The bill is an important step not only in giving education authorities the flexibility to address local priorities but in helping young people to make life-forming and life-changing decisions that I hope will lead to a healthy Scotland and will change our appalling health record once and for all. I commend the bill to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish National Party will support the bill at decision time, but it is interesting to reflect on our long and perhaps tortuous journey to reach where we are now. I agree with the minister that this is not the end of the journey; there is a long way to go. Members will make different policy pronouncements on where the bill takes us, but we must all recognise that the nation must address our eating habits. From a health perspective, if we want to save health service money, it is essential that we change people's behaviour now.

As I have done previously, I acknowledge the work of Shona Robison, who has kick-started consideration of issues such as the advertising of junk food and fizzy drinks in schools, but things have gone beyond that. Our debate in the first parliamentary session focused on the content of free school meals and so on, but the word "nutrition" is essential. We must address not only the poverty agenda but the nutrition agenda.

We should recognise the good work that is already being done in schools. There is a question about whether we need to legislate to ensure that schools take the responsibility of promoting themselves as health-promoting schools. In my visits to schools, I have seen the extremely good work that is already being done without the bill having been passed, and I want to put on record that good examples have been developed throughout the country. In particular, I recall from the stage 1 debate the good example of Hurlford primary school, which members of the Communities Committee visited. When we discussed the final amendments to the bill, we talked about global education and understanding where our food comes from internationally, but it is just as important to know where food comes from locally. We must understand the choices that we have. At the end of the day, this is a lifestyle issue, and lifestyle is about our behaviour and personal choices. The more informed young people are about where their food comes from, the more they will be able to make informed choices.

Progress is being made. After a health promotion week at my children's school last week, I saw my daughter putting raw spinach into her sandwiches. That is certainly progress. Such things are happening in homes throughout Scotland—things that people might not have expected to happen are happening. We should recognise the good work that is being done in schools.

Obviously, I am disappointed that the ministers have not progressed the school meals agenda, as doing so could make a huge difference to the lives of many people. I respect those who argued for universal free school meals in both primary and secondary schools, but the most pragmatic way forward would have been to allow regulations to be produced that would allow ministers to pilot a scheme before rolling it out. Commencement orders would still have been needed for universal free school meals, as schools do not yet have the capacity to deliver in that respect, but they will have under an SNP Government.

We should ensure that the right palates are created in the early years. The provision of meals in nurseries is important, but we must remember that many youngsters are not in nursery schools for long enough to get the benefits of meals there. Extending children's hours at nurseries to ensure that that provision exists is an issue.

Socialisation is also an issue. Encouraging people to eat and break bread together is one of the best ways of tackling behavioural issues. We should reflect on the lessons from Finland and elsewhere about the socialisation aspects of food and what we should do to encourage such socialisation.

The bill is based on the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which states that an education authority "must charge" for anything that is provided under section 53(1)(a) of the act. Under the bill, it will still be illegal for councils or authorities to provide free school meals if they choose to do so. That is clearly wrong. The Executive has been flexible about everything else: it has been flexible about milk, fruit and school breakfasts. Surely to goodness, even if it did not want to fund free school meals, the Executive should have provided local authorities with flexibility and the choice to deliver such meals if it believes that local authorities should have the flexibility to deliver health-promoting education in their areas. That is a disappointment. Ministers have missed a great opportunity to move forward.

Many pupils who started at secondary school when Labour came to power have gone right through their secondary education in poverty without an opportunity to get free school meals because the Executive set its face against the idea. We will remind the Executive that in the Parliament today, Jack McConnell, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats voted against extending the provision of free school meals to those whose parents receive working tax credit. People will judge the Executive by what it has done. It has had opportunities aplenty to bridge the gap between those who receive school meals and those who live in poverty. The Government has failed to bridge that gap, but the next Government will ensure that it is bridged.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We on this side of the chamber welcome the bill, which in partnership with parents and schools can only be of immense benefit to the health and well-being of future generations. I thank the clerks and the bill team for their support in preparing the bill.

We all know the background to the bill. We have rising levels of dietary problems in Scotland, with obvious health and social consequences. There is no doubt that healthier children are generally more focused and better behaved and perform well academically. If we tackle diet and health in schools, that is more likely to be taken forward into later life.

As others did, I congratulate the Soil Association on its food for life campaign, which sets a positive example to us all, and I am delighted to see that the amendments in the name of John Home Robertson were accepted by all.

I know from personal experience that, as Fiona Hyslop said, things are changing. We see children in the classroom drinking water rather than fizzy drinks, which is encouraging. It is also encouraging that children who go out of school—mainly fifth and sixth-years—do not all head to the chip vans. Chip vans are a problem, but if children who have reached fifth and sixth year want to go out of school, we cannot force them to take school lunches. They enjoy going out of school and they eat sensibly. Our party supports greater autonomy for schools and a lesser role for the Government, but the needs of the child must always come first.

It is important that we address promoting healthy lifestyles in a joined-up way. Improved diet must be promoted at home as well as in school and that is where parents and guardians have a valuable role to play. As is the case for education in general, a positive partnership between pupils, parents and schools has traditionally proved to be in the best interests of the child.

Healthy living is not just about diet but about lifestyle. That is where sport plays a vital role. We need extra-curricular activities, more encouragement of sport in schools and more support for sport-based voluntary organisations. If we had more activities in schools at lunch time, whether sport or clubs, that would be an incentive for children to stay in school at lunch time and take school lunches.

We obviously need to promote the take-up of school meals. Despite the honourable aims of the hungry for success campaign, the majority of pupils, including a significant number of those entitled to free school meals, do not take school lunches. A focus on having more lunchtime activities might act as an incentive. I remain to be convinced that free entitlement would increase uptake, but I emphasise the importance of appropriate anonymised systems.

I disagree with the minister regarding school resources. I have taught on the east coast, up north and on the west coast, and I believe that there are major inconsistencies between our schools. It disappoints me that the Minister for Education and Young People is unaware of that. Some schools have whiteboards and some do not; some schools have textbooks that are falling apart and some have textbooks in good condition. There are major problems but, unfortunately, the minister does not seem to recognise that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is in his last minute.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It seems illogical to me that parents who can afford to pay for school lunches should be relieved of that requirement when there are significant resource issues in schools.

