Chamber and committees

Karen Adam has a short supplementary question.

I call Rachael Hamilton.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill is a Government bill. What are your views? You keep telling us that you will listen to our views. The bill is in front of us. Do you think that we need an independent body to oversee the plans?

You said that some people might be disappointed that the bill is just a framework, and that is perhaps why some of our witnesses have said that the bill lacks ambition. There is no indication in the bill of what that ambition is. We understand that much of that will come through secondary legislation, so, at this time, it is difficult to decide whether the bill will deliver. One witness suggested that it is a bit like putting the internet into a box. We understand that it includes things from soil quality right up to the nutrition of people in old folks homes, the right to food and the cost of food, but why is so much being left to secondary legislation when Parliament cannot scrutinise that? Much of that detail could have been in the bill.

Thank you.

I would appreciate your doing that, because the issue came up in conversation. Such bodies deliver a public service through public funding, but they do so at arm’s length. It would be interesting to find out how their situation might be dealt with.

Just to clarify that, the health boards have said that they agree with you that there will not be financial implications from producing a plan, have they? My fear is that the plans may be restricted, given a health board’s budget. The board might like to put something in its plan yet be unable to implement it, even though the plan suggests that it should be implemented. Are you saying that health boards have responded that they do not have any concerns about the costs or the resources that are required to put a plan together and implement it in the future?

So, at the moment, the boards are not responding, and they cannot really respond because they do not know what the plan might entail. It is not that they do not think that there is any cost; they are unwilling to say what the costs might be because of the uncertainty of the implications in the plan.

On that point, if a public authority were to be added to the list, that would be subject to the negative procedure. However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that that subordinate legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure in order to allow for extra scrutiny. What are your views on that?

I apologise for interrupting you, Rachael, but could you please keep your supplementary question brief? We are fast running out of time.