Chamber and committees

At the end of the closure, we want to meet our stakeholders to discuss its effectiveness, or otherwise, and determine how we move forward from there. We touched on what other collaboration we can undertake with industry and academia in relation to data collection and research. We can work together and move forward on that basis. We are undertaking increased monitoring during this period to assess the effectiveness of the closure. Allan, do you want to come in with any further information on that process?

I will bring in Allan Gibb to give more information on that.

The independence of monitoring is important, as is the scrutiny of Parliament. The question that we have to get to grips with is whether we need to establish an entirely new body to do that.

I am delighted to be here to speak about the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is an important and long-awaited step in delivering our good food nation ambitions.

I thank those who have come to give evidence to the committee and those who have submitted written evidence. Reading and listening to that evidence, I appreciate not just the depth of knowledge but also the real passion of experts from across the food system. When we consider the breadth of evidence that the committee has taken and whom it has heard from, it is clear how fundamental food and food policy are and how they connect with and impact on so many aspects of our lives, including health and wellbeing, education and the environment. I look forward to reading the committee’s analysis and views on the evidence it has gathered.

Our journey to becoming a good food nation has been a long one. Although, unfortunately, it has been disrupted by the pandemic, that journey is very much under way. Our vision is that Scotland will become a good food nation in which people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in, and benefit from, the food that they produce, buy, cook, serve and eat each day. A good food nation is a nation in which dietary-related diseases are declining and in which people have ready access to the healthy, nutritious and local food that they need. Being a good food nation means that our produce is environmentally sound and that we ensure the sustainability of our world-class food industry.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill is an important step on that journey, and it underpins the work that we are already doing. Our on-going work on the good food nation includes initiatives on environmental protection, the local economy, workers’ rights, health, biodiversity, education, public procurement and much more. The bill will put such work on a legislative footing through the good food nation plans. The Government will be required to set out its stall for improving the food system and the outcomes that we want to achieve, as well as to measure and report on progress. That will ensure that momentum is sustained in making the improvements in food-related outcomes that we all want to see.

Given that it is a framework bill, at first glance it might appear narrow in focus and perhaps a little dry. However, it gives us the important tools that we need to continue improving the food system and embedding that change for the long term. It also ensures greater coherence of policy across the Scottish Government and makes the necessary links to the decision making on delivery of services at the local level.

I know that there has been discussion in these evidence sessions, and in the wider food community, on the right to food. The Scottish Government believes that the best approach is to bring together a host of rights under future human rights legislation. Although such legislation is crucial, it is the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill that will put in place the long-term planning that is necessary to make both the practical and cultural changes that we need to make human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland.

It is only with the buy-in and co-operation of others that we will see change. We require input and action from our farmers and food producers who grow and make our food; from our retailers and the wider food industry; from the third sector, which cares passionately about effecting real change; from local government and the health service, which deliver key services; and from all consumers. It is my intention that that collective experience and expertise will be used to create the future food plans, to set ever more ambitious targets and to create a cultural shift in how we think about food.

I look forward to discussing the bill and food policy with the committee today. I am genuinely excited about the next stage in our journey to becoming a good food nation as we develop long-term plans for improving the whole system at national and local levels.

As I have said, I am more than happy to hear and consider any recommendations that the committee has in that regard. The relevant authorities are set out as they are in the bill because local authorities and health boards are the public bodies whose remit has a considerable impact in relation to policies on food. I know that some suggestions have been made about integration joint boards but, given the impact that local authorities and health boards have on food policy, we feel that the way in which we have set out the provision is the most reasonable place to start.

On the theme of integration joint boards, the Food Train talked about the impact of food on social care, which is critical. Throughout the bill process, we should bear in mind the proposals for the reform of social care, which will be considered in the current session of Parliament. I point out that the bill states that we can amend the list of authorities through secondary legislation, and I am happy to consider any recommendations from the committee in that regard.

Yes. We envisage their being primarily for subject areas, and I have already written to the committee, outlining examples such as food in schools and community growing. Tracy McCollin might want to elaborate on some of those examples, but I am also happy to provide further examples of how it will work in practice, if the committee would find that helpful.

As I say, we will not consult on the secondary legislation in and of itself. The regulations will set out the specified functions in preparation for the plans, and that is what will go out to consultation.

James Hamilton gave the reasons why we have decided to use the negative procedure, and I intimated in my previous response that it is because there will be detailed and lengthy lists of specified functions. They will form part of the consultation and we would be happy to take views on them. I do not know whether that answers your question.

In relation to participation and our willingness to listen, I am explaining the rationale behind how we have arrived at our position, but I really want to read the committee’s conclusions and recommendations on this and, if improvements need to be made, to consider those fully. We will, of course, consider any recommendations that are made.

As I have said, that consultation will form part of the consultation that we will undertake on the national food plans. We will not consult on the regulations in and of themselves, but they will form part of the consultation. Of course, we will listen to any responses that come back from that.

It has a legal definition, so I will pass that point over to James Hamilton for further explanation.