Official Report 816KB pdf
The next item on our agenda is evidence as part of our scrutiny of the proposed national good food nation plan from Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands. She is joined by Scottish Government officials: James Hamilton, solicitor; Laura Hunter, procurement policy; and Tracy McCollin, head of the good food nation team. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. We have around 60 minutes for the discussion, and I invite the cabinet secretary to provide a short opening statement before we turn to questions from members.
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.
It is good to welcome you to the committee and to the local government space. As the good food nation plan will affect local government, we thought that it was important for the committee to take a look at it. I hope that our evidence session last week was helpful. It was good to dig into those areas and to talk to local authorities and others about the impact that the plans will have on them.
I will open the questions. Last week, the plan was broadly welcomed—it was welcomed in principle—but some concerns were raised. I am interested in a concern from the Highland Good Food Partnership. In response to the committee’s call for views, it said:
“The Plan does not propose any new actions and targets, neither does it commit to new indicators or areas of policy development.”
I am interested to hear your thoughts on that and where the plan has driven new or further action.
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.
That is great. As you said at the beginning of your opening statement, it is an iterative journey. On co-operation, last week, the committee had witnesses from East Ayrshire Council and Aberdeen City Council. In both cases, there was quite a lot of co-operation happening, but concern has been voiced that there was a lack of co-operation between Government, local authorities and health boards in developing the plan and that that could risk plans working against each other. How do you imagine supporting co-operation in areas where local authority and national health service board boundaries are different?
I will hand over in a moment to Tracy McCollin, who can explain a bit more, because she has been leading on our engagement with other authorities. The thing is that some people are quite far advanced in looking at food and the different strategies that they have in place. The balance that we have tried to strike in what is contained in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is to ensure that, although we have guideline principles for what we think local authorities and health boards should include in their plans, it is important that they have flexibility and that each area across Scotland can develop the outcomes and indicators that are most relevant to it. We have published guidance in relation to that, and there has been engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with health boards to discuss it.
Of course, the initial focus has been on producing our own national good food nation plan, which has involved a lot of work to get us to this point. We have had to look to a lot of the feedback in response to our consultation towards the start of last year. It is stated in the act that local authorities and health boards will have to have regard to the national good food nation plan, and we hope that the further guidance will help. I hand over to Tracy, who, as I said, has been engaging.
We have done some work with both local authorities and health boards and have worked in collaboration with the living good food nation lab at the University of Edinburgh, which is working with local authorities and health boards, in order to be as efficient as possible. We published the guidance that set out the legislative requirements of the act; we had realised that there were some misunderstandings of how the legislation worked in practice, so we set out a piece of guidance that explains what the legislative requirements are. The workshop that we then ran with the living lab was focused on that but also allowed for discussion of some of the concerns that had been raised—for example, in relation to the commencement of section 10. That was followed up by a survey to get feedback from the relevant authorities as to their preferred timescale, which is being fed into the discussions that we will have on the commencement of that section. As has been noted, some local authorities and health boards are further ahead than others with their food plans, so it was very useful to learn from their experience and have that shared knowledge through such a workshop.
Once the national plan is published at the end of this year and decisions have been made about the commencement of section 10, the plans will have some level of coherence, because the legislation is quite prescriptive; there will have to be regard to the national plan, which sets out the outcomes that the Scottish ministers have put into it. As the local authorities and health boards start work, we have plans for engaging with them further to share good practice, learn from our experience of developing a national plan and feed that into the local plans. Engagement will be on-going, but we have already had some, which has been incredibly useful, both for the relevant authorities, I hope, and for us, in getting their feedback.
That workshop sounds good. Did all 32 local authorities and all health boards come to it? What was the level of engagement?
There was very good engagement. Not all health boards came to the workshop, but the survey went out to all of them and we got engagement from nearly all of them, I think. We got a really good response. We got a couple of responses from each local authority as well, depending on which bits of the local authority were leading on the local good food nation plans. It was very useful feedback.
Were the guidelines the ones that were published in March this year?
It was that guidance, yes.
