Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it is August, but we can check that.

I have a question about secondary school. You talked about people who are in work and whose children are not entitled to free school meals at secondary school. How do you identify those individuals? If we had free school meals across the board from S1 to S6, the danger is that we would stigmatise people, because those who have money would go to get their lunch outside and those who do not would have to stay in the building. How do we identify those who need help, and how do you suggest schools go about doing that?

If somebody comes in with an issue to do with council tax or rent arrears, what is the policy? How would that be handled at a practical level by local authorities?

Your last sentence almost answered one of my questions, but I seek clarification on the issue. I think that, from August, every child in primary school will get free school meals. Is that right?

I have a final question on a slightly different theme. Do we know how much outstanding debt is historical—that is, more than 10 years old? How much of it would be from the past five years? Is it possible to get a breakdown?

I suppose that what we have been hearing over the past few weeks is that that is not working. We have a crisis at the moment with the fuel bills, food bills and all these other issues that people are facing, but the evidence that we have been hearing is that local authorities seem to be pursuing this process quite rigorously. What you have highlighted might be happening on paper but it does not seem to be happening in practice.

The question, therefore, is: what should local authorities be doing over the next six or seven months? I have to say that six months is quite a long time for a lot of people who are struggling with debt at the moment, but what advice should the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Parliament be giving local authorities at this particular moment to deal with the current situation?

Finally, we understand from evidence that we have taken in previous weeks that there is no statutory duty on local authorities to offer advice services. I know a lot of them fund such services, but it is not something that they have to do. Would it make any difference to make the provision of advice a statutory duty across all 32 local authorities? Would that not ensure that at least those working in that area would know that they had funding coming in future years?

Good morning and thank you all very much for coming. I will follow up Paul McLennan’s questions. I am not sure who will want to jump in on my question. My understanding—I would be interested to know if this is your understanding—is that there is a legal duty on local authorities to pursue such debt under the powers that they have been granted. If they do not do so, they could possibly lose funding. Am I right? Can anyone give us an answer?

Thank you.

Some of the evidence that we have taken in previous evidence sessions suggests that, once you are in the system and you are unable to pay, there is something almost mechanistic about it and you end up with legal action being taken against you. From a local authority perspective, is there any way of the process being adapted so that, if you cannot pay, you do not suddenly end up in the sheriff court, or do local authorities simply take that approach because those procedures are in place?

Thank you.