Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am interested in what Iain Gulland had to say about collaborative working and coming together with purpose and sustainable goals. In the past few weeks, I have been asking committee witnesses about targets, and I have realised that stakeholders have very specific targets and asks that often do not cross over with other stakeholders’ ambitions. In that context, can targets be too much of a constraint on achieving our ultimate ambition for a good food nation? Could they constrain local diversity and approaches that are, as Jim Fairlie touched on, bespoke to a specific area?

How do the witnesses envisage a more collaborative and collective plan for food in Scotland? As Iain Gulland touched on, that is important. It would ensure effective action by connecting with sustainable development goals as opposed to targets, which are perhaps a problem that is part of the need for a whole culture change.

I will ask about target setting. We had a discussion with the previous panel of witnesses about collaboration, the fragmentation that might happen if there is no agreed prioritised view for goal setting and the danger of gaps.

For example, Rachael Hamilton asked about obesity targets and mentioned how obesity is not only a food issue but is also attributed to access to certain food quality and other variables in our environments, such as precarious socioeconomic conditions that cause poverty and health-related inequalities. We know that child poverty is a driver of obesity in children. Much like the poverty-related attainment gap, when one goes up, the other follows.

To use obesity as an example, would we not be setting ourselves up to fail if we had a target for obesity in the plan that was highly dependent on welfare reforms and mitigations? Is there a danger that that would shift focus? Rather than being led by the nose by targets, which might take us off course, should we not take a more holistic view that addresses culture change, embeds good food into our public services and takes account of levers, performance, monitoring and all the natural consequences of that?

To follow on from what my colleagues discussed, I have a question that is more specific to you and your industries. We face a cost of living crisis. A couple of days ago, I saw a thread by a butcher, who was explaining the cost of a leg of lamb. A customer had thought that £30 was a lot to pay for it, but in fact that was a discounted price. For anyone to have a reasonable profit and to be viable, a leg of lamb should cost around £50, but that is more than some have for a week’s worth of food.

I know that most people do not have an issue with paying well for good food, but many just cannot do that. We still see poverty and health-related inequalities, because good nutritious food is still a luxury for many. For example, cutting out salt is a luxury when cheap meats are full of saline and food bank foods are full of salts, which you cannot extract. No amount of education can extract that salt—well, maybe you could do it if you are a chemist.

What can we do to address that? I presume that a reduction in food prices would put people out of business and harm the industry and perhaps lower food standards. The issue impacts not only the quality of life for the individual but our economy and health service. How revolutionary would it be for your industries if everyone could afford good local food?

Part of the question that I want to ask further down the line has been answered, but, while we are talking about that issue, I feel that I could amalgamate both of my questions. One is about in-work poverty and one is about targets, which I have concerns about.

Polly Jones spoke about people in food insecurity being quite creative with their food. I spent many years in a food-insecure home, so I understand that. I used to buy an eight-pack of the value shop-brand sausages to fit between five of us. I had to squeeze the sausage meat out of the skins and mix it with breadcrumbs to make some kind of meatballs, mixed with a 9p value tin of soup on some rice, to try to get round five of us in the home. I do not know that that was completely nutritious for us. It was probably high in salts and in natural carbohydrate sugars to bulk up. I have direct experience of that. I had a full-time worker in the house at that time—I was not a single parent.

That is where my concerns come in with regard to the targets. What targets are we talking about? In the processes around food policy, there is a lot of disjointedness and disagreement between certain organisations on what the targets should be. Even if we can agree on a target relating to obesity, for example, obesity is not just food driven. It is driven by stress, mental health, poverty and so on.

In my view, the bill should help to support a real holistic change in culture in our country. I cannot see how that will be achieved by inviting targets in at such an early stage. We could be led by the nose by targets, instead of seeing the natural consequences of changing culture. If we have a target to reduce obesity just through food, that will not work. We will not hit the targets and we will see the bill as a failure, when in fact that is not what it is about. Could we have a more organic and holistic approach to a good food nation and be guided and overseen by a plan rather than led by the nose by targets?

I open that up to the panel. Who would like to come in?

I want to touch on targets and target setting, as I have concerns about that and we have experience in the panel. A lot of the food planning processes that we have can be seen as fragmented between industries, and we have contradictory strategies with diverse policy goals. I asked the previous panel a question about targets, and everybody seemed to have their own targets and wishes, although there was some overlap. For example, one target that was mentioned was having one hot meal a day, but one hot meal a day could be somebody throwing a microwave-ready meal at somebody. So, can target setting be quite detrimental at this stage? Is that what the plan should be about? Should it not be an overview—a guide to how we can holistically create the culture of a good food nation?

John Davidson spoke earlier about the unintended consequences of lockdown, with a bit of a silver lining being that people were buying their food locally and going to local shops and businesses. That was also more practical for the sake of exports/imports and everything else in the light of EU exit. Everything seemed to be compounded and harder at that time, but there was an unintended consequence. If we are going to be led by the nose towards targets, is there not a danger that we will miss the point of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill and what it is supposed to be about?

Thank you, convener. It is “Adam” with no S, but people like to put an S on the end of it.

I thank the witnesses for their extensive answers so far. You have probably already touched on the question that I was going to ask in the previous couple of responses, but I should say that the committee has started to explore what a human rights-based approach to budgeting could mean. There have, for example, been clear recommendations to integrate intersectional gender analysis with the Scottish budget process. What would that look like in practical terms?

We know that investment in particular areas can have unintended consequences, good and bad, so I want to ask not just what the investment looks like in practice but what outcomes we want to see from it.

How much of the investment is mitigation? At the moment, there are rising food and energy costs and rents, which we know will disproportionately affect women. Is there anything that we can do to ensure that we make the most of the money for the long-term vision? The pandemic and our exit from the European Union have compounded a lot of the issues.

What I am trying to say is this: we have this money and we are trying to get particular outcomes from investment in certain areas, but what does that look like in practice, and what exactly can we do to ensure that the money gets to the people who need it the most, to help and support them in the long term?

Dr O’Hagan, will you respond first?

I see that Chris Birt wants to come in.

I will be brief, convener. I was interested to read about the kitchen table talks that the Scottish Food Coalition and Nourish Scotland developed and which brought people together to talk about the issues in the way that Professor Brennan just mentioned. Are there any other activities that could be used to motivate and enthuse people and get them involved in the development of food policy?

The witnesses touched on targets. I note that Robin Gourlay said that we should not get too hung up on them. How effective are targets, particularly at an early stage? Often, they can drive a narrative, whereas outcomes are more organic. There can be more unintended consequences that might be missed or not noted if things do not sit within targets.

With the bill representing such a vast, high-level overview, would targets be a help or a hindrance when we are looking to change a whole culture? Noting that everyone has their own view on what the priority targets should be, how can we prioritise the targets? Each witness has their own direction of travel today, on which they really want to focus. Would rigid targets not take away the essence of what the bill is supposed to be about, which is more of a guided, natural, holistic culture change?

I open that up to the whole panel.