Thanks very much. I will bring in Evelyn Tweed.
Good morning to the cabinet secretary and other witnesses. Thanks for your answers so far. Last week, witnesses noted that councils were at different stages of the good food nation journey, and said that no national record of progress was being made. Will the Scottish Government consider doing that?
You are absolutely right that some local authorities are quite far advanced—in particular, Fife has the Food4Fife strategy, and other local authorities are quite far advanced in the work that they are taking forward—whereas others are at the earlier stages of that work, as I have outlined. Section 10 has not yet been commenced, as Tracy McCollin has just outlined. We are very much in discussions with local authorities about collecting all that information, but we are not yet collecting it all. We would not expect all local authorities to have delivered their plans, because that section has not been commenced, and we are still involved in those discussions. However, as Tracy McCollin outlined, we are having those conversations because we want to make sure that local authorities feel ready and that they have the information that they need to progress that work.
Obviously, various councils are concerned about the timescales and about section 10, and local government elections are coming. Will there be any flexibility in the timescales?
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.
09:45
So, that is very much under consideration.
Yes. I am happy to keep the committee updated on when we are looking to trigger section 10. We do not want to put local authorities under particular pressure now, when we are still trying to bottom out what resources might be needed for section 10, given the work that it has taken us to get to this stage.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. My question is on the same issue. Local authorities will need to be given the right amount of time to implement this plan. When local development plans were put in place, local authorities had up to 5 years to produce them. However, I am very concerned that they will be given substantially less time to produce these plans.
At the start of this meeting, you said that local authorities seemed to be at different stages. Will you advise the committee on where local authorities are—for example, what percentage of them have reached an advanced stage and what percentage have not done so? In effect, you are going to have 32 local authorities that are at 32 different stages. That is not very good when you are trying to bring forward legislation in the field; you would probably want local authorities to be at similar stages so that, when the act comes in and section 10 commences, they will all be at the same starting point.
Some local authorities started on the journey of looking at their food strategies in advance of the good food nation work. Some of them have just been more proactive in that space than others. We will have specific legislative requirements in the development of those plans. I have mentioned the strategy in Fife, Glasgow has done some work, and South Lanarkshire has also developed a strategy. The good food nation plans will have a specific set of requirements, including legislative requirements, that we will expect local authorities to adhere to—even within their own strategies.
We discussed this issue, including what those timescales should be and what the requirements should look like, in the scrutiny of the act. The Parliament then agreed to have that 12-month timescale from the point that section 10 is commenced. That is why we have not gone right in and triggered that part of the act. As we have seen in developing our plan, engagement with local authorities gives us a better understanding. We do not intend there to be any surprises. We will not suddenly launch into this, giving all local authorities that 12-month timescale. We want to make sure that we get it right by ensuring that local authorities have the right guidance in place and that they feel able to commence that work. That is why on-going engagement with local authorities is really important.
South Lanarkshire Council is one of the councils that has raised concerns about timescales, even though it might be quite proactive.
Going back to the commencement times, there is an election cycle and a budget cycle in 2027, and councils will have other priorities alongside the policy area that you want to legislate in. Would commencement at that time be bad timing? Will all councils be able to achieve it? If they do not achieve it, what will be the consequences?
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.
We know that some local authorities have been in the space for some time. I think that we heard from East Ayrshire Council that it has been doing this work for 20 or 21 years already. There is nothing to stop local authorities that are busy with the food journey, or whatever we are calling it, but when section 10 commences, it will trigger a requirement for them to create plans that have specific elements. Will that also trigger the financial resources to help local authorities with the engagement and the consultation that they will have to do on those plans?
Some local authorities may need resources, such as specific people, in advance to develop their plans. I do not know whether Tracy McCollin would like to point out anything specific.
You are right that, when section 10 commences, local authorities will have 12 months to develop their good food nation plans. That is why we do not want to rush the commencement of section 10. We want to ensure that, by the time we reach the trigger point for the 12-month period, people feel that they have the resources that they need and feel able to complete their plans within the timeframe.
