Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee to discuss the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal for a right to food (Scotland) bill. It is quite fitting that we are talking about this in challenge poverty week.

The committee is being asked to determine whether it is content with the statement of reasons, which sets out why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a consultation on my proposal.

My proposal is, in effect, the same as the proposal that Elaine Smith lodged in the previous parliamentary session, that is, to incorporate the right to food into Scots law. Elaine Smith obtained the right to introduce a bill, but there was not enough time left in the session to do so. A consultation on her proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a wide range of individuals and organisations from different sectors and backgrounds. The individual responses, and a summary of the responses, are publicly available online—the committee has probably seen them.

The variety of responses to the consultation from the public and other stakeholders across Scotland remain relevant to my proposal, as do many of the studies and papers that have been published on the right to food.

To repeat the consultation process for what is, in effect, the same bill proposal that Elaine Smith originally consulted on and lodged would be an unnecessary duplication of work, particularly given that the consultation closed only a little over a year ago, in September 2020, and such a timeframe fits with that of other bills.

Therefore, I hope that the committee agrees that further consultation is not required in this instance. I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have.

As I said, a number of those organisations were statutory bodies, such as health boards, which might not have seen the proposal as their number 1 priority. They might have expected others to respond on their behalf.

I am aware that those pieces of legislation have been promised. It was promised that the good food nation bill would be introduced in the previous session, but its introduction has been held across to this session.

The Government has said that it does not plan to incorporate a right to food in the good food nation bill. It has made it clear that it is looking at the issue more in the context of its proposed human rights bill. However, it is not clear to me whether, as part of the human rights bill, it would have the vehicle for delivery that forms part of my proposed bill. If the committee decides that I can proceed with my bill, based on the previous consultation, the Government will have the opportunity, once I have introduced it, to take it over, should it decide to legislate in that way. Therefore, nothing will be lost—it will be able to go ahead and do that. However, if the Government did not want to have such a vehicle for implementation, I could proceed with the bill, and the Government could comment on it at that stage.

In the previous parliamentary session, I had discussions with the previous Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity about the proposed good food nation bill, because I was interested in whether the bill would include commitments such as those that I am seeking. I have not had formal discussions in this session, although I have been lodging questions and trying to get more information.

I am happy to work with the Government on my proposal and would look forward to doing that; I would like to see what it is doing and how we can work together. I think that most people would agree that in a country that is as rich as ours and that has the food supply that we have—we are so proud of the food that we produce—no one should be going without food. I think that we can all sign up to that aim, and I would be happy to work with the Government to try to realise it.

I do not think so. We have had a Government consultation and Elaine Smith’s consultation, and a fair amount of discussion has taken place—the statement of reasons goes over that ground. Other proposals, including for good legislation, have come forward with much less consultation and far fewer consultation responses. The issue has been well consulted on and another consultation would simply delay action.

If the pandemic has shown us anything, it is the need for a right to food in Scotland. We have seen people going hungry. When people were self-isolating due to Covid, they needed things in place that ensured that they were able to eat. In the past fortnight, we have heard about the very sad case of a pensioner in Scotland who starved to death. I do not think that we can afford to delay action on an issue that is costing lives—it is also costing life chances, because we know that young people who grow up without having an adequate diet end up having huge health issues, for which we all pay, down the line. We see malnutrition and we see obesity—there are huge problems that we need to deal with, right now. The pandemic has, if anything, delayed legislation in the area. We cannot afford to delay further.

As Nick Hawthorne said, approving the statement of reasons and allowing the proposal to go forward today would not interfere with that in any way whatsoever.

I think that the convener is asking me why I am pursuing the matter, because he believes that the Scottish Government will do that. I am pursuing it because, although I know that the Scottish Government has said that it will enshrine human rights in Scottish law, I am not clear about whether it will provide a vehicle to ensure that those human rights are implemented. My bill would do both—it would not only enshrine in Scottish law the human right to food but provide a vehicle to oversee the implementation of that. That is the bit that I am not entirely clear about in relation to the Government. However, as Nick Hawthorne said, if the Government is clear that it wants to do that, it can take over the bill. Approving the statement of reasons would not affect that.

Given the complexity of the food system, it would—in a way—be better if the Government did take over the bill, because it could make it move in ways that I, as a member, probably could not. It could tie it up much better and produce much more complex legislation. I am pursuing the matter not to try to beat the Government to it but to make sure that that happens. If the Government decides to take over the bill, I will cheer it on and happily hand over the proposal.

I am not entirely clear about how the Scottish Government intends to introduce its human rights bill, so I am not clear whether there will be a vehicle for delivery in it. People could argue that human rights are all our rights and that they already exist. However, we still have people who do not have a right to food in Scotland. My proposed bill is designed not only to enshrine the human right to food in Scottish legislation but to provide a vehicle for its delivery, because that is hugely important.

If you were to push me, I would say that I would have liked to have seen the right to food at the heart of a good food nation bill. That is why I spoke to the Scottish Government in the previous session. We already invest £100 million—huge amounts of public money—in our food system. I hear from workers in that system that the front-line producers of food are the people who are going hungry. They produce the food but still do not have a right to food.

I would have wanted to see a right to food at the heart of a good food nation bill. However, my proposed bill, which would have a vehicle for delivery, would work alongside that. It is not one thing; it is not about ticking a box. It will take some time to implement a right to food and to change the system, because our food system is so disjointed. That is why everyone has been calling for a good food nation bill, which would not only highlight our natural resource but ensure that the way that we produce food does not leave people behind. My proposal is part of that.

Including the right in a good food nation bill would be my preference, but it does not look like that is possible. I hope that, if we have a right to food bill, it will work alongside a good food nation bill and changes to our food system to ensure that everybody has a right to food.

I am sorry—that was a bit of a long way round to a short answer.

I will come on to the process points.

If the Government wishes to introduce the bill in another form, I do not think that anything that I propose today—that is, approving the right to go forward without another consultation—would interfere with that. I would certainly make sure that the bill’s aims were met through the Government’s human rights bill.

I will get Nick Hawthorne to cover the process.

Not necessarily. I think that policy people would have been working from home, as many of us were, and might have had more time to look at the proposal. However, given that there had already been a consultation on the good food nation bill, to which they might well have responded, they might have felt that they had put their views on the record, so there was no need to repeat the process.

I do not think that the number of responses was particularly low—71 people responded on behalf of organisations and 181 individuals responded, which is a reasonable level of response—but it should be borne in mind that this consultation followed on from the consultation on the proposed good food nation bill. A number of the people who responded to that—about a third of them, I think—recommended that there should be a right to food, so people had already responded clearly to one consultation on the issue. With a consultation on a Government bill, people expect the Government to introduce the bill whereas, with a member’s bill, they are not so sure that that will happen. I think that that accounts for the level of response.

I understand that Elaine Smith sent her consultation to a number of public bodies, such as local authorities and health boards, as well as the trade union movement and interested stakeholders. She made sure that it was out there, and it was well received. Although not every health board or council would respond to such a consultation, some did, and they responded very positively.