Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Professor Webb. According to my notes, you said that there is a lack of technical expertise in local authorities and that there needs to be more in-house technical proficiency. The committee hopes to make recommendations to the Scottish Government and to local government. What action do you recommend to address the technical expertise challenge that you have mentioned?

Does that mean that you have not had a response, or has the UK Government declined the offer?

Again, it would be helpful for the committee to see any relevant correspondence, because we want to make our own recommendations.

I have one last question—in fact, two quick last questions. You talked about taking “bold action”. Is a publicly owned energy company something that you are keeping under review? I know that that was previously a commitment from the Scottish National Party and—I think—from the Scottish Greens. Is that being looked at as part of the Bute house agreement?

I have no doubt that we will come back to the role of the agency and what more can be done on public ownership.

My last question is on a very topical issue. I think that a decision on this is expected soon, but should the UK Government regulator give consent to the proposed Jackdaw oil field? The Scottish Government is opposed to the Cambo oil field. Does it also oppose consent for Jackdaw?

That was helpful.

A few weeks ago, we took evidence from some of the fuel energy charities and had a discussion about your Government’s fuel insecurity fund. I believe that the fund is in its third round, and that roughly £10 million has been allocated in each of the rounds. There is some concern—from Citizens Advice Scotland, in particular—that that money might not last the full three months this time around. Have you had any advice on how long it will last, and do you have any plans to increase the pot?

That is helpful. You also talked about the importance of political will and buy-in from senior management in local authorities. What would help to achieve that? Are you aware of any local authorities in Scotland in which there is good visibility of these issues, perhaps due to the existence of a committee on net zero? Should there be more net zero committees, such as the one that we have in the Scottish Parliament? What would help with regard to the way in which administrations organise themselves? Some of them will vote this week on who is in charge of what committee, so it would be helpful to know what would help to ensure that there is a joined-up and strategic approach in each local authority.

I welcome the comments that have been made so far. In particular, I associate myself with Ariane Burgess’s comments.

My amendment 74 relates to the national good food nation plan. As we have heard, the bill requires ministers, in determining the content of the plan, to have regard to

“the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes”

in relation to social and economic wellbeing, the environment, health and economic development.

My amendment 74 adds “child poverty” to the list. As with the point that Ariane Burgess made, I think that the phrase “social and economic wellbeing” is too wide. Given the need for a joined-up approach to tackling child poverty, it is important that the interests of children and young people are clearly placed in the bill. That will also help Scottish ministers to take a joined-up approach to meeting child poverty targets. We know that, between now and 2030, we need to lift 210,000 children in Scotland out of poverty.

My amendment 79 does a similar thing in relation to public bodies’ good food nation plans, so I will not rehearse my reasons for lodging it. I hope that the committee will support it.

Section 1 requires that

“The national good food nation plan must set out ... the main outcomes in relation to food-related issues which the Scottish Ministers want to be achieved”

as well as “indicators or other measures” for assessing the progress towards and achievement of outcomes and

“the policies which ... Ministers intend to pursue”

to achieve the outcomes.

Amendment 71, in my name, states that

“One of the main outcomes, specified under”

section 1(3)(a)

“must be the reduction of food waste in Scotland.”

As we know, every year, a third of all food that is produced globally is wasted and 8 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions are due to food loss and waste. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I can tell members that we are very concerned about food waste; indeed, it was why I was motivated to lodge the amendment. I believe that this provision should be in the bill.

Amendment 70 seeks to ensure

“the fulfilment of all children and young people’s right to high-quality, nutritious food as set out in Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”,

specifying that that

“must include the provision of universal free school meals to all children and young people attending local authority nurseries or schools”.

Committee members might be aware that, through its food for thought campaign, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women’s committee has been campaigning for the expansion of universal free school meal provision to all nursery, primary and secondary pupils. The vision is to alleviate hunger, poverty and food insecurity and to ensure that the rights of all young people to food education and fun, as outlined in the UNCRC, are made real.