Specifically, will the amount of money that is attached to the requirement for local authorities to create the plans be triggered once section 10 has commenced, or could the money be given to them sooner?
That is part of the discussions that we are having with local authorities right now. There may be a requirement for resources in advance of the commencement of section 10 if, for example, recruitment is involved.
Last week, Nourish Scotland spoke about the outcomes of the good food nation work. It suggested that it may appear to be confusing and contradictory that the legislation does not discuss or contain any outcomes. There could be 32 different outcomes—possibly more. Is localism the correct approach? At the end of all of this, how will any of us know whether local authorities have complied with anything if they can define and determine their own outcomes?
That is an important point. In the legislation, we tried to strike a balance by setting out the principles that we would expect and like local authorities and health boards to follow in their plans while ensuring that there is flexibility so that people can determine outcomes locally. The outcomes in Glasgow could be very different from those in my local authority of Angus, so I think that it is only right that we have flexibility. I would like to think that we struck the right balance. I do not remember too much concern being expressed about that when the act was initially scrutinised, in 2022. We want to have flexibility and ensure that local authorities feel that they can work towards the outcomes that will be the most meaningful for them, but scrutiny and monitoring will be really important.
As I have said, we have set out the principles and have said that local authorities must have regard to the national good food nation plan. There have been different workshops and there will be continued engagement with health boards and local authorities so that, overall, the guidance will be helpful in the development of their plans.
The Scottish Food Commission will have an important role in scrutinising and providing information, research and advice. It will look at whether the plans are delivering against the outcomes that have been set out nationally and by relevant authorities. The commission will have a critical role, which it is important to highlight.
Are you happy with that? Allowing local authorities to determine their own pathway towards their plans seems to be a much softer approach—and it is probably the correct one. As you said, East Ayrshire Council has been doing this work, and quite well, for the past 20 years without any legislation. Looking ahead to the next few years or so, are you quite happy that, when the Government of the day looks back at the process to see whether it has been successful, the structural approach in the legislation will have been enough to deliver what you hope for?
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.
The convener asked a question about resourcing. Did you mention a figure? Has any money been allocated to authorities to give them a kick-start and help them to develop the plans by giving them a little bit of resource to put behind that?
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.
Okay. Thank you.
There has been quite a bit of conversation about there being money for the plans for local authorities, but there are concerns about whether it is the same for implementation. I take your point—which you have mentioned a few times in other places—that it is not until there are plans that you can look at resource and funding for implementation. However, have you done any calculations? Have you looked at what it might cost a local authority to deliver a plan?
That is what we are working on right now. We are considering what those resources will look like.
Even more broadly, though, the delivery of the plan ultimately falls to many different areas. As I said, I was at the Health and Social Care Committee last week, at which we discussed the work that is being delivered through the population health framework. My portfolio, in and of itself, cannot necessarily fund all that work. Some of it falls within the budgets of other portfolio areas.
We are discussing what that initial resource looks like and what is needed to get the plans off the ground and that initial bit of work developed.
The committee has heard evidence from some stakeholders that a reallocation of the agriculture budget to local authorities would help them to implement the good food nation plan. Is it the Scottish Government’s intention to go down that route? I am seeking reassurance from the cabinet secretary today that she will not take that approach.
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.
That is helpful.
The plan appears to be quite cluttered—it includes requirements for food strategies, potential community wealth-building duties and other elements. If the Scottish Government’s aim is to simplify the policy and programme for delivery, how will that be achieved when we have another national plan and 46 new local food plans? How do we make the plan relevant?
I appreciate that, from the outside, the plan can appear to be very cluttered. Of course, a lot of things are going on in all the portfolio areas across Government, but some of the areas that you have mentioned have their own requirements. For me, it is about how all those areas deliver our overall good food nation outcomes.
I referenced the population health framework, and there has been close co-operation between the good food nation team and those who are working on population health. A diet and healthy weight implementation plan will be developed on the back of that, which will help to deliver the good food nation outcomes that we have set out. The indicators will help us to get the baseline information to monitor how all of that is being done.
