Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your answer, in which you described where you got the definition from, reinforces my worry that, perhaps, you decided at the beginning to focus specifically on war memorials, and you have not explained why that is specifically the definition. For example, we have seen antisemitic attacks on Jewish graves. If the individuals did not die in an armed conflict, their graves would not be covered by the definition, although I think that most people would recognise that the very same trauma and emotional impact are involved, and the cultural and social significance of those memorials is the same.

I will ask a few comparison questions. I am aware that there is a danger that this is going to sound as though I am trying to create a hierarchy of importance, but I am actually trying to suggest that there should not be a hierarchy and that all these things matter. There is a campaign to raise funds to create a memorial for LGBT veterans—people who served in the armed forces. Many of them died in armed conflict, but some of them would have been persecuted and even tortured by or expelled from the British Army, and some of them are still serving. If it were created, an LGBT veterans memorial would not be covered by the bill, although, if the memorial was to a specific individual from that community who had died in armed conflict, it would be covered.

There is also a campaign for a memorial to those who fought against apartheid. Clearly, that was an armed conflict. Although, at the time, not everyone in this country would have agreed, most people today would recognise that the African National Congress were freedom fighters who were taking up arms against a profoundly evil white supremacist regime. If a memorial was built specifically to Nelson Mandela in Scotland, it would not be covered because he did not die in armed conflict, but if a memorial was built to Steve Biko, who was tortured to death in a South African prison, it would be covered.

Do you understand the point that focusing specifically on war memorials seems to create a lot of anomalies and to cover only some monuments? For example, you mentioned the Boer war. Some would point to the atrocities—the war crimes—that were committed by the British Army in that war. Therefore, the bill would cover monuments and memorials to individuals or groups of individuals who most people today would not say require the same degree of respect as those in living memory or those who fought against fascism. However, it would not cover some monuments or memorials—either those that already exist or those that people are seeking to create—that most people would recognise relate to the very same trauma and have the same social and emotional impact but which would not be covered. There seem to be a lot of anomalies.

I am aware that I have taken up a lot of time, but I have a final question, which is about a potential alternative approach. The policy memorandum talks about non-legislative approaches as alternatives, but it does not consider an alternative legislative approach that seems fairly obvious to me, rather than broadening the bill.

In relation to hate crimes against individuals, we have the concept of aggravated offences. If it is shown in the court that the offence that has been committed was motivated by prejudice on the grounds of race, sexuality, transgender identity, disability or another protected characteristic, the court treats it as an aggravated offence and is required to take that into account in sentencing. It seems to me that, if we want the courts to take into account the real trauma that is experienced by those for whom war memorials or other memorials have a special emotional significance—those memorials might have a special cultural and social significance to the whole country—requiring aggravated offences to be considered in relation to vandalism, desecration or whatever damage was done would be a much more flexible approach. The courts would be required to consider all the circumstances in relation to the meaning and importance of a memorial and the motivation of the offender. Did you consider that alternative approach? If not, would you?

I find this really interesting. Perhaps, in framing my question, I did not quite express the sense that food education is broader than cooking skills—it is not as simple as that. I was thinking back to one of the earliest bills that I had to scrutinise in the Parliament, nearly 20 years ago. We are aware that the attempt to develop the good food nation ethos is 10 years old. Nearly 20 years ago, a piece of draft legislation on public health and nutrition in schools was going through the Parliament—it was the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill. At the time, I took the view that its approach to nutritional standards was reductive, albeit that it might have represented progress at the time in many senses.

Even then, some of the best schools were pursuing that approach and going way beyond it. They were creating a food environment such that, when children were eating, it felt as if a group of human beings were sitting together around a table sharing food, whereas other schools were creating a food environment that looked like a fast-food outlet. That in itself is part of food education. In a lot of schools, food is still consumed in an environment that looks like a fast-food outlet, with disposable packaging on everything and so on. Twenty years ago, some of the best local authorities were doing something completely different—they were thinking about food culture as part of their educational role.

When I talk about food education, I am not just talking about teaching people how to cook. What is our education system really teaching about how we consume and how we eat together?

I will reframe the original question. Is the plan ambitious enough to achieve the transformation in how we educate ourselves and create a culture around food that captures the spirit of what you are talking about? As I have said, that was being done in some places 20 years ago, and it is still being done in some places, but it is far from being the norm. Will the plan deliver that kind of change? Perhaps someone who has not spoken wants to respond.

Are there any other comments on what I asked about?

My last question on food education in the broader sense is about staff—whether they are in schools, hospitals, care settings or other parts of the public sector. Food education is not just about basic skills but about the approach towards the different food culture that we are trying to create among the staff in those organisations. How does the plan engage with an empowering and respectful approach to changing what we expect from people who are working in food and in those environments?

Thank you very much.

Good morning. We had quite an interesting exchange in the previous session this morning, when I was asking about the role of schools and food education. There was a little bit of a tension between the idea of food education as involving a reductive approach to cooking skills and knowledge about what is healthy and unhealthy food, as opposed to the wider role that education settings play. I think that there was some pushback against the idea that the focus should be on cooking skills and some criticism that the plan places too much emphasis on that, but I think that, at the same time, there was a clear understanding that education settings have an important role to play in shaping attitudes to food and attitudes to how people consume. Could you reflect on that balance between the slightly narrower—or reductive, if I can use that word—approach to food education and the wider responsibility of education settings in relation to food culture?

Part of my concern is whether the stated ambition will genuinely be delivered. We have already acknowledged that it is just over 10 years since the first good food nation strategy or document was produced—I forget its title. In the previous evidence session, I was reflecting that it is nearly 20 years since legislation was passed on public health and nutrition in schools. Already at that point, some of the schools that we visited were going way beyond better nutritional standards—it was not instead of, but as well as. They were building a relationship with local farmers, so that the farmers got a sense of the schools that they were supplying to and the children got a sense of where their food came from.

The schools were going beyond nutritional standards in relation to the environment of the school canteen. They were considering whether it felt like a burger joint or like something a bit more down to earth that related to how people eat together. What are young people learning from that environment? It is almost about seeing the canteen as an extension of a classroom, not because it is teaching a curriculum about food, but because it is exposing young people to a food system and to a set of cultural expectations.

Already at that point, some schools were doing great stuff, but a lot of schools were not engaging with that at all, and that is still the case 20 years later. How can you reassure us that MSPs will not be sat around this table in another 10 years saying, “Remember that good food nation plan? It set a lot of ambition, but not much has changed”?

Too much?