���˿���

Congratulations, Willie. I look forward to working with you in your new role.

It looks like we have agreement. I will move on

That will come up a little bit later.

I see that Tony Cain wants to come back in but I will bring in Graeme Dey, who has some questions. Perhaps Tony can come back in on them.

I will stick with the theme of targets. I am a bit confused. We have just talked about targets with this panel, and we commented on them when the panels were switching over. I do not think that anyone has said, “This is a target,” so I will offer some targets—or what I think are targets, although maybe they are ambitions. They are: all workers in the food sector are paid at least the living wage and are included in collective bargaining agreements by 2025; halving moderate to severe household food insecurity by 2030; halving childhood obesity by 2030; and halving the environmental impact of the food system, including halving food waste by 2030. Are those targets or ambitions? They are really great and useful things to have as part of our good food nation, which we have been working on for quite a long time. I heard Pete Ritchie say that he has been campaigning on that for six years. To build on the platform of what John Davidson talked about, we already have an amazing food and drink offer in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has already committed to halving childhood obesity elsewhere, reducing emissions from agriculture by 31 per cent by 2032, and reducing food waste by a third by 2025. Those commitments already exist. It is about getting things into the bill so that we can use it as a framework bill. People have talked about that. The bill can set a course and direction for all the other things that will come afterwards, particularly the agricultural policy.

I appreciate Claire White’s contribution. She has found targets useful things to move towards. Targets can be missed. The Scottish Government might miss its targets yet again, but surely, when anyone is trying to change anything, having somewhere to move to in an agreed direction is needed. That is what we need to be a good food nation.

I would love to hear whether those are targets or ambitions. I need what we mean by “target” to be clear.

I will direct this to Pete Ritchie and then to Anna Taylor, and I will put my questions together for the sake of time. Pete Ritchie began to touch on this, but I would like to ask the panel’s views on the role of public authorities in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. What should they be doing around procurement, health, supply chain resilience, food education and community empowerment and, in your view, to what extent does the bill enable or encourage them to do that? My other question is similar but is about the private sector. It certainly needs to be part of the solution, so in what ways can businesses play a leading role in transforming our food systems?

My questions are on the theme of participation, oversight and accountability. Before I ask them, I thank Claire White for her contribution on the supermarkets opening in Shetland. I drove by one of them on my way to Northmavine, and I then learned of the devastating impact of its opening on the local community shop. You have opened my eyes to the connection between planning and the need for participation at a local level.

I will direct my questions to John Davidson and Karen Galloway, in the interests of time. I have a little preamble, but I will keep it short. Last week, Professor Mary Brennan said that many workers in primary food production are not food secure themselves, which is clearly incompatible with any vision of a good food nation and shows the importance of involving workers and the whole food sector in policy design. Does the bill go far enough to ensure sufficient participation for the food sector in food policy design? How should that be facilitated? We have been talking around the edges of that issue.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all notifications are turned off during the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is evidence on the draft of the fourth national planning framework. This is the second of five evidence sessions that the committee will hold on NPF4. The focus of today’s session is on planning, and we will hear from two panels. On 1 February, we will explore issues around housing, and on 8 February, we will look at local government issues. The committee will hear from the minister on 22 February.

I welcome the first panel to the meeting. Robbie Calvert is policy, practice and research officer at the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland; Clare Symonds is founder and chair of Planning Democracy; Ailsa Macfarlane is director of Built Environment Forum Scotland; Barbara Cummins is vice chair of Planning Aid for Scotland; and Christina Gaiger is president of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. Thank you very much for joining us today.

We will move straight to questions. If the witnesses wish to respond or to contribute to the discussion, they should put an R in the chat box to?indicate that, please. We tend to have the practice that whoever asks the question directs it to someone to initiate the discussion. However, do not feel that that means that you cannot come in if the question is not directed at you. Put an R in the chat function, and the clerks or I will pick that up.

The draft national planning framework represents a significant shift in national planning policy, with a new focus on issues of place, liveability, wellbeing and emissions reduction. Is the Scottish planning system set up to deliver such outcomes, or are changes needed? If so, what changes would you like to see? I direct that question initially to Robbie Calvert and then to Ailsa Macfarlane.

That is a brilliant point to bring up. I have definitely been grappling with retrofit lately myself.

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am grappling with planning policy having to try to catch up with our new understanding of peatland, for example. Projects on peatland received planning consent perhaps a few years ago, when we did not really understand how peatland can help us with our carbon emissions if we look after it well. We need to consider whether we need to call a halt on projects that are going ahead and reconsider what we are doing.

I thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning—we have gone into the afternoon. The evidence has been very useful. I wish that we had time to hear all your one-hour lectures on the various topics that you know so much about. In the coming years, we might see you again for other evidence sessions.

Thank you, that is great. I can see that Clare Symonds wants to come in, then I will let Robbie Calvert back in.