Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 43 and 44 seek to include integration joint boards as relevant authorities. The Scottish Food Coalition welcomes the proposal in section 7 to require local authorities and health boards to develop good food nation plans. However, the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 permits the establishment of separate bodies known as integration joint boards, which may take on responsibility for a number of local authority or health board functions. Such arrangements are especially commonplace in the social care sector, where food, diet and nutrition are especially important.

The integration joint boards, which will become community health and social care boards, should also be required to produce good food nation plans, as they oversee the delivery of all community health and social care services and support in local areas, monitoring and improving impact, performance and outcomes for people.

The provision of food is integral to care, hospital discharge and food security, whether that is in early years provision, home care, crisis care, care at home or residential care. My amendments would ensure that such joint bodies do not slip through the net and that either they have to produce their own good food nation plans or the delegated functions are addressed by their parent authority’s plan.

Amendment 57 seeks to ensure that, in exercising their functions under this legislation, Scottish ministers and each relevant authority

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way.”

Many groups are affected by communication disadvantage, including disabled people. Indeed, Camphill Scotland has stated that, regardless of the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty, it is vital that amendment 57 be agreed to if the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plan as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible.

The amendment is vital for several reasons. First, it would place in the bill statutory duties to ensure that the Government and relevant authorities, in exercising their functions under this legislation,

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way”,

including in the preparation of, respectively, the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans.

Secondly, the Scottish Government’s consultation document on the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty states that the regulations giving effect to the changes to the PSED will not be introduced to the Scottish Parliament until late 2022 and will not come into force until 2025. By that time, we expect that the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans will have been developed and introduced. Amendment 57 is therefore essential in ensuring that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation,

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way”

and that, as a result, inclusive communication will be used to shape and inform the preparation of the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans.

It is unclear what the Scottish Government’s proposed changes to the PSED will be. If they promote inclusive communication and meet the needs of those who are affected by communication disadvantage according to Camphill Scotland’s expectations, that will be all well and good. However, this is still an important amendment that seeks to recognise the importance of inclusive communication in all of this.

I move amendment 57.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s words. It is important that we listen to stakeholders, particularly on inclusive participation and communication with people who are on the margins, including disabled people. The duty would cement the ambition to achieve a wide and inclusive participatory process. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to work with me to bring the provision back in a way that could be workable for the Government, possibly by changing the wording. On that basis, I will not press amendment 57.

Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.

Food education is vital. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that several social factors impact on people’s ability to source, purchase and consume good food, including transport infrastructure, income and the knowledge and skills required to prepare healthy meals. A third of respondents to the consultation mentioned education, and Scotland Excel said in its submission to the consultation that home economic teaching levels are at an all-time low. Such teaching is required if we are to develop the policy so that it becomes common practice for those skills to become second nature to children as they develop into adulthood. Therefore, it is good to see that additional bursaries will be available for those who wish to take up that career.

Chef Gary Maclean said that we are failing to educate the next generation about food and its preparation and that

“It goes back to the fact that those life skills have not been getting passed down from parents to kids for three or four generations.”

It is vital that we see change in this area. Food education in Scotland is essential. My amendments 38 and 52 add “education” to the bill, to ensure that the issue is covered.

My amendment 39 seeks to give ministers a delegated power to add other items to the list by regulation. That will ensure that more attributes can be added to the list, so that the bill remains relevant and dynamic and that it reflects future food and diet priorities.

The Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 31 seeks to address a number of issues that I believe the bill should set out to tackle. The bill must encompass diet, climate change, agriculture, resilience and public health, and I believe that amendment 31 matches the ambition that the bill intends to achieve.

In proposed new subsections (2)(c) to (2)(e), which my amendment 31 would insert, I have included agriculture and, importantly, farmers. For far too long, farmers have felt frustrated by the lack of local food in schools and hospitals. If we are truly to be a good food nation, farmers must be absolutely at the heart of the bill.

We also need to improve Scotland’s health record on food, diet and obesity. In Scotland, 65 per cent of people are overweight and a third are obese. When it comes to our diet, we have been branded the sick man of Europe, because people regularly eat calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient foodstuffs. According to current trends, by 2035, more than 480,000 people in Scotland will be living with diabetes. It is estimated that 6.7 per cent of men and 4.2 per cent of women are living with chronic heart disease. The issue of diet is covered in proposed subsection (2)(h). I believe that the purpose list—from proposed subsections 2(a) to (i)—is succinct and easily interpreted. The comprehensive list combines to form a robust purpose for the bill.

Amendment 54, in my name and supported by Beatrice Wishart, seeks to ensure that relevant authorities are not short-changed when it comes to implementing these ambitious plans. I want the bill to be a success, but, if it is to be so, we must recognise that authorities need the appropriate funding to fully implement, oversee and execute the provisions.

I move amendment 54.

We are supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 26, which relates to the Scottish food commission, but I highlight that there appears to be a drafting error in proposed subsection (4), as it mentions the Scottish good food commission, rather than the Scottish food commission. Perhaps she could explain that later.

Amendment 56 seeks to introduce a good food commissioner. That is different from but complementary to the commission, and it follows the work of the national food strategy review by Henry Dimbleby.

As members will see, the commissioner would consult a range of stakeholders—from agricultural organisations right through to prison boards. I would want the commissioner to be independent of Government, as is highlighted in proposed subsection (4).

The Government is already supportive of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which has a very successful role, with Bruce Adamson at the helm.

The work of the good food commissioner would be vital in influencing the direction of good food nation plans, and I urge members to support amendment 56.

I would like clarification from Karen Adam on amendment 59, which uses the words “have regard to”. Does she believe that those words are strong enough? Should they be strengthened to ensure that the recommendations from any consultation are properly considered, rather than that being left to the whim of the Scottish ministers?

Could I speak to something that the cabinet secretary said about the phrase “have regard to”? That means taking account of and considering the guidance, but it would be unprecedented not to consider the guidance. I would like clarification, possibly from the officials, on whether the guidance should be specifically considered by the Government, in legal terms.

I am not content, but I will reflect that in my vote.