Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.