Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I want to make it absolutely clear that, as a Government, we have agreed to incorporate the right to food into Scots law. The issue is, in essence, the vehicle that we choose to use to do that. We felt that it was more appropriate, based on the recommendations of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, for such a right to be part of the human rights bill, which will be introduced in the current parliamentary session. We made that decision because the national task force for human rights leadership stated that that would help to reinforce the interrelationships between rights and obligations. Given that the right to food is related to other rights that are of vital importance, it was felt that it would make more sense and be more appropriate for that to form part of human rights legislation and to be incorporated into Scots law in that way.

Section 3 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill states that we must

“have regard to the international instruments”

that are listed, and the first on the list is

“Article 11 (so far as it concerns adequate food) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.

We have said in the bill that we must have regard to that in our legislation. Some of the measures that I have discussed today, such as our local food strategy, food for life and other initiatives not just in my portfolio but across the Government, are all about giving effect to that right. We are already trying to give effect to that right. However, the forthcoming human rights bill is the legislative vehicle through which it will be incorporated into Scots law.

That is why I have re-established the ministerial working group on food. As members will know from the evidence that the committee has taken and the sheer variety of stakeholders involved, food touches on so many different areas; food is a fundamental aspect of many different things and links all of us in a way. The ministerial working group on food will be crucial in ensuring that we have that coherence and that we consider all the relevant issues as we develop our good food nation plan.

I am more than happy to listen to any views that the committee has on that. It could be considered as part of the development of the good food nation plans.

We want to harness the power that we have in the public sector in relation to food policy. There is a lot of power there, which enables us to have a huge impact. We have seen the impact of some of that work through, for example, the food for life campaign, which we deliver with the Soil Association. The positive impacts from that have been talked about and can be seen in education, health and the local economy.

Currently, 18 local authorities are part of the food for life scheme. We hope to reach all local authorities. The scheme is having a positive impact, so we very much hope to continue that work and develop it.

I am sorry, but I am not sure that I understand the question. Are you talking about the Government directly funding something in particular?

The evidence given to the committee on targets has been really interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what the committee’s stage 1 report says about that issue, because a lot of contrasting opinions have been expressed in response to the committee’s questions.

Some of those who gave evidence expressed concern that, as you suggest, targets could be leading us by the nose. As the committee has heard from many stakeholders, the bill covers so many different areas that it could just be one long list of targets. The concern was expressed that that would become the focus of work on the issue instead of the fundamental change that we want to bring about. Even if we had a narrower range of targets, that could still become the focus.

Another reason why we did not want to put targets in the bill is that the situation is evolving. The targets might change over time and go out of date quite quickly, and, if they were in primary legislation, we would have to amend that primary legislation to change them.

The most appropriate approach is to set out in the plans the outcomes that we want to achieve. Again, the evidence on that has been really interesting. For example, Food Standards Scotland said that it would like to see an outcome related to the Scottish dietary goals. There are a broad range of areas that we would want to cover.

Robin Gourlay said in evidence that he acknowledges that targets would be helpful but that that is not what the bill is about. He said that, instead of being about hitting individual targets, the bill seeks approaches that will drive change in the food system. Concerns were also expressed by the local authorities when they gave evidence to the committee.

I hope that that helps to explain why we have proposed to have outcomes and measures in the plans rather than in the bill.

What we have set out in relation to local authorities is for the preparation of the plan itself. Health boards already have plans in place, and that is where the costs are expected to be negligible. In much the same way that we will continue to have discussions with COSLA, we intend to continue the discussion when it comes to implementation and once we have a better idea. Each plan may be different, so it is not possible for us to quantify all those costs at the moment.

The approach that we have taken and talked about here is about trying to get a balance. It is important that we provide a basis on which consultation and discussion can take place; we are not trying to impose our view. As I said in response to previous questions, we would not form a plan in isolation; we are in constant dialogue with stakeholders. We would not write a plan in isolation and then unleash it on the public; we very much want to hear people’s views and take them on board. As I said, we want the process to be as inclusive as possible. The proposed approach is more about trying to provide the basis that enables discussion to take place, but if the committee recommends otherwise and thinks that the area could be improved, I will be happy to consider its recommendations.

That is part of the work that we will undertake to go through all the possibilities thoroughly. The issues that you have talked about are exactly those that we have experienced in considering the matter before. That is why we need to undertake detailed work to see whether that should be considered.

As you have said, there are a number of bodies. I know that people have suggested in other evidence sessions that it could be something for Public Health Scotland or Food Standards Scotland as well. That is why we are undertaking that work.

Yes.

I am sorry, but I missed the first part of your question.