We fully support the bill and look forward to its early implementation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Please keep speeches to four minutes.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

As colleagues will be aware, I joined the Communities Committee only recently, so I came to the bill and the debate surrounding it comparatively late. I express my thanks to the convener and committee members, who have been a great support. I also thank those who gave evidence to the committee and, indeed, the excellent team of clerks who backed us up. I am grateful for their help and advice.

I want to touch on two of the amendments that we debated. The first is the interesting amendment proposed late in the day by Patrick Harvie on the code of conduct. Fiona Hyslop made a useful point when she said that parent forums could discuss that issue. That is precisely the right approach and the right sort of work for such forums for the months and years ahead. However, I was and am persuaded by the minister's argument that the decision about how the issue should be dealt with should be left to local education authorities and schools. I have been an elected member of two local authorities and am a great believer in letting such decisions be taken by the council.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Can the member inform us whether, over the past six years, it is indeed the Liberal Democrats in the Executive who have been resisting the extension of free school meals to all those who are entitled to them because of the level of poverty in which they live, or whether the Liberal Democrats, too, have now come round to the view that free school meals should be extended?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I do not know whether it is because of the proximity of the election but, this morning, I have becoming increasingly bemused by Mr Sheridan's comments. I do not understand where he is coming from and I am not sure that he does, either. He may laugh, but there is nothing in his suggestion, which was a matter of pure fiction. If I were him, I would concentrate on the debate instead of inventing points.

On the provision of free school meals, I am persuaded by what David Petrie has said. However, I take issue with his point about schools in the Highlands. I have never seen the schools in my constituency and across the Highlands in a better state than they are today. Any teacher and any pupil will say the same thing. The state of those schools is light years beyond what I and, perhaps, Dave Petrie knew in years gone by.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to speak to the member about the matter at length at a later stage, but I can assure him, briefly, that there are schools in the Highlands that are not particularly well resourced.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

On the issue of free school meals, we should remember that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has sent us a document saying that it does not support the notion of the universal provision of free school meals.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I want to continue to make my point. Highland Council, which is a rainbow council—the chair, one of the most able councillors in the Highlands, is Andy Anderson, who is a member of the SNP—considered the issue and decided, on balance, that the complexities arising from agreeing with the introduction of universal free school meals were too great. The council felt that its resources would be better directed towards the issues that Dave Petrie was talking about a moment ago. That is the actuality of delivery on the ground and one cannot say it more strongly than that.

As the minister said, Scotland has an unenviably bad health record, which is closely associated with poverty and diet. In the closing weeks of this session of Parliament, it is right that we pass the bill. It is a mighty move forward. I believe that it is a little acorn from which mighty oaks will grow, in terms of the health of our children and the generations to come.

We should be proud of the bill and I have no hesitation in offering my party's support for it.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank my colleagues on the Communities Committee, the clerks to the committee and the witnesses who came to the committee to give evidence, particularly the young people. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate because I was one of the members of the committee who had serious doubts about whether we needed legislation to underpin some of the successes of the hungry for success scheme. As we considered the bill, however, I realised that that legislative underpinning was necessary.

We have a huge problem in Scotland. Our health record is appalling and we will have to cope with an obesity time bomb. It is extremely important that we encourage children to get into healthy eating habits at the earliest possible stage. Having said that, I cannot see any possibility that I could ever eat raw spinach on a sandwich and I congratulate Fiona Hyslop's young one for being so adventurous—she is obviously like her mother.

The bill represents only the first stage of our attempts to tackle the issues relating to health and obesity. For example, we need far greater sports facilities for our young people than we have at the moment. In many areas, sports facilities are simply lacking.

There is a particular issue in Fife that I hope that the minister will take up—although not today, as I realise that I am springing it on him. I understand that Fife Council is writing to some of the schools that offer breakfast clubs, as there is a threat to cut the number of staff that the council supplies to those breakfast clubs. Will the minister examine that? We do not want the work of the bill to be undermined by local authorities.

On the subject of local authorities, I return to the question of flexibility. Throughout the passage of the bill, I have never had an answer to this question: why do local authorities have the flexibility to provide free breakfasts but not free lunches?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Tricia Marwick and others in the SNP have made great play of giving local authorities flexibility. Had Parliament agreed to give them that flexibility, how would they be able to pay for it under the SNP proposals for a local income tax? The SNP is proposing to cap local authority expenditure, which would result in a cut in local authority budgets. How would the SNP pay for that flexibility?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Tricia Marwick has one more minute.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The SNP would provide funding centrally, so there would be no impact on the local council tax payers, who would get a far better deal under local income tax than under anything that the Executive is prepared to do.

I will move on from flexibility, because we have never had an answer to the question that I asked and the minister is clearly not going to answer it now.

Let me say to the Labour members, who I see are almost all absent from the chamber, to the Liberal Democrats—Jamie Stone is walking out of the chamber—and to the Conservatives that today every single one of them queued up to vote against extending free school meals to the poorest children in Scotland. Today, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories voted against extending free school meals to the children of people who are in receipt of council tax benefits.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, the member is over time.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories voted against giving free school meals to the children of people in receipt of lone parent benefit.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member must close.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Today, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Tories voted against extending free meals to the children of those on housing benefits, those on local housing allowance and those on working tax credit. It is an appalling and shameful day for them.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

We had an interesting debate this morning on the amendments to the bill, but I start by saying that the bill is a good, progressive piece of legislation, which deserves support. The Executive should be commended for it. Thanks should go to the committee, the clerks and the many groups and organisations that have promoted the agenda of nutritious school meals for a number of years—particularly the Child Poverty Action Group.

Credit should also go to Frances Curran, whose member's bill on free school meals was, unfortunately, not considered by Parliament. Like me and some other members, Frances Curran has consistently promoted the benefits of universal free nutritious school meals. I will come back to that subject later because it was the most controversial aspect of the bill, and I want to make some positive comments first.

