Seòmar agus comataidhean

Children and young people throughout Scotland have stated how food insecurity affects them. In 2016, one child pointed out:

“When you’re hungry all you can think about is food.”

Another spoke about the impact of food insecurity on learning, stating:

“It’s really hard to concentrate.”

Children also talked about the potential impact of financial insecurity and not having enough to eat, stating that they felt upset, distressed, worried and scared.

That is absolutely heartbreaking. Who could not fail to be moved by it? However, the factors in those statements are not exclusive to good or bad food but are about a raft of measures that are needed to ensure food security, which would all be covered in the proposed human rights bill. How would the panel address the potential for conflict with, and duplication of, existing legislation and work streams if we implemented the right to food in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill?

I am interested in what Iain Gulland had to say about collaborative working and coming together with purpose and sustainable goals. In the past few weeks, I have been asking committee witnesses about targets, and I have realised that stakeholders have very specific targets and asks that often do not cross over with other stakeholders’ ambitions. In that context, can targets be too much of a constraint on achieving our ultimate ambition for a good food nation? Could they constrain local diversity and approaches that are, as Jim Fairlie touched on, bespoke to a specific area?

How do the witnesses envisage a more collaborative and collective plan for food in Scotland? As Iain Gulland touched on, that is important. It would ensure effective action by connecting with sustainable development goals as opposed to targets, which are perhaps a problem that is part of the need for a whole culture change.

I will ask about target setting. We had a discussion with the previous panel of witnesses about collaboration, the fragmentation that might happen if there is no agreed prioritised view for goal setting and the danger of gaps.

For example, Rachael Hamilton asked about obesity targets and mentioned how obesity is not only a food issue but is also attributed to access to certain food quality and other variables in our environments, such as precarious socioeconomic conditions that cause poverty and health-related inequalities. We know that child poverty is a driver of obesity in children. Much like the poverty-related attainment gap, when one goes up, the other follows.

To use obesity as an example, would we not be setting ourselves up to fail if we had a target for obesity in the plan that was highly dependent on welfare reforms and mitigations? Is there a danger that that would shift focus? Rather than being led by the nose by targets, which might take us off course, should we not take a more holistic view that addresses culture change, embeds good food into our public services and takes account of levers, performance, monitoring and all the natural consequences of that?

First, I thank Evelyn Tweed for lodging the motion for debate. Storm Arwen has been catastrophic for us in the north-east, causing widespread and extensive damage. So much so that we might never see the return of parts of the landscape in my constituency in my lifetime and possibly that of my children.

On his welcome visit to the north-east in the wake of storm Arwen, the Deputy First Minister stated that it was a storm of an extraordinary scale. It affected most of Scotland, but it affected my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast more acutely. The level of damage that was inflicted on the power network was colossal. Indeed, the level of casework and contact with my office throughout the crisis illustrated that people had suffered enormous hardship. One person from my constituency lost their life. For some, the level of suffering that they experienced was unique and devastating.

We in the office had to down tools on everything that we were working on and go into crisis centre mode straight away by acting as a conduit between Aberdeenshire Council and Moray Council, resilience partnerships, third sector community groups, welfare groups and constituents, and arranging welfare checks, water drops and more. We tried to liaise and assist as much as possible.

The good that can come from social media was evident, for a change, but we also needed boots on the ground to spread the word. We were also in continuous online and telephone communication with the power company and Scottish Water.

I have lodged several motions in Parliament recognising individual organisations and business for their response and help for others in their communities during storm Arwen and storm Barra, and in the days following. Those individuals, businesses and community organisations opened their doors to the public, provided hot food and water, charging points, places to wash clothes and, in some cases, even a place to sleep.

The local humanitarian effort was awe-inspiring and reminiscent of those first days of the pandemic, when the true meaning of “neighbour” was evident. It represented the best of humanity at a time when it was needed in the right places. From the military to the volunteers, as well as the brave engineers and staff of the utility companies, many of whom placed their own lives in jeopardy, each and every one of them is a hero in my mind. This is an experience that I shall never forget, and I know that that applies to all of us who witnessed so many going that extra mile. Each of them deserves a medal and praise for their unselfish hard work and bravery.

