³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Would anyone else like to come in on that?

Thank you very much for that perspective.

How could a Scottish food commission or other body help to ensure that the participation of stakeholders provides oversight that feeds into the drafting of the good food nation plans? Should such a body be established before the work takes place?

Vicki Swales, earlier in our conversation, you mentioned establishing some kind of Scottish food commission. Will you expand on that? Dr Shields mentioned the Land Commission. Is that a good model for the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill?

I want to pick up on the role of a Scottish food commission, or whatever oversight body we might have. In the interests of time, I will direct my question to Iain Gulland, as he might have some experience in that respect from his work at Zero Waste Scotland.

Some stakeholders have called for the proposed body to produce an annual progress report on the state of food, which would reflect how well the country was doing against objectives or targets in the good food nation plans, or possibly in the bill. Those reports could be examined by parliamentary committees, just as the UK Climate Change Committee’s reports on emissions reductions are examined by the NZET Committee. Would that be an important function for an oversight body? How could progress reports encourage and incentivise the private sector to play its part in delivering a good food nation?

It is great to hear about the full-on work that you are doing to ensure that there is a woven, holistic approach by going to the different committees.

My next question, which is a two-part one, is addressed to Claire Hislop but, if anyone else wants to come in on it or the previous question that I asked, that would be great. First, the bill lists three types of relevant authorities that will be tasked with producing a good food nation plan: local authorities, health boards and any other specified public authorities. Would you recommend any other specific bodies to include in that list?

Secondly, last week, several witnesses suggested groups that those authorities should consult in drafting their plans. The suggestions have included integration joint boards, which are responsible for ensuring that good food gets to those who receive social care. I would like to hear your thoughts on that suggestion and whether you would recommend any other bodies or groups that should be consulted during the production of plans.

Claire Hislop can start. If anyone else wants to come in, they should type R in the chat box.

I will ask about the themes of public and private sector roles. We heard from previous panels about the role of public authorities in a good food nation. What responsibilities should public authorities take on in relation to procurement, health promotion and education about food and the food system? To what extent does the bill enable and support them to fulfil that role? We have started to touch on those topics, but I would like to have a bit more thinking on them.

That is a good point. I know a lot about community development and co-ordinating things on a community level. Do you think that we need to have a Scottish food commission, along the lines of a Scottish Land Commission, as some people have called for, or do you think that, as Jo Teece said, the role could be performed by Public Health Scotland?

I thank the members of the panel. It has been a really good conversation. They have opened up the discussion by bringing in issues such as soil indicators and food waste.

My questions are on the theme of participation, oversight and accountability. The first is directed at Dr Shields. Does the bill provide sufficient opportunity for meaningful participation from food industry workers, stakeholder groups and members of the public? I am thinking, in particular, of people whose voices are seldom heard in food policy design.

Agenda item 4 is the third of our five evidence-taking sessions on the draft of the fourth national planning framework—or NPF4, as we will probably refer to it for the rest of the morning. The focus of today’s session will be housing. We will look at local government issues next week, and we will hear from the minister on 22 February.

I warmly welcome to the meeting Tony Cain, who is policy manager at the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers; Andrew Fyfe, who is the chair of the Scottish housing with care task force; Anthony Aitken, who is vice-chair of the planning and development committee of the Scottish Property Federation; David Stewart, who is policy lead at the Scottish Land Commission; and Nicola Barclay, who is the chief executive of Homes for Scotland.

We will move straight to questions. If the witnesses wish to respond or contribute to the discussion, they should put an R in the chat box.

We have a range of questions to get through, and not everyone needs to respond to all of them. Our practice tends to be to direct questions to one or two people initially, but if you really want to come in with, say, a point that has not been covered, you are welcome to do so. However, I might have to cut you off; if I do, please do not take it personally—we just want to ensure that we cover all colleagues’ questions.

I will start off. I will direct my question initially to Tony Cain and David Stewart but other witnesses are welcome to come in.

Our focus is on housing. I am keen to hear whether the witnesses believe that the draft NPF4 will lead to homes being built in appropriate places to meet the demand across urban, rural and island communities in Scotland. If not, I am keen to hear the detail. Some conversations that we have had in evidence sessions have been quite high level and it will really help the committee in our scrutiny if we can understand some specifics of what needs to be outlined in the framework that would help to meet the demand.