³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I recognise the concerns that you have highlighted, which is why the on-going work that I mentioned is so important.

My other concern with amendment 290 is that it is quite narrow in how it is structured. It considers only a narrow range of areas, but we need to look at the broader picture. The two plans and strategies that I have talked about consider that broader picture, which is why I think that that should be the key area of focus.

Finally, on amendment 336, in the name of Douglas Ross, and amendment 337, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, I agree with them that having detailed monitoring, evaluation and reporting of public investment in our farmers and crofters really matters. I am sure that some of the members around the table this evening will recall some of the considerable consultation that we had with rural partners, as well as the discussions and debate on the 2024 act, on ensuring that monitoring, evaluation and reporting duties with regard to any and all agricultural support were appropriate, and the fact that those reporting duties were supported during the passage of that legislation.

The amendments, as they are at the moment, would only duplicate and confuse the already agreed method for reporting on the impact of spend. The monitoring and evaluation methods that we have set out in the 2024 act also provide us with more transparent and useful information than what these amendments would seek. I think that there is a point—

I will pick up on amendments 98, 99 and 100, from Maurice Golden, although Tim Eagle actually covered some of the points that I was going to make.

I appreciate where the amendments are coming from; however, a significant programme of work is on-going. We undertook a call for views, and we hope to publish a consultation soon. It is correct that we follow that process in order to deal with some of the more intricate issues. That is why I ask the committee not to support those amendments.

I take the point. I am more than happy to have a conversation with any member about the issue. I would not necessarily be able to commit to more amendments, because, as I say, a significant programme of work is already under way. We must make sure that we consult those who will be impacted by that, to ensure that we get the design right. This is very much about our not wanting to impose a model on anyone; we want to ensure that a regional model works across Scotland.

I am more than happy to have a conversation and to set out more information. I will keep the committee updated on how and when that work progresses. We are all keen to see progress in this area. We have talked today about some of the models that we can look to learn from, but, as I say, I am more than happy to pick up that conversation.

I turn to amendment 264 from Douglas Ross and Tim Eagle’s comments. I appreciate the point of view from which both come at the amendment and their constituency and regional interests. The Government routinely reviews the operational requirements of our fisheries surveillance obligations and assets, because we want to have the modern, effective and efficient protection service that Douglas Ross highlighted in response to some of Ross Greer’s amendments.

The decision not to tender for the two manned aerial surveillance aircraft and to dispose of the assets was made after consideration of issues with the age and reliability of the aircraft. There have also been other advances in surveillance technology and access to other Government manned aerial assets that offer value for money while maintaining effective service.

Amendment 264 seeks to impose a requirement to repeat a review that has concluded. It is therefore unnecessary and I ask members not to support it.

I see that Douglas Ross wants to come in, and I am happy to take the intervention.

I am sorry, but no, because I am going to address your substantive point. I am just highlighting the provisions that we already have which, as I have said, are more transparent. They provide us with a lot more meaningful information than what is specifically requested by the amendments. An important point that I would also like to make to the committee—

Again, I appreciate that. That is why I have mentioned the paper that will be published, which I think will assist with an understanding of the assessment process. The intention is that it will be published certainly before we finish for recess.

Thank you, convener. I am delighted to be here to introduce this Scottish statutory instrument on specified functions. A key piece of the good food nation puzzle, it identifies when regard must be had to the national good food nation plan. It is a new and innovative approach that is designed to target the need to have regard to the national plan, where that is most relevant.

The overall concept is quite straightforward: Scottish ministers must have regard to the national plan when carrying out specified functions or a function that falls within a specified description. The detail is very technical, but I should say that this is the result of extensive collaboration with other policy areas right across the Scottish Government to work through the complexities of the legislative duties.

Our aim is to ensure that the legislative duty is effective and focused. This innovative approach avoids the imposition of a blanket legislative duty, which would create unnecessary bureaucracy and have no meaningful impact. The SSI’s content is intended to provide a focus for better, more joined-up policy making in relation to food. We are going to assess, monitor and, no doubt, adjust the policy areas in the SSI to ensure that the national plan is making the greatest possible impact.

The SSI sets out where Scottish ministers have the power to carry out a function in relation to food. That power takes two forms. First, there is schedule 1, which sets out specific legislative provisions that contain functions of Scottish ministers in relation to food. Secondly, in order to catch non-statutory functions, schedule 2 sets out the specified descriptions. With such an approach, we are signalling when regard must be had to the national good food nation plan and providing a targeted and focused approach to the development of food policy.

Because this is a new approach, this draft SSI is very different from the consultation draft, which I know the committee had some questions about. The changes, ultimately, are reflective of our evolving understanding of how specified functions and descriptions can be set out to ensure that they relate to the legislative powers and functions of Scottish ministers in relation to food. We have analysed and considered every suggestion that we received during the consultation for input into the SSI, but, in the approach that we have taken, policy areas that are mentioned in the national good food nation plan are reflected, where possible, in the instrument.

You might have noticed what appear to be gaps in some instances. They have arisen because other legislation already provides what is, in essence, a specified function outside the instrument. In other cases, it is because a general duty to have regard to a broad policy area already exists, so it was felt unnecessary to duplicate that in the SSI. I should say that identifying the correct level of specificity has involved a careful balancing act.

The SSI has also been developed in close collaboration with policy officials across the Scottish Government and with input from ministerial colleagues to ensure not only that there is awareness of the have-regard duty from the get-go but that we have the required buy-in for effective cross-Government working.

The functions and descriptions that are currently captured under the SSI cover a broad range of issues that are relevant to food policy. That provides a good starting point, which can and will be built upon as we go forward.

I am happy to take questions.

It might look as though that is a glaring omission in the SSI, but, as I tried to outline in my opening comments, what can appear to be omissions in some areas are covered in other pieces of legislation. If we take agriculture as an example, specific reference to the good food nation plan was made as an amendment to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2002 in relation to the rural support plan. It does not necessarily make sense to duplicate references that exist elsewhere, and because that duty already exists in the 2002 act, it is not replicated in the SSI. The good food nation plan and its outcomes will still have to be considered.

You have outlined a few other areas that I hope are addressed in the tables and other information that were provided to the committee. They could look like omissions but the specific duties are covered elsewhere. The specified descriptions can cover a broad range of areas, including the development of policy and legislation. I think that we have captured the majority of areas that are specifically referenced in the good food nation plan, and some of the omissions are covered elsewhere.

They have not been excluded, as you can see through the list of specified functions and the tables that I provided to the committee. The specified functions relate to the exercise of very specific powers, but the descriptions capture some of the broad areas that impact on food policy.

If the instrument is not approved by the Parliament, the have-regard duty will not have an effect in those policy areas. I want to make the point that we are trying to develop an innovative approach. I understand that it might not be perfect to start off with, and it might appear that there are gaps as we look to develop the work further. The approach is new, so the monitoring will be important. However, I think that the instrument provides a strong starting point. If gaps emerge, we can always bring forward another instrument to add to those areas, but I believe that we have a strong starting point for the different policy areas across Government that are of relevance to the plan.

I hope that the committee feels in a position to support the instrument today, so that we can look to build on it in the future.

There is engagement between the good food nation team and our wider stakeholders. That has been taking place throughout the development of the SSI—