Chamber and committees

I have listened to the evidence and the concerns and views that people have expressed that the bill is too narrow in scope, but I come back to the fact that it is a framework bill that underpins the work that we are already doing. It puts the good food nation plans on a legislative basis. The plans will contain the detail.

I know that we will probably come on to discuss participation, scrutiny and how all of that will take place, because parliamentary scrutiny throughout the process will be important. However, given the nature of some of the policies that we are talking about, we have set out in section 1 that the plans will contain the outcomes, indicators and measurements of what we are looking to achieve. The plans will ultimately set out all of that and how it will be achieved.

Yes. We will analyse that.

Discussions between officials from the four nations to see what that recommendation might look like are on-going. I do not know whether the officials would like to come in on that point.

That point is separate from the discussion that we are having today about the bill. If you have specific questions about that, I am happy to follow up on that afterwards.

It was really interesting to go through the evidence that the committee heard. The local authorities talked about the flexibilities in the existing procurement system. I think that, in one of the first evidence sessions, Robin Gourlay talked about being able to break down the procurement of meat into 70 different lots, which enables local suppliers to take a place in the process.

The evidence that I am really interested in hearing is what the stakeholders have to say about whether the procurement system is working or whether, as you suggested, we need to examine it. I do not know whether the committee has any comments or recommendations in that regard, but one thing that I took from the evidence was that local authorities, in particular, felt that the procurement process allowed them flexibility.

The costs that you have just mentioned were part of our initial concerns and are the reason why, when the bill was introduced, a food commission or oversight body was not considered. Indeed, the costs associated with such a move can be substantial. I know that Food Standards Scotland’s remit is quite detailed, but I would point out that it cost £50 million to set it up. It is a concern but, in any case, I think that Parliament has a very important—indeed, critical—role in scrutinising this matter.

You are absolutely right. In the financial memorandum, we have set out some of the costs that we expect to be incurred, primarily in relation to the production of a good food nation plan. As I said, everyone is at a different stage of the journey. Implementation might not be as much of an issue for some councils as it might be for others. An authority that is just starting out on the journey will need to find out how it will make the process work and how that work will be resourced, whereas other authorities will have already built that in. It is not possible for us to quantify in the financial memorandum what the on-going costs of implementation of a plan might be, because each plan might be different.

We do not know what the implications of that might be, but the discussions that we are continuing to have with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be important in ensuring that authorities have the right resources in place. Some authorities have already been able to do that in house through other pieces of work that they have been involved in.

There have been proposals for a number of different bodies that could undertake that role. That came out in evidence. That is exactly why we are undertaking careful consideration to fully examine that issue.

I turn that back to the committee and say that I am willing to listen because, obviously, I want to listen as we go through the process. I have tried to explain the rationale for the position that we have reached and for what is in the bill that is before the committee. I am open to hearing recommendations in that regard, given that there have been very mixed views.

As I have said, when the matter was looked at initially, it was not considered that a food commission or an oversight body should be established for a variety of reasons, some of which I have already outlined. I do not think that you would appreciate it if I came here and said, hard and fast, that I was not going to listen to anything that you say or make any changes. That is why the stage 1 consideration of the bill and my hearing all the evidence that the committee has taken are so important. I want to ensure that, when we implement the bill, we get it right. We have already made a commitment to look at the potential for a statutory body. I will not commit further to that at this stage, given that that work will be undertaken.

We would look to publish the national good food nation plan in advance and not expect local authorities to publish theirs at the same time, so that we can set out what we expect from local authorities and help to provide coherence. At the same time, I note the points that we have discussed about the importance of flexibility, which we will take into consideration.