Official Report 1255KB pdf
Good Food Nation (Specified Functions and Descriptions) (Scottish Ministers) Regulations 2025 [Draft]
Good morning, and welcome to the 34th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Before we begin, I ask everyone to ensure that their electronic devices are switched to silent. We have received apologies from Ariane Burgess, and we welcome to the meeting Mark Ruskell, who is attending as her substitute.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of subordinate legislation. I welcome to the meeting Mairi Gougeon, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and the following Scottish Government officials: Ashley Cook, deputy director for food and drink; Tracy McCollin, head of the good food nation team; Lisa Nowak, policy officer, good food nation team; and James Hamilton, lawyer.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
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.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
This has been a long process. The good food nation has been talked about for more than a decade. This committee did a huge amount of work right at the beginning of the parliamentary session, but, sadly, we were unable to properly scrutinise the plan, given the lack of time.
In their responses to our call for views, stakeholders, including the Scottish Food Commission, have been highly critical of the SSI. There has been lots of concern around governance and accountability. Indeed, the Scottish Food Commission suggested that the SSI has
“conflated the desire for specificity with that of being narrow.”
There is, therefore, some confusion about how we have arrived where we are. Will you explain what your approach has been and, given that some functions or descriptions—for example, crofting—appear in one schedule but not in the other, is there a risk that, by including some functions but not others, there may be omissions in practice?
There is quite a lot to pick up on in that question. I will work through it as best I can.
I absolutely appreciate your points about the amount of work that has gone into the good food nation plan, as well as the legislation, which started at the beginning of this session, with the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 following soon after. I appreciate that the committee took evidence in relation to the publication of the draft good food nation plan, but I assure you that I and officials have appeared in front of two other committees of the Scottish Parliament. It was welcome to see other areas having that interest in the good food nation work and to go through that scrutiny process in detail. I will, of course, keep the committee updated when we publish the final version of the plan, based on the recommendations that came out of that scrutiny, including from other committees.
I reiterate that the specified functions and descriptions can appear quite technical or difficult to understand, but what we are doing involves a quite exciting and innovative approach. There are have-regard duties in other pieces of legislation; this is about putting the have-regard duty into practice to make sure that we have joined-up policy working across the piece and across Government and that the good food nation plan and its outcomes are being considered in the development of policies.
The functions and descriptions have been set out between the two schedules. Schedule 1 covers the specified functions—that is, where there is a specific legislative power or regulation-making duty, in the exercise of which ministers would be expected to have regard to the good food nation plan. However, there are of course a number of non-statutory areas in which we would want to consider the good food nation plan, and those are covered by the descriptions.
As I set out in my opening remarks, we have tried to be comprehensive. That has involved extensive working across Government. We have listened to what came through the consultation and have had engagement with stakeholders. However, it was important to get a balance. If a duty is too broad, the concern is that it will become more of a tick-box exercise, rather than addressing and considering the issue in a meaningful way. That is why we have taken the approach that I have outlined.
However, I emphasise again that this is the starting point, not the finishing point. If, as the work develops, it emerges that areas have been missed, we will look to add those to further legislation, through another SSI.
You say that you tried to be comprehensive. However, one damning feature of the SSI is the policy note, which runs to just one and a half pages. I have seen SSIs that were considerably less impactful on food production but had more explanation about how the Government had arrived at its policies. Why does so little information surround this SSI, given how broad it is? One and a half pages is probably the smallest policy note that we have had in any of the legislation that the committee has considered over the past four years.
08:45
The schedules set out quite clearly the functions and descriptions that we intend to be considered. I have also written to the committee to address some of the committee’s questions and provide some more information, and I hope that that letter answered some of those questions.
I want to build on what you said in your opening statement about how comprehensive the list of what needs to be contained is. The letter that you wrote to the committee says that some functions are included, but not others. It says:
“In relation to agriculture and planning, for example, the Scottish Government said that these are covered by a specified function on the National Planning Framework”.
I understand that some of the other legislation that you have mentioned will also cover some of the items. It is good that we are working across portfolios.
Last night, I hosted an event for the 10-year anniversary of Food Standards Scotland, and loads of different stakeholders were in the room. Dennis Overton from the Scottish Food Commission was there, as well as others from the Food Foundation. The event was very wide ranging.
