I had a look at the 2013 guidelines in preparation for this debate, and what I read reminded me, actually, quite a lot of old-fashioned school dinners, which were meat and veg, and custard as your pudding. Obviously, nothing in the olden days, if you can put it that way, to do with vegetarianism or veganism—they hadn't been invented then. There was probably a lot more salt in those days as well. But I can see that things that we consider bad practice, likes cakes and biscuits, are still very much allowed on Welsh menus as long as they don't contain confectionery. So, I guess that means you still can get a cookie the size of your head, so long as it's full of raisins rather than chocolate. And, of course, nobody knew what a cookie was in the 1960s and 1970s, so things have definitely got better, or got worse—it's your call. I don't think there were guidelines all that time ago, but we need them now, that's for sure. 

From the dominance of manufactured foods and the transition of things like sweets and crisps from the status of treats to the status of careless snacking or even meal replacements in some cases, to the growth of takeaway culture and loss of cooking skills—a big one I think—there are loads of reasons that have moved us on from that very traditional fare, through the excitement of the introduction of the freeze-dried mashed potato. Do you remember that on the school menu? How excited we all were when Smash was introduced. And then onto that era then when spaghetti hoops were formally considered a vegetable—a bit of an accent colour on a plateful of beige.

But you're quite right, Jenny, we're not the only country to have guidelines for school meals, but you'd be surprised how many EU countries don't have them. Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands—these places we look to for very interesting ideas. Whereas others, like Germany, follow a similar pattern to us, I would say, and similar to England. Maybe Scotland's a bit more ambitious, with lists of what is allowed, what is limited, what is encouraged and what must be provided, accompanied in most cases by guidance on the quantities of different nutrients, including minerals and vitamins.

France, of course, plays to its strengths with a policy for a two-course meal accompanied by a side dish, plus an additional dairy product—all terribly silver service, it strikes me as. But it's Finland I think that's done something very interesting and which I think might give our teachers some ideas, actually, about how they might incorporate children's experience of eating school food into the wellbeing AoLE. Because, to a degree, they've got similar guidance of the type I've just described, but the main thrust of their policy is the sample plate. I don't know if you know about this. The sample plate, which is on view in the canteen, is supposed to encourage, or basically influence, school children about how to fill up their own plate when they get to the lunch queue. In this case, it's made up of half a plate of freshly cooked vegetables, a quarter potatoes, rice or pasta, and a quarter of meat, fish or non-animal protein. With that, the children can have milk and water, some bread and butter if they really want it, and their pudding is fruit. Puddings, like cake, are offered, but only rarely, when the main courses for some reason just don't have the full calorific value. So, they're real treats. 

But I think just as important is that the Finnish guidance says that the food must be temptingly presented, at the right temperature, by staff who are respectful of the children, but who are also respectful of the food. So, there's none of this slopping stuff into plastic trays. I think something else that's interesting from Finland is that their school meals cost 8 per cent of the education budget to provide. School meals are free in Finland, but that’s not my point—it's that basic cost about what they spend providing the food of this type with that nutritional quality.

Here, where schools have the same obligation to provide nutritious food, and can recover some of the money, we heard evidence from the children's commissioner—we were talking about children eligible for free school meals—they're being given meals that are worth just £2, or just over. Schools can't make profit on their food, so that's what the thing cost. I'm just thinking, the example that was given in the children's commissioner's report is that a slice of pizza cost £1.95. I'm not really sure why it cost £1.95 when, for a proper meal, you can charge 67p, but it certainly doesn't meet the nutritional guidelines. 

As you said, local authorities get, wrapped up in the RSG, money that's based on the number of children eligible for free school meals. The higher the number, the greater that contribution to the RSG. Schools get PDG for those same pupils. So, how on earth can a school get away with offering food worth £2? I think that's a bit of a policy failure in that particular case. I don't know if you know Minister, or whether you can tell us, how much goes into the RSG per free-school-meal pupil and how much of it then finds its way out of the RSG again to provide those nourishing meals we all want to see. I presume we're miles away from Finland's 8 per cent of the education budget—I'm sure we can't afford that.

I just want to finish by saying the guidelines are comprehensive but there's no duty to observe them, apart from promotion of healthy eating and providing drinking water. So, we're back in that area of expectations rather than obligations. So, I'm curious to hear from the Minister about what you can do when schools are caught out persistently ignoring guidelines. Thank you.