Seòmar agus comataidhean

If you are talking specifically about the list of specified functions in schedule 1, we have tried to capture the issue at a strategic level through the national marine plan. The issue is referenced in the specified functions and descriptions, and there is a wider recognition of the issue in the plan itself.

I appreciate what you set out and the genesis of the amendment, but I have to be clear that this just has not featured among the issues that have been raised with me in relation to national parks. On the overall priorities that have been raised with me in relation to national parks, I have not had a call for us to reconsider the boundaries. Notwithstanding that, there are significant issues in relation to the timing and the resource set out in the amendment, which means that I am unable to support amendment 27.

Amendment 214, in the name of Tim Eagle, would also require time and resource, which could impact on the important delivery priorities of our national park authorities. In responding to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I made it clear that our national parks are accountable and transparent and deliver on their objectives. There is already oversight of their performance by ministers, and their annual accounts are laid before the Parliament, which also has the ability to scrutinise the performance of our parks if it wishes to do so. Therefore, an independent review is not necessary. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 214, and I ask members not to support it.

I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. I attended the Health , Social Care and Sport Committee last week to talk about the health and social care aspects of the proposed national good food nation plan. It is good to be back in Parliament appearing in front of a committee. This might be my first appearance before this committee, but my appearing here shows the broad spectrum of interest in the good food nation plan and how many different policy areas it touches.

Being a good food nation means different things to different people. We probably all agree that Scotland’s food system has a lot of strengths. For one thing, we are renowned for the incredible produce that comes from both our land and seas, but we must also acknowledge that our food system faces many challenges. A key aim of our work through the proposed good food nation plan that we are discussing today is to shift that dial and create a food system that enables and promotes a healthy population, with all the benefits that stem from that.

The proposed national plan sets out the practical steps that we will take to embed this fresh approach to policy development across national Government. However, it will also be the first in a long line of good food nation plans.

It is a forward-thinking ambition, but we are realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are trying to make a systemic change, which will take time. This is an iterative journey, and the scrutiny and input of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Food Commission and civil society more broadly will play an important role in shaping that. The committee will recognise the vital role that local government and our health boards will play in that work. Some are already leading the way in improving their local food systems, whereas others are just at the start of that journey. Ultimately, we are all working towards the same goal: for Scotland to be a nation in which people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in, and benefit from, the food that they produce, buy, cook, serve and eat each day.

I look forward to continuing to work with the committee, the Parliament, local government and health boards as we progress that work.

Once section 10 is commenced, there is a 12-month timescale. It has not been commenced yet because of the discussions that we have been having with local authorities. It is fair to say that it has taken a lot of time and work for us to get to this stage, that is, to develop our existing proposed plan. Between that and our conversations with local authorities, which Tracy McCollin referred to, we have been trying to understand the level of resource that might be required and when it might be appropriate to trigger that section. It is only fair that we continue to have those discussions, because the last thing that we want is to trigger that part of the act and for people to feel that they do not have enough time to have their plans ready within that timescale. That is why that work is on-going and those conversations are continuing. We want to make sure that people feel that they have the resources and the time to introduce and develop the plans.

We will factor in all the points that you have raised when we are looking at when the appropriate time for the commencement of section 10 might be and in the discussions that we will have with local authorities. It is not in anyone’s interest for section 10 of the act to be commenced when local authorities feel that they do not have the time or resources that they need to produce effective plans—we want to make sure that they are able to do that. That is why the engagement is so important.

I certainly hope so. We have tried to strike the right balance. Of course, this is the first step, and it is a big change to the way that the Government works and how we embed different practices and engage across portfolios in addition to the consideration that will have to be given to the plan. It will also be new for local authorities and health boards.

The approach that we have taken is the right one, and the Scottish Food Commission will have an important role throughout the process, because it will be able to monitor and see how all that is working and whether the plan is delivering against the intended outcomes. Time will tell. However, it is important that local authorities have the ability to determine the outcomes that are important for their areas. The indicators and the measurements that they are using are also important. For us to be able to gather that information at a national level, it is helpful to see how things are being delivered overall. How that might work is part of the engagement and discussion that we will have with local authorities.

Right now, the only figures that we have associated with that are those that we published in the financial memorandum to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. Having been through the process ourselves, however, we have taken note of the amount of resource and work that was needed to do that, which is why that on-going engagement with local authorities is important. It is really just about trying to bottom out what that resource might look like.

I recognise that that is the view of some stakeholders, but I know that, as you can imagine, other stakeholders would take the opposite view. As has been outlined, the agriculture budget is ring fenced for that purpose, and the vast majority of that budget goes on the direct payments that we make to our farmers and crofters.

We have not bottomed out what the resource request for the development of the plans will look like. We are just starting our discussions for next year’s budget, so I cannot give any further information to the committee on that. However, as I said, the agriculture funding is ring fenced for that purpose.

I certainly hope so. On access to allotments or other land, the different policy areas that we are looking at and giving consideration to for the good food nation plan will be important. I mentioned section 6 of the 2022 act and the specified functions—how we will have to have regard to the good food nation plan and the delivery of those outcomes as we develop policy or exercise our functions in specific areas. This is our starting point, and we can hope only to improve.

Our work on land reform is an example. It is key in delivering on the good food nation outcomes and, I hope, will provide more access to land.

At the moment, we are undertaking a review of the community right to buy, to ensure that that is working as intended. We understand that a few of the powers are difficult for community bodies to use, so we want to improve on that where possible.

All of that will feed into the good food nation outcomes. A lot of work that is under way is captured by the plan—which will, ultimately, help to deliver on that.

That is why the scrutiny of the plan that the committees are undertaking is so important. If there are particular recommendations that we should reflect on or look to incorporate in the plan, I would be happy to consider them. However, I do not want to give the impression that we do not respect the role of our third sector bodies in delivering. In fact, we support a lot of third sector organisations in delivering towards achieving the overall outcomes that we are seeking.

I would be happy to hear the committee’s feedback on that and on whether the plan should reflect that much more, because we very much recognise that role.