Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, absolutely. As Ash Cooke outlined, there will be engagement throughout.

This is not a case of the plan being published and that being it. So much work will continue in the background and so many pieces of work are on-going. We are already looking ahead to future iterations of the plan and to reporting and reviews. The plan is the starting point for a new area, but there will be engagement and we will work closely with the Scottish Food Commission when we get any recommendations from it.

Its duties do not specifically relate to that area, but Tracy McCollin outlined the monitoring work that we will do to ensure that we are capturing some of those duties.

If we look ahead to the next few months and the amount of legislation that Parliament will be dealing with, we can see that there is a risk that we might miss some duties that we might need to bring back or to consider in the future. That is why the specified descriptions are important, because they are broader, all-encompassing areas, which means that any legislation would also be covered by the broad descriptions set out in that list. We will keep a close eye on that to ensure that we capture any new duties or powers.

There are specific review points for the good food nation plan within the legislation, and those could act as points where we could also report on how the powers have been exercised. There is also the engagement work that Tracy McCollin and the good food nation team are taking forward, so it is not necessarily a case of waiting for that specific review point. If it transpired that there was another area where it would be appropriate for us to add to that list, we would bring forward another instrument at that point rather than wait for the review period. I hope that that makes sense.

I agree about the impact of planning, but we are trying to ensure that we address some of those issues in the most specific way whereby it will have an impact on what we set out in the good food nation plan. I can only repeat what I said about trying to strike that balance. If, in practice, it turned out that we had missed something in the development of our policy on a specific area, we would bring forward another instrument to try to address that. The monitoring and the work that is taking place across the Government will be really important in picking that up.

I would not agree with that. The approach that we have taken is not so broad stroke that implementation of the plan would not mean anything and would not work in practice.

This has been a long process—we first consulted on the measures early last year—so I would not want to withdraw the regulations and delay any further. We can only look to improve the process from here. I believe that we have covered all the key bases that are set out in the good food nation plan, and we can only look to add to that in the future. I would be concerned if the regulations were not approved, because I think that we have a strong basis here, and not approving the regulations would delay the plan being brought into consideration.

With regard to the overall approach that we have taken, I have highlighted the engagement that has taken place so far and the consultation that we have had in those areas. When it comes to the policies that we have taken forward in the draft climate change plan, I can say in relation to my ministerial portfolio that there are strong links to all the key policy areas that we have covered in that plan. I want to make sure that the good food nation outcomes are considered in relation to the development of the policies that we have put forward.

There is nothing specific listed here. I appreciate that there might appear to be omissions, but that does not mean that discussions have not taken place on such matters or that they have not been considered.

I appreciate the concern that has been raised, but if the regulations were withdrawn and we went back and had those conversations, I do not think that I would be able to say categorically that 100 per cent of people were 100 per cent happy with everything that we had set out in the SSI. We have tried to strike a balance.

The instrument is about the technical aspects of how we put the plan into effect in working across Government. That is why it has been designed in such a way that it relates to the exercise of very specific powers. It represents a strong starting point.

I am concerned about the gap that would exist if the instrument was withdrawn. As has been outlined, we would have a plan, but no regard would need to be had to it when it came to practical implementation. All that we can look to do is to ensure that we monitor the situation and that we can build on the instrument in future if we feel that any key areas are missing in the exercise of the powers in question.

We consulted a couple of years ago, and we have on-going dialogue with stakeholders. We have tried to strike a balance in what we have brought forward.

Yes. There are some broader areas that you could say are not covered, but if you look at the specified descriptions, you will see that the regulations pick up some of the key areas, such as how policies, strategies or any legislation that is developed will have to consider the good food nation plan. Issues such as nutritional recommendations, information requirements and diet-related health conditions will be picked up as part of the specified descriptions. The regulations will ensure that we give the plan due consideration.

I can only reiterate what I said about the strong relationships that exist between health and food policy and the amount of work that has been going on between policy teams to make sure that there is collaboration across the piece and that the plan is given due consideration in those policy areas.

I would not necessarily agree with that, because, if you look at some of the areas that are captured by the specified descriptions, you will see that they include areas that have a direct link to those issues in relation to which there will be the greatest effect. I outlined some of that in response to Emma Harper’s question. In relation to some of the other areas, we are simply not duplicating functions or descriptions that exist elsewhere in legislation.

I had engagement with the seafood industry fairly recently in relation to an issue that was raised by an MSP, but that was about a more specific matter. Officials in the good food nation team and across other policy areas regularly engage with our seafood stakeholders. Those meetings cover a wide variety of matters, as well as the issues that we are discussing today.