We also cannot forget that one of the most important things in the 2022 act is the specified functions, the descriptions and the fact that, as we are developing new policies, strategies and plans, we must have regard to the good food nation plan.
We are trying to embed a different way of working across Government and with local government and health boards. I do not see it as just another thing that people do and tick off—we are giving effect to this plan. It is, I hope, the first in a long line of plans.
You made reference to the food-growing strategies, which are another legislative requirement. A strategy could form part of a local authority’s good food nation plan, but there are very different legislative requirements for it compared to what we will be asking of local authorities for the good food nation plans.
Thank you.
10:00
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will touch on procurement and the guidance around it. We have heard a lot of evidence about that, so it would be good to get a flavour from you. Does the Scottish Government intend to provide guidance to local authorities on good food procurement? Last week, we heard that the “Catering for Change” document has not been updated since 2011. That seems to be causing some issues in ensuring that small and medium-sized companies have the opportunity to participate in such procurement.
Last week, East Ayrshire Council said that “not a single” butcher firm had made an application to ensure that the council was getting a supply from it. That means that, when it comes to procurement, there must be a blockage somewhere for such small and medium-sized companies. Why are local suppliers still having difficulties in benefiting from local authority food procurement?
There is a lot to unpack in that question. I will ask Laura Hunter to come in on some of the specifics of our work on procurement.
Within the plan, we recognise that public procurement is hugely important in terms of overall spend and the change that we can try to lever in through it—about £220 million is available to public authorities for food procurement in particular. We also recognise that, unfortunately, not all aspects of food procurement necessarily are in areas that are easy to resolve. We have to give consideration to World Trade Organization regulations, which do not allow us to specify that a purchase must be local.
We have to work carefully within the legal parameters that are set out for us. A number of pieces of legislation, including regulations, and statutory guidance have been introduced over the past few years in order to provide that flexibility for procurement so that we can see more local produce within our supply chains and see the benefit for our small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is an area that is often raised with me in the chamber. That is why we think it important to make that flexibility a focus within the plan. For example, there is currently flexibility in designing menus—authorities can focus on food with protected geographical status and different assurance schemes, such as the ones provided by Quality Meat Scotland, and they can specify free-range and organic food—and contracts can be divided into smaller geographical lots.
So much work is under way to ensure that we are helping small and medium-sized businesses. In terms of the overall trajectory, about 60 per cent of around 17,000 supplier contracts go to Scottish SMEs. It is an area where we have seen gradual increases. However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why all that work is under way.
Laura Hunter will be able to provide more specific information about that work.
A decision was made to retire the “Catering for Change” document because time had moved on and further guidance is now available in the public domain for buyers specifically.
We fund national toolkits, systems and guidance to support local procurement practice at an individual and organisational level. We have the sustainable procurement tool, which is an online tool that contains a series of guidance documents, e-learning and case studies from across the public sector. We also have a procurement journey website, which provides guidance for buyers at each stage of the procurement process. We also have client guides to construction projects and the procurement and commercial improvement programme.
We fund a range of training and resources. We have a specific framework in place that contains a couple of lots—one for procurement training and one for sustainable procurement training—and we offer events to the wider sector. We continue to invest in our procurement people of tomorrow programme, which creates and enables a pipeline of talent from schools, colleges and universities to bring young people and knowledge into the sector.
On support for SMEs, we try to make it as simple as we possibly can for SMEs. We provide the public contracts Scotland website. To be able to bid for a public contract, businesses must be registered on PCS. All contracts valued at £50,000 or more for goods and services are advertised on there. Suppliers can register there free of charge and receive alerts for contracts that they might be interested in.
Many of the contracts that are awarded on public contracts Scotland are won by SMEs. As the cabinet secretary said, in 2024-25, almost 17,000 suppliers were awarded contracts through PCS, and 77 per cent of those were SMEs.
We support and promote free training, advice and resources for suppliers as well, and we part fund the supplier development programme.