It should give us all hope and a desire to learn lessons and act upon them. On that point, conversely, the anger and frustration of constituents, the seeming underinvestment in our energy infrastructure in private hands, and the drip, drip of messages about missed deadlines and delays to reinstating power, creating hope and then dismay among many in the dark cold, including the elderly and the vulnerable, are matters of on-going concern and are among a long list of issues that must be addressed. Although we can be eternally grateful for the resilience of local support on the ground, we must reflect seriously on the issues that have been exposed and build on that for our planning for the future.

We must make sure that the resilience arrangements that we have put in place to support people when they go off supply are effective and adequate. I have grave concerns that lessons have not been learned in some regards, not least when SSE changed its policy for support and reduced available compensation at some point between storms Arwen and Barra and the latest storms to hit my constituency hard, Malik and Corrie.

We must hold those with responsibility to account, but I hope that we can do that constructively. I note that, following storm Arwen, SSEN has committed an additional £500,000 to its resilient communities fund to help communities to become more resilient in the face of storms, severe weather and prolonged power interruptions. I look forward to discussing exactly how that will be implemented, and when, and I hope that it is just a start and that the rest will be proportional to profit.

We will face more extreme weather because of our climate emergency, and what we do now will lay the foundations for the future. We must ensure that we can weather the storms together.

I thank Rona Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber. She has been a mentor to me in Parliament and I know that she cares very much about the campaign and about the cross-party group on ACEs, of which I am grateful to be a part.

One of the first organisations that I wanted to meet after I was elected was the WAVE Trust, because I am a parent and because adverse childhood experiences have been a part of my life. Like many who have experienced those circumstances, I had never reached out to any organisation. We try to muddle on and leave the past behind, often not disclosing those past experiences, because we are trying to shut them out and are unaware of how they can eventually catch up with us.

The WAVE Trust has 24 years’ experience of researching and working in the field of trauma. It has delivered training and workshops on adverse childhood experiences across the UK. I support and empathise with the aim of WAVE’s national council. WAVE has created a united voice of lived experiences. Survivors of abuse and neglect, like me, can become powerful change makers in society, coming together to tackle the negative impacts of childhood adversity and working to create a culture focused on the prevention and healing of ACEs.

As a result of my ACEs, I have been on a journey that has led me here, wobbly legs and all. The instability of my legs is caused by adrenaline regulation issues. They are a flight or fight response. Even when I assume that my mind has forgotten, my body remembers. It tries to protect me when there is a sense of anticipation or a slight increase in my heart rate.

As many in the chamber know, I recently tried to speak up on the importance of acknowledging that abusers can and do walk among us. They are often people we know and trust, at least until the mask is taken off. I was subjected to horrific abuse and death threats for saying that. I take the opportunity to thank everyone, from all parties, who filled my inbox with notes of love and solidarity from Parliament and beyond.

That incident pushed me to explain myself. I opened up, albeit with my arm twisted behind my back. Many survivors of childhood abuse have since reached out to me, feeling empowered by my revelation of my ACE. It was in the midst of that that I realised that having a community and support after all these years was incredibly important. The shame is not mine to bear.

Rona Mackay’s motion is rightly a matter for cross-party action and attention. Preventing ACEs means tackling the issue from all sides. I agree with my colleague, the cabinet secretary Mairi Gougeon, who once said:

“This is not just a health issue and it is not just an education issue. It is about health, education, social work, justice, welfare and many other elements all working together to challenge the myriad issues that children face.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2018; c 105.]

The effects that abuse and neglect have on children must never be far from our agenda or our thinking. They never leave those of us who have suffered. They impact us at the time and into our future. I support the WAVE Trust’s campaign to reduce the number of children who suffer abuse and neglect by 70 per cent by 2030 and to take a holistic and far-reaching approach to the causes of abuse and how we go about tackling it.

The campaign on violence against women is finally focusing on perpetrators, holding men to account and telling them, “Don’t be that guy.” In the same way, and while supporting our survivors, we must take a firm stance and shine not just a bright light but a blazing sun on those who neglect and abuse our children.

We cannot continue to fight fires without looking at the source. That means ensuring an education system that teaches boundaries and what inappropriate relationships are, provides an easy route for children to speak up, and a clear path and support for them to be heard and believed. It also means those in positions of authority being able to support those signs early. We cannot let the burden of duty fall on those who have been abused; we must all bear that burden and share it. I thank the WAVE Trust for doing just that.