The STUC women’s committee believes that that can be achieved through implementing universal free school meal provision, and I fully agree. The campaign seeks to end the long-standing stigma and shame that are linked to free school meals so that all young people can live with dignity and respect and so that they can experience school without fear of poverty-related bullying.

Members will be aware that, since 2015, all primary 1 to 3 pupils attending local authority schools have been eligible for a free school lunch. In March last year, the Scottish Government announced a public commitment to delivering a phased expansion of free school meals to all primary pupils in Scotland by the end of August this year. Currently, all P1 to P5 pupils can receive a free school meal during term time, but the expansion has yet to be rolled out to P6 and P7 pupils. The Scottish Government’s existing commitments are most welcome, and the national good food plan presents a brilliant opportunity to build on that ambition.

The issues of means testing and eligibility criteria, which are well rehearsed, are real barriers to the uptake of free school meals, and I hope that amendment 70, in my name, which has been developed in collaboration with the STUC women’s committee in support of its food for thought campaign, can be supported by committee members. The STUC women’s committee’s call for universal free school meals is backed by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children’s Parliament, Children 1st, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Poverty Alliance, the Trussell Trust, One Parent Families Scotland and many others. It emphasises the importance of consulting children and young people. The STUC women’s committee is also pleased to have secured the support of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Green Party during last year’s parliamentary elections as well as the support of Scotland’s independent Poverty and Inequality Commission.

Amendment 72 seeks to amend section 1 by adding that

“The national good food nation plan must set out how the Scottish Ministers will ensure the free supply of school milk to children in pre-school, nurseries and primary schools.”

The intention is that children will have access to the benefits of drinking milk in a school or early-years setting, which include ensuring that a growing child gets essential nutrients and opportunities to develop social skills and encouraging lifelong healthy living habits.

Earlier this year, I met the School and Nursery Milk Alliance—as did many members from across the Parliament—to discuss the benefits of school milk. Given my earlier remarks about placing the rights and interests of children and young people at the heart of good food nation planning, I believe that it is appropriate to include in the bill the important role of milk in schools.

Amendment 77 would have a similar effect on good food nation plans produced by public bodies to the effect that amendment 70 would have on the national good food nation plan. It states:

“To secure the achievement of the outcome specified in (4A), the policies specified under subsection (4)(c) must include the provision of universal free school meals for all children and young people attending local authority nurseries or schools”.

Amendment 77 states that those meals should

“consist of high-quality ingredients,”

be

“nutritious,”

be

“fully inclusive of … health, religious or cultural”

circumstances, be procured locally and

“meet any minimum standard set out in guidance by the Scottish Ministers.”

Any good food nation plan by a relevant authority must set out how it will ensure a

“high uptake of universal free school meals”

and how

“the views of children and young people are taken into account”

on

“the design of school meal menus,”

how the scheme should operate, and

“how uptake … can be encouraged.”

I will not repeat the points that I made earlier, but we all know of good work in different local authorities across Scotland. In my region, North Lanarkshire’s club 365 is one example that ensures that young people get a breakfast even outwith school term time.

The impact of the cost of living crisis and of Covid-19 will be with us for a long time, so it is even more pressing that the Scottish Government and the Parliament use the legislative process to get the best possible outcomes for the people of Scotland.

I thank the STUC women’s committee for all its work and the support that it has garnered.

Perhaps the Government needs to listen more closely to what firms are saying. A couple of weeks ago, Shell went on the record saying that it is quite comfortable about a windfall tax and that more can certainly be done.

You talked about killing off investment, but we are hearing from charities, trade unions in Scotland and local volunteers at food banks that the cost of living crisis is killing off people. With respect, we need to hear more about what will be done by both your Government and the Scottish Government, which will be at next week’s meeting.

Further afield, you also have responsibility for climate change, and we are looking at longer-term solutions there as well. In your view, should the proposed Jackdaw oilfield go ahead? Is that the kind of investment that you want to support?

Thank you, minister. In the interest of time, I will hand back to the convener, but I note that we are dealing with a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis and it seems that you have a business-as-usual approach.