Thank you. That is quite a comprehensive answer that gives a flavour of where we are; however, obviously, there are pockets that still need a bit more support depending on which council or area they are in.
My second question relates to how the Scottish Government views planning and licensing when it comes to helping to deliver the good food nation. There has been talk about, and there are examples of this all over Scotland, there being far too many fast-food outlets near schools, for example. How do you square that circle and ensure that you are delivering the good food nation but, at the same time, giving businesses and entrepreneurs the opportunity to trade and expand?
You are absolutely right. We already have policies in place in that regard through national planning framework 4. In considering hot food takeaways in particular, there is a specific policy that quite clearly says that development should not be supported where there could be a risk of it impacting on overall health and wellbeing, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
That overarching policy principle is there, but ultimately, those decisions are for local authorities and their planning and licensing committees. We would expect them to consider the wider overarching policies such as the one in NPF4 that I mentioned.
Thank you, convener.
Thank you. Willie Coffey has a supplementary question.
Cabinet secretary, I recently heard of a case in East Ayrshire in which a local smaller supplier bid for a particular contract but lost out to a bigger supplier that could provide a much lower price, despite all the local criteria and so on being in favour of the smaller supplier.
Do you think that the boundaries are clear enough for councils to consider bids from and offer contracts to local smaller suppliers that usually—inevitably—offer a higher price? Some councils maybe feel compelled to opt for the lower price to satisfy procurement guidelines, but there are criteria in there that would allow them to vary that, should they so choose. Do you think that that whole area is clear enough, or does it need to be tidied up in any way?
I think that I am aware of the example that you raise. As far as I am aware—I am sure that Laura Hunter will correct me if I am wrong—guidance and regulation about price and quality being factors in procurement were brought in around 2016. Although that supplier lost out on the contract, it had the contract previously, which shows that it is possible.
Within the mix of domestic legislation and international legislation that we must abide by in this respect, we have tried to ensure that we are providing as much flexibility to encourage local suppliers to bid for those contracts and also to be successful in bidding.
I believe that the flexibility is there to enable that to happen; however, if the committee hears evidence that says otherwise, it is important for us to reflect on that and see whether more can be done. We see local authorities do it—they award those contracts to local suppliers—and we want to see more of that, so we seek to enable it.
Just on that, before I bring in Mark Griffin, does the Government intend to look into that situation, to learn and understand why there had been a local supplier but the contract moved to a different supplier, and what needs to happen to support SMEs that may have got a contract but then lost it?
Obviously, in that example, the decision is for East Ayrshire Council, so we would not expect to try to change that. That decision is up to the council, and it has taken it. However, as I said in my response to Willie Coffey, ensuring flexibility to help our smaller and local producers access such contracts is important. That is part of the work that Laura Hunter described earlier.
On that example specifically, there will be other opportunities. Scotland Excel is going to the market with its next generation of milk and alternative dairy products framework. The things that we look at include whether contracts can be broken down into smaller lots or geographical areas that will enable some of the local producers to bid for them.
There will be other opportunities. The supplier who unfortunately lost out in that situation supplies the Scottish Government through our overall catering contract. We try to make sure that we are working with businesses so that they feel confident enough in the first place to bid for contracts. The ability is there. I do not know whether Laura Hunter wants to add anything or whether I have covered it.
Public contracts must be awarded on a combination of price and quality, and the weighting should be appropriate to each tender exercise.
The sustainable procurement duty, which was introduced in 2016, outlines clearly that public bodies have to think about how they are improving social, environmental and economic wellbeing in general, in all the areas that they can focus on as part of that, so that all those different important measures are given due consideration.
For clarity, I was not suggesting that there be an intervention on East Ayrshire Council. I was interested in what we could learn from what happened in that situation, so that we can support SMEs in the future.
Good morning.
In 2022, through separate committee inquiry work, we concluded that communities that have local food-growing aspirations have difficulty in accessing land. Will any parts of the good food nation plan help to overcome those barriers and support local communities that have ambitions to become local food growers?
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.
You talked about NPF4 and the planning considerations around applications for fast food outlets. Is the Government talking to local authorities about local development plans to ensure that they allocate specific areas for community food growing?
