Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss the order. As the consequential amendments in the order are not contentious and seek to tidy up existing legislation, I do not intend to address the committee for very long.

The order seeks to amend and repeal primary legislation and to amend and revoke secondary legislation. The changes that the order delivers are consequential to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and to provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which I will refer to as the 2006 act. The provisions in the 2006 act were commenced last year by way of a commencement order.

The licensing regulations and the relevant provisions of the 2006 act came into force on 21 September last year. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 ensures that existing legislation reflects the recent changes and, where appropriate, substitutes references to now revoked or repealed legislation with references to the licensing regulations.

I highlight that it was not appropriate to bring into force the provisions of the 2006 act that repealed various acts of Parliament until the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 were made. When the regulations came into force, we were then able to commence those provisions of the 2006 act in order to repeal the enactments, because they were then superseded by the licensing regulations.

Now that the enactments have been repealed and new provision has been made in the form of the licensing regulations, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2022 will ensure that the statute book is updated accordingly.

I will end my remarks there.

The bill allows the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to consult whomever they deem appropriate in the preparation of their good food nation plans. Amendments 11, 11A, 75 and 80 would amend the bill to make specific provisions about who should be consulted. Our view is that it would never be practical to list in the bill everyone who should be consulted, and the inclusion of a partial list might inadvertently give the impression that those who are listed are of greater importance or should be given greater weight than those who are not listed.

Amendment 4 would require the Scottish ministers to lay a statement alongside the national good food nation plan to detail how we carried out the consultation in an accessible and inclusive manner and to provide the responses that we received. The Scottish Government is always required to conduct consultations with an eye to accessibility and inclusivity and, given the importance of that, I understand why Colin Smyth lodged the amendment.

However, it would be useful to better understand the additional benefits that the member intends the amendment to provide—for example, we often receive significant numbers of consultation responses, which are already published with an analysis of the responses as a matter of course. We do not see a particular additional benefit to laying the consultation responses before Parliament, but I would be happy to work with the member between stages 2 and 3 to better understand the amendment’s aim and see whether we can come to a solution together.

I urge the committee not to support amendments 11, 11A, 75 and 80, and I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 4.

Amendments 13 and 24 would require the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to act in accordance with their respective good food nation plans. The Government’s view is that the current wording of “have regard to” is the appropriate legal duty. Indeed, it is a legal duty that the Parliament has endorsed on numerous occasions elsewhere in the statute book, as I have mentioned in previous comments.

A duty to act in accordance with something would be appropriate for guidance that sets out how a function is to be carried out. In the case of good food nation plans, which would include outcomes and indicators as well as policies, such a duty would not be as effective.

The good food nation plans will be relevant to a wide range of policy areas and functions. A duty to have regard to the plans, which is the wording in the bill as introduced, will ensure that the plans are appropriately and effectively considered in those contexts. The current wording is, as I stated, the appropriate legal duty and a meaningful legal requirement. The duty to have regard to something is an obligation to consider it when making a decision.

I disagree with Rhoda Grant’s use of the word “only” in relation to a relevant authority being required to have regard to the plan and her comment that the duty does not hold any weight. Ultimately, the duty means that Government ministers and public bodies could be challenged in court for failing to have proper regard to the plans. There are many examples in which that has happened. Therefore, stakeholders will be able to hold the Scottish Government to account.

Taking all of that into account, I am of the view that the current wording of “have regard to” is the appropriate legal duty and I urge the committee not to support amendments 13 and 24.

I will first address Rachael Hamilton’s point and the question that she put to Karen Adam. We have covered that wording in previous discussion of other amendments. The words “have regard to” are used specifically because they have a legal effect. I have already outlined that ministers will be held to account for that, and they have been held to account for it previously. There is strength in that wording and it provides the ability to hold the Scottish ministers to account.

