³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I turn that back to the committee and say that I am willing to listen because, obviously, I want to listen as we go through the process. I have tried to explain the rationale for the position that we have reached and for what is in the bill that is before the committee. I am open to hearing recommendations in that regard, given that there have been very mixed views.

As I have said, when the matter was looked at initially, it was not considered that a food commission or an oversight body should be established for a variety of reasons, some of which I have already outlined. I do not think that you would appreciate it if I came here and said, hard and fast, that I was not going to listen to anything that you say or make any changes. That is why the stage 1 consideration of the bill and my hearing all the evidence that the committee has taken are so important. I want to ensure that, when we implement the bill, we get it right. We have already made a commitment to look at the potential for a statutory body. I will not commit further to that at this stage, given that that work will be undertaken.

We would look to publish the national good food nation plan in advance and not expect local authorities to publish theirs at the same time, so that we can set out what we expect from local authorities and help to provide coherence. At the same time, I note the points that we have discussed about the importance of flexibility, which we will take into consideration.

The legislation that we propose is critical in ensuring that that happens. Setting out the framework will enable that to happen and ensure that it takes place.

Absolutely—that point came out strongly in all the evidence that the committee heard. Many people emphasised the importance of collaboration with the food and drink industry throughout the process.

I highlight that we are not developing these proposals in isolation. We have regular contact with our stakeholders and the food and drink industry, including many of those from whom the committee has taken evidence. We will continue to work with them, because it is in our interest, and in everyone’s interest, that we get the approach right. The passion from those who gave evidence to the committee was apparent. I know from the committee’s work that we all have an interest in the bill and that we all want to deliver on our good food nation ambitions, and collaboration is key in that regard.

With regard to the list of relevant authorities and who will be required to produce a plan, a provision for adding other authorities is built into the bill, and I am happy to consider any suggestions from the committee as to who could be considered a relevant authority. We have the power in that regard, which means that we can consider the matter at a future date as suggestions are made and we continue with our work. If it becomes apparent through the process that other bodies should be added and specified as relevant authorities, there is a provision for that.

It was really interesting to go through the evidence that the committee heard. The local authorities talked about the flexibilities in the existing procurement system. I think that, in one of the first evidence sessions, Robin Gourlay talked about being able to break down the procurement of meat into 70 different lots, which enables local suppliers to take a place in the process.

The evidence that I am really interested in hearing is what the stakeholders have to say about whether the procurement system is working or whether, as you suggested, we need to examine it. I do not know whether the committee has any comments or recommendations in that regard, but one thing that I took from the evidence was that local authorities, in particular, felt that the procurement process allowed them flexibility.

The costs that you have just mentioned were part of our initial concerns and are the reason why, when the bill was introduced, a food commission or oversight body was not considered. Indeed, the costs associated with such a move can be substantial. I know that Food Standards Scotland’s remit is quite detailed, but I would point out that it cost £50 million to set it up. It is a concern but, in any case, I think that Parliament has a very important—indeed, critical—role in scrutinising this matter.

You are absolutely right. In the financial memorandum, we have set out some of the costs that we expect to be incurred, primarily in relation to the production of a good food nation plan. As I said, everyone is at a different stage of the journey. Implementation might not be as much of an issue for some councils as it might be for others. An authority that is just starting out on the journey will need to find out how it will make the process work and how that work will be resourced, whereas other authorities will have already built that in. It is not possible for us to quantify in the financial memorandum what the on-going costs of implementation of a plan might be, because each plan might be different.

We do not know what the implications of that might be, but the discussions that we are continuing to have with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be important in ensuring that authorities have the right resources in place. Some authorities have already been able to do that in house through other pieces of work that they have been involved in.

There have been proposals for a number of different bodies that could undertake that role. That came out in evidence. That is exactly why we are undertaking careful consideration to fully examine that issue.

The independence of monitoring is important, as is the scrutiny of Parliament. The question that we have to get to grips with is whether we need to establish an entirely new body to do that.

I am delighted to be here to speak about the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is an important and long-awaited step in delivering our good food nation ambitions.

I thank those who have come to give evidence to the committee and those who have submitted written evidence. Reading and listening to that evidence, I appreciate not just the depth of knowledge but also the real passion of experts from across the food system. When we consider the breadth of evidence that the committee has taken and whom it has heard from, it is clear how fundamental food and food policy are and how they connect with and impact on so many aspects of our lives, including health and wellbeing, education and the environment. I look forward to reading the committee’s analysis and views on the evidence it has gathered.

Our journey to becoming a good food nation has been a long one. Although, unfortunately, it has been disrupted by the pandemic, that journey is very much under way. Our vision is that Scotland will become a good food nation in which people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in, and benefit from, the food that they produce, buy, cook, serve and eat each day. A good food nation is a nation in which dietary-related diseases are declining and in which people have ready access to the healthy, nutritious and local food that they need. Being a good food nation means that our produce is environmentally sound and that we ensure the sustainability of our world-class food industry.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill is an important step on that journey, and it underpins the work that we are already doing. Our on-going work on the good food nation includes initiatives on environmental protection, the local economy, workers’ rights, health, biodiversity, education, public procurement and much more. The bill will put such work on a legislative footing through the good food nation plans. The Government will be required to set out its stall for improving the food system and the outcomes that we want to achieve, as well as to measure and report on progress. That will ensure that momentum is sustained in making the improvements in food-related outcomes that we all want to see.

Given that it is a framework bill, at first glance it might appear narrow in focus and perhaps a little dry. However, it gives us the important tools that we need to continue improving the food system and embedding that change for the long term. It also ensures greater coherence of policy across the Scottish Government and makes the necessary links to the decision making on delivery of services at the local level.

I know that there has been discussion in these evidence sessions, and in the wider food community, on the right to food. The Scottish Government believes that the best approach is to bring together a host of rights under future human rights legislation. Although such legislation is crucial, it is the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill that will put in place the long-term planning that is necessary to make both the practical and cultural changes that we need to make human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland.

It is only with the buy-in and co-operation of others that we will see change. We require input and action from our farmers and food producers who grow and make our food; from our retailers and the wider food industry; from the third sector, which cares passionately about effecting real change; from local government and the health service, which deliver key services; and from all consumers. It is my intention that that collective experience and expertise will be used to create the future food plans, to set ever more ambitious targets and to create a cultural shift in how we think about food.

I look forward to discussing the bill and food policy with the committee today. I am genuinely excited about the next stage in our journey to becoming a good food nation as we develop long-term plans for improving the whole system at national and local levels.