The nutritional quality—or perhaps the lack of nutritional quality—of school meals was identified as a problem during consideration of the first proposals on free school meals. Indeed, the title of the book edited by Usha Brown and Danny Phillips in support of a free nutritious midday meal was "Even the tatties have batter!" That name came from a comment made by a child about school meals. Other comments were that the food served was "not nice", "disgusting" and "Yuck!", and children complained of being served pink meat, hard pears and green bananas.

The hungry for success programme was initiated to help to tackle that issue, among other things. It is now clear that outcomes vary across Scotland, and the bill will therefore ensure uniformly high standards throughout the country. It should mean that all children in the state sector can enjoy nutritionally balanced food and drink if they are provided for them in school.

The cashless system helps to reduce stigma, which definitely needs to be addressed. I am pleased to note that North Lanarkshire Council is currently rolling out such a system in its schools. It also makes sense to include health promotion duties in the remit of schools and to ask local authorities to account annually for what they have done. That can only assist with changing the culture and habits of our children with regard to nutrition. It is vital that we achieve that for their future health.

I wonder whether the minister would consider the results of the initiative in Rosehall high school in Coatbridge, which is changing attitudes to breastfeeding via education. That is an interesting piece of work and I point the minister in that direction.

Increasingly, our children are becoming obese, which affects their quality of life and life expectancy. Obesity has been described as a modern-day epidemic, which requires to be recognised as a medical and not just a lifestyle issue. When speaking in response to my members' business debate on that subject a year ago, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care said:

"There are no short-term fixes ... Instead, there is a long-term agenda, which calls for concerted and sustained action. That action has already started, and it must continue."—[Official Report, 2 February 2006; c 23110.]

The bill is part of that process.

The evaluation of the initiative to provide free fruit in schools found that it was a positive initiative, and it highlighted the potential to increase the consumption of fruit and improve healthy practices among children; the fruit is given to all children, and that is right. The fact that children have better-off parents does not necessarily mean that they eat well or nutritiously.

I also urge the minister to encourage local authorities to provide breakfast clubs. That is important.

Given the impact of the free fruit initiative, and considering the scale of the challenge that we now face, Parliament during the next session should look more favourably at the setting up of pilot schemes to examine the possible impact that a similarly large-scale initiative, such as free school lunches, could have. I support the proposal for free school meals, but I am not against pilot schemes because they could help to persuade others.

I am pleased that my party has signalled its intention to expand entitlement to free school meals and, if I am returned to Parliament, I will certainly pledge to ensure that that intention is pursued. I remain convinced that the provision of universal free school meals is the best way to ensure a healthier population for the future, although I have no doubt that the Scottish Executive takes the issue of child health and nutrition seriously. The bill shows that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I echo the comments of others who have congratulated and thanked the other members of the committee, the clerks and all our witnesses. The process has been relatively enjoyable, particularly all the free school lunches that we got to eat during our scrutiny. The process has also been relatively free of open warfare—at least, it has been no worse than most bills that the Communities Committee has considered.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Patrick Harvie makes it sound exciting, but it never was.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I found the topic to be interesting once I got my teeth into it, so to speak.

The bill merits a pass mark but, as with other Executive legislation, handwritten underneath that should be the phrase, "Could do better". Most of us would not disagree with what is in the bill, although one or two of us would perhaps like to make one or two tweaks. In general, the disagreement is over what is not in the bill; what is in the bill gets broad support.

Certainly, the issue of health promotion has had less attention, perhaps because there are fewer contentious issues in the bill. However, ensuring that all schools are health-promoting environments is a huge step. As someone with a background in sexual health promotion, I will watch with interest to see how all schools, including those that are run by organisations with views about sexual health that are quite at odds with the science, take on that important responsibility.

The bill misses some opportunities. The nutritional requirements' narrow focus on nutrient levels alone and the absence of anything about fresh or unprocessed food, or about additives, is to be regretted.

We can clearly identify nutritional requirements and ensure that the food and drink that are provided or on sale in schools meet those requirements. However, I am not sure that we are doing enough on food culture in schools, which is difficult to address. The Soil Association, which is grappling with that issue, is not just helping people to understand where food comes from and how it relates to health, but is working in schools in East Ayrshire on the environment and the atmosphere in which food should be eaten at a more human and slower pace. Some of the principles of the slow food movement would be valuable if applied in schools.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the member think that education on the benefits of breastfeeding is also important?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I agree that a school that is health promoting should promote the benefits of healthy eating for children of all ages and I congratulate the member on her past work on breastfeeding.

In his remarks on universal provision, the minister comprehensively failed to address the targeting of resources. I have yet to be given any explanation of why school meals are the only aspect of the educational experience that must be paid for individually rather than collectively. I hope that the bill will succeed in getting food in schools conceived of as an educational issue rather than as simply an issue of fuel.

I close by expressing my qualms about my mishearing of an earlier remark about whether raw spinach was tasty. I am afraid that I thought that Ross Finnie was being discussed. Personally, I am a big fan of raw spinach.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Some people in the gallery wanted to know where MSPs were running in from for the votes. There is a room next door to the chamber, where we can have free tea and coffee, free fruit and free shortbread. After that, we can go downstairs to have a dinner in the canteen, which is subsidised to the tune of £600,000 every 18 months.

Patrick Harvie mentioned targeting. It is interesting that MSPs are constantly targeted for free dinners. I have with me a small selection of invitations to free dinners that I have received in the past few weeks. We have been targeted for free dinners by the University of Strathclyde; the University of Glasgow; the lord provost of Glasgow—for a civic reception; the Scottish Grocers Federation; Cardinal O'Brien; the Food Standards Agency; the lord provost of Edinburgh; the Irish consulate in Edinburgh—for St Patrick's day; the United Kingdom offshore oil and gas industry; and the Freight Transport Association, among many other organisations. Grant's invited me to a haggis breakfast, which would have been accompanied by words from the bard and, no doubt, a glass of champagne or a little whisky. I also received an invitation from Sainsbury's.

