���˿���

Food education is vital. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that several social factors impact on people’s ability to source, purchase and consume good food, including transport infrastructure, income and the knowledge and skills required to prepare healthy meals. A third of respondents to the consultation mentioned education, and Scotland Excel said in its submission to the consultation that home economic teaching levels are at an all-time low. Such teaching is required if we are to develop the policy so that it becomes common practice for those skills to become second nature to children as they develop into adulthood. Therefore, it is good to see that additional bursaries will be available for those who wish to take up that career.

Chef Gary Maclean said that we are failing to educate the next generation about food and its preparation and that

“It goes back to the fact that those life skills have not been getting passed down from parents to kids for three or four generations.”

It is vital that we see change in this area. Food education in Scotland is essential. My amendments 38 and 52 add “education” to the bill, to ensure that the issue is covered.

My amendment 39 seeks to give ministers a delegated power to add other items to the list by regulation. That will ensure that more attributes can be added to the list, so that the bill remains relevant and dynamic and that it reflects future food and diet priorities.

The Conservatives will support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 32 would add a reference to meeting “childhood obesity targets”. Back in 2018, the Scottish Government set a target of halving the rate of childhood obesity by 2030. The Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions that it brought about created barriers to achieving that goal, and, given that there has also been a lack of progress on improving food environments, we look to be heading in completely the wrong direction.

Obesity Action Scotland has thanked me for lodging amendment 32, and I urge members to support it. We know that the level of obesity among primary 1 children has remained fairly constant since records began, in 2001, and this is the first year in which there has been a significant uptick in those with an unhealthy weight. It is important that we address the issue on behalf of Scotland’s young people. It is clear that the bill needs to be amended to bridge the gap, to ensure that we tackle unhealthy diets and, in turn, to support children to have a healthy diet and reduce the rate of childhood obesity.

I move amendment 32.

I will speak to amendments 33 and 34. Amendment 33 echoes the sentiments of the Scottish Food Coalition. However, it differs from Beatrice Wishart’s amendment because it reflects the work of the coalition and addresses issues to do with waste and processing.

The bill should set out a small number of high-level outcomes or objectives that are to be achieved, instead of leaving those entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine, unaided by anything in the bill. The use of the phrase “must include” in amendment 33 means that the objectives must be included, but it would be open to ministers and public bodies to add any others as they wish, as the cabinet secretary stated. Therefore, amendment 33 is a starting list; it sets out the minimum outcomes.

The amendment addresses issues to do with obesity, agricultural skills and local supply chains. I want to work with Beatrice Wishart, if possible, and come back with a revised amendment that supports the aims that we both want to pursue while reflecting the aims of our individual amendments. I hope that she will work with me at stage 3 to do that.

Amendment 34 seeks to build on the work that has been done with the Soil Association and particularly some of the briefings that have been provided to the committee during its scrutiny of the bill.

The Soil Association’s “Grow Back Better Manifesto” highlights the needs for schools to become accredited under the food for life scheme, which promotes food education and diet. Amendment 34 would ensure that the Scottish Government supported children to eat their five a day by encouraging schools to adopt a whole-system approach to food. That is embodied in the food for life schools award. Independent evaluation shows that pupils in schools that take part in the food for life scheme are twice as likely to eat their five a day compared with children in match-comparison schools. They also eat a third more fruit and vegetables overall.

I believe that amendment 34 builds on the good work of the food for life scheme and would foster positive change in schools across Scotland.

I think that the words should be strengthened. That would be something to discuss. It would be good to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

I am content with that, but can we ask the Government what the impact of the exemption is? We are asking why the Scottish Government considers it necessary to introduce the exemption, but what would the impact be if the exemption did not exist?

The annual report has an objective to

“work with policy colleagues to produce a National Development Plan for crofting which will set the long-term strategic direction for crofting”

and ensure that there are plenty of new entrants in rural and remote communities. Cabinet secretary, when will the Cabinet bring forward crofting reform, and how will that ensure a healthy turnover of crofting tenancies on our islands to create opportunities for new entrants?

Will the islands bond be used to enable young people to access crofting?

I met a group from Shetland who said that the STPR does not include a plan for the replacement of ferries for their ageing fleet. It is important to recognise that all of the interconnected policy aims are, perhaps, not connecting.

Will the six carbon neutral islands be announced soon? Will that happen in six months, a year or two years?

Thank you.