Seòmar agus comataidhean

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I appreciate the concern that has been raised, but if the regulations were withdrawn and we went back and had those conversations, I do not think that I would be able to say categorically that 100 per cent of people were 100 per cent happy with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I am concerned about the gap that would exist if the instrument was withdrawn.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.

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.