Chamber and committees

Thank you for that insight. That is really useful.

Donna Birrell, do you have anything that you want us to hear, or have we heard it all?

Thank you for the confirmation. What are the practical implications for developers of the new building regulation 3.28, which requires buildings to be designed to reduce the risks to occupants’ health from overheating, and what impact might the regulation have on home owners’ use of their property?

Thank you very much. Finally, the committee heard calls for greater independent monitoring and assessment of building work through use of clerks of works, which is something that our predecessor committee called for. What is the Scottish Government doing to require or facilitate use of clerks of works?

I would like the committee to ask the Scottish Government why it has chosen to make permanent changes through regulations 2 and 3(7)(b) and what the

“new approach of targeted inspections using relevant data and improved education and engagement with applicants”

means in practice, including what data the targeting is based on.

The policy note states:

“The 2022 Regulations will have no impact on stakeholders or members of the public as they simply assist and enable officials to carry out controls despite the coronavirus pandemic and related restrictions.”

If the regulations mean that there will be fewer on-the-ground inspections on farms and crofts that have not complied with rules on protecting soil and water quality and environmental protection, is it not the case that they will have an impact on the local environment as well as on biodiversity and the climate and will therefore impact on the public? I would like the committee to ask the Government that question.

As introduced, the bill requires the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities, when drafting their good food nation plans, to

“have regard ... to the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes in relation to”

a specified list of high-level outcomes. The amendments in this group speak to the importance of ensuring that we take a whole-systems approach to food policy. It is vital that the good food nation plans cover all the many policy areas that can affect, or can be affected by, food. Accordingly, amendments 73 and 78, in my name, would add “climate change” and

“wildlife and the natural environment”

to those high-level outcomes.

I felt that simply stating “the environment” as a policy area that ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to was too broad and amorphous, and that the addition of climate change and wildlife and the natural environment would help them to focus on how the good food nation plans and the policies in them can make an impact on achieving emissions reduction targets and net zero, tackling the nature emergency and meeting future biodiversity targets.

The other amendments in the group, which were lodged by Jenni Minto, Rachael Hamilton, Monica Lennon and Beatrice Wishart, also seek to make further provision about what ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to when preparing their plans.

Jenni Minto’s amendments 36, 37, 50 and 51 will satisfy calls from stakeholders such as OneKind and Food Train for the inclusion of animal welfare and social care in the bill. I particularly welcome those amendments, as well as the amendments from Rachael Hamilton and Monica Lennon, which seek to include education and child poverty in the list.

I move amendment 73.

I agree with the Scottish Government’s decision, but I would like the committee to ask it to explain how its decision to consent to the provisions being included in the United Kingdom legislation can be reconciled with its stated intention to maintain regulatory alignment with European Union law and the high standards that Scotland enjoyed as part of the EU when the UK is applying to join free trade agreements such as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP. According to a House of Lords committee report, that raises concerns about food that is imported to lower standards

“undercutting UK farmers and undermining the UK’s food standards regime.”

I will speak to amendments 19 and 20.

Our committee has heard from witnesses suggestions of numerous bodies and organisations that could be added to the list of relevant authorities that will be required to produce plans. After reflecting on all the suggestions, I am content to keep the core list as it is. Once we start adding additional organisations such as the Scottish Funding Council, it begs the question why we are not adding other organisations, such as NatureScot and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Scottish Prison Service.

I believe that a clear process needs to be set out for adding additional bodies to the list of relevant authorities. That could take the form of a consultation. I plan to support Karen Adam’s amendment 59, which would require ministers to consult before specifying additional public authorities. The decision to add any new relevant authorities should be subject to consultation or to another agreed process or criteria to be established.

Section 9 requires relevant authorities to have regard to the national good food nation plan when preparing their own plans. Amendments 81 and 82, in my name, provide that relevant authorities should publish a statement alongside their good food nation plan and any revision of that plan, which sets out how, in preparing or revising the plan, they have complied with the requirement. The statement will have to set out how the relevant authorities have complied with the set of principles that are inserted by amendment 9, which the cabinet secretary spoke about a moment ago. It is vital that the relevant authority plans, as well as the national ones, reflect those key principles. The statements will provide the necessary underpinning to ensure that the plans are effective.

Amendments 81 and 82 will ensure that there is clarity about how relevant authorities have considered the content of the national plan when drafting their own plans. They also reflect the importance of maintaining clear links between the national and local, acknowledging that a whole systems approach to food requires effective dialogue between those two levels.

I urge the committee to support the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group and amendments 81 and 82.

I will also comment on amendments 1, 2 and 31. On amendment 1, the purpose of the bill should be wider than to give effect to the right to food; it should be to achieve all the principles that are set out in the Government’s amendment, which includes the principle that adequate food is a human right that is essential to the realisation of other human rights.

In the case of amendments 2 and 31, I prefer the list of principles in amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Her list serves to make clear the purpose of the plans and, by extension, the bill. It has a firmer legislative basis than a general purpose clause. Given that the principles have a specific legal effect, they need to be reflected in the creation of good food nation plans.

Under the Bute house agreement, I contributed to the development of Ms Gougeon’s principles to ensure that they include the good recommendations from witnesses from whom we heard in committee, including in relation to the role of the food system in contributing to the mitigation of climate change; the reversal of biodiversity loss and the improvement in animal welfare; the fact that adequate food is a human right that is essential to the realisation of other human rights; and the importance of resilient supply chains, fair work standards and resilient local economies. I will continue to work with the Government to further improve the list of principles through stage 3 amendments.

My amendments 73 and 78, along with Jenni Minto’s amendments 36 and 37, Monica Lennon’s amendment 74 and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 38, will ensure that ministers and relevant authorities have regard to the scope of food-related issues that will affect the outcomes of good food nation plans. My amendments 73 and 78 will ensure that consideration is given to the climate emergency and the nature crisis in their own right. Jenni Minto’s amendments will ensure that animal welfare is given the consideration that the matter justly deserves. Monica Lennon and Rachael Hamilton have made important contributions through their amendments, which ensure that consideration is given to child poverty and education respectively in good food nation plans.

As the cabinet secretary explained, the benefit of Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 39 is not so clear, but I hope that the Government will work with her to take the idea forward before stage 3.

I press amendment 73.

Amendment 73 agreed to.

Amendments 36 and 37 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 38 moved—[Rachael Hamilton]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

I whole-heartedly agree with the intention to establish effective oversight arrangements to ensure the successful delivery of good food nation plans, and I am happy to support amendment 10, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, which will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is only part of what is needed, and it is clear that we all agree that the issue of strengthening oversight still needs to be addressed.

At the same time, the committee report was not conclusive with regard to the best approach to oversight and, today, we have a number of amendments that take quite different approaches. In order to develop a robust and effective approach to oversight, I am content to continue to work with the cabinet secretary on the matter, in line with the Bute house agreement. As part of that, we need to take a fresh look at all options, including a food commission, which many organisations have called for, as well as a food commissioner.