MSPs obviously do not do irony. Why are we targeted? We have no problem with having a subsidised canteen, with getting free food and drink in the Parliament or with being targeted for free dinners. Why we are targeted for free dinners—it is not just food; we get free drink as well—is a serious political issue. The reason is that the organisations, the names of which I have just read out, want to influence policy; they want the Parliament to pass legislation that will benefit them and, on the whole, they get it. Most of the measures that the Parliament approves benefit big business and the section of society that such companies inhabit.

What is lacking is legislation that benefits people who live in poverty, legislation that benefits young people and their health and legislation that benefits health service and other workers. There needs to be a shift in the legislation that the Parliament passes. How do people who do not offer us free food and glasses of wine get access to ensure that the laws that they want to be passed get on the agenda? How does the head of education services at East Renfrewshire Council, who supports free school meals, the director of education at Midlothian Council, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association or the senior dietician at Ayrshire central hospital get such access? They are all too busy working to give us free dinners, to wine and dine us or to lobby us.

I am talking about people such as the head of public health at the University of Dundee and organisations such as Children in Scotland, NCH Scotland, One Plus, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Poverty Alliance. When will the Parliament take seriously their arguments in the debate on free school meals? They deserve access to the Parliament and to the votes of MSPs for free school meal provisions, which are supported across the board.

Every measure that the Parliament has taken to improve the health of young people has failed. The bill is a lost opportunity. The First Minister went to the poverty conference the other week, but the fact that we even have child poverty is an abomination, given that we are in the fifth-richest country in the world. We get mealy-mouthed words and piecemeal promises, such as, "If we get elected, we might give some of the poorer children a free school meal." That is not good enough; it is too little, too late.

I say to the minister that the bill is great to the extent that it will put healthy food on children's plates, but a majority of young people and children will not get those healthy meals every day because the take-up is only 48 per cent. Hull City Council has pointed the way forward.

I joined other MSPs at a session at Haldane primary school in Alexandria—an area with a poor health record—where the children had chosen the topic of free, healthy school meals. I could not put it better than the children put it at the end of the session:

"I thought that the Scottish Parliament was supposed to treat all children as equal. We should be equally entitled to a free healthy lunch."

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

Solidarity welcomes the encouragement of healthy eating and the introduction of the bill. However, like other members, we are disappointed at the bill's limitations. The extension of free school meals to all those who are in receipt of tax credits was denied for six years until Jack McConnell's announcement last Friday. That is, to say the least, blatant electioneering. We now hear that that extension could have been introduced at any time—it is shameful that 100,000 kids have been denied their rightful entitlement in that way. I do not know what part of that Jamie Stone did not understand. I think that it is perfectly clear.

The minister says that the bill is not about free school meals, but he should understand that, as evidenced by numerous organisations, means testing is not the way forward. Children are being denied their right—it should be a right—to a nutritious meal. We will have better food in schools but, as Frances Curran said, we will not have the uptake. Many improvements are needed in the environment for school dinners. I will come back to that in a moment.

The minister talked about real improvements in Scottish education. I touched on that when I spoke to my amendment 8 on breakfast clubs. The real improvements will come only through equality, and equality means universality. That is the crux of the matter. Unless we have universality, we will not have the uptake and we will not give those children who fall outwith all the means-tested systems the opportunity. Indeed, as I said earlier, many parents will not fill in the forms.

It is good that local authorities may be able to offer free fruit and milk, but that does not provide equality. I would like every child to have free fruit and milk right the way through primary school. Two years ago, the Big Lottery Fund gave money to some of the schools in my area to provide free fruit. At the beginning, the children struggled to enjoy the fruit, but by the time the funding ended they were enjoying it greatly. However, as soon as the funding ended we reverted to only the younger children getting the free fruit. I had a phone call from the chair of the school board in one of the schools, who said that the situation was ridiculous. The teachers had worked with the children to give them a taste for the fruit; the children had developed a taste for it, they were enjoying it and then it was withdrawn.

I do not know why all our children cannot have free milk and fruit. It would help our fruit growers and our dairy farmers. Over the past six years, one in four Scottish dairy farmers has gone out of business. Let us promote locally produced food, but providing all children with free milk and fruit would boost those industries as well.

I finish on the environment for school dinners and why many children decide to go to the unhealthy cafe or shop down the road and buy a pie or chips. In the school canteen, children often have to queue and the environment is not conducive to their wanting to be there. We should encourage clubs and activities around lunch time to make children stay in school. Universality would, over time, encourage children to stay in school at lunch time. There needs to be a better environment and a better system in our school dinner halls, so that young people want to stay there rather than going into the community to litter the streets and eat rubbish.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

As convener of the Communities Committee, I thank all those who helped the committee at stages 1 and 2 of the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill.

I begin by thanking those who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. Our visits to schools were invaluable, because they enabled members to witness the range of good practice that exists throughout Scotland. In particular, I thank all the pupils who gave us their views on school food, both as it is and as they would like it to be.

It is nonsense to suggest, as Frances Curran did, that MSPs listen only to those who are willing to give them a free lunch or breakfast. The Communities Committee goes out of its way to ensure that the people who will be most affected by the legislation that it considers get every opportunity to have access to the committee. That is why I extend my special thanks to the pupils of Hurlford primary school, Drumchapel high school and the Janet Courtney halls of residence, who played their part by allowing us to visit them and engaging with us so that we understood things from their perspective. I was particularly impressed by Hurlford primary school, which uses fresh, local produce to an extent to which other schools should aspire.

I thank the staff of the @Home Centre in Airdrie and the pupils of Rosehall and Caldervale high schools for their evidence to the committee. It is worth noting that, when we took evidence in Airdrie, many high schools from throughout Lanarkshire were represented. That is an example of the Parliament's going out into the community and taking its work to people rather than their having to come to us. I also thank all the local authorities and other organisations that responded to the committee's call for written evidence. Frances Curran said that we did not want to listen to those people, but that is not true. The fact that we do not always agree with people does not mean that we do not listen to them and take their views into account.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Does the member agree that, in Airdrie, we heard from school pupils evidence that contradicts the point that Frances Curran made?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Indeed we did, but I am afraid that if one does not listen to everybody and agree with Ms Curran, one's views do not count. [Interruption.]