I will now address the amendments in the group. The bill, as introduced, confers several powers on the Scottish ministers to make regulations, and it provides that any regulations that are made using those powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee’s stage 1 report requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers, and any exercise of the power conferred by section 7(2)(c) to make a public authority a relevant authority, should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 60 and 68, in the name of Alasdair Allan, provide for that extra scrutiny, as is recommended in the committee’s stage 1 report. Accordingly, I am grateful to Alasdair Allan for lodging the amendments, and I encourage the committee to support them.

The committee’s stage 1 report also recommended that there should be a formal provision for consultation with regard to specifying additional public authorities. I agree that additional scrutiny would be appropriate in this case. Karen Adam’s amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities. I agree with that amendment and ask the committee to support it.

In our view, amendments 59, 60 and 68 add an appropriate level of additional scrutiny of the Scottish ministers’ powers to make regulations under the bill.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 62, 63, 66 and 67 would make regulations that are made under sections 7(3)(b) and 10 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has indicated that it is content that the negative procedure is appropriate for those powers. For that reason, I urge the committee not to support those amendments.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 61 and 65 would make regulations that are made under section 4 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. However, as noted in relation to the other amendments in the group in Beatrice Wishart’s name, the DPLRC was content that regulations under section 4 should be subject to the negative procedure. Alasdair Allan’s amendments 60 and 68 are in response to the approach that was recommended by the committee—namely, that the first set of regulations that are made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, with subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I am of the view that Beatrice Wishart’s amendments go further than the approach that was recommended by the DPLRC and this committee. For that reason, I urge the committee not to support amendments 61 and 65.

In summary, I urge the committee to support amendments 59, 60 and 68 and not to support amendments 61 to 63 and 65 to 67.

I reiterate that this bill is a framework bill and it provides exactly that—it sets the framework for the good food nation plans. I have listened to members who have lodged amendments, and I understand that they feel strongly that the targets, indicators and additional outcomes that they want to add to sections 1 and 7 are important and that there is merit in adding them. However, my view, which is also shared by a number of stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1, is that setting out targets, indicators and outcomes in detail in the bill is problematic. If they are set out in primary legislation, it is challenging to ensure that they are and remain up to date and meaningful. There is also a risk that the focus will be only on the targets and indicators that are set out in the legislation.

I have been listening to the contributions today and I know that there are a great many issues that we need to tackle. I do not disagree with that or with the ambitions that the amendments are trying to achieve. However, putting those targets and indicators in the bill risks the legislation becoming one long list of targets that might not be relevant in five years’ time. Being able to take account of changing circumstances and make changes promptly and easily is more achievable if the targets are set out in the plans rather than in legislation.

If we were to add targets to the bill, there would be a risk of future food plans focusing solely on those targets and neglecting other, equally important considerations that we should be taking into account. We want food plans to cover the whole of the wide-ranging nature of the good food nation vision. For that reason, I am of the firm view that the place for the level of detail that members are talking about is in the plans. In its stage 1 report, the committee agreed that it would not be appropriate to include detailed targets in the bill and that the good food nation plans are the best place for them to be set out.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 69 and 46 propose text in relation to procurement, and Colin Smyth’s amendment 7 sets out a target that, by 2030, 60 per cent of food that is served on the premises of public bodies should be sourced from Scotland. Of course, there are strict rules around procurement, and that might mean that the intended aim of the amendments could not be achieved. For example, the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union contains a duty of non-discrimination in procurement. That means that a sourced-in-Scotland target would be incompatible with our international obligations and would not be possible to implement. A requirement that imported produce must meet the same standards as food produced in Scotland would have to be considered in the context of international obligations, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and procurement rules. However, the Scottish Government supports the use of procurement to support the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of our areas, and it is looking into opportunities to require local sourcing in public contracts.

I hope that what I have said highlights some of the issues that need to be considered when we are adding text about targets into legislation and that the examples that I have given illustrate my point about the risks that are associated with including in legislation text such as that suggested by the amendments.

