Seòmar agus comataidhean

I cannot add much more to what I have already intimated in the responses that I have given to the committee. We use that specific language because it has legal effect. The advice is that we would normally use that language in relation to consultations and where guidance is set out in other pieces of legislation. That particular language is appropriate because of its legal effect.

I understand the desire, which is set out in the amendment, for any consultation to be as inclusive as possible, and I absolutely support the amendment’s aims. The issue is important—indeed, it was highlighted in the committee’s stage 1 report. I note that the committee welcomed the commitments made by me and officials that the Scottish Government’s approach to consultation will be as open, accessible and inclusive as possible. As we said in our response to the committee’s stage 1 report, we intend that to be the case for all future consultations on the good food nation plans, and we agree that consultation methods should be tailored to each specific audience.

We already aim to be as inclusive as possible in our communication. So, although I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment behind amendment 57, I am not sure what additional benefit there is in setting out a requirement in legislation to have regard to inclusive communication in relation to the exercise of all functions under the bill. I can see how the duty would operate in the context of duties to consult, for example, and I would support that aim. However, it is difficult to see how a duty to have regard to inclusive communication would operate in the context of some of the other duties that are outlined—for example, the duties to review the good food nation plans and to have regard to the good food nation plans when exercising relevant functions.

The amendment goes beyond what the committee set out in its stage 1 report, and I have concerns that, because of the wording, it might not be workable in practice. For those reasons, I urge Rachael Hamilton not to press amendment 57. Again, I would be happy to work with her in the run-up to stage 3 to find a workable alternative.

Amendments 9 and 23 are a response to the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report on giving further thought to the inclusion of more high-level objectives to reflect the broad vision and ambitions of the good food nation policy. The recommendation also reflected the views of many stakeholders. We agree that it would be valuable to set out our ambition in the bill, to underpin what it aims to achieve.

We have taken into account the recommendations of the committee and the contributions from stakeholders as to how that ambition should be included in the bill. We have carefully considered how to reflect that input while ensuring that any amendment has the necessary legal effect and provides clear direction to ministers.

Amendments 9 and 23 set out five principles that the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to when preparing their good food nation plan. The five principles are intentionally high level and are set out in a format that gives them legal effect and provides clarity for the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities on what is expected of them.

We consider that the right place in the bill to state the principles is immediately following the obligations on the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to prepare the plans. That is so that all the provisions in relation to preparing the plans follow on from one another, in a logical order.

Amendments 16 and 25, in my name, are consequential amendments arising from amendments 9 and 23. The amendments are to ensure that, as well as having regard to the principles when preparing the good food nation plans, the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the principles when revising the plan. Amendment 27, in my name, is also a consequential amendment arising from amendments 9 and 23. It provides a definition of “food business sector”, given that the phrase is used in amendments 9 and 23.

Amendments 81 and 82, in the name of Ariane Burgess, set out that relevant authorities should publish a statement alongside their good food nation plan and any revision of the plan, which sets out how, in preparing or revising the plan, the authorities complied with the requirement to have regard to the national good food nation plan. It would also have a section relating to the principles inserted by amendment 9. I am happy to support amendments 81 and 82.

I turn to amendments 1, 2 and 31, in the names of Rhoda Grant, Colin Smyth and Rachael Hamilton respectively. I recognise the points that the members have made. All those amendments propose text for setting out a purpose in the bill. However, as I hope that I have been able to outline, when drafting the proposed principles of the bill, we have taken care to ensure that they have legal effect. Amendments 1, 2 and 31 do not have legal effect: they are statements that do not place a duty on the Scottish Government or relevant authorities. The effectiveness of the Parliament’s legislative function depends on ensuring that bills, which will become the law of the land, contain only propositions that will have legal effect.

Amendments 9 and 23, in my name, have been drafted to reflect the views of stakeholders, to have the text in the bill that sets out its purpose or objective and to ensure that the text has the legal effect that the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the principles when developing their good food nation plans. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support amendments 1, 2, and 31 but instead to support amendments 9 and 23 and amendments 16, 25 and 27, which are consequential to those.

Amendment 76 seeks to add a further matter to the list of plans, policies and strategies that ministers must have regard to in revising the national planning framework. The existing list was debated at stages 2 and 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in session 5 of the Parliament.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already includes a general provision that ministers must have regard to relevant policies and strategies in revising the NPF. As the draft NPF4 includes food to the extent that it is able to, food would be a matter for consideration in a future review of the NPF. Ministers would therefore be required to have regard to the national good food nation plan.

Adding to that list might set a precedent whereby future bills might deem it necessary to have supporting policy referenced in the 1997 act. That would dilute the highlighting of certain policies in the current list, and would likely become excessive, unwieldy and burdensome over time. That burden could extend to planning authorities of local councils and national park authorities, and an extended list could create a burden of addressing issues that are less core to the operation of the planning system.

