Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2022 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.

The first item on our agenda is evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, John Swinney MSP, and his Scottish Government officials, on the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Reconsideration and Review of Determinations) (Scotland) Regulations 2022.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister and his accompanying officials Paul Beaton, the head of the legislation and contributions unit, and Claire Montgomery, a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I invite Mr Swinney to speak to the draft instrument.

Our third item of business is also consideration of subordinate legislation. Before asking members whether they have any comments on the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021, I will start with my questions about it.

I have specific concerns about any legislation that involves reducing the requirement to maintain nutritional standards in the food that we serve to children in school. The Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020 are designed to keep salt, sugar, fat and saturated fats in food and drink that is provided in schools to an appropriate level. The Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 are in effect—it is a negative instrument, which means that ministers have already enacted it.

I have several questions. Why, at this stage in the pandemic, have the regulations been brought forward? Are there any examples of the regulations being applied in schools since it was enacted last December? What is the reporting method for them? How long will the regulations be in place? On what basis, and at what point—the regulations have no expiry date—will they be removed? I do not think that anyone would want to see this amendment to the regulations on the nutritional value of food that we are serving in schools perpetuated any longer than necessary—if it is necessary at all. It is not entirely clear to me why it is felt to be necessary at this time.

Those are my questions, but there is nobody here to answer them. Willie Rennie wants to add something.

I see that Stephanie Callaghan has put a comment in the chat function, asking for more information about the survey that you mentioned. Can you run through some of the data for us? For example, how did the 36 per cent who reported an incident go about doing so?

I wonder whether Kate Wallace can shed further light on that.

In a case in which there is any suggestion of fraud—albeit that we hope that, as you said, there will be very few examples of that—would legal advice for the individual concerned still be part of the funded package of support that they would get during the process?

As you have said, it is a complex situation with many permutations. However, in your answers, you have been very clear about the upholding of the principles of fairness at all points in the process, as far as the individuals at the centre of that process are concerned.

As no other colleague has questions for the Deputy First Minister, I thank him for his comments.

Under item 2, I invite the Deputy First Minister to speak to and move motion S6M-02797.

The committee must now produce its report on the draft instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to the deputy convener and me to agree the report on its behalf?

Members indicated agreement.

So, it should be part of some formal review.

Do you want to come back in, Kate? I see that you have put an R in the chat box.

Before I bring in James Dornan, I just want to thank Sally Mapstone for attending this round-table session. As we know, she could be here only until 11 o’clock, and I thank her for her time.