Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a choice. We are dealing with it through the human rights legislation because of the rationale that I have set out. It is not that it would be legally impossible for that right to be in this bill. However, given the interdependencies and the fact that it ties in with so many other rights, it makes sense for that to form part of the human rights legislation. That decision is based on the recommendations that we have received.

All of that will be critically important as we develop our good food nation plans. As we have previously discussed, food policy is cross-cutting. We want to ensure that our food is produced in an environmentally sustainable way. That will all feature as we develop our good food nation plans.

I reiterate that, with all the issues that you have raised, it is not a case of passing the buck. If anything, what we are trying to do through the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill and the framework legislation is the complete opposite of that.

We want to provide a coherent basis for working across Government and between different public authorities. That is why I have, for example, re-established the ministerial working group on food. We have not yet had our first meeting, because I was interested in getting the stage 1 report from the committee and looking at the outcomes of that before we met, to make sure that we address the issues across the Government, as well. I give you an assurance on that point.

All the issues that you talked about are critically important. I recognise some of the points that you made, which were raised in evidence that the committee heard. We are, of course, committed to addressing those points.

Two different things are probably being conflated. We have a framework bill that will enable all the work that you are talking about to happen, and the further details—the outcomes, measures and indicators—will all be set out in the good food nation plans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, as I have said, the bill may appear narrow in scope, but it is absolutely fundamental to enabling us to deliver on our ambition to become a good food nation. As I have said, the good food nation plans will set out the details—the outcomes, measures and indicators—of what we will do to tackle some of the challenges that we face, how we are working across all the different policies and, ultimately, how we will measure that and ensure that we are on the road to success in that regard.

A lot of work is under way anyway. You talked about the concern that we would not listen to stakeholders. That is absolutely not the case. I go back to a point that I made in response to a previous question. We are in constant dialogue with our stakeholders. We have listened to the evidence that the committee has heard so far, and we are, of course, keen to see any recommendations that the committee makes in its stage 1 report. I do not want to prejudge that. We will, of course, consider that report carefully.

I should point out that, as this is a framework bill, it is not the place to set out these things individually. It also underpins the work that we are already doing; it is not as if these problems are not being addressed. I have talked about our food for life programme, and there is also the local food strategy. We consulted on that strategy towards the end of last year and we are currently analysing the responses.

This gets to the root of some of the issues that you have raised and what exactly we are trying to address, because the bill itself underpins that work and provides the enabling framework to ensure that it happens and that our policy is more coherent. We are addressing all those issues.

I hope that that would happen anyway. Throughout this process, we have talked about the importance of collaboration with all aspects of society and industry. We have strong links with Scotland Food & Drink. Our relationships are unique, compared with those in other countries. We work closely together.

Pete Ritchie’s evidence was interesting. I also picked out his point about percentages. Even though public food is a small percentage, it has a massive knock-on impact for industry and the private sector through the policies that we decide to implement. For example, private industry and the private sector will be impacted by how we take forward our local food strategy. It would not be true to say that there will be no impact. The collaboration that you have talked about is important. If you have suggestions of any areas in which you think that it could be strengthened, I would be happy to consider those.

No. Section 1(3) talks about what the national good food nation plan must set out, which includes

“the main outcomes in relation to food-related issues”.

It must also set out

“indicators or other measures by which progress in achieving the outcomes may be assessed”

and

“policies which the Scottish Ministers intend to pursue in order to secure the achievement of the outcomes.”

That is the work that will be going into the development of plans.

What we have set out in relation to local authorities is for the preparation of the plan itself. Health boards already have plans in place, and that is where the costs are expected to be negligible. In much the same way that we will continue to have discussions with COSLA, we intend to continue the discussion when it comes to implementation and once we have a better idea. Each plan may be different, so it is not possible for us to quantify all those costs at the moment.

The approach that we have taken and talked about here is about trying to get a balance. It is important that we provide a basis on which consultation and discussion can take place; we are not trying to impose our view. As I said in response to previous questions, we would not form a plan in isolation; we are in constant dialogue with stakeholders. We would not write a plan in isolation and then unleash it on the public; we very much want to hear people’s views and take them on board. As I said, we want the process to be as inclusive as possible. The proposed approach is more about trying to provide the basis that enables discussion to take place, but if the committee recommends otherwise and thinks that the area could be improved, I will be happy to consider its recommendations.

That is part of the work that we will undertake to go through all the possibilities thoroughly. The issues that you have talked about are exactly those that we have experienced in considering the matter before. That is why we need to undertake detailed work to see whether that should be considered.

As you have said, there are a number of bodies. I know that people have suggested in other evidence sessions that it could be something for Public Health Scotland or Food Standards Scotland as well. That is why we are undertaking that work.