Chamber and committees

I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss the order. As the consequential amendments in the order are not contentious and seek to tidy up existing legislation, I do not intend to address the committee for very long.

The order seeks to amend and repeal primary legislation and to amend and revoke secondary legislation. The changes that the order delivers are consequential to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and to provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which I will refer to as the 2006 act. The provisions in the 2006 act were commenced last year by way of a commencement order.

The licensing regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2006 act came into force on 21 September last year. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 ensures that existing legislation reflects the recent changes and, where appropriate, substitutes references to now revoked or repealed legislation with references to the licensing regulations.

I highlight that it was not appropriate to bring into force the provisions of the 2006 act that repealed various acts of Parliament until the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 were made. When the regulations came into force, we were then able to commence those provisions of the 2006 act in order to repeal the enactments, because they were then superseded by the licensing regulations.

Now that the enactments have been repealed and new provision has been made in the form of the licensing regulations, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 will ensure that the statute book is updated accordingly.

I will end my remarks there.

Amendment 76 seeks to add a further matter to the list of plans, policies and strategies that ministers must have regard to in revising the national planning framework. The existing list was debated at stages 2 and 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in session 5 of the Parliament.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already includes a general provision that ministers must have regard to relevant policies and strategies in revising the NPF. As the draft NPF4 includes food to the extent that it is able to, food would be a matter for consideration in a future review of the NPF. Ministers would therefore be required to have regard to the national good food nation plan.

Adding to that list might set a precedent whereby future bills might deem it necessary to have supporting policy referenced in the 1997 act. That would dilute the highlighting of certain policies in the current list, and would likely become excessive, unwieldy and burdensome over time. That burden could extend to planning authorities of local councils and national park authorities, and an extended list could create a burden of addressing issues that are less core to the operation of the planning system.

Section 4 of the bill already confers a power for specified functions, the exercise of which requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the national good food plan to be listed or described. That would be the more appropriate place to consider how to reflect the planning system, given that the committee agreed in the stage 1 report that the bill is a framework bill. Karen Adam’s amendment 59 would require consultation on those specified functions, which would provide a suitable opportunity to involve planning authorities at that stage.

I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 76.

I am happy to do so, convener. I regret the use of the term “stitch-up”, because I am trying to be open and work with all members on the amendments that are being discussed. What I outlined at the start of my remarks was our commitment in the Bute house agreement and the on-going work that we agreed to carry out on the food commission. However, in the light of the amendments that have been lodged, I want, as I said in my comments, to work with other members on collectively finding a solution before stage 3.

I understand the intention of amendment 54, but I am concerned about the use of the words “adequate” and “effective”, because they could well mean different things to different people.

I am also concerned about including in legislation the requirement that is set out in amendment 54. Such provisions are not included in legislation because they are budgetary decisions, not legal decisions. Placing such a requirement in legislation could result in a scenario whereby a relevant authority could include an ambitious policy in their plan that could make it difficult for the Scottish Government to allocate the funding equitably.

I am fully aware that it will be necessary to ensure that financial support is available for authorities to implement good food nation plans, and we have mechanisms in place to discuss funding for local authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders. Within the scope of agreed budgets, relevant authorities will make decisions about the way to deliver their functions and services, and that is exactly as it should be. Relevant authorities are best placed to make those decisions.

We will continue to discuss the financial impact of implementing the plans with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, and any requirement for additional financial support must be taken through existing mechanisms such as COSLA’s formal financial governance processes, including the joint Scottish Government-COSLA settlement and distribution group and COSLA leaders.

In summary, given the issues with the wording, and the established mechanisms that we have in place to discuss any requirement for additional support with COSLA and health boards, I ask the committee not to support amendment 54.

I believe that a date for stage 3 has been set, and it will allow for what you have suggested to happen. Of course, I have committed to discussing the matter with members, and I have also made a commitment to dealing conclusively with it by the end of the bill process. Members have put forward a variety of options and I am keen to have that discussion.

I will address Rhoda Grant’s amendments 8 and 22 first. As she said, they are modelled on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which sets out a similar requirement. However, the legislative landscape is now different. We have committed to incorporating human rights treaties in domestic law, and a human rights bill will be introduced in the current parliamentary session. That bill will give effect to a wide range of internationally recognised human rights—including the right to adequate food, as part of the overall right to an adequate standard of living—under Scots law, as far as that is possible within devolved competence.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill also contains provisions that require the Scottish ministers to have regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other specified provisions in international human rights instruments, in preparing their national good food nation plan.