Finally, I thank the clerks to the committee. Steve Farrell and his team helped to ensure that the committee's work, both in the Parliament and during our external visits, was done efficiently.

Dave Petrie's comments were helpful. He is right to suggest that the bill cannot be implemented in isolation. It is important that pupils get active. However, I do not agree with his point that there are insufficient resources. His experience in teaching is different from my experience in North Lanarkshire, where we have several new primary and secondary schools and resources that teachers tell me they have never seen before.

We heard much from the SNP today. Fiona Hyslop said that everything will be fine after 3 May. She said that there is a capacity problem at present but there will not be one after 3 May. I am not sure what will change at that point. [Interruption.] We also heard that it is important that we do something about the matter right now. The debate should not be about political posturing. The bill is not about the universal provision of free school meals. It is about improving nutritional standards in schools, which will make a real difference to the health of Scotland as a nation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Members must not call to each other across the well of the chamber and disturb the speeches.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I hope that the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill will underpin the drive to improve Scotland's health by promoting healthy lifestyles from an early age. Habits that are acquired in early childhood are carried through into adult life. By taking forward the health-promoting schools concept that the World Health Organization has championed since the 1990s, the bill should help in the battle against obesity, which is increasingly crippling even young adults in Scotland with complications such as type 2 diabetes and its consequences.

By requiring all education authorities, schools, nurseries and grant-aided schools to be health promoting; by providing for the introduction by regulation of minimum nutrition standards in schools; by allowing education authorities, if they so wish, to provide free food and drink other than lunch; and by promoting an increased uptake of school meals, the bill will put healthy living at the heart of education from an early age and will help to instil in pupils the healthy lifestyle habits that should benefit them throughout their lives.

The Scottish Conservatives are not in favour of the state taking over our lives. As far as we are concerned, personal responsibility is the key to healthy living, and there can be a fine line between legislation of the sort that is proposed in the bill and nanny-state intervention. However, such is the current state of our nation's health that the provisions of the bill are an acceptable means of tackling the public health hurdles that we have to overcome. As Dave Petrie said, we do not see the universal availability of free school meals as either necessary or the best use of public money. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the need to ensure the anonymity of pupils who receive free school meals—an issue that Elaine Smith highlighted—so that they are not stigmatised.

We think that more children should be encouraged to eat meals in school. Apart from the good nutritional value of school meals, if children have the time to enjoy their meal times as an opportunity to relax and interact with their peers, that will benefit their social development alongside the academic development that they achieve in class. I have seen the hungry for success programme in action in schools across the north-east. Although some of the school cooks to whom I have spoken think that it is overprescriptive, it seems to be encouraging pupils to eat more healthily while they are in school.

There needs, however, to be real engagement with parents, too. In an age when fast food is becoming the norm, we should try to involve parents as much as possible in the promotion and provision of healthy food to their children. As the minister has said, it is hoped that children will increasingly demand healthy food from their parents. My grandchildren seem to thrive on olives, raw spinach and various things that I had probably never heard of when I was a child. However, there seems little point in schools giving pupils healthy food and promoting the benefits of a healthy lifestyle if they go home and stuff themselves with junk food and spend their leisure time in front of the television instead of taking physical activity.

As Dave Petrie said, we believe that more investment needs to be made in physical education teachers and that more time should be made available in schools for physical activity. We also support the promotion of extracurricular sporting activity, which not only helps physical development but encourages social interaction and team play.

We welcome John Home Robertson's amendments to encourage, under guidance, the use of local produce in the preparation of food for schoolchildren, and I am delighted that the whole Parliament accepted them. Not only will they help to ensure that the benefits of fresh produce are enjoyed by our children but they will benefit the environment and local food producers.

We are happy to support the bill and will vote for it at decision time. Its provisions, on their own, will not solve the nation's health problems, but it is a step in the right direction.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have already quoted the figure provided by Save the Children that 240,000 children in Scotland live in poverty. The 11 th hour proposal by the current First Minister to extend eligibility for free school meals to children in families that are receiving the maximum working tax credit will, by his own admission, lift only 100,000 children out of that trap. That will leave 140,000 children—more than 50 per cent—still in poverty and not eligible for free school meals.

Furthermore, a briefing that I received from Capability Scotland addresses the specific issue of families in which there are people with a disability. Seventy per cent of those families rely on benefits, but they are not the benefits that qualify the children for free school meals. If I can put down a marker for Parliament in the next session, I think that the Education Committee, the Health Committee or the Communities Committee should investigate that specific pocket of people who are being deprived.

I will speak to five issues. The first is the need to ensure that children have at least one decent meal a day. That is a basic right. We all know what it is to have at least one decent meal a day. Extending the eligibility criteria for free school meals is crucial, and the SNP's amendments would have done that. Widening the criteria so that there was universal access to free school meals in primary 1 to primary 3 would have let us test out what difference universal provision made not just to the physical well-being of children, but to their social and mental well-being. The Scottish National Party will be happy to discuss the matter with COSLA when we are in power, as COSLA has said that it wants the criteria to be extended.

The second issue is the quality of the food that is provided. It is essential that meals are of good quality if we are to encourage children to take up provision. Attention should also be given to the size of the portions. It is not appropriate for primary 1 children and primary 7 children to receive the same portions of food, which is what happens in some of our schools. In addition, bad eating habits among our children mean that type 2 diabetes is now rampant, and the number of such diabetics is set to explode. That will have permanent health consequences for those who are affected.

Thirdly, in so far as is practicable, school food should be prepared in-house and eating should become a social experience. We need to consider that issue when we are building schools, given the concerns that have been raised about schools that are built by public-private partnerships and under the private finance initiative. In one of the Communities Committee's evidence sessions on the bill, a representative of the Educational Institute of Scotland said that contracts are so tight that schools cannot even move a socket. What are the prospects of developing the size of the school kitchen if the contract does not allow food to be cooked on the school premises? That issue needs to be considered.

Fourthly, the use of local produce is key. Having chased this issue for years, I am glad that the minister has recognised that by agreeing to review and reissue the guidance to education authorities. Some authorities seem to be terrified of the European Union and do not realise that they can comply with the rules while using issues such as social inclusion to develop contracts that mean that produce is bought from local people.

