Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s words. It is important that we listen to stakeholders, particularly on inclusive participation and communication with people who are on the margins, including disabled people. The duty would cement the ambition to achieve a wide and inclusive participatory process. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to work with me to bring the provision back in a way that could be workable for the Government, possibly by changing the wording. On that basis, I will not press amendment 57.

Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.

Food education is vital. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that several social factors impact on people’s ability to source, purchase and consume good food, including transport infrastructure, income and the knowledge and skills required to prepare healthy meals. A third of respondents to the consultation mentioned education, and Scotland Excel said in its submission to the consultation that home economic teaching levels are at an all-time low. Such teaching is required if we are to develop the policy so that it becomes common practice for those skills to become second nature to children as they develop into adulthood. Therefore, it is good to see that additional bursaries will be available for those who wish to take up that career.

Chef Gary Maclean said that we are failing to educate the next generation about food and its preparation and that

“It goes back to the fact that those life skills have not been getting passed down from parents to kids for three or four generations.”

It is vital that we see change in this area. Food education in Scotland is essential. My amendments 38 and 52 add “education” to the bill, to ensure that the issue is covered.

My amendment 39 seeks to give ministers a delegated power to add other items to the list by regulation. That will ensure that more attributes can be added to the list, so that the bill remains relevant and dynamic and that it reflects future food and diet priorities.

The Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 31 seeks to address a number of issues that I believe the bill should set out to tackle. The bill must encompass diet, climate change, agriculture, resilience and public health, and I believe that amendment 31 matches the ambition that the bill intends to achieve.

In proposed new subsections (2)(c) to (2)(e), which my amendment 31 would insert, I have included agriculture and, importantly, farmers. For far too long, farmers have felt frustrated by the lack of local food in schools and hospitals. If we are truly to be a good food nation, farmers must be absolutely at the heart of the bill.

We also need to improve Scotland’s health record on food, diet and obesity. In Scotland, 65 per cent of people are overweight and a third are obese. When it comes to our diet, we have been branded the sick man of Europe, because people regularly eat calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient foodstuffs. According to current trends, by 2035, more than 480,000 people in Scotland will be living with diabetes. It is estimated that 6.7 per cent of men and 4.2 per cent of women are living with chronic heart disease. The issue of diet is covered in proposed subsection (2)(h). I believe that the purpose list—from proposed subsections 2(a) to (i)—is succinct and easily interpreted. The comprehensive list combines to form a robust purpose for the bill.

Amendment 54, in my name and supported by Beatrice Wishart, seeks to ensure that relevant authorities are not short-changed when it comes to implementing these ambitious plans. I want the bill to be a success, but, if it is to be so, we must recognise that authorities need the appropriate funding to fully implement, oversee and execute the provisions.

I move amendment 54.

We are supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 26, which relates to the Scottish food commission, but I highlight that there appears to be a drafting error in proposed subsection (4), as it mentions the Scottish good food commission, rather than the Scottish food commission. Perhaps she could explain that later.

Amendment 56 seeks to introduce a good food commissioner. That is different from but complementary to the commission, and it follows the work of the national food strategy review by Henry Dimbleby.

As members will see, the commissioner would consult a range of stakeholders—from agricultural organisations right through to prison boards. I would want the commissioner to be independent of Government, as is highlighted in proposed subsection (4).

The Government is already supportive of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which has a very successful role, with Bruce Adamson at the helm.

The work of the good food commissioner would be vital in influencing the direction of good food nation plans, and I urge members to support amendment 56.

I would like clarification from Karen Adam on amendment 59, which uses the words “have regard to”. Does she believe that those words are strong enough? Should they be strengthened to ensure that the recommendations from any consultation are properly considered, rather than that being left to the whim of the Scottish ministers?

Could I speak to something that the cabinet secretary said about the phrase “have regard to”? That means taking account of and considering the guidance, but it would be unprecedented not to consider the guidance. I would like clarification, possibly from the officials, on whether the guidance should be specifically considered by the Government, in legal terms.

I am not content, but I will reflect that in my vote.

Thank you.

Another of the annual report’s objectives is

“to work with the Crofting Commission to encourage a healthy turnover of croft tenancies”

to create the demand for new entrants, but the croft house grant scheme gave out only half of its budget between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The budget was £11 million and it has distributed only £6 million. Is there a reason for that?