Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that we have a stakeholder who is really happy with the approach of the SSI. The disappointment comes from the fact that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the plan were supposed to be overarching. We understand that food is of interest to everybody because of health, the economy and so on—it touches so many aspects of life. The SSI seems to narrow the whole process by mentioning some things specifically. It does not provide a full picture, because there are different bits of legislation. Unless someone is totally immersed in legislation, they will pick up on the SSI and miss half of what the good food nation plan is supposed to be doing, and they will see a narrowing of where the plan is relevant. I wonder whether you would have taken a different approach if you had consulted on the draft, because it seems that the SSI pleases nobody and does not meet the aspirations of the bill.

Being so narrow might mean that you miss crucial aspects, such as planning. We all know that, if someone lives in a deprived area, the chances are that they will have an expensive corner shop rather than a more affordable supermarket. Planning is crucial to how we implement all of this, and it feels as though an awful lot is missing from the plan. We are not taking the holistic approach that we hoped would come forward from the act and the plan.

I am not suggesting that it would be an official park email address. It would be an individual email address in the same way as we all have email addresses in the Parliament. It is not for the Parliament to check whether we are reading and responding to our emails; that is down to the individual whose email address it is.

Thank you for your economic, social and cultural rights report on the Highlands and Islands. That really helpful research has highlighted gaps with regard to housing, fuel poverty, healthcare, access to justice and lots of other things. I think that we already understood what the issues were, but it is good to have them written down, because it gives strength and courage to people who have been fighting against those things for a long time. It has also been helpful to parliamentarians, as we have been able to have discussions in the Parliament on it.

How have the Scottish Government and other public authorities reacted to the report? Are there any commitments that you are aware of to address some of the issues that have been highlighted?

Will you be measuring that? I know that other duty bearers—local authorities, health boards and the like—have welcomed the report in so far as it gives them something to go to the Scottish Government with. However, I am not that convinced that they are using it as a barometer for their own work. Will you be monitoring that situation to ensure that changes are made?

That is reassuring.

We can all agree that part 2 of the bill causes most concern, and my amendments 118 and 119 are designed to improve it.

My amendment 118 aims to ensure that there is a balance between climate and nature targets. My amendment would delete the words

“(including, in particular, the net zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009)”.

Those words are unnecessary, because part 2 of the bill gives ministers wide powers to amend environmental law to facilitate progress towards any statutory target. As drafted, the bill would allow changes in support of unrelated targets—such as those related to energy, waste and transport—that risk weakening nature protection.

Specifically referring to climate targets risks creating a hierarchy in which nature protections are weakened in order to facilitate energy infrastructure and other decarbonisation efforts. Powers under part 2 should support nature recovery as well as climate targets and ensure that one is not pursued at the other’s expense. My amendment would remove the implication that climate targets have priority over nature recovery targets.

My amendment 119 would delete section 3(c), which provides a purpose that is intended to ensure consistency and compatibility with other domestic and international legal regimes. That purpose is too broad, it is unclear under which circumstances such a power would be necessary, and it has the potential to be misused.

I would like to make an intervention before you do, because we all have real concerns about part 2.

We are trying to amend part 2 in order to strengthen it and make it less open to abuse, but we will need to take stock between stages 2 and 3. If we do not amend that part at stage 2, there will be the option to remove it at stage 3. Would the cabinet secretary be open to having discussions about concerns that might arise if we do not think that the amendments made at stage 2 actually work?

I am sorry, but I am getting a wee bit concerned now. I thought that there would still be a derogation if something went wrong—for example, if there was an issue with a ferry for a larger herd—simply because that was the explanation that we were given when this provision first came out. I understood that people could apply for a derogation if their bull was sterile or the ferry did not run at the right time, for example. Are you saying that, for people who find themselves in a situation in which something totally unplanned happens, the only provision for them is a claim for only 10 calves?

We welcome the derogations with the calving interval conditionality, but did you consider further derogations for herds with just one bull, those that are dependent on the crofting cattle improvement scheme, or those on islands that are dependent on weather and ferries to get bulls across?