Fifthly, we need to recognise that, if we want to encourage children to take up the free provision to which they are entitled, we must not only address the quality of the food, the size of the portions and the wider social experience but tackle the issues of identification. The SNP shares the concerns that Patrick Harvie raised about developments in technology. In particular, we are concerned that it seems—from what we have heard today—that consent from a parent or guardian is not always obtained. I cannot see why the minister did not issue a code of conduct to ensure standard practice across Scotland. That is absolutely basic.

I was delighted by Donald Gorrie's speech. I am not usually delighted by his speeches—I will get a set of all his speeches for when I have a sleepless night—but today he gave us a delightful journey through Donald Gorrie logic. If it is right to have universal provision of breakfasts, snacks and milk, what makes the provision of lunch different? The answer is Greenwich mean time. I also hope that some head teacher challenges that provision in the bill by having lunch start at 11 o'clock.

It is a further testimony to the Toryisation of new Labour and its Liberal Democrat partners in crime—who take credit for the good things and take the blame for nothing—that they voted down our amendments, which would have brought our poorest and most vulnerable children into the ambit of free school meals provision. The Executive's end-of-term report card—I know that the Tories keep such report cards hidden—will show "failed" next to the 240,000 Scottish children who live in poverty but who do not get free school meals.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill is the last bill on education in the current parliamentary session. It is fair to say that our desire as a Parliament to focus on the nurture, welfare and education of young people has rightly been central to much of our legislative, administrative and funding efforts over the past eight years.

I thank the Communities Committee and those who gave evidence on the bill. I also thank our bill team for its support during the bill's passage through Parliament. I concentrated mainly on the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Bill during that period, so the bulk of the bill has been taken through the Parliament by the Minister for Education and Young People.

Much of the debate on the bill has been focused on, and dominated by, the issue of free school meals. It was right that we had that important debate, but Parliament has not been persuaded by the principle of universal provision of free school meals. Even the SNP has not been persuaded by that. In some ways, the debate on that issue has been a diversion from the vital issues that the bill deals with. I suggest to the SNP that the extent of its outrage on such matters ought to be in a rather more direct relationship to the prescience and consistency of its previous policies. Hugh Henry made that point in the excellent speech that he made earlier.

On the business of local authority flexibility, a very interesting response from Tricia Marwick earlier confirmed that such local flexibility would be paid for centrally under the SNP's proposals for local government funding. That is a bizarre method of local flexibility, given that the flexibility would be dependent directly on central Government and against the background of a cap on funding.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister not find it most bizarre that although the Executive is prepared to give flexibility with regard to the provision of free breakfasts, free fruit and free snacks, it is simply not prepared to give any flexibility with regard to school meals?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There are two points to make about that. First, if local flexibility is paid for centrally, we will not be able to keep control of the budget. Secondly, decisions have to be made about the best use of public funding. If it were ever to form a Government, the SNP would very soon find out that the cost of extending universal free school meals provision is, depending on the take-up, estimated at between £99 million and £182 million a year. However we look at it, we are talking about a lot of money, and we have to weigh up the value of spending that money on free school meal provision rather than on other measures. In any case, no one can argue about the direction of travel that is being taken.

The debate on free school meals has not really focused on some of the key underlying issues, one of which is take-up—although in fairness to Christine Grahame I should point out that she touched on the issue in her closing speech. No matter whether we are debating the merits of free school meal provision or the issue of stigma—and I think that, with the measures in the bill, we have certainly tried to go further in finding ways of avoiding stigma—the point is that we still need to encourage young people to take up school meals, free or not.

That brings us back to the wider purposes of the bill, which, after all, is not just about nutrition, important though that is to a healthy lifestyle. Some interesting points were made in that respect during the debate. For example, Fiona Hyslop was right to suggest that we need to improve young people's understanding of where food actually comes from, and that important point was echoed by Patrick Harvie. Dave Petrie talked about lunchtime activities at school, and that matter, which has been mentioned before, is certainly linked to take-up of school meals. Although many schools provide many good lunchtime activities, I agree that there needs to be more focus on that aspect.

In one of the best speeches in the debate, Nanette Milne rightly highlighted the balance between family and state responsibility; the importance of home life; and the need to link what happens at school with what happens in the home. Of course, that raises the question of the extent to which schools and local authorities should assume parental responsibilities. Many parents already give their children a healthy breakfast before they head off to school, and many young people prefer to make their own breakfast at home rather than receive it at school. We should give that point a bit more prominence than it has been given in the debate.

The bill amends the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 to place a duty on education authorities to set out strategies for health-promoting schools. Besides promoting healthy eating, such schools, which have been widely praised and are seen as the way forward on this matter, must address pupils' physical, mental and social well-being. I realise that the terms sound trite, but such an approach will help to produce confident and healthy individuals who are able to develop their full potential and maximise the benefits from the investment that has been made in education. Improving Scotland's health is very closely linked—indeed, is fundamental—not only to the happiness and prosperity of families and communities throughout Scotland but to the education system's success.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

As I asked Patrick Harvie when he kindly accepted my intervention, would health promotion in our schools include the promotion of breastfeeding as the best start for babies? After all, young children need to understand the benefits of that kind of nutrition.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I bow to Elaine Smith's expertise and good work in that area. As I was about to point out, we need to take a holistic approach to such matters.

The concept of health-promoting schools, the drive provided by hungry for success and the Executive's measured and practical approach to this matter have all laid a solid foundation on which the proposed legislation can build. In many schools, it will be entirely right to provide children with breakfast, snacks and fruit, and the provision of water in schools has been very successful already.

However, the essence of our approach is to bring about lifelong improvements in diet, exercise and lifestyle that will lead to better choices outside the school environment—at home, at college or university or at work. Parents and families are central to that work; indeed, as Jamie Stone pointed out, the innovations made possible by the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 might help in that regard.

This bill is good, and, notwithstanding the debate on school meals, will command fairly universal support. I commend its principles to Parliament and ask members to support the motion that the bill be passed.

