Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to follow up on Michelle Thomson’s questions about the ownership of properties in our town centres. Derelict properties are a big issue for us that people constantly raise. I will bring in Allison Orr first of all. Absent landlords—Martin Avila mentioned such ownership—can often ask for unrealistic rents, or unrealistic prices for the sale of their properties.

Recently, we visited the Midsteeple Quarter in Dumfries, which is my home town. One of the properties that the project was interested in probably had a value of about £100,000, but it was sold a few years ago for £700,000 and the owners were still asking for an astronomical fee. Why do pension funds and others hold on to properties that are clearly declining in value? What do we need to do to, in effect, wrestle the properties off them or ensure that they bring derelict properties up to a suitable standard so that they are habitable?

What is the incentive for an overseas investor to hold on to a property that is sitting empty and derelict on the high street?

What is the barrier to having more community ownership in town centres at the moment? Is it access to funding or—

I am conscious of the time, but I will give Adam Stachura his “Dragons’ Den” moment. What is the one policy change that we need to make or recommend, or it is just about ensuring that existing policies are better adhered to?

My amendments 4 and 11 would require the bill to provide for active participation by stakeholders at national and local levels in developing good food nation plans. There should be a duty on relevant authorities to seek input and views on good food nation plans in an intersectional and fully accessible way.

In the design and implementation of a good food nation plan, relevant authorities should use accessible and inclusive communication to work with people with lived experience and should set out any representations that have been received and how those representations were considered when preparing any final plans. That should be set out in a statement that accompanies a national good food nation plan. Accessible and inclusive communication could include formats such as community languages, British Sign Language, Braille, Moon, EasyRead, clear and large print and paper formats.

As the committee’s report states, many stakeholders highlighted the importance of authorities ensuring that participation opportunities are not stigmatising—for example, Obesity Action Scotland stressed the importance of being

“mindful of the language used ... to avoid stigmatisation and victim blaming,”

and it pointed out that weight stigma is often a

“barrier to participation and access to services ... Participation opportunities in relation to the production of the good food plans should be mindful of this and take steps to ensure this is eliminated from production of the good food plans”.

Given the range of stakeholders with an interest in good food plans, it is important that any consultation is comprehensive, so my amendment 11 sets out a range of interests that must be included. Of course, it would be open to the Government to add to that in any consultation, so it is by no means restrictive. It is important that the bill goes beyond saying that consultation should simply be with those the Scottish ministers consider to be appropriate.

I move amendment 4.

Convener, I share your frustration that, just weeks before the bill is likely to become law, we still do not have a clear answer from the Government on a food commission, which should be a fundamental part of the bill. Let us be honest: the reason for that is that the SNP and Greens have not yet come to an agreement on it. There has been no effort by the Government to consult other parties or discuss this important issue, despite the fact that, overwhelmingly, stakeholders are of the view that it should be a major part of the bill.

However, at this stage, I will not move my amendment. If it helps you to know this, convener, I will not move any of my amendments in this group, right through to amendment 103.

I very much believe that the discussions to which the cabinet secretary has committed would have benefited from having something in the bill to discuss rather than the blank page that we currently have. I hope that the discussions will be genuine and across all parties and that we seek to come to a consensus, which will require compromise by the Government. We owe that to the stakeholders who believe that a food commission should be a fundamental part of the bill. We must ensure that we get it right.

I will not move amendment 83, but I reserve the right to bring the provisions back at stage 3. I hope that that will not be necessary, and I think that we can reach a consensus on this important issue.

Amendment 83 not moved.

Amendments 86 to 103 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14—Other defined expressions

Amendment 27 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

It is important to remind members that the target in my amendment 7 is for 60 per cent, not 100 per cent. The idea of procuring items from south of the border—or anywhere, for that matter—is not in any way ruled out. The other provisions make clear the importance of our carbon footprint when it comes to procuring items. However, as an MSP for South Scotland, I make no apologies for advocating produce being sourced from the south of Scotland.

My amendment 4 is very clear in underpinning the importance of the consultation being comprehensive and inclusive, and I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on potential wording for a stage 3 amendment. On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 4.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 5 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

That would be our ambition. We believe that collective bargaining should be extended as far as possible. Obviously, we would be open to there being regulations and guidance on how that would work in practice. It requires, for example, trade union recognition. Legislation already exists that puts in place collective bargaining in particular workplaces, and the workplaces that are covered by that legislation would be included.

Like amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, and amendment 31, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, amendment 2, in my name, seeks to provide a purpose clause in the bill. That purpose should be unambiguous, and the bill should enable Scotland to become a good food nation. It must establish a clear framework for legislation and policy that aims to ensure that everyone in Scotland can fully realise their right to food, protects and enhances our environment and animal welfare, improves public health and delivers improved social and economic wellbeing, which is a key point in the Government’s vision for the good food nation.

In its stage 1 report, the committee highlighted that two thirds of respondents felt that the bill needed to be

“clearer on its purpose and outcomes”.

Many stakeholders raised “serious concerns” about the bill’s “lack of ambition” and direction. The bill has been described by the Scottish Government as giving practical effect to the right to food as well as being a means of ensuring that the food system contributes to improved social, economic, environmental and health outcomes. However, those principles need to be in the bill and, crucially, must relate to the bill as a whole, not just a “good food nation plan”, as is suggested in amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

The bill is an opportunity to set out the Government’s ambition for the future of food policy, and that goes beyond just a good food nation plan. Amendment 9 does not achieve that. Unlike the purpose clauses that have been proposed, it simply asks for “regard” to be had to a number of areas, and even the wording of those areas does not offer any meaningful direction of what we want the bill to achieve. A statutory expression of purpose would provide a clearer, more specific statement of the aims of the bill to ultimately assess progress. That is the very clear view of stakeholders, and it would be hugely frustrating if, at this stage in the bill process—when there has been so much consensus from so many organisations and such strong cross-party support—the Government were to unilaterally opt out of that consensus. I urge members to support the amendments in the group, particularly those that propose a purpose clause, because the bill would be weaker without them.