Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank our witnesses for being not just insightful but educational. In particular, Davie Donaldson spoke about engagement in our constituencies with our Gypsy Traveller community. I will certainly take that away, so thank you for that.

This morning, I have heard a bit about where things in the action plan have perhaps stalled. The pandemic has been highlighted as the reason for that, of course. The pandemic aside, will each witness give me a little insight into parts of the plan that have stalled overall or been held up? We will start with Suzanne Munday.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill could play a crucial role in setting the direction of travel towards a fair, healthy and sustainable food system in Scotland. World-leading legislation that establishes the core purpose of the food system in law, with accompanying systems of governance that ensure progress and accountability, can catalyse a transformation in how our food system works.

That has been the aim and objective of the work that I have experienced as a member of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. By taking a whole-system approach, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill creates a revolutionary framework that ensures that people’s fundamental human rights and the integrity of our ecological home are promoted today and into the future.

The cost of living crisis has created a growing situation in which food is at the heart of some of our biggest challenges in this country. In the committee, we discussed food insecurity. That brought back forgotten memories of just how creative my own family would have to be, not out of choice but out of necessity. I spent time living in a food-insecure home, and I remember the innovative methods that I would use to make a small amount of food stretch a long way to feed my entire family. People simply cannot afford what they cannot afford.

To our nation’s detriment, the most affordable foods are often the ones that are high in salts and natural carbohydrate sugars—particularly long-life canned and packet goods, which are needed to stock food banks. That creates a whole host of societal and cultural issues that feed into the direct link between poverty and poor health outcomes. The implementation of the bill could contribute towards combating that.

I hope that, through our work, we have swept aside the rhetoric of the past around education as a silver bullet. The arguments about obesity being a consequence of ignorance are long gone. I recall many pieces of evidence—from evidence on inequality and ill health to evidence on ecological damage—that shed light on a food system with a sense of injustice that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill will address.

Not least now, in the context of doing what we can, when we can to protect our people in Scotland who are reeling from an escalating cost of living crisis and to mitigate that, we are seeing people who are, maybe for the first time, being priced out of a decent diet, are reliant on food banks and are suffering the consequences of malnutrition and food insecurity.

Engaging with this piece of work has been, and will be, invaluable. The legislation, supported by existing rights and fleshed out as the cost of living crisis grows, will—it has to—make progress. Whole generations are growing up hungry, children’s educational attainment is being affected, opportunities are being denied and potential is not being realised. ?

?It would be true to say that in the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee’s deliberations, attention has been paid to setting targets in the legislation. However, part of the problem is what targets actually mean in this context. ?The bill should not be led by the nose by a focus on targets but led and delivered holistically. l will explain why.

?The roll-out of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill can be led by looking at the positive impact of our changing culture around food.?That wraparound approach provides flexibility and vision in how performance is measured, and a path that does not focus on targets, which could otherwise restrict and narrow our performance outcomes. The here today, gone tomorrow targets that become meaningless in a rapidly changing landscape will not assist the path of the bill into practice and becoming part of lived experience.

People who are experiencing food poverty are concerned not about targets but about actual performance and their personal reality of ?easy access to good food. Facilitating a more holistic approach in the bill underpins the work that is already being done and gives it a legislative basis. Parents are going out to work without having eaten enough because they have given up meals so that their children can eat—what an indictment that is of our political and economic system.?That must change and the bill addresses that.?

?As we now know only too well in our contemporary context, the social, economic and political landscape can change dramatically, as it may do in the coming months. In asking what could be used as markers for outcomes from the law, we must not fall into the trap of having targets become the focus, rather than driving forward a fundamental culture change.?

We must value the people who work to produce and process food, as well as the farm animals, wildlife and natural resources that enable us to eat well. We need a just transition to a food system that is founded on the principles of social and environmental justice, and the bill will provide that.?

We need local authorities to play their part in supporting that change in ways that drive forward a cultural movement in our nation towards getting back to growers, which can be supported by including allotments and community gardens in planning decisions. ??Growing supports our environment and our mental health objectives, and it can provide therapy and community bonding for young and old alike. In particular, it also provides green spaces for people to enjoy, and we saw how important that was during the pandemic.

To enable us to imagine a nation of good food that we can all support, the framework bill includes a vision of a country where we appreciate and can take part in the process of farm to fork, boat to bowl and propagation to our plate.

How does what we are doing with the discard ban compare with the EU approach and what is happening elsewhere in the UK?

I shall certainly never forget the work that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has done on the report over the past few months. It was not only my first substantial piece of work as an MSP and committee member, but is vital in making progress towards become a more inclusive society. Mostly, however, I will remember the work because of the evidence that I heard during our sessions.