Therefore, the aims of Rhoda Grant’s amendments are already achieved by provisions in the bill. The human rights bill is the appropriate place to address the complex interrelationships between rights and obligations across four treaties in a single, coherent and integrated framework, so I strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 8 and 22.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 41 would require the Scottish ministers to “act in accordance with” the international instruments that are listed in section 3 rather than to “have regard to” them. The Government considers that the appropriate legal duty is to “have regard to” them. A duty to act in accordance with such an instrument would be more appropriate for guidance that sets out how a function is to be carried out. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, in the context of this bill, to include a requirement to act in accordance with those international instruments, as that could be tantamount to incorporation.

The Scottish Government is committed to the incorporation of a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in the upcoming human rights bill. That is the right place for this issue to be considered, in order to ensure that we create a coherent rights framework that avoids fragmentation of rights and inconsistent mechanisms for the enforcement of them. It is equally important not to cut across the on-going work that we are doing on UNCRC incorporation. We remain committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC to the maximum extent possible as soon as that is practicable. I consider that “have regard to” is the most appropriate legal duty. It is a meaningful legal text that can be and has been enforced through the courts, as I have touched on in previous comments.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 42 would add general comment 12, on the right to adequate food, to the list in section 3 that, as the bill is currently drafted, the Scottish ministers need to have regard to—or, as amendment 41 proposes, act in accordance with. General comments are not legally binding in international law and, although they can provide useful guidance, they are not drafted with the particular Scottish context in mind. That means that there should not be a requirement for them to be followed in this bill. The upcoming human rights bill will consider the role of general comments in interpreting these international human rights standards as part of a coherent rights framework. Therefore, I strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 41 and 42.

First, I will deal with the amendments on additional parliamentary scrutiny. The bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the national good food nation plan, and the Scottish ministers are required to lay the plan before Parliament within 12 months of the relevant section coming into force. They must also lay before Parliament every two years a report that sets out the progress that has been made in that reporting period towards achieving the outcomes that the national good food nation plan sets out. They must review and, if necessary, revise the plan every five years and, again, lay the revision before Parliament.

We have taken on board the calls from the committee and stakeholders at stage 1 for greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny for the national good food nation plan. Amendments 5 and 10, which are in my name, will achieve that aim by requiring the Scottish ministers to lay a draft version of the national plan before Parliament and then giving Parliament a 28-day period to scrutinise and comment on the draft plan. The Scottish ministers will then have three months to finalise the plan before publishing and laying the final plan under section 1(1). When finalising the plan, ministers will be required to have regard to any comments that Parliament has made.

The Scottish ministers will be required to demonstrate that they have had regard to Parliament’s views by laying a statement alongside the final plan that sets out what representations they received from Parliament on the plan’s contents and outlining how they have had regard to those points when preparing the final version of the plan. Amendment 18, which is in my name, will ensure that the additional scrutiny process also applies to revised versions of the plan. That approach fairly and appropriately increases the amount of scrutiny that is afforded to Parliament over the preparation of the plan, without unduly complicating or delaying the process of publishing and implementing it.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 12 proposes a similar approach to scrutiny, albeit with a much longer period of 120 days to scrutinise and comment on the plan. As I set out, we believe that amendments 5 and 10 set out a proportionate approach that will still allow for scrutiny, without causing a lengthy delay to publishing the national good food nation plan, which would have a knock-on impact on the relevant authority plans. However, I think that there is middle ground to be agreed on, so I urge Colin Smyth not to move his amendment. I will be happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 to try to find a workable alternative.

Amendments 10A and 12A, from Beatrice Wishart, set out that the Scottish ministers cannot lay a final national good food nation plan unless the draft version is approved by resolution of the Parliament. The proposed approach of laying documents before Parliament, along with a duty to have regard to representations made by Parliament, is an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for good food nation plans. The same process is required for climate change plans under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Adding a separate step that requires parliamentary approval would risk significant delays in agreeing and implementing the plan and subsequent local authority plans, so I urge the committee not to accept amendments 10A and 12A.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 3 and 15 would mean that the national good food nation plan and any revised national plan would have to be set out in regulations. Amendment 17 is consequential to amendment 15, as section 6(4), on the duty to publish and lay a revised plan, would not be required. Amendments 28 and 29, which are consequential to amendments 3 and 15, propose that the regulations in question should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

As regulations set out rules of law, it would not be appropriate to set out good food nation plans in regulations, given that the plans will contain a mixture of outcomes, indicators and policies. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 3, 15, 28 and 29.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 40 provides that

“The Scottish Ministers must publish in such a manner as they consider appropriate any national good food nation plan prepared under”

section 1, but section 1(1) already includes a requirement to publish the plan. For that reason, I ask the committee not to accept amendment 40. Beatrice Wishart’s impetus for lodging amendment 40 might have been to address the concern that, if Rhoda Grant’s amendment 3 were agreed to, the bill would not include an explicit requirement to publish the plan, but that concern is unfounded, because regulations that contained the plan would be published as secondary legislation.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 14 is unnecessary at this stage, as comment on progress is likely to form part of the oversight function of any body that is eventually agreed on. I therefore urge Colin Smyth not to move amendment 14. I would be happy to discuss the matter further before stage 3.