Many of the issues in Monica Lennon’s amendments 70, 72 and 77 are already covered in statute, so it is not necessary to include the proposed changes in the bill.

All education authority and grant-aided schools in Scotland are under a statutory duty to comply with the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2008, which set out strict standards that all food and drink served in schools must meet. The regulations would also apply in relation to Beatrice Wishart’s amendments 35 and 49, as they apply to all food and drink provided as part of the school day, including breakfast and lunch provision.

In summary, I again state that the bill is a framework bill and is not the place for the level of detail that is proposed in the amendments—the most appropriate place for that would be in the plans. I therefore ask the committee not to support any of the amendments in the group.

The bill as introduced requires the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard

“to the scope for food-related issues to affect”

matters that are listed in sections 1(5) and 7(6). Those matters currently include social and economic wellbeing, the environment, health and economic development.

Jenni Minto’s amendments 37 and 51 add “animal welfare” to those lists, and her amendments 36 and 50 add text after the word “health” in sections 1(5)(c) and 7(6)(c), so that they would read:

“health and physical and mental wellbeing (including in particular through the provision of health and social care services)”.

Ariane Burgess’s amendments 73 and 78 propose additional wording in relation to the environment in sections 1(5)(b) and 7(6)(b), to ensure that regard is given to climate change and wildlife and the natural environment, as part of the consideration of the environment in the preparation of good food nation plans.

Those amendments reflect evidence that was given to the committee at stage 1, as well as feedback that the Scottish Government has received from stakeholders. Stakeholders told us that, in the lists of outcomes, there should be specific reference to animal welfare, climate change and biodiversity and all types of health, as well as to impacts on the provision of health and social care.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 38 and 52 and Monica Lennon’s amendments 74 and 70 add “education” and “child poverty” respectively to the lists in sections 1(5) and 7(6). I support those amendments.

The amendments mean that, when determining the content of their respective good food nation plans, the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes relating to animal welfare, a broader description of health, climate change, wildlife and the natural environment, education and child poverty.

In our view, the additions that are proposed in amendments 37, 51, 36, 50, 73, 78, 38, 52, 74 and 79 are appropriate and ensure that those important matters will be considered when the content of good food nation plans is determined. The amendments also allow for future additions to the lists in sections 1(5) and 7(6).

However, the benefits of Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 39 and 53, which propose wording that would allow other matters to be added to the lists in sections 1(5) and 7(6), are not so clear. There is already a requirement to have regard to, among other things, the subject matters that are listed in those sections. If Rachael Hamilton agrees not to move amendments 39 and 53, and the consequential amendments 84 and 85, I would be happy to work with her before stage 3 to try to identify alternative wording.

I reiterate that this is a framework bill, so it would be more appropriate to include the level of detail in Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 55 in good food nation plans. For that reason, I urge the committee not to support the amendment.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 41 would require the Scottish ministers to “act in accordance with”—rather than “have regard to”—the international instruments that are listed in section 3 when preparing the national good food nation plan. We consider that the appropriate legal duty is to “have regard to” such instruments, and the Parliament has endorsed that form of legal duty on numerous occasions, as evidenced in the statute book, because it is a meaningful requirement. It is an obligation to consider the matter when making a decision. There are many examples of Government ministers and public bodies being successfully challenged in court for failing to have proper regard to a matter, so stakeholders will be able to hold the Scottish Government to account.

In this context, a duty to “act in accordance with” a provision of an international agreement would be tantamount to incorporation. The Scottish Government is committed to incorporating the rights that are listed in section 3 of the bill in the upcoming human rights bill, but it is important that we do not pre-empt that bill by incorporating certain rights in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. Not doing so will ensure that we create a coherent rights framework that avoids the fragmentation of rights and inconsistent mechanisms for their enforcement. For those reasons, I strongly urge the committee not to support amendment 41.

