³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence. I attended the Health , Social Care and Sport Committee last week to talk about the health and social care aspects of the proposed national good food nation plan. It is good to be back in Parliament appearing in front of a committee. This might be my first appearance before this committee, but my appearing here shows the broad spectrum of interest in the good food nation plan and how many different policy areas it touches.

Being a good food nation means different things to different people. We probably all agree that Scotland’s food system has a lot of strengths. For one thing, we are renowned for the incredible produce that comes from both our land and seas, but we must also acknowledge that our food system faces many challenges. A key aim of our work through the proposed good food nation plan that we are discussing today is to shift that dial and create a food system that enables and promotes a healthy population, with all the benefits that stem from that.

The proposed national plan sets out the practical steps that we will take to embed this fresh approach to policy development across national Government. However, it will also be the first in a long line of good food nation plans.

It is a forward-thinking ambition, but we are realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are trying to make a systemic change, which will take time. This is an iterative journey, and the scrutiny and input of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Food Commission and civil society more broadly will play an important role in shaping that. The committee will recognise the vital role that local government and our health boards will play in that work. Some are already leading the way in improving their local food systems, whereas others are just at the start of that journey. Ultimately, we are all working towards the same goal: for Scotland to be a 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.

I look forward to continuing to work with the committee, the Parliament, local government and health boards as we progress that work.

Once section 10 is commenced, there is a 12-month timescale. It has not been commenced yet because of the discussions that we have been having with local authorities. It is fair to say that it has taken a lot of time and work for us to get to this stage, that is, to develop our existing proposed plan. Between that and our conversations with local authorities, which Tracy McCollin referred to, we have been trying to understand the level of resource that might be required and when it might be appropriate to trigger that section. It is only fair that we continue to have those discussions, because the last thing that we want is to trigger that part of the act and for people to feel that they do not have enough time to have their plans ready within that timescale. That is why that work is on-going and those conversations are continuing. We want to make sure that people feel that they have the resources and the time to introduce and develop the plans.

We will factor in all the points that you have raised when we are looking at when the appropriate time for the commencement of section 10 might be and in the discussions that we will have with local authorities. It is not in anyone’s interest for section 10 of the act to be commenced when local authorities feel that they do not have the time or resources that they need to produce effective plans—we want to make sure that they are able to do that. That is why the engagement is so important.

I certainly hope so. We have tried to strike the right balance. Of course, this is the first step, and it is a big change to the way that the Government works and how we embed different practices and engage across portfolios in addition to the consideration that will have to be given to the plan. It will also be new for local authorities and health boards.

The approach that we have taken is the right one, and the Scottish Food Commission will have an important role throughout the process, because it will be able to monitor and see how all that is working and whether the plan is delivering against the intended outcomes. Time will tell. However, it is important that local authorities have the ability to determine the outcomes that are important for their areas. The indicators and the measurements that they are using are also important. For us to be able to gather that information at a national level, it is helpful to see how things are being delivered overall. How that might work is part of the engagement and discussion that we will have with local authorities.

Right now, the only figures that we have associated with that are those that we published in the financial memorandum to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. Having been through the process ourselves, however, we have taken note of the amount of resource and work that was needed to do that, which is why that on-going engagement with local authorities is important. It is really just about trying to bottom out what that resource might look like.

I recognise that that is the view of some stakeholders, but I know that, as you can imagine, other stakeholders would take the opposite view. As has been outlined, the agriculture budget is ring fenced for that purpose, and the vast majority of that budget goes on the direct payments that we make to our farmers and crofters.

We have not bottomed out what the resource request for the development of the plans will look like. We are just starting our discussions for next year’s budget, so I cannot give any further information to the committee on that. However, as I said, the agriculture funding is ring fenced for that purpose.

I certainly hope so. On access to allotments or other land, the different policy areas that we are looking at and giving consideration to for the good food nation plan will be important. I mentioned section 6 of the 2022 act and the specified functions—how we will have to have regard to the good food nation plan and the delivery of those outcomes as we develop policy or exercise our functions in specific areas. This is our starting point, and we can hope only to improve.

Our work on land reform is an example. It is key in delivering on the good food nation outcomes and, I hope, will provide more access to land.

At the moment, we are undertaking a review of the community right to buy, to ensure that that is working as intended. We understand that a few of the powers are difficult for community bodies to use, so we want to improve on that where possible.

All of that will feed into the good food nation outcomes. A lot of work that is under way is captured by the plan—which will, ultimately, help to deliver on that.

That is why the scrutiny of the plan that the committees are undertaking is so important. If there are particular recommendations that we should reflect on or look to incorporate in the plan, I would be happy to consider them. However, I do not want to give the impression that we do not respect the role of our third sector bodies in delivering. In fact, we support a lot of third sector organisations in delivering towards achieving the overall outcomes that we are seeking.

I would be happy to hear the committee’s feedback on that and on whether the plan should reflect that much more, because we very much recognise that role.

It could well be. Community planning partnerships could be a forum where local authorities and health boards share the development of the work and show how it is also relevant to the work of the community planning partnerships. That is an area that we could consider. We could also perhaps look to issue guidance on community planning by asking community planning partnerships to consider the good food nation plan and its outcomes in relation to the work that they are doing. I certainly hope that local authorities would use those forums to feed into that process.

First and foremost, the two committees received a lot of written evidence in response to the call for evidence. Thinking back to my opening comments, that reflects the broad range of interest in the work that we are doing.

In relation to some of the concerns about the indicators and targets, which came through in other pieces of written evidence and in what the committee heard directly, the indicators that we have brought forward for the outcomes will help to provide the initial baseline from which we can look to progress. Although I understand and appreciate the concern about the lack of new targets or indicators, that is not to say that we will not develop that work. We have been open and transparent in the plan about the areas where we need to collect more data to be able to look at indicators in the future or to develop new targets.

We have also asked bodies such as the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to help us with some of that work and to consider what that could look like—which could include indicators or targets in relation to animal health and welfare—because we recognise that we do not have all the information that we need. When we look to develop new information or new targets, the data collection can be quite a big undertaking in itself. The plan is a really important first step, which will help us to develop the baseline from which we can look to continue to improve. We needed to be able to collect all that information, but we recognise that there is more work to do, and the plan is just the first step.