Seòmar agus comataidhean

Loads of questions are going through my head, but I will just stick with what you said about local authorities and health boards. Each local authority and health board has to come up with a plan, which should reflect the Government’s proposals in its good food nation plan. Might there be conflict between a local authority’s land use strategy—we have been looking at issues such as building houses on greenfield sites—and a health board’s plan, which might be focused more on health than on land use? We are trying to support changes to our food system locally, but how will we avoid such conflict? I will stick with local instead of global.

I know that Carlos Monteiro in Brazil has come up with the Nova classification, although it has had criticism and is not quite right. We talked earlier about sausages and heard that even putting a stock cube in soup makes it processed but might reduce the salt intake, for instance. I know that we need to work on the definitions.

I want to ask about the links to poverty and to imposed austerity, which has led to poverty. How is that covered in the plan to support better consumption and maybe reduction of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt and ultra-processed foods?

Good morning, cabinet secretary, to you and your officials.

Before I ask my questions about ultra-processed food, I am interested in the language in the foreword of the national plan. At the very bottom of page 2, it says:

“without the full powers of independence we do not have the complete control of all the levers of food policy.”

I am interested to hear about the powers that we do not have. Is it related to the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and our ability to lever supermarkets or cross-border trading? What do we need in order to have all the levers to deliver a plan?

Thanks for that clarification.

I am interested in ultra-processed foods and the emerging research that says that they are not good for you. In the national population health framework, health-harming products are listed as tobacco, vapes, alcohol and gambling, but ultra-processed foods are not listed. Is that because we are too early in the research to pin UPFs as a problem and as a health-harming product?

I am also interested in the tension between localised food availability, food processing and the role of major supermarket chains, and in what role the national plan plays in addressing some of the tension between the big, global producers and the whole supply chain. How will the national food plan help to address some of the tensions that we see?

I said that I would come back to ultra-processed foods. We are here today to look at the good food nation plan and you have also mentioned the national population health framework. The population health framework says that health-harming products are tobacco, vapes, alcohol and gambling, but it does not mention ultra-processed foods, and the good food nation plan does not mention them either.

Lindsay Jaacks said that investigations are still happening around ultra-processed foods and the health-harming additives that they contain. I am thinking about stabilisers, emulsifiers, flavourings and colourings—chemicals, really. Does the plan need to take ultra-processed foods into account more, or do we need to wait another five years for the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition to do more robust research on that?

The supermarkets and the massive global food companies determine how the system works, which makes things complicated. Does the national plan help to encourage good collaboration with supermarkets, for instance, in order to support healthy consumption?

Tomorrow, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will hold a round-table session on the good food nation plan, and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee is holding one today. I am keen to hear about how we reassure Scotland’s farmers. Without farmers, we will have no food. How do we reassure the small farmers and big producers that you have mentioned that they will be considered when we look at the current plan and future iterations of it?

I understand what Mark Ruskell is saying. When I was approached about the amendments and, in particular, about arbitration, the issues of cost, timeliness and dispute resolution often came up. The cabinet secretary is proposing that wider engagement should take place so that we can have an improved process for arbitration and dispute resolution. I am therefore happy not to press amendment 542, which will allow us to do some work to improve the process and engage more widely with stakeholders.

Amendment 542, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 28

Amendment 386 not moved.

Section 28 agreed to.

Section 29—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 504, 505, 387, 388 and 521 not moved.

Amendments 506, 309 and 513 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

I lodged amendments 536 to 539 to enable a more open and transparent rent review process. There is widespread practice of rent being applied without the tenant knowing which other farm was used as the equivalent that the proposed rent is based on or, indeed, whether another comparable farm was used to assess the rent at all. That results in unnecessary delays and expense in agreeing rent, and it delays the outcome of rent reviews in relation to the increase in rent for the occupier of the holding. I take on board what the cabinet secretary has said regarding amendments 537 and 539, however, and I am happy to consider a different form of wording.

Amendments 536 and 538 relate to rent being assessed on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant who occupies the holding, because a tenant in occupation of the holding could be persuaded to pay rent that was higher than normal. That is sometimes referred to as ransom rent. Tenants might agree to a higher rent in order to avoid the costs of disruption associated with moving to another holding. It is fundamental to ensure that rent is determined on the basis of a hypothetical tenant, not the actual tenant, because that provides an equitable basis for rent review. That is a long-standing principle, so I am keen to move amendments 536 and 538.

On amendments 520 and 521, the issue of arbitration has come up a lot in the discussions that I have had regarding the need to have an easier process of negotiating and coming to agreement when there are disagreements between a landlord and a tenant. Provisions on short-form arbitration and for determining the arbitration process would be made by regulation by the Scottish ministers. I hear what the cabinet secretary said about having wider engagement with stakeholders on the best methods for arbitration. I am keen that we support a more cost-effective, more accessible and quicker dispute resolution mechanism, so I am happy to engage more widely with stakeholders, hear what they think and then come back to the issue.