Seòmar agus comataidhean

Loads of questions are going through my head, but I will just stick with what you said about local authorities and health boards. Each local authority and health board has to come up with a plan, which should reflect the Government’s proposals in its good food nation plan. Might there be conflict between a local authority’s land use strategy—we have been looking at issues such as building houses on greenfield sites—and a health board’s plan, which might be focused more on health than on land use? We are trying to support changes to our food system locally, but how will we avoid such conflict? I will stick with local instead of global.

I know that Carlos Monteiro in Brazil has come up with the Nova classification, although it has had criticism and is not quite right. We talked earlier about sausages and heard that even putting a stock cube in soup makes it processed but might reduce the salt intake, for instance. I know that we need to work on the definitions.

I want to ask about the links to poverty and to imposed austerity, which has led to poverty. How is that covered in the plan to support better consumption and maybe reduction of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt and ultra-processed foods?

Good morning, cabinet secretary, to you and your officials.

Before I ask my questions about ultra-processed food, I am interested in the language in the foreword of the national plan. At the very bottom of page 2, it says:

“without the full powers of independence we do not have the complete control of all the levers of food policy.”

I am interested to hear about the powers that we do not have. Is it related to the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and our ability to lever supermarkets or cross-border trading? What do we need in order to have all the levers to deliver a plan?

Thanks for that clarification.

I am interested in ultra-processed foods and the emerging research that says that they are not good for you. In the national population health framework, health-harming products are listed as tobacco, vapes, alcohol and gambling, but ultra-processed foods are not listed. Is that because we are too early in the research to pin UPFs as a problem and as a health-harming product?

I am also interested in the tension between localised food availability, food processing and the role of major supermarket chains, and in what role the national plan plays in addressing some of the tension between the big, global producers and the whole supply chain. How will the national food plan help to address some of the tensions that we see?

I understand what Mark Ruskell is saying. When I was approached about the amendments and, in particular, about arbitration, the issues of cost, timeliness and dispute resolution often came up. The cabinet secretary is proposing that wider engagement should take place so that we can have an improved process for arbitration and dispute resolution. I am therefore happy not to press amendment 542, which will allow us to do some work to improve the process and engage more widely with stakeholders.

Amendment 542, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 28

Amendment 386 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Section 29—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 504, 505, 387, 388 and 521 not moved.

Amendments 506, 309 and 513 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I lodged amendments 536 to 539 to enable a more open and transparent rent review process. There is widespread practice of rent being applied without the tenant knowing which other farm was used as the equivalent that the proposed rent is based on or, indeed, whether another comparable farm was used to assess the rent at all. That results in unnecessary delays and expense in agreeing rent, and it delays the outcome of rent reviews in relation to the increase in rent for the occupier of the holding. I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said regarding amendments 537 and 539, however, and I am happy to consider a different form of wording.

Amendments 536 and 538 relate to rent being assessed on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant who occupies the holding, because a tenant in occupation of the holding could be persuaded to pay rent that was higher than normal. That is sometimes referred to as ransom rent. Tenants might agree to a higher rent in order to avoid the costs of disruption associated with moving to another holding. It is fundamental to ensure that rent is determined on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant, because that provides an equitable basis for rent review. That is a long-standing principle, so I am keen to move amendments 536 and 538.

On amendments 520 and 521, the issue of arbitration has come up a lot in the discussions that I have had regarding the need to have an easier process of negotiating and coming to agreement when there are disagreements between a landlord and a tenant. Provisions on short-form arbitration and for determining the arbitration process would be made by regulation by the Scottish ministers. I hear what the cabinet secretary said about having wider engagement with stakeholders on the best methods for arbitration. I am keen that we support a more cost-effective, more accessible and quicker dispute resolution mechanism, so I am happy to engage more widely with stakeholders, hear what they think and then come back to the issue.

Good morning. It is good to be here. My amendment 524 might seem like a simple replacement of wording—replacing “or” with “and”—but the drafting of section 20(2) might prevent a tenant from claiming compensation for game damage to crops, including deer damage. Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association suggested replacing “or” with “and”, which maintains the current meaning of section 52 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and maintains fairness for both the landlord and the tenant.

My amendment 518 may be considered a probing amendment. Where there is game damage, it can be assessed and determined by an arbitrator. For example, if the landlord and tenant do not agree regarding the damage, that would go directly to arbitration. The process of direct arbitration and assessment of damage would be more cost effective, accessible, timely and efficient as a means of dispute resolution, instead of proceeding to the Land Court.

My amendment 519 allows the legislation to be flexible, so that the provision of and process for arbitration can be determined based on an assessment of what works and what does not, and any regulations that are made regarding the arbitration would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

My amendments future proof the legislation and support effective, faster, cost-effective dispute resolution.

I understand what Mark Ruskell is saying. When I was approached about the amendments and, in particular, about arbitration, the issues of cost, timeliness and dispute resolution often came up. The cabinet secretary is proposing that wider engagement should take place so that we can have an improved process for arbitration and dispute resolution. I am therefore happy not to press amendment 542, which will allow us to do some work to improve the process and engage more widely with stakeholders.

Amendment 542, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 28

Amendment 386 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Section 29—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 504, 505, 387, 388 and 521 not moved.

Amendments 506, 309 and 513 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I state for the record that I have had a lot of support from the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association in drafting my amendments.

My final amendment relates to dispute resolution. It would allow arbitration rules to limit the grounds of appeal by adding the following:

“Any appeal against the award of the arbiter is to be to the Court of Session under the provisions of the Scottish Arbitration Rules as set out in ... Schedule 1 to the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010.”

The amendment would create a mechanism for dispute resolution by arbitration to be binding, with appeal to the Court of Session possible only on limited grounds, as per the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. I am conscious of time, convener, so I will stop there.

I move amendment 542.