Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 40 is conditional on Rhoda Grant’s amendment 3, which would require the national good food nation plan to be set out in regulations. I support that. Although new regulations are published automatically, amendment 40 would ensure that the plan was more widely publicised, which is important to strengthen the scrutiny that the draft plan receives and befits the bill’s importance.

Amendments 10A and 12A would strengthen Mairi Gougeon’s amendment 10 and Colin Smyth’s amendment 12, which set out requirements on the Scottish ministers to lay the proposed national good food nation plan before the Scottish Parliament. Although amendments 10 and 12 require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“any resolution relating to the draft plan passed by the Parliament”,

neither requires the Parliament to pass a resolution. Requiring the Parliament to pass a resolution would ensure that the draft good food nation plan received proper scrutiny and that the Parliament had stated a view on the draft plan before the plan moved to the next stage. Amendments 10A and 12A would achieve that by requiring the draft plan to be approved by a resolution of the Parliament.

I have a question for Colin Smyth. What is the definition of “food worker” in subsection (h) of amendment 7? Do you envisage the requirement in that subsection for “collective bargaining agreements” to include small and medium-sized businesses?

What about the definition of “food worker”?

Amendment 41, in my name, requires the Scottish ministers to “act in accordance with” the listed international instruments. I believe that, for the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill to be a success, the duty on the Scottish ministers must be strong, and the phrase “act in accordance with” serves to strengthen that duty regarding the listed human rights instruments. I believe that the amendment will strengthen the bill’s power to enable Scotland to fulfil its human rights obligations.

My amendment 55 requires a relevant authority, when determining the content of its good food nation plans, to ensure that

“the correct balance is struck between ensuring nutritious food is available and the ability to make choices in settings where all meals are provided.”

Those settings include school hostels, where all meals are provided for the school children throughout the school week.

Providing food has to be about not only nutrition but the social and cultural aspects of food, as well as individual preferences. In striking that balance, authorities must avoid being overly prescriptive, which can remove enjoyment and the social elements from meals. Amendment 55 ensures that that issue is taken into account in settings where all meals are provided by a relevant authority.

I note that amendment 55 has been incorrectly listed as being inserted at the end of line 12. It should be inserted at the end of line 11, and that error will be fixed for our stage 3 proceedings.

I have listened carefully to the cabinet secretary. It is vital that we have an independent oversight body to ensure that Scotland, as a good food nation, is fair to everyone and to co-ordinate things across what we have heard in evidence is a cluttered food policy arena. As that would help the journey towards our being a good food nation, I am inclined to press amendment 26A.

That is right.

The six amendments in my name—61 to 63 and 65 to 67—are in three pairs.

Amendment 61 would remove regulations under section 4, which relates to the effect of the national plan, from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 65 would make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 62 would remove regulations under sections 7(2)(c) or 7(3)(b), which relate to the designation of specified public authorities as relevant authorities, from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 66 would make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 63 would remove regulations under section 10, which relates to the effect of the relevant authorities’ good food nation plans, from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 67 would make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

In those three cases, my argument is the same: I believe the affirmative procedure to be the most appropriate in those cases, as it would enable a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations, which is required for the bill to be as robust and effective as possible.

I support the principles of amendment 6, in the name of Rhoda Grant. My amendment 6A would remove the word “carbon” from the phrase “Scotland’s international carbon footprint” at line 13 and replace it with “environmental and social”. The impacts for Scotland relating to the food industry go beyond our carbon footprint—they include ecological impacts and human rights obligations—so I believe that that phrase better encompasses that idea.

Amendment 35, in my name, would place a duty on the Government that the

“national good food nation plan must have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full time education at breakfast and lunch times.”

It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that they have an element of choice in relation to their food options and that breakfast and lunch settings in schools are social places where children and young people feel comfortable. That should be covered by the new national good food nation plan.

Amendment 47, in my name, sets out a small number of high-level outcomes that are to be achieved through the local good food nation plans of relevant authorities. The list covers a range of food-related issues. There is reference to sustainable production contributing to climate and biodiversity targets; animal welfare; health and wellbeing; access to food; resilient local food economies; fair and resilient food supply chains; and reducing Scotland’s international environmental and social footprint.

The list is not exhaustive. Instead, it provides a minimum that enables relevant authorities to have, from the start, a list of outcomes to orient their work and provide a common direction, although the outcomes are broad enough to allow for tailoring to local circumstances.

Amendment 48, in my name, would require that a relevant authority’s good food nation plan must

“set out how the relevant authority will engage with social care providers to secure the achievement of the outcomes of the plan.”

Social care settings are often in the private sector, and the amendment would ensure that relevant authorities engage with those providers so that the food provision needs of people in social care are included in the work of good food nation plans. That means that those people will not be left behind.

Amendment 49 seeks to place a duty on relevant authorities for good food nation plans to

“have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full time education at breakfast and lunch times.”

It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that there is an element of choice in their food options and that the breakfast and lunch settings in schools or social places where children and young people feel comfortable are covered in relevant authorities’ local good food nation plans.

Rachael Hamilton has a brief supplementary question, and then I will bring in Ariane Burgess.

Alasdair Allan made a good point about workforce dispersal. If people are going to be working at home more, they also need digital connectivity. I have always said that there can be work from the outside coming in, but far too many remote areas still do not have the connectivity that they need to allow everybody to have the opportunity of hybrid working, if that is the option.