Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are lucky to have two experts from the James Hutton Institute with us, so I will bring in Rob Brooker at this point.

From knowledge gained, as I have said, many years ago in the soil science department of Aberdeen University, I know that microbiology plays a huge role in this matter. The more artificial nitrogen we use, the less we rely on the microbes in the soil to fix It; in other words, microbiological and other matter in the soil is very good at allowing plants to take up nutrients, and the more artificial fertiliser we use, the less we rely on those microbes. As a result, reducing the use of artificial fertiliser has the regenerative effect of allowing these microbes to do their job again, and there is a tipping point at which the return on investment in terms of yield through the use of artificial fertiliser reduces. You do not get as big a bang for your buck, so to speak.

If that is correct, should the science be helping farmers with the decision to reduce their use of nitrogen and artificial fertilisers, given that, after a period, productivity that might have fallen will increase as the microbes in the soil start to do their job again? Again, this brings us back to the transition issue, but does part of the solution lie in knowledge transfer from you guys—the scientists—to grass-roots farmers to persuade them that doing things differently will not, in the long term, affect their bottom line and economic sustainability?

I am just seeing whether anyone is nodding. Would Pete Smith like to respond to that? [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—I had said that Rob Brooker would respond.

Do you want to comment, Pete?

No, just ask your supplementary question just now. Thanks.

Jim Fairlie has a supplementary question.

We will move on to questions on the purpose, scope and content of the bill.

There was a suggestion in some consultation feedback that we should refer not to private business but to enterprise. Was there any consideration of including large-scale private sector business enterprises in the bill?

Thank you. We will move to questions. Mr Burgess, I understand that you will field the questions and direct them to the appropriate official. I appreciate that.

I will kick off with a question on the pre-legislative consultation. As you said, the good food nation policy has been in development since 2009. In 2017, the Scottish food commission made recommendations on a bill and on other aspects of food policy, then issues were raised in the consultation on the bill. Among the issues were whether the bill would deal with public health, food insecurity, provenance and local procurement of food, food waste and food education. To what extent have those recommendations been included in the bill? If they have not been included, why have they not?

Should the Parliament not play a role in deciding what those functions are, to ensure that its concerns are addressed, rather than leave it to the Government’s discretion to decide which functions will fall under the requirement of paying due regard to the good food nation plans? I know that lists are dangerous because, often, it is not what is included in a list but what is not included in it that is important. We have provision for secondary legislation that might address that at some point, but is there not an argument for the bill specifying some of those functions rather than waiting for secondary legislation? When is it likely that secondary legislation will be introduced on that?

The Parliament might decide that the nutrition of elderly people is important and that we want it to be a principle of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill that is always referred to when anything emerges that might have an impact on it, but the Government might not suggest that as one of its specified functions. Why is there not an opportunity for the specified functions to be laid out in the primary legislation and, potentially, added to in the secondary legislation?

Although we understand that legislation is required to necessitate public bodies to produce a plan, it is not required for the Government to publish a plan. Are there practical implications in that regard? Does that potentially change the purpose of the bill?

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the ninth meeting in session 6 of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I remind members who are using electronic devices to switch them to silent mode.

Our first item of business is an evidence session on the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill with Scottish Government officials. I welcome George Burgess, who is the deputy director in food and drink; Ashley Cooke, who is the head of food policy; James Hamilton, who is a solicitor; and Tracy McCollin, who is the head of the bill team.

I invite George Burgess to make some opening remarks.