10:15
We certainly hope that, through the different requirements for local development plans and what they have to consider, that will all feed into local authorities and the work that they will be looking to do for their good food nation plans. They could certainly consider that as part of it.
We have a few more questions and the next one is about the third sector. Your colleague Ivan McKee introduced the public service reform strategy, which talks about the third sector being a key delivery partner. However, we have heard from Age Scotland that the national good food plan, which was worked on before the public service reform strategy, or in parallel with it
“fails to mention any of the contributions made by local community charitable groups and third sector organisations and the services and support they offer to communities.”
I am interested in understanding whether that is an oversight and whether there is an intention to revise the plan and acknowledge those organisations and services further.
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.
Some local authorities seem to be working through the community planning partnerships on delivering the plan. That is an interesting space. However, in our work on community planning partnerships, we have heard that it is a mixed bag. Some community planning partnerships are tremendous because they include communities and the third sector voice, including by co-chairing meetings and in other ways. We have had evidence on that. Maybe it has changed since we did that work and communities feel that they are up against the wall in a meeting and not really included. That seems to be a potentially useful forum for some of the discussion.
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.
My other question is about data. You talked about setting the baseline almost at the beginning. The national plan accepts that there are issues with procurement data and it includes various high-level indicators relating to each outcome. I am interested to understand to what extent data is available at a local level to track progress on those indicators.
Yes. As I said in response to some of the earlier questions, we recognise where there are data gaps. The next version of the plan will certainly have a lot more information in that regard, because we will have been able to get the baseline information from the indicators that we have against the outcomes that are set out in the plan at the moment. We will also use the time between now and then to fill some of the gaps with the information that we do not have at the moment and to look to collect the relevant information. The work of the Scottish Food Commission will be really important in helping us with recommendations for areas where we need that research to be undertaken.
It is also important to highlight the review periods. Although the plan will be revised only on a five-yearly basis, it will be reviewed every two years. If our policies are not delivering against the outcomes, the Scottish Food Commission has to outline the changes that we need to make to the policies to ensure that we deliver on what we have set out.
You have talked about the Scottish Food Commission being a scrutinising body. When they were with the committee last week, its representatives talked about the Food Commission being a “critical friend”, but I am interested to hear clearly what the Scottish Government sees the Scottish Food Commission doing to assess the effectiveness of local plans.
I envisage the Scottish Food Commission having the role that is clearly set out in the legislation; that is the expectation. It is great to have an independent perspective on what we are doing and at the policies across the piece.
The Food Commission has a broad range of experience. The chair and three members have now been appointed, and they will have a critical role in assessing our policies. Especially during the review periods, if something is not working, the Food Commission will be able to set that out so that we can set out how we intend to change course. I also see the Food Commission as being helpful with the data gaps that we talked about and understanding where we need more research. It will be helpful to be able to have discussions with the Scottish Food Commission and get its assistance in that regard. Scrutiny is very important, but the research element and the provision of further advice on the broad range of areas that the plan covers will also be helpful.
Dennis Overton was at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee meeting on the good food nation, and he spoke about how academics are already coming to them to ask how they can help in that space. It is exciting to see that the commission can become a sort of lightning rod for academics and researchers to find out what they can do. However, have we done any thinking about how local authorities and health boards will be able to access that information and understand that that resource will be there for them?
I would hope that we will be able to make that clear and help to establish those relationships through the conversations that we are having. That has been key to the work that the Scottish Food Commission has been doing since the commissioners have come into post. We still have to recruit a chief executive for the commission, along with a wider team to support that work, but the establishment of those relationships has been a key focus for the commission. Tracy McCollin might have more to say on that.
I would just repeat that the building of relationships has been going very well since Dennis Overton came into post. He has made a huge effort with that and has made very good links. When the Scottish Food Commission is fully up and running, it will be at a very good starting point.
That concludes questions. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their contributions this morning. I suspend the meeting for a changeover of witnesses.
10:22 Meeting suspended.