Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring in Fulton MacGregor, who is online and has a few questions, I want to pick up on something that was talked about last week, which is now a thread that has started to come through the pre-budget scrutiny. There is a limited envelope and there are different pressures. The pressures that have been highlighted to us are early years provision, free school meals and adult social care—those are the looming pressures that most local authorities face. There has been a call for a national conversation with people about what they should expect from their traditional public services, given that there is a shift in direction—local authorities need to make available that provision, which is important, which means that they need to look at reducing other services, such as libraries.

I want to bring that issue into the scope of the budget challenges piece, because that is the conversation that we are having. There are those three critical areas, but most people maybe do not understand that a big shift is happening. People are going about their daily lives, but they do not understand that there are issues that need to be addressed quite critically and rapidly. We must address the ageing population, as well as the Government commitment in the Verity house agreement around tackling childhood poverty.

I do not know whether I have a question in there, but I want to bring that issue in. Has that come into your thinking?

It was useful that the point that the fiscal framework needs to include the funding formula came up in last week’s meeting. That is the difficult bit. We heard from the smaller local authorities that things have changed in their demographics and that the pressures that they are now seeing are not being covered by the formula.

We will move on to the theme of workforce challenges; you will be glad to know that these are our last few questions.

That is good to hear.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session on the draft Climate Change (Local Development Plan) (Repeals) (Scotland) Order 2025 with Ivan McKee, the Minister for Public Finance. The minister is joined by Adam Henry, who is a senior planner for the Scottish Government. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting.

The instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider a motion that recommends that the regulations be approved. I remind everyone that officials can speak during this item but not in the debate on the motion that will follow it. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Come on in, Adam; you could just rattle through the numbers.

The next item on our agenda is evidence as part of our scrutiny of the proposed national good food nation plan from Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. She is joined by Scottish Government officials: James Hamilton, solicitor; Laura Hunter, procurement policy; and Tracy McCollin, head of the good food nation team. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. We have around 60 minutes for the discussion, and I invite the cabinet secretary to provide a short opening statement before we turn to questions from members.

It is good to welcome you to the committee and to the local government space. As the good food nation plan will affect local government, we thought that it was important for the committee to take a look at it. I hope that our evidence session last week was helpful. It was good to dig into those areas and to talk to local authorities and others about the impact that the plans will have on them.

I will open the questions. Last week, the plan was broadly welcomed—it was welcomed in principle—but some concerns were raised. I am interested in a concern from the Highland Good Food Partnership. In response to the committee’s call for views, it said:

“The Plan does not propose any new actions and targets, neither does it commit to new indicators or areas of policy development.”

I am interested to hear your thoughts on that and where the plan has driven new or further action.

You have talked about the Scottish Food Commission being a scrutinising body. When they were with the committee last week, its representatives talked about the Food Commission being a “critical friend”, but I am interested to hear clearly what the Scottish Government sees the Scottish Food Commission doing to assess the effectiveness of local plans.

The message is loud and clear: a multiyear indication would be really helpful.

Does anyone else have anything new and different to add? If anyone wishes to put an R in the chat function, I will call them in, so that I do not pick on people who do not want to say anything.

Thanks very much for that addition. It is good to understand what that lack of flexibility does in terms of constraints around autonomy and creativity.