Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support the principles of amendment 6, in the name of Rhoda Grant. My amendment 6A would remove the word “carbon” from the phrase “Scotland’s international carbon footprint” at line 13 and replace it with “environmental and social”. The impacts for Scotland relating to the food industry go beyond our carbon footprint—they include ecological impacts and human rights obligations—so I believe that that phrase better encompasses that idea.

Amendment 35, in my name, would place a duty on the Government that the

“national good food nation plan must have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full time education at breakfast and lunch times.”

It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that they have an element of choice in relation to their food options and that breakfast and lunch settings in schools are social places where children and young people feel comfortable. That should be covered by the new national good food nation plan.

Amendment 47, in my name, sets out a small number of high-level outcomes that are to be achieved through the local good food nation plans of relevant authorities. The list covers a range of food-related issues. There is reference to sustainable production contributing to climate and biodiversity targets; animal welfare; health and wellbeing; access to food; resilient local food economies; fair and resilient food supply chains; and reducing Scotland’s international environmental and social footprint.

The list is not exhaustive. Instead, it provides a minimum that enables relevant authorities to have, from the start, a list of outcomes to orient their work and provide a common direction, although the outcomes are broad enough to allow for tailoring to local circumstances.

Amendment 48, in my name, would require that a relevant authority’s good food nation plan must

“set out how the relevant authority will engage with social care providers to secure the achievement of the outcomes of the plan.”

Social care settings are often in the private sector, and the amendment would ensure that relevant authorities engage with those providers so that the food provision needs of people in social care are included in the work of good food nation plans. That means that those people will not be left behind.

Amendment 49 seeks to place a duty on relevant authorities for good food nation plans to

“have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full time education at breakfast and lunch times.”

It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that there is an element of choice in their food options and that the breakfast and lunch settings in schools or social places where children and young people feel comfortable are covered in relevant authorities’ local good food nation plans.

My amendment 42 seeks to strengthen the human rights commitments in the bill by adding to the list of international instruments that is provided in section 3. It seeks to insert in that list, after the reference to article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, so far as it concerns adequate food,

“the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12, Right to adequate food”.

General comment 12 contains details on states’ obligations relating to the production, availability and affordability of, and the provision of access to, adequate food. Therefore, referring to not only article 11 but general comment 12 gives a human rights perspective on food issues a much stronger basis in the bill and demonstrates a strong commitment to ensuring that our national good food nation plans are in line with the international human rights agreements on the right to adequate food.

Amendment 26A, in my name, would amend amendment 26, in the name of Rhoda Grant. I support amendment 26 and the establishment of an independent Scottish food commission. I believe that the commission would be essential in co-ordinating good food nation plans across the food policy landscape.

My amendment 26A adds to the functions of the commission, listed in amendment 26, by specifying that it would have the functions of co-ordinating with relevant authorities in the development of their good food nation plans, promoting good practice in relation to good food nation plans and monitoring the implementation of good food nation plans. I believe that those are key roles that the Scottish food commission could play if the bill is enacted.

I move amendment 26A.

I support the principles behind Colin Smyth’s amendment 11. My amendment 11A would add the phrase “environmental and social” after the word “international” in the phrase “Scotland’s international footprint” to clarify the meaning of the phrase. That is in line with my amendment 6A and would encompass Scotland’s carbon footprint and its international environment, ecological and social impacts.

I wish to remove the word “carbon” in order to widen the ecological impact and human rights obligations. I have a feeling that the phrase “environmental and social”, which is used in the amendment, better encompasses the idea of the international footprint.

What was your second question?

That is a good point. I do not think that there is a legal definition of “social”.

We have a question from Emma Harper. Just for the record, she is no longer acting as a substitute member, as Jim Fairlie has returned to the meeting.

Emma’s screen appears to have frozen. We will move on to a question from Karen Adam. If we can come back to Emma, we will.

I am conscious that we have reached the end of our allocated time, but Jim Fairlie has a question that he would like to put to you.

Alasdair Allan has a supplementary question.

We know how complex population decline is. Better transport links can help to stop the outward flow. We have seen what fixed links or tunnels can do in places such as the Faroe Islands, where there is evidence that they have increased populations and brought people out from the centre. What is your view on that, cabinet secretary? Could such a policy change help to stop island depopulation?