To follow on from what my colleagues discussed, I have a question that is more specific to you and your industries. We face a cost of living crisis. A couple of days ago, I saw a thread by a butcher, who was explaining the cost of a leg of lamb. A customer had thought that £30 was a lot to pay for it, but in fact that was a discounted price. For anyone to have a reasonable profit and to be viable, a leg of lamb should cost around £50, but that is more than some have for a week’s worth of food.

I know that most people do not have an issue with paying well for good food, but many just cannot do that. We still see poverty and health-related inequalities, because good nutritious food is still a luxury for many. For example, cutting out salt is a luxury when cheap meats are full of saline and food bank foods are full of salts, which you cannot extract. No amount of education can extract that salt—well, maybe you could do it if you are a chemist.

What can we do to address that? I presume that a reduction in food prices would put people out of business and harm the industry and perhaps lower food standards. The issue impacts not only the quality of life for the individual but our economy and health service. How revolutionary would it be for your industries if everyone could afford good local food?

Part of the question that I want to ask further down the line has been answered, but, while we are talking about that issue, I feel that I could amalgamate both of my questions. One is about in-work poverty and one is about targets, which I have concerns about.

Polly Jones spoke about people in food insecurity being quite creative with their food. I spent many years in a food-insecure home, so I understand that. I used to buy an eight-pack of the value shop-brand sausages to fit between five of us. I had to squeeze the sausage meat out of the skins and mix it with breadcrumbs to make some kind of meatballs, mixed with a 9p value tin of soup on some rice, to try to get round five of us in the home. I do not know that that was completely nutritious for us. It was probably high in salts and in natural carbohydrate sugars to bulk up. I have direct experience of that. I had a full-time worker in the house at that time—I was not a single parent.

That is where my concerns come in with regard to the targets. What targets are we talking about? In the processes around food policy, there is a lot of disjointedness and disagreement between certain organisations on what the targets should be. Even if we can agree on a target relating to obesity, for example, obesity is not just food driven. It is driven by stress, mental health, poverty and so on.

In my view, the bill should help to support a real holistic change in culture in our country. I cannot see how that will be achieved by inviting targets in at such an early stage. We could be led by the nose by targets, instead of seeing the natural consequences of changing culture. If we have a target to reduce obesity just through food, that will not work. We will not hit the targets and we will see the bill as a failure, when in fact that is not what it is about. Could we have a more organic and holistic approach to a good food nation and be guided and overseen by a plan rather than led by the nose by targets?

I open that up to the panel. Who would like to come in?

I want to touch on targets and target setting, as I have concerns about that and we have experience in the panel. A lot of the food planning processes that we have can be seen as fragmented between industries, and we have contradictory strategies with diverse policy goals. I asked the previous panel a question about targets, and everybody seemed to have their own targets and wishes, although there was some overlap. For example, one target that was mentioned was having one hot meal a day, but one hot meal a day could be somebody throwing a microwave-ready meal at somebody. So, can target setting be quite detrimental at this stage? Is that what the plan should be about? Should it not be an overview—a guide to how we can holistically create the culture of a good food nation?

John Davidson spoke earlier about the unintended consequences of lockdown, with a bit of a silver lining being that people were buying their food locally and going to local shops and businesses. That was also more practical for the sake of exports/imports and everything else in the light of EU exit. Everything seemed to be compounded and harder at that time, but there was an unintended consequence. If we are going to be led by the nose towards targets, is there not a danger that we will miss the point of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill and what it is supposed to be about?

Thank you, convener. It is “Adam” with no S, but people like to put an S on the end of it.

I thank the witnesses for their extensive answers so far. You have probably already touched on the question that I was going to ask in the previous couple of responses, but I should say that the committee has started to explore what a human rights-based approach to budgeting could mean. There have, for example, been clear recommendations to integrate intersectional gender analysis with the Scottish budget process. What would that look like in practical terms?

We know that investment in particular areas can have unintended consequences, good and bad, so I want to ask not just what the investment looks like in practice but what outcomes we want to see from it.

How much of the investment is mitigation? At the moment, there are rising food and energy costs and rents, which we know will disproportionately affect women. Is there anything that we can do to ensure that we make the most of the money for the long-term vision? The pandemic and our exit from the European Union have compounded a lot of the issues.

What I am trying to say is this: we have this money and we are trying to get particular outcomes from investment in certain areas, but what does that look like in practice, and what exactly can we do to ensure that the money gets to the people who need it the most, to help and support them in the long term?

Dr O’Hagan, will you respond first?