Seòmar agus comataidhean

That goes back to some of Emma Harper’s points. As we work through our agricultural reform programme, we are considering what the future support system will look like and what support we will provide. The outcomes that are set out in the good food nation plan will all be part of that. You will see that agriculture is heavily referred to in the plan as it stands, because we all want people to have access to high-quality, healthy, nutritious food and we also talked about the importance of that during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, because it all ties together.

That is an interesting question. The act says that we must consider the views of the food industry and I think it is important to hear all the voices. A wide variety of stakeholders have shared their views with the consultation or submitted evidence to the committee and they are all equally important to me. We must ensure that none of those voices feels that they have been drowned out and that everyone feels that they can get behind the plan.

I understand that there is criticism and that some people feel that there could be more in the plan or that we have not quite got it right first time. This is the first plan, but it is important to me that we have a balance and I would be interested to hear whether the committee thinks that it is not quite right or that there is more to consider.

I certainly feel that we have it right, but I am happy to reflect on the plan if others feel that the balance is not quite right. It is important that I do not engage with just one or two actors but ensure that I am hearing as representative a spectrum of views as possible.

I do not know whether Jules Goodlet-Rowley has anything to add from a health perspective, but I think that we are taking forward some important work in the population health framework and there is also the work that will be done through the diet and healthy weight delivery plan as well as the strong action that we are taking on alcohol. Therefore, I do not see any particularly overt influence affecting the plan as it stands, but I do not know whether Jules has anything to add on engagement.

There have been various iterations since the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, and further regulations and guidance have flowed from the act that are about embedding some of those values.

I do not know whether Jo Mitchell wants to add to that.

I recognise that there are concerns around that. We are waiting for further publication from our analytical colleagues, which will provide more information around the indicators and the framework, so I am happy to send that to the committee when that is available. We will be monitoring closely—we will have the indicators set out in the plan, which will help form the baseline of the monitoring framework that we establish.

Regarding the food commission’s capacity, it is not fully up and running yet. The commission has three members and a chair, but we are still in the midst of appointing a chief executive, and there will be a wider team to support the commission’s work, so it is not necessarily fair to write off the capacity that it will have just yet. As set out in the legislation, it will have an absolutely critical role and be able to offer advice to ministers. The review periods that we have set out and the scrutiny role that the commission will have mean that we will be very strongly held to account on the policies that we have set out in order to reach the outcomes. As part of that, if the policies are not working and not reaching those outcomes, we also have to set out what needs to change and which other pieces of work we will do.

We have been quite transparent that the monitoring framework is not perfect. We know that we have data gaps and areas that are missing, but we have highlighted those as areas that we will continue to work on. For example, we have asked the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to do some work in relation to animal health and welfare, so that we know what the targets or indicators for those areas might look like. With any new information, we need to collect the data that enables us to monitor those areas. That is very much a work in progress, but we have been quite transparent about the work that needs to be done. We will be held to account and the monitoring will all be transparent.

I appreciate that the earlier session ran over so, in the interests of time, I am happy to go straight to questions, if the committee would prefer that.

Those are really interesting issues to get into, and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I discussed them in a round-table meeting on diet and nutrition earlier this year.

I do not think that it is a case of one or the other. If people think that the focus is not quite right in the way that the plan is framed, that is where the committee’s scrutiny is really important. We are more than happy to listen and to see whether any changes need to be made. Having basic skills is important, but we also have a wider opportunity to educate, and we do so much work on that. In my portfolio, we support the work of the Royal Highland Education Trust, which does incredible work in getting kids out on the farm and understanding where their food comes from.

There are huge opportunities in relation to wider skills, and we could be doing more on that. There are many opportunities and careers in our wider food and drink sector. We need to consider whether there are opportunities that we can build into education settings to expose young people to those areas, so that they think of those as realistic careers going forward. There are areas where we know that we have skills shortages and where we could be doing more.

I am keen to hear the committee’s views on some of the evidence that you have heard. However, I think that we have the balance right. It is not one or the other. I do not think that doing one will fix all the issues that we have. As with most of the issues that the committee has been discussing this morning, it is about how we tackle that in the round.

I certainly hope that that will not be the case. For the measures that were passed as part of that legislation, I think that it will not be the case. As I have said, we have set out ambitious outcomes, and I will not sit here and pretend that reaching them will be easy. No doubt members can see from the committee’s workload the number of initiatives and strategies that are in place to try to improve our nation’s health overall. A lot of work is under way, and there is a lot of work to be done.

This plan is the first iteration, but I think that it sets the building blocks. It is a fundamental change in how we work across Government. That takes time to embed, and I think that that is where we have put the focus in the proposed plan. We need to make sure that we get that initial cross-Government working right, and we need to do that well. That will be an important foundation from which to move forward.

The reporting and review requirements in the legislation are that we have to review the plan every couple of years. We need to look at whether the policies are working. If they are not, we need to consider what action we will take.

We must remember the role of the food commission in all this. We have appointed some members and a chair to the commission, which will have a scrutiny role and will monitor the work that is undertaken. With the measures that we have in the legislation, the role that the food commission will undertake, and the foundations that we are building just now with cross-Government working, I believe that we will be in a better position at a point further in the future.

We all have a duty and a role to play in that. We have set out our proposed plan, but health boards and local authorities, as relevant authorities named in the legislation, will have to develop their own plans, set out the outcomes that they want to achieve and show how they are delivering on those. We all have a role and have the responsibility of leading by example to deliver on the overarching outcomes to get the change that we want.

First, I will touch on the recommendations and where we were with the carbon budgets. What was recommended by the Climate Change Committee would have had a drastic and very negative impact on rural and island communities across Scotland. I believe that we can still lower our emissions in a way that involves working with our farmers and crofters, and in a way that supports our rural communities, the wider supply chain and the industries and people who depend on them. That is what we set out.

Every sector in society must lower its emissions, and we believe that we can do that in a different way. Our livestock industry and our red meat sector are important, not just for our health but for our wider economy, particularly in our rural and island areas. It is important that we continue to support those sectors and livelihoods.

I do not see any conflict there, and the dietary advice pretty much says that we need to consume more fruit and veg—we know that we need to do that. It comes back to the point that I made to Brian Whittle about how we get the balance. We have the “Eatwell Guide” and the recommendations in there. That sets out what a healthy, balanced diet should look like, and that is what we hope to achieve.

If anything, I want to see us eating more of what we produce in Scotland. The work that we are doing through the agricultural reform programme and the good food nation is about that.

It is important to mention—we should not forget it—seafood. Look at what we produce—we export much of it. Seafood Scotland does good work, which we are supporting them with, on getting fish into schools and on helping people to understand more about what we produce in our waters, so that they will then make that choice, because they have been exposed to it from an early age. That is important. I just want to make sure that we do not forget that element.