Section 4 of the bill already confers a power for specified functions, the exercise of which requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the national good food plan to be listed or described. That would be the more appropriate place to consider how to reflect the planning system, given that the committee agreed in the stage 1 report that the bill is a framework bill. Karen Adam’s amendment 59 would require consultation on those specified functions, which would provide a suitable opportunity to involve planning authorities at that stage.

I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 76.

I am happy to do so, convener. I regret the use of the term “stitch-up”, because I am trying to be open and work with all members on the amendments that are being discussed. What I outlined at the start of my remarks was our commitment in the Bute house agreement and the on-going work that we agreed to carry out on the food commission. However, in the light of the amendments that have been lodged, I want, as I said in my comments, to work with other members on collectively finding a solution before stage 3.

I understand the intention of amendment 54, but I am concerned about the use of the words “adequate” and “effective”, because they could well mean different things to different people.

I am also concerned about including in legislation the requirement that is set out in amendment 54. Such provisions are not included in legislation because they are budgetary decisions, not legal decisions. Placing such a requirement in legislation could result in a scenario whereby a relevant authority could include an ambitious policy in their plan that could make it difficult for the Scottish Government to allocate the funding equitably.

I am fully aware that it will be necessary to ensure that financial support is available for authorities to implement good food nation plans, and we have mechanisms in place to discuss funding for local authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders. Within the scope of agreed budgets, relevant authorities will make decisions about the way to deliver their functions and services, and that is exactly as it should be. Relevant authorities are best placed to make those decisions.

We will continue to discuss the financial impact of implementing the plans with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, and any requirement for additional financial support must be taken through existing mechanisms such as COSLA’s formal financial governance processes, including the joint Scottish Government-COSLA settlement and distribution group and COSLA leaders.

In summary, given the issues with the wording, and the established mechanisms that we have in place to discuss any requirement for additional support with COSLA and health boards, I ask the committee not to support amendment 54.

I believe that a date for stage 3 has been set, and it will allow for what you have suggested to happen. Of course, I have committed to discussing the matter with members, and I have also made a commitment to dealing conclusively with it by the end of the bill process. Members have put forward a variety of options and I am keen to have that discussion.

I will address Rhoda Grant’s amendments 8 and 22 first. As she said, they are modelled on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which sets out a similar requirement. However, the legislative landscape is now different. We have committed to incorporating human rights treaties in domestic law, and a human rights bill will be introduced in the current parliamentary session. That bill will give effect to a wide range of internationally recognised human rights—including the right to adequate food, as part of the overall right to an adequate standard of living—under Scots law, as far as that is possible within devolved competence.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill also contains provisions that require the Scottish ministers to have regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other specified provisions in international human rights instruments, in preparing their national good food nation plan.

Therefore, the aims of Rhoda Grant’s amendments are already achieved by provisions in the bill. The human rights bill is the appropriate place to address the complex interrelationships between rights and obligations across four treaties in a single, coherent and integrated framework, so I strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 8 and 22.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 41 would require the Scottish ministers to “act in accordance with” the international instruments that are listed in section 3 rather than to “have regard to” them. The Government considers that the appropriate legal duty is to “have regard to” them. A duty to act in accordance with such an instrument would be more appropriate for guidance that sets out how a function is to be carried out. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, in the context of this bill, to include a requirement to act in accordance with those international instruments, as that could be tantamount to incorporation.

The Scottish Government is committed to the incorporation of a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in the upcoming human rights bill. That is the right place for this issue to be considered, in order to ensure that we create a coherent rights framework that avoids fragmentation of rights and inconsistent mechanisms for the enforcement of them. It is equally important not to cut across the on-going work that we are doing on UNCRC incorporation. We remain committed to the incorporation of the UNCRC to the maximum extent possible as soon as that is practicable. I consider that “have regard to” is the most appropriate legal duty. It is a meaningful legal text that can be and has been enforced through the courts, as I have touched on in previous comments.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 42 would add general comment 12, on the right to adequate food, to the list in section 3 that, as the bill is currently drafted, the Scottish ministers need to have regard to—or, as amendment 41 proposes, act in accordance with. General comments are not legally binding in international law and, although they can provide useful guidance, they are not drafted with the particular Scottish context in mind. That means that there should not be a requirement for them to be followed in this bill. The upcoming human rights bill will consider the role of general comments in interpreting these international human rights standards as part of a coherent rights framework. Therefore, I strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 41 and 42.

Finding affordable housing is increasingly an issue for people who live in our island communities. I do not know whether the officials who are here today have any further information on that, but, again, I would be happy to raise the topic with my Cabinet colleagues and get back to the member and the committee with further information and more detail. I do not have the figures in front of me.

The islands team will not have done that. I would have to check with housing colleagues about whether they have undertaken such a piece of work.