Taking agricultural planning as an example, is it sufficient to have regard to the good food nation plan only when producing another high-level plan, as opposed to when exercising other functions that have practical effect, such as issuing guidance, setting eligibility criteria and so on?
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.
The population health framework is also mentioned in the good food nation plan as being part of our ability to address our food system, for example, and to support improved population health. I am just looking at the good food nation plan language within the population health framework.
Yes, you are absolutely right. That important points about the population food framework and the work that is being done in that regard were raised when I was giving evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The good food nation team and teams in health policy have been working closely together to ensure that there is cross-portfolio working in those areas.
The instrument appears not to cover issues such as food insecurity and diet-related illness, which, according to the evidence that we took four years ago, are central to the idea of a good food nation. Why have they been excluded?
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.
On the agricultural side, again, several respondents, including the Food Coalition and NFU Scotland, highlighted that agriculture is not referred to as a policy area under specific descriptions. Why would it be excluded?
Again, that is because there is already reference to the good food nation plan and how we give consideration to that in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. It is just that the reference has not been duplicated.
The rural support plan does not cover everything. It does not cover a lot of the things that you would expect the good food nation plan to cover. Does that not create a gap?
I do not believe so. First, that will be the key strategic document. Given section 2 of the 2024 act, what the rural support plan has to give consideration to and set out is, I believe, quite comprehensive. It is also important that, in its development, that key strategic document is judged and assessed against, and has regard to, the good food nation plan and the outcomes. That means that it is built into the development of the areas that the rural support plan has to cover.
An important point is that if, in our development of policy in those areas, it is apparent that there is a gap, we will look to pick that up through our monitoring. It is in nobody’s interest for there to be any key missing areas in the legislation, so the monitoring and how we assess impact will be important.
In responding to the committee on this issue, as you have just mentioned, you highlighted areas that are not specified in the SSI because they are already specified elsewhere—in other legislation. How do you ensure clarity, given that things are specified in different pieces of legislation?
As I have talked about, the monitoring and how we look at that will be critical to ensuring that the have-regard duty has effect in the way that is intended. I will hand over to officials, who will be able to say a bit more about that. Through the development of the SSI and the plan, there has been key working across Government to build relationships with different policy teams. That is how the schedules of functions and descriptions have been collated, which I think has already developed that wider understanding.
I do not know whether Tracy McCollin wants to say a bit more about the monitoring work—which will, I hope, provide more reassurance on that front.
The work to develop the SSI has already started that process. There has been a lot of cross-policy and cross-portfolio working, so there is really good awareness of the way in which the national good food nation plan will take legal effect through the specified functions and descriptions.
As we have been having those conversations with colleagues, we have also been testing how best to monitor, because we do not want an additional bureaucratic burden but, rather, something that is effective and takes account of the fact that policies can take time to develop. Through having check-in points with the good food nation team at the beginning of policy work on anything that is related to food; offering help through the team by putting policy colleagues in touch with other areas that might be relevant to the development of the new policy or legislation, guidance or whatever it is that they are working on; and, at the end of the process, recording how regard has been had and which specified functions and descriptions have been used, we will be able to understand which are being used on a regular basis, which may not have been used, whether there are gaps and whether our policy colleagues are highlighting something that should be added.
Throughout that process, the good food nation team will act as a central point, so that people always know whom to get in touch with, and we can put them in touch with other policy areas across the Scottish Government.
Given what you have said about the conversations with the sector, what would be the implications for the wider good food agenda if the Parliament were not to approve the instrument?
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.
On that, although the instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, thereafter the procedure to be followed would be the negative procedure, so the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise any further instrument is somewhat limited.
Have you felt under pressure, given that the act specifies that you need to publish the plan before the end of December? The instrument is part and parcel of that. You said that you have taken time to do this, but given that and given that the feedback on the instrument has been critical, have you considered withdrawing and reviewing it and then bringing back an instrument that a lot of stakeholders would suggest is more fit for purpose?
I do not think that more time would necessarily have assisted in that. We have also faced criticism in relation to the time taken to develop the plan, but, since the consultation that we undertook on the specified functions last year, our understanding of how it would work in practice has been evolving.
Ultimately, this is about how we put the good food nation plan and its outcomes into practical effect across different policy areas, and it is about how we work within Government to ensure that it has the necessary impact.
When we look through all the comments that have come from different stakeholders, we see that some stakeholders wanted a broader duty to apply. We tried to get the balance right between it not being too broad and becoming a tick-box exercise, and identifying areas that people felt might otherwise be excluded. We have tried to strike the right balance.