Point of Order

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Inshore Fishing (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Lorn) Order 2007 (SSI 2007/186) was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 March 2007. Article 1, "Citation and commencement", states:

"This Order ... shall come into force on 12 March 2007."

That clearly breaches the 21-day rule that an order shall not commence until 21 days after it is laid. I have been informed that the Executive intends to replace this incompetent order with another correcting the date from 12 March to 29 March. At this stage, however, the order will clearly still breach the 21-day rule.

Although I appreciate that the order is a negative instrument, and the 21-day rule is sometimes breached on exceptional grounds of necessity or in order to fit in with United Kingdom laws, no such necessity or urgency exists in this case, especially as the research that the order seeks to protect has already been going on for months. The only necessity or urgency seems to be that the Executive wishes to get the order through before the Parliament dissolves. What is the point in having a 21-day rule to allow time to inform the public of a change in the law if it can be breached for no good reason?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I thank Mr McGrigor for giving me advance notice of his point of order.

I understand from the Minister for Parliamentary Business that the error to which Mr McGrigor refers is an administrative one and that the Executive now intends to revoke the current order and lay a new one within the next few days. It is also intended that the new order will come into force on 29 March, which, on the face of it, will also breach the 21-day rule. In these circumstances, instruments include a letter to me setting out the reasons for the proposed breach. The reasons will be considered by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which will then report its views to the relevant lead committee, which, in this case, is the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

I trust that that explains the position, Mr McGrigor, but if you have any concerns you can lodge a motion to annul the order, which will then be considered by the lead committee.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will speak briefly, Presiding Officer, because you have explained the situation.

I can inform the chamber that we intend to revoke the order and relay it tomorrow, if that is appropriate. However, I would like to offer Mr McGrigor our apologies for this administrative error. We take these matters very seriously. We would not breach the 21-day rule lightly and for no good reason. There are procedures to force us to give good reasons and due explanation for a breach. I am happy to commit to informing Jamie McGrigor of all the implications of the situation if he wishes to have further discussion. Again, I apologise to the chamber for this error.

Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee (Second and Third Reports 2007)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-5683, in the name of Scott Barrie, on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee's second report of 2007, on appropriate assessment of the Firth of Forth special protection area, and motion S2M-5684, in the name of Scott Barrie, on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee's third report of 2007, on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill and European protected species.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament notes the 2nd Report, 2007 (Session 2) of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, Appropriate Assessment Report on the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SP Paper 736), and agrees that the construction of the project proposed in the Bill will not adversely affect the integrity of the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area.

That the Parliament notes the 3rd Report, 2007 of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, Report on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill and European Protected Species (SP Paper 737), and agrees that the construction of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link project should not impact on the favourable conservation status of otters.—[Scott Barrie.]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The questions on the motions will be put at decision time.

Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill: Final Stage

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5685, in the name of Scott Barrie, that the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill be passed.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill was introduced on 16 March 2006. It seeks powers to provide the promoter, Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Ltd, with statutory authority to build a new railway station at Edinburgh airport, and to construct 16km of new railways to connect said station to the national railway network, with connections at Winchburgh, Dalmeny, Gogar and Roddinglaw.

The bill has far more aims than just that of connecting Edinburgh with its airport. Its full aims are to stimulate economic growth, not only in the Edinburgh city region but throughout Scotland; to assist with the delivery of social inclusion to Scottish towns and cities by providing them with direct access to the airport; to assist with further growth of Scottish tourism through the provision of such direct access; to offer a sustainable public transport alternative for accessing Edinburgh airport, which will reduce congestion and provide environmental benefits; to assist with the provision of a sustainable basis for growth at the airport; and to facilitate a public transport interchange hub at the airport.

One of the major difficulties that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee has experienced throughout its consideration of the bill has been the existence of a fundamental misconception that the bill's sole purpose is to provide for the construction of a railway link from Edinburgh airport to Edinburgh. It will do that, but it will also do a whole lot more.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The member says that the bill will do a lot more than just provide for the building of a rail link to the airport, but has the committee fully considered the implications of the proposal, especially for the Glasgow to Edinburgh line and the three minutes that it might add on to that journey? Does he agree that it is important that, before the project proceeds, it is established that there will be no detriment to existing services and that such issues have been properly resolved so that all commuters can be satisfied that the provision of an essential service to Edinburgh's airport will not affect the continuation of their journeys as before?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The committee examined fully the effect that the proposal might have on services in the central belt and further afield. We put Pauline McNeill's point to Network Rail. The RailSys summary showed that EARL would not disadvantage the running of services between Edinburgh and Glasgow every 15 minutes. It might also be useful to draw the Parliament's attention to the fact that the grade-separated junction at Roddinglaw was designed deliberately to enable Glasgow to Edinburgh trains to operate, as well as to facilitate the new Airdrie to Bathgate services. I hope that that reassures the member.

Once it is operational, EARL will enable Edinburgh airport to be accessed directly from 62 stations across Scotland. Passengers will be able to jump on a train at Carnoustie, Croy or perhaps even Tweedbank and hop off at the airport, without having to change at Waverley or Haymarket. Journeys to the airport will be speeded up and congestion on our roads will be reduced. It was because of that high level of connectivity that the committee rejected the vastly inferior option of a station at Turnhouse or Gogar, both of which are on the east coast main line. Passengers would have had to get off a train and get on a bus that would have travelled around the airport before they got to the terminal. Those inferior options would have been time consuming and off-putting and would not have provided the modal shift for which the present scheme caters.

The building of an airport station offers more than just better links to the airport. It will provide a public transport interchange at the airport: train to train; train to bus; and train to tram. It will allow for far greater east to west and west to east train connectivity because no extra time will have to be spent changing at Haymarket. All in all, it provides an opportunity to create a modern transport interchange, which will be crucial to addressing the predicted growth in car usage over the next 20 years.

