Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the Scottish Government’s decision, but I would like the committee to ask it to explain how its decision to consent to the provisions being included in the United Kingdom legislation can be reconciled with its stated intention to maintain regulatory alignment with European Union law and the high standards that Scotland enjoyed as part of the EU when the UK is applying to join free trade agreements such as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP. According to a House of Lords committee report, that raises concerns about food that is imported to lower standards

“undercutting UK farmers and undermining the UK’s food standards regime.”

I will speak to amendments 19 and 20.

Our committee has heard from witnesses suggestions of numerous bodies and organisations that could be added to the list of relevant authorities that will be required to produce plans. After reflecting on all the suggestions, I am content to keep the core list as it is. Once we start adding additional organisations such as the Scottish Funding Council, it begs the question why we are not adding other organisations, such as NatureScot and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the Scottish Prison Service.

I believe that a clear process needs to be set out for adding additional bodies to the list of relevant authorities. That could take the form of a consultation. I plan to support Karen Adam’s amendment 59, which would require ministers to consult before specifying additional public authorities. The decision to add any new relevant authorities should be subject to consultation or to another agreed process or criteria to be established.

Section 9 requires relevant authorities to have regard to the national good food nation plan when preparing their own plans. Amendments 81 and 82, in my name, provide that relevant authorities should publish a statement alongside their good food nation plan and any revision of that plan, which sets out how, in preparing or revising the plan, they have complied with the requirement. The statement will have to set out how the relevant authorities have complied with the set of principles that are inserted by amendment 9, which the cabinet secretary spoke about a moment ago. It is vital that the relevant authority plans, as well as the national ones, reflect those key principles. The statements will provide the necessary underpinning to ensure that the plans are effective.

Amendments 81 and 82 will ensure that there is clarity about how relevant authorities have considered the content of the national plan when drafting their own plans. They also reflect the importance of maintaining clear links between the national and local, acknowledging that a whole systems approach to food requires effective dialogue between those two levels.

I urge the committee to support the cabinet secretary’s amendments in the group and amendments 81 and 82.

I will also comment on amendments 1, 2 and 31. On amendment 1, the purpose of the bill should be wider than to give effect to the right to food; it should be to achieve all the principles that are set out in the Government’s amendment, which includes the principle that adequate food is a human right that is essential to the realisation of other human rights.

In the case of amendments 2 and 31, I prefer the list of principles in amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Her list serves to make clear the purpose of the plans and, by extension, the bill. It has a firmer legislative basis than a general purpose clause. Given that the principles have a specific legal effect, they need to be reflected in the creation of good food nation plans.

Under the Bute house agreement, I contributed to the development of Ms Gougeon’s principles to ensure that they include the good recommendations from witnesses from whom we heard in committee, including in relation to the role of the food system in contributing to the mitigation of climate change; the reversal of biodiversity loss and the improvement in animal welfare; the fact that adequate food is a human right that is essential to the realisation of other human rights; and the importance of resilient supply chains, fair work standards and resilient local economies. I will continue to work with the Government to further improve the list of principles through stage 3 amendments.

My amendments 73 and 78, along with Jenni Minto’s amendments 36 and 37, Monica Lennon’s amendment 74 and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 38, will ensure that ministers and relevant authorities have regard to the scope of food-related issues that will affect the outcomes of good food nation plans. My amendments 73 and 78 will ensure that consideration is given to the climate emergency and the nature crisis in their own right. Jenni Minto’s amendments will ensure that animal welfare is given the consideration that the matter justly deserves. Monica Lennon and Rachael Hamilton have made important contributions through their amendments, which ensure that consideration is given to child poverty and education respectively in good food nation plans.

As the cabinet secretary explained, the benefit of Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 39 is not so clear, but I hope that the Government will work with her to take the idea forward before stage 3.

I press amendment 73.

Amendment 73 agreed to.

Amendments 36 and 37 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendment 38 moved—[Rachael Hamilton]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 39 not moved.

I whole-heartedly agree with the intention to establish effective oversight arrangements to ensure the successful delivery of good food nation plans, and I am happy to support amendment 10, in the name of Mairi Gougeon, which will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is only part of what is needed, and it is clear that we all agree that the issue of strengthening oversight still needs to be addressed.

At the same time, the committee report was not conclusive with regard to the best approach to oversight and, today, we have a number of amendments that take quite different approaches. In order to develop a robust and effective approach to oversight, I am content to continue to work with the cabinet secretary on the matter, in line with the Bute house agreement. As part of that, we need to take a fresh look at all options, including a food commission, which many organisations have called for, as well as a food commissioner.

Thank you very much. I see that Peter Drummond, Dave Aitken and Craig Ross want to come in, too.

Thank you for that, Dave. It is good to hear a rundown of what has been put in place.

Thank you, Peter. Laura Hughes wants to come in on this question, too.

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022. The SSI is a negative instrument and there is no requirement for the committee to report on it. However, given the committee’s long-standing interest in issues related to fire safety in buildings, and following on from the work of our predecessor committee, the intention is that this session will provide an opportunity to discuss that topic more broadly. Then, at our next meeting, we will take evidence on the regulations from the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights.

We are joined today by David Aitken, who is the building standards team leader at Dundee City Council and a past chair of Local Authority Building Standards Scotland; Chris Ashurst, who is the group co-ordinator for the High Rise Scotland Action Group; Peter Drummond, who is the chair of the practice committee at the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and chair of the building standards (fire safety) review panel; George Edwardes, who is the technical steering group manager for the Fire Protection Association; Laura Hughes, who is a manager for general insurance at the Association of British Insurers; and Craig Ross, who is a building standards specialist at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. We have apologies from Dr Paul Stollard, who is the former chair of the building standards (fire safety) review panel.

I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. There are a lot of you, which is fantastic. Before we get started, I want to correct for the record a factual error in one of our committee papers, which states that Dr Stollard chaired the most recent fire safety review panel. That panel was in fact chaired by Peter Drummond of RIAS. I apologise for any confusion.

George Edwardes and Laura Hughes join us remotely. Given the number of witnesses in the session, I do not expect everyone to respond to every question. It would be helpful if members could direct their questions to a specific witness where possible, although I will be happy to bring in others who wish to contribute. If other witnesses wish to comment, they should indicate to me or the clerk their desire to do so, and I will bring them in at an appropriate point. I would be grateful if George and Laura could indicate when they wish to come in by typing R in the chat function in BlueJeans.

I will now open up the session to questions from members. I will ask the first question, which I direct to Peter Drummond. Are you satisfied that the requirement to use only non-combustible material in external wall cladding systems on buildings with a storey that is 11m or more above ground is sufficient to protect occupants from the possibility of significant fire spread up the outside of such buildings?

Thank you. Chris Ashurst has indicated that he would like to come back in.