As I outlined in my response to Alasdair Allan, the instrument provides a strong starting point for us, because we can only build on it from here.
Rhoda Grant, do you have a supplementary question on this matter?
No.
I call Tim Eagle.
I think that I understand what you are trying to say, cabinet secretary. Even in my short time in Parliament, I have heard various ministers and cabinet secretaries say that an SSI is a strong starting point, but I agree with what the convener just said: the risk is that, once the instrument leaves the committee, it is really difficult for us, in the Parliament, to have a say on where it goes.
Quite a broad range of stakeholders have raised concerns about this. Although I accept that you are right about having a starting point, how can those stakeholders be made to feel comfortable? How can I be reassured that their views will be taken into account as soon as possible, so that the lists can be amended?
A number of different things can be done in that regard. First, we will be open to any further suggestions for additions that people feel might be required in the future. Given that this is a novel approach, we need to embed it and see how it is working. The good food nation team will undertake monitoring, and the mechanisms that are established for that will be important.
There will be review points for the 2022 act, when issues can be picked up through evidence taking or scrutiny of the plan, or through committee recommendations. If any suggestions emerge from the committee, stakeholders or the Scottish Food Commission at any point, we will be open to considering them.
In our engagement, a good piece of work has been done explaining to stakeholders a bit more about how we work in Government and how the specified functions and the have-regard duty are intended to work in practice.
We are open to that consideration and scrutiny in the future, and to any recommendations that might be made.
As I say, we have covered the most critical areas in the good food nation plan as it stands, and we have captured the critical functions as well as the wider description. I am more than happy to keep the committee engaged on how the monitoring is progressing in addition to at the specific review points that are set out in the legislation.
It is up to the convener, but I would be happy to hear more as this progresses, given the concerns.
Just out of interest, do you have any meetings arranged with stakeholders to discuss how they feel there should be change moving forward?
09:00
There is already that engagement—
You are already having that dialogue.
There is engagement between the good food nation team and our wider stakeholders. That has been taking place throughout the development of the SSI—
But that is aside from the fact that we have concerns in the committee.
I absolutely appreciate that. Those discussions have been held with my team, and I do not know whether any of them would like to add anything. I think that that has been covered.
Your response to the committee’s letter states that there is a plan to introduce a reporting mechanism for the have-regard duty and that that will be done by the good food nation team. How will that team oversee the duty? Will decision-making processes around the duty be publicly communicated to ensure transparency?
I will hand over to Tracy McCollin, who can give a bit more information about how that will work in practice and some of the plans that are being developed.
I said earlier that the good food nation team will act as a central point, and this is still under discussion with our policy colleagues. As I said, we do not want to put extra bureaucracy in the SSI, but there will likely be some form of tracker that will enable us to keep a record of which specified functions are being used and how they had regard during the development of the policy. Because it is a new approach, we are not entirely sure how that information will be provided and how it can be recorded, so we are keeping an open mind as to how best to do that.
On how that information will become available, at the reporting points and the review and revision, we hope to look at how the specified functions are working in practice. Again, I am not sure how that will be put into the two-year reports that are required by the 2022 act, but we are discussing with colleagues the best way to do that, partly because policy development will vary across different policy areas. In some, it will take a short time; in some, it will take a long time; and in others it will change depending on what happens during the development of the policy.
It will be quite a task to track everything, and we want to be able to do that efficiently so that, when we come to our two-year reports and the review and revision of the national good food nation plan, we have the information to hand to inform decisions and changes that might be needed in the most effective way possible.
Have you had ideas about that during the build-up to the good food nation plan and all the work that has gone on for years? The term “have regard” is pretty common nowadays, is it not? Are there other methods that are used in other laws that you can use in this one?
No, because it is the first time that this approach has been taken. You are right that a have-regard duty is not new to legislation. I appreciate that we have discussed that when I have been at the committee to discuss other legislation, but the way in which this approach will operate is new, and that is why it is different.
I completely understand that the committee and wider stakeholders will have an interest in how it will operate in practice, but that is where I think what Tracy McCollin has outlined and how we report on this will be important. We want to be transparent about it.
Good morning, and thank you for your answers so far. Can you set out for us the role of the Scottish Food Commission in monitoring the duty to have regard to the good food nation plan?