EARL will provide such an interchange; the other options would not. By 2026, it is predicted that EARL will have prevented 1.7 million car journeys and will have reduced the number of people accessing the airport by car or taxi from 78 to 56 per cent of airport users. The inferior train/bus interchanges at Turnhouse or Gogar would never achieve those results.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

In the evidence that he gave on behalf of Network Rail, Ron McAulay said that, if the EARL project is constructed,

"that will have an adverse impact and ... we will need to recast the timetable."—[Official Report, Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, 19 December 2006; c 326.]

Can Scott Barrie confirm that that is the case?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I think that I addressed that point, in part, in the response that I gave to Pauline McNeill. Although some journeys that are diverted via the airport may take a few minutes longer, the advantage is that people will have a direct connection to the airport.

I want to put on record my thanks to the promoter and the objectors for the conciliatory and professional manner in which they conducted themselves. The bill attracted 48 objectors, of which 18 remained by the time the committee reported at consideration stage. Many of the withdrawals were secured not only as a result of the transparent and inclusive way in which the promoter worked with the people affected by the bill's provisions to resolve their concerns, but through the hard work of the objectors to identify possible remedies and to work with the promoter to achieve them.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Some concerns remain. The committee has said that there should be a code of construction practice and local construction codes. Will the member give us more detail on how those will be enforced and who will enforce them?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The committee was satisfied by the fact that the requirement for a code of construction practice is incorporated in the bill. We will thus be able to ensure that the promoter has a timetable to work with; hopefully, it will be able to work with the people affected along the route. I will return to that specific point later.

The committee was impressed by the effort objectors put in to preparing their cases; we believe that the bill has been improved by their hard work. The approach taken by both promoter and objectors is a template of good practice in private bills, which I commend to future participants—promoters or objectors. I would particularly like to thank Professor Hugh Begg, the assessor for the committee, for all his hard work. His forensic approach to the scrutiny of written and oral evidence is to be commended. His report to the committee was clear, detailed and of an extremely high quality. It greatly assisted us in reaching our final views on our consideration stage report. The assessor process was of considerable benefit to the whole committee.

In its preliminary stage report, the committee agreed to seek further evidence on a number of issues, including whether EARL would be subject to premium fares, and clarification on the detail of the funding of the project. I will update Parliament on both those issues. At the preliminary stage, the committee heard conflicting evidence about whether premium fares would be charged. Unfortunately, further evidence from Transport Scotland and the Minister for Transport provided us with little more clarity. Although Transport Scotland noted that social inclusion is one of the national transport strategy's principle objectives, the committee remains concerned that a premium fares policy has not been totally ruled out. Any premium fares policy will reduce dramatically the benefits that EARL can deliver, will limit the socially excluded from accessing jobs at the airport and could prevent Edinburgh airport from being used as a transport interchange. The committee believes that a premium fares policy for EARL would be divisive, given that the cheaper option of buses and, particularly, trams is not available to passengers outwith Edinburgh. On behalf of the committee, I would welcome confirmation by the minister that premium fares will not be levied on EARL services.

At the preliminary stage, the committee expressed concern that the Minister for Transport and Transport Scotland could not provide the detail of the sources of funding for the EARL scheme. I can now report to Parliament that the information provided at consideration stage is sufficient to meet the requirements of standing orders. The minister confirmed that the EARL project would be funded in its entirety, with the majority of funding coming from Transport Scotland. Other contributions include up to £13 million from Edinburgh Airport Limited to construct the pedestrian link and transport interchange, as well as changes to the south-west pier. The committee was assured that savings in the region of £42 million to £52 million have been secured by leasing land from Edinburgh Airport Limited; in addition, risk reduction has arisen from EAL's involvement in the project and, in particular, the construction of the tunnel.

I am sure that Parliament will be pleased and relieved to learn that the committee has no concerns about the effect of the scheme on local wildlife. Otters, bats and great crested newts—should any appear—can sleep easy, as their interests under European and United Kingdom law have been fully protected. Likewise, the noise and vibration policy will ensure that those living next to the workings and the operation of the railways will be properly protected from undue noise and disturbance.

I thank my fellow committee members for their hard work, diligence and good humour throughout our work on the bill and for putting up with me during our meetings. I am sure that we all learned something during the progress of the bill—and not just about trains. Some members, such as Charlie Gordon, came with a good deal of prior knowledge but, for the rest of us, learning about railway construction and operation was more of a learning curve. I am sure that that knowledge will live with us for some time—perhaps we are all better people for it.

I also thank those who provided us with written or oral evidence, and I express my personal thanks to the private bills unit and David Cullum, Carol Mitchell and James Burton for their hard work. In particular, I thank our clerk, Jane Sutherland. I certainly could not have got here without her hard work and perseverance. It was a pleasure to work with her and I am exceedingly grateful for all her help and assistance.

I believe that the bill will bring many benefits to Scotland and represents the vital long-term investment that we should make in public transport to address the future impacts of congestion on Scotland's economy and environment. I am deeply sorry that the bill does not command unanimous parliamentary support. I am sorry that some members cannot see EARL's potential to contribute significantly to Scotland's long-term benefit. It is up to them to justify their position, not only in the chamber today, but to the travelling public of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill be passed.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee and its convener, Scott Barrie, for their work on the bill. I pay tribute to the committee clerks, the promoter, the advisers and my team for the progress that they made in bringing the bill to its final stage today.

The construction of a direct rail link to Edinburgh airport from throughout Scotland is a key commitment in the partnership agreement. The Government whole-heartedly supports the motion and we will deliver this exciting project for Scotland as we grow our economy.

Public transport has suffered years of neglect, but our record of investment in it is strong. The Larkhall to Milngavie line carried 325,000 people in its first year; the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line will open in the summer; and substantial work on the Waverley station upgrade is under way. Other projects include the Borders railway, the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the Edinburgh tram project and the Glasgow airport rail link. All those have completed their parliamentary process or will have completed it by the end of March.

As Scott Barrie said, the benefits of the Edinburgh airport rail link are clear. The project has a benefit to cost ratio of 2.16:1, so for every £1 that is invested we will get back more than £2. That will amount to £1.35 billion over 60 years. The airport will be linked to 14 local authority areas with a total population of 3.2 million people, which is 64 per cent of Scotland's population.

Some 62 stations throughout the network will be directly linked to Edinburgh airport.