I thank everybody who came and gave evidence to the committee, especially those who shared their lived experience. In particular, I mention the End Conversion Therapy Scotland campaign, which has worked tirelessly to ensure that the harmful practice comes to an end here, in Scotland.

I know that there are some out there who believe that LGBT conversion practices will rectify sexual or gender identity, but to rectify something insinuates that it needs fixed. Generations of LGBT people have been made to feel less than, or that there is something fundamentally wrong with who they are, simply for being same-sex attracted or discovering that their gender identity does not correspond with the assumed gender that they were assigned at birth. In that regard, the only thing that is wrong is how societies across the world inflict harm on LGBT people simply for existing.

To get an idea of how unreasonable conversion practices are, I ask members to imagine a world in which cis-gendered straight people were made to undergo methods to change their sexual orientation and gender identity, and instructed to alter their heterosexual or cis-gendered lifestyle.

The psychological torture of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual and trans people cannot continue. Just as cis-gendered straight people are left to live out their lives in peace, with their sexual orientation and gender identity never being brought into question, it is time to leave LGBT people in peace, without intervention.

Not only must conversion practices in Scotland come to an end, but all of us in the chamber today, as role models, public figures and lawmakers, must take responsibility for embodying that change in our day-to-day lives by calling out bigotry where we see it, offering support to those who need it and standing shoulder to shoulder against all forms of abuse.

During one of the committee’s evidence sessions on conversion practices, we heard from two people in a closed meeting. After that session, I broke down; I was in my office with my face in my hands. It was extremely hard to hear of the practical methods of torture in reality and the psychological harm that we as a society have inflicted on so many. The torment that had been endured by an individual I had just spoken with was cruel and torturous. The entire time, I could not stop thinking about how unnecessary that woman’s experience was; it happened simply because she is trans. What she had needed more than anything was love, support and acceptance; instead, she endured torment and abuse in the form of gaslighting. The stigma and outdated pressures that forced that situation to happen are, thankfully, now not seen as acceptable.

Many in society now support a ban. As colleagues have said today, many medical and psychology professionals, regulatory bodies such as the British Medical Association, and most faith leaders support a ban. I am delighted that the hard-working campaigners have been heard and that the voices of those with lived experience have been listened to. I am also delighted to see the work that the Government is doing to progress a ban on those practices. However, we must take that as one part of the many that are required to eradicate any notion that being LGBTQIA+ is anything but okay.

We must move to acknowledge that being cis gendered and heterosexual is not the default setting for a human being. Not only should we not discriminate against someone based on their sexuality or gender identity, we should actively welcome and embrace into our culture here, in Scotland, the many varied and wonderful people who make up our country.

Although the creelers do not catch cod, I am sure that they understand the reasons for protecting cod spawning areas. They will understand that no man is an island and that, when it comes to protecting our seas and our environment, we are all in this together. I am sure that they do not take a selfish view.

How important is it that we have on-going dialogue with stakeholders, and everyone else, so that we ensure that we all understand that the closure is for the greater good of our seas and of the economic environment of our coastal communities?

Yes, it was about how that is affected by the various competing bodies.

I will not support the motion to annul. After hearing the evidence, I am in favour of protecting the cod spawning grounds for future generations and the future sustainability of fishing for coastal communities. I hear and understand that there are competing views on the matter and the Scottish Government has been reflective in its process, and I am glad that there will be discussions about that. I am glad that Rachael Hamilton is concerned about the wellbeing of and socioeconomic implications for fishermen in coastal areas, and I hope that we see more of that.

There are long-term implications for our fishing and coastal communities—I represent one—in relation to Brexit and the rising cost of living. Adding an environmental disaster on top of that and reducing the potential amount of cod for future generations would be too big of an impact, so I will not support the motion.

Overall, what has been clear today is that Scotland’s marine environment is one of this country’s greatest treasures, and it is right that we continue to take robust steps to ensure that it remains a prized asset for our future generations. However, it can often be quite complex to get the balance right between competing interests, and there are potential tensions. Has there been a reasonable level of recognition of the complexity involved in taking these decisions—carefully balancing environmental, social and economic interests and using the best evidence that is available to you to protect marine species while allowing fishing activity?

A challenge lies in the fact that we must maintain data collection that allows us to understand not only how marine systems function at various levels and locations, but how various human activities affect our seas and what action is required in different contexts. In terms of Marine Scotland’s resources, how is the methodology of capturing evidence challenged by various competing bodies, sectors and interests in a world that is—rightly—dominated by concerns about climate change? What is the potential consequence of not using the best available evidence? What would be the consequence of not taking a precautionary approach?

Is there any effect on—