In summary, I urge the committee to support the amendments in the group that have been lodged by Jenni Minto, Ariane Burgess and Monica Lennon. I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendments 38 and 53 and the consequential amendments 84 and 85, so that we can work together in advance of stage 3 to identify a workable alternative. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the committee not to support amendments 41 and 55.

First, I will deal with the amendments on additional parliamentary scrutiny. The bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the national good food nation plan, and the Scottish ministers are required to lay the plan before Parliament within 12 months of the relevant section coming into force. They must also lay before Parliament every two years a report that sets out the progress that has been made in that reporting period towards achieving the outcomes that the national good food nation plan sets out. They must review and, if necessary, revise the plan every five years and, again, lay the revision before Parliament.

We have taken on board the calls from the committee and stakeholders at stage 1 for greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny for the national good food nation plan. Amendments 5 and 10, which are in my name, will achieve that aim by requiring the Scottish ministers to lay a draft version of the national plan before Parliament and then giving Parliament a 28-day period to scrutinise and comment on the draft plan. The Scottish ministers will then have three months to finalise the plan before publishing and laying the final plan under section 1(1). When finalising the plan, ministers will be required to have regard to any comments that Parliament has made.

The Scottish ministers will be required to demonstrate that they have had regard to Parliament’s views by laying a statement alongside the final plan that sets out what representations they received from Parliament on the plan’s contents and outlining how they have had regard to those points when preparing the final version of the plan. Amendment 18, which is in my name, will ensure that the additional scrutiny process also applies to revised versions of the plan. That approach fairly and appropriately increases the amount of scrutiny that is afforded to Parliament over the preparation of the plan, without unduly complicating or delaying the process of publishing and implementing it.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 12 proposes a similar approach to scrutiny, albeit with a much longer period of 120 days to scrutinise and comment on the plan. As I set out, we believe that amendments 5 and 10 set out a proportionate approach that will still allow for scrutiny, without causing a lengthy delay to publishing the national good food nation plan, which would have a knock-on impact on the relevant authority plans. However, I think that there is middle ground to be agreed on, so I urge Colin Smyth not to move his amendment. I will be happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 to try to find a workable alternative.

Amendments 10A and 12A, from Beatrice Wishart, set out that the Scottish ministers cannot lay a final national good food nation plan unless the draft version is approved by resolution of the Parliament. The proposed approach of laying documents before Parliament, along with a duty to have regard to representations made by Parliament, is an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for good food nation plans. The same process is required for climate change plans under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Adding a separate step that requires parliamentary approval would risk significant delays in agreeing and implementing the plan and subsequent local authority plans, so I urge the committee not to accept amendments 10A and 12A.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 3 and 15 would mean that the national good food nation plan and any revised national plan would have to be set out in regulations. Amendment 17 is consequential to amendment 15, as section 6(4), on the duty to publish and lay a revised plan, would not be required. Amendments 28 and 29, which are consequential to amendments 3 and 15, propose that the regulations in question should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

As regulations set out rules of law, it would not be appropriate to set out good food nation plans in regulations, given that the plans will contain a mixture of outcomes, indicators and policies. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 3, 15, 28 and 29.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 40 provides that

“The Scottish Ministers must publish in such a manner as they consider appropriate any national good food nation plan prepared under”

section 1, but section 1(1) already includes a requirement to publish the plan. For that reason, I ask the committee not to accept amendment 40. Beatrice Wishart’s impetus for lodging amendment 40 might have been to address the concern that, if Rhoda Grant’s amendment 3 were agreed to, the bill would not include an explicit requirement to publish the plan, but that concern is unfounded, because regulations that contained the plan would be published as secondary legislation.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 14 is unnecessary at this stage, as comment on progress is likely to form part of the oversight function of any body that is eventually agreed on. I therefore urge Colin Smyth not to move amendment 14. I would be happy to discuss the matter further before stage 3.