In summary, I urge the committee to support my amendments 5, 10 and 18, which provide a proportionate and appropriate approach to the committee’s recommendation to provide additional parliamentary scrutiny. I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 12 and 14, as I would be happy to discuss his proposals in more detail before stage 3. I also ask the committee not to support amendments 3, 40, 10A, 12A, 15, 17, 28 and 29.

That is a proposal that we have made. I hope that I was clear in my explanation and in responding to Colin Smyth’s point. I am sorry that he feels that my explanation was not clear enough on why we are not willing to accept 120 days. Given that we have 12 months to publish the plan, the concern is that such a period could end up in delays; that is why we proposed 28 days. However, as I said, I am open to further consideration and discussion on that.

Thank you.

I thank Maurice Golden and Rachael Hamilton for lodging the amendments in the group. I completely understand the reasons and rationale for trying to ensure that the Scottish Funding Council and IJBs have a role in achieving our aim of being a good food nation.

The committee has recommended that some level of consultation and scrutiny should be associated with the decision to specify additional relevant authorities, and it was always intended that such consultation would be undertaken. I therefore agree that setting out provision for additional scrutiny in the bill would be appropriate in this case. As Ariane Burgess touched on, Karen Adam’s amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities. I welcome that amendment, and I urge the committee to support it when we come to debate it later.

In addition, the committee’s stage 1 report requested that any exercise of the power that is conferred by section 7(2)(c) to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 60 and 68, in the name of Alasdair Allan, which are to be debated later, provide for that extra scrutiny.

The bill as introduced contains a provision to enable additional relevant authorities to be specified. If, in the future, after we have had consultation, it was decided to add either the Scottish Funding Council or integration joint boards, there would be an opportunity for that to happen. To include those bodies on that timeline, using the section 7 power and following consultation, gives us the opportunity to be clear what their inclusion would actually mean for those bodies in practice, and whether it would effectively deliver our good food nation ambitions.

As the committee has noted, there is a need for consultation if new public bodies are to be added to the list of relevant authorities, which is why I strongly urge the committee not to support the amendments in the group. In essence, I want to allow time for consultation so that we can figure out the implications of adding those bodies.

You are keen to cut me out, convener, but that is okay.

The variety of amendments that have been lodged on this issue demonstrate that members of the committee and a number of stakeholders feel that it is important for the success of the bill that a food commission or food commissioner be established. I recognise that the intent of the amendments is to ensure that we make the most of the food plans that will stem from the bill.

However, as the committee did in its stage 1 report, I note that there is a broad spectrum of views on the creation of a new statutory body. For example, some food business groups oppose the creation of a new body, highlighting the need to carefully prioritise Government spending on food policies and other initiatives. Setting up a new statutory body requires careful consideration to justify the role and remit of the body and the costs of establishing it. As part of the Bute house agreement with the Scottish Greens, we gave a commitment to consider the need for a new statutory body, and I continue to work with colleagues in the Green Party, including Ariane Burgess, on developing a way forward on oversight that balances the range of views from stakeholders as well as the associated costs that there would be as a result of that.

As we can see from the amendments before us today, there are a variety of options and models that can be considered to provide oversight, and they will vary in terms of efficacy and cost. Although I am not in a position to support the amendments today, as I set out during the stage 1 debate, it is my intention that oversight will be addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. I therefore extend an invitation to the members who have lodged these amendments to discuss a way forward on oversight with me, and I hope that we can work together to find a balanced approach that takes accounts of the costs and ensures the appropriate oversight and scrutiny of the good food nation plans.

I ask members not to press or move their amendments 26, 26A, 56 and 83 to 103 and associated consequential amendments 30 and 64, in relation to a food commission or a food commissioner, but instead to commit to working with me and Ariane Burgess in the coming weeks to find an approach to the oversight of the implementation of the bill. In the event that those amendments are pressed or moved, I urge the committee not to support them, in order to enable constructive discussions to take place in advance of stage 3.