Chamber and committees

The question was really wide ranging; I thank the witnesses for their responses. However, we will need to be a bit sharper on both sides—although I take part of the blame for asking such a wide question in the first place.

I call Pam Gosal.

Thank you for the reference to open government. That is one of the areas on which I have worked previously with Councillor Evison.

That is great—thank you. The committee is aware that our role today is not to consider whether we agree with the proposal; it is to consider the statement of reasons. We have to be satisfied with two things before we agree to set aside the normal process that members follow in consulting before they lodge a bill proposal: first, that the previous consultation was robust; and secondly, that the previous consultation remains relevant.

Let me ask about the robustness of the consultation. First, I have seen a lot of stuff about percentages flying around, but the overall number of responses was quite low. Why was that? The number certainly seems low in comparison with other consultations, especially given that the issue seems relevant. Secondly, in your statement of reasons, you said that 225 organisations were contacted; will you give us a breakdown of those organisations?

Would you be willing to come back in later, Maggie? It might be possible to for members to pick up on other points after other members have asked their questions.

I will follow on from the points that you have made. We received a letter from the cabinet secretary making it clear that, in her view, the right to food is central to the wider human rights work. I note that a number of respondents to Elaine Smith’s consultation made the point that, rather than the issue being taken forward in isolation, it should be part of a wider human rights approach and wider legislation.

We now have a manifesto commitment, which is in the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party and is re-emphasised in the letter that we received from the cabinet secretary. Does that not make a significant difference to what was consulted on more than a year ago, when none of that was in place? We now have certainty that the Government will take the matter forward.

We move to Pam Gosal. Can you hear us, Pam?

We will go back to Pam after we have heard from Karen Adam.

Thanks very much for that, Nina. I thought that you would want to come in, particularly when you heard the answers, but Pam Duncan-Glancy was trying to appease me.

One would hope that the Parliament could work together on the matter. My point was not really the one that Rhoda Grant picked up on. It was more about the relevance of the consultation that took place and whether anything has changed—my point was that what has changed is that commitments have been made. However, Rhoda Grant might have said as much as she wants to in that area.

As nobody wants to contribute further, I thank Rhoda Grant for her evidence. I hope that we were not too challenging in our questioning. I know that being on the other side of the table is a hugely different experience.

We are required to make a decision on whether we are satisfied by the statement of reasons. I remind members that our decision should be based on whether we agree that the member’s statement of reasons means that no further consultation on the proposal is necessary. We are not deliberating on whether we agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. That would be for a later stage, depending on the outcome today.

Given that Fulton MacGregor will be joining us remotely, I propose to call each member in turn and ask them to indicate whether they are satisfied. For clarity, if members are satisfied, I ask them to vote yes; if they are not satisfied, I ask them to vote no; or they can abstain. I will go around the room, starting with the deputy convener.

Thank you. Emma Congreve is next.

Welcome to the fifth meeting in session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Under agenda item 1, the committee is invited to decide whether to take in private items 3 and 4, which are consideration of the evidence that we will take under item 2 and of our approach to longer-term development work on pre-budget scrutiny. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.