In summary, I urge the committee to support my amendments 5, 10 and 18, which provide a proportionate and appropriate approach to the committee’s recommendation to provide additional parliamentary scrutiny. I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendments 12 and 14, as I would be happy to discuss his proposals in more detail before stage 3. I also ask the committee not to support amendments 3, 40, 10A, 12A, 15, 17, 28 and 29.

That is a proposal that we have made. I hope that I was clear in my explanation and in responding to Colin Smyth’s point. I am sorry that he feels that my explanation was not clear enough on why we are not willing to accept 120 days. Given that we have 12 months to publish the plan, the concern is that such a period could end up in delays; that is why we proposed 28 days. However, as I said, I am open to further consideration and discussion on that.

Thank you.

I thank Maurice Golden and Rachael Hamilton for lodging the amendments in the group. I completely understand the reasons and rationale for trying to ensure that the Scottish Funding Council and IJBs have a role in achieving our aim of being a good food nation.

The committee has recommended that some level of consultation and scrutiny should be associated with the decision to specify additional relevant authorities, and it was always intended that such consultation would be undertaken. I therefore agree that setting out provision for additional scrutiny in the bill would be appropriate in this case. As Ariane Burgess touched on, Karen Adam’s amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities. I welcome that amendment, and I urge the committee to support it when we come to debate it later.

In addition, the committee’s stage 1 report requested that any exercise of the power that is conferred by section 7(2)(c) to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 60 and 68, in the name of Alasdair Allan, which are to be debated later, provide for that extra scrutiny.

The bill as introduced contains a provision to enable additional relevant authorities to be specified. If, in the future, after we have had consultation, it was decided to add either the Scottish Funding Council or integration joint boards, there would be an opportunity for that to happen. To include those bodies on that timeline, using the section 7 power and following consultation, gives us the opportunity to be clear what their inclusion would actually mean for those bodies in practice, and whether it would effectively deliver our good food nation ambitions.

As the committee has noted, there is a need for consultation if new public bodies are to be added to the list of relevant authorities, which is why I strongly urge the committee not to support the amendments in the group. In essence, I want to allow time for consultation so that we can figure out the implications of adding those bodies.

You are keen to cut me out, convener, but that is okay.

The variety of amendments that have been lodged on this issue demonstrate that members of the committee and a number of stakeholders feel that it is important for the success of the bill that a food commission or food commissioner be established. I recognise that the intent of the amendments is to ensure that we make the most of the food plans that will stem from the bill.

However, as the committee did in its stage 1 report, I note that there is a broad spectrum of views on the creation of a new statutory body. For example, some food business groups oppose the creation of a new body, highlighting the need to carefully prioritise Government spending on food policies and other initiatives. Setting up a new statutory body requires careful consideration to justify the role and remit of the body and the costs of establishing it. As part of the Bute house agreement with the Scottish Greens, we gave a commitment to consider the need for a new statutory body, and I continue to work with colleagues in the Green Party, including Ariane Burgess, on developing a way forward on oversight that balances the range of views from stakeholders as well as the associated costs that there would be as a result of that.

As we can see from the amendments before us today, there are a variety of options and models that can be considered to provide oversight, and they will vary in terms of efficacy and cost. Although I am not in a position to support the amendments today, as I set out during the stage 1 debate, it is my intention that oversight will be addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. I therefore extend an invitation to the members who have lodged these amendments to discuss a way forward on oversight with me, and I hope that we can work together to find a balanced approach that takes accounts of the costs and ensures the appropriate oversight and scrutiny of the good food nation plans.

I ask members not to press or move their amendments 26, 26A, 56 and 83 to 103 and associated consequential amendments 30 and 64, in relation to a food commission or a food commissioner, but instead to commit to working with me and Ariane Burgess in the coming weeks to find an approach to the oversight of the implementation of the bill. In the event that those amendments are pressed or moved, I urge the committee not to support them, in order to enable constructive discussions to take place in advance of stage 3.