Yes. The Scottish Food Commission has a specific role, which is set out in the legislation but it has no specific role in relation to the have-regard duty. As I outlined earlier, if the commission wants to do any work on that or if it has any suggestions about areas that we should consider in the future, we would be open to any of those recommendations, but its specific duties and functions do not relate specifically to that area.
Do you see there being an on-going dialogue about what its role might be?
I expect us to have a close working relationship with the Scottish Food Commission, because, given its role in scrutinising the plan, it makes absolute sense for us to have that. The commission is independent and can look at its own work, but I expect to have close engagement and discussion.
Ashley Cooke wants to come in at this point.
I emphasise that I regularly meet with Dennis Overton, who was referred to earlier and is the chair of the Scottish Food Commission.
The legislation sets out where the Food Commission will be issuing public progress reports—if you want to call them that—on the Government’s performance on the good food nation and our targets. Although it is for the commission to decide how to conduct that work, I expect that it will look at how interaction between the plan and the specified functions is working and at whether anything needs to change. I imagine that there will be a moment when a conversation will happen, possibly at committee, about the mechanisms for reporting from the commission, and I expect that the Government at the time will want to respond to that and to set out its experience of how the specified functions are working in practice.
Do you see that as being a positive future relationship? Depending on what happens and how the legislation is rolled out, will the commission be able to influence its role?
Yes, absolutely. As Ash Cooke outlined, there will be engagement throughout.
This is not a case of the plan being published and that being it. So much work will continue in the background and so many pieces of work are on-going. We are already looking ahead to future iterations of the plan and to reporting and reviews. The plan is the starting point for a new area, but there will be engagement and we will work closely with the Scottish Food Commission when we get any recommendations from it.
There is also a question about schedules being kept up to date. Is that something that the commission would have a role in?
Its duties do not specifically relate to that area, but Tracy McCollin outlined the monitoring work that we will do to ensure that we are capturing some of those duties.
If we look ahead to the next few months and the amount of legislation that Parliament will be dealing with, we can see that there is a risk that we might miss some duties that we might need to bring back or to consider in the future. That is why the specified descriptions are important, because they are broader, all-encompassing areas, which means that any legislation would also be covered by the broad descriptions set out in that list. We will keep a close eye on that to ensure that we capture any new duties or powers.
Can you give us an indication of how often the update reports will be published? That is not set out anywhere in the legislation or the guidance notes.
There are specific review points for the good food nation plan within the legislation, and those could act as points where we could also report on how the powers have been exercised. There is also the engagement work that Tracy McCollin and the good food nation team are taking forward, so it is not necessarily a case of waiting for that specific review point. If it transpired that there was another area where it would be appropriate for us to add to that list, we would bring forward another instrument at that point rather than wait for the review period. I hope that that makes sense.
The Scottish Food Coalition said that, as you mentioned, some bills that are going through Parliament now will not be included in the instrument, which means that it will be out of date almost as soon as we approve it. We will discuss the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill later this morning. Should we add a provision to that bill so that its functions will have to have regard to the good food nation plan? Should we be updating all the legislation? How often do you expect to bring forward new SSIs?
Again, it is not possible for me to set out a timeframe, because it will depend very much on how the situation evolves. As I outlined, we hope that the regulations will future proof things to a certain extent, given that the descriptions cover a broader area that will include the development of future policy. Although the SSI has not yet been approved, there has been on-going engagement and dialogue with the good food nation team and other policy areas across the Government in relation to the development of some key areas, in order to ensure that the plan and its outcomes are given that consideration.
I do not think that we have a stakeholder who is really happy with the approach of the SSI. The disappointment comes from the fact that the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and the plan were supposed to be overarching. We understand that food is of interest to everybody because of health, the economy and so on—it touches so many aspects of life. The SSI seems to narrow the whole process by mentioning some things specifically. It does not provide a full picture, because there are different bits of legislation. Unless someone is totally immersed in legislation, they will pick up on the SSI and miss half of what the good food nation plan is supposed to be doing, and they will see a narrowing of where the plan is relevant. I wonder whether you would have taken a different approach if you had consulted on the draft, because it seems that the SSI pleases nobody and does not meet the aspirations of the bill.
In some ways, I do not think that the instrument could do that. Some people would be looking to broaden the power. In many ways, it is a very technical instrument. Ultimately, it is about trying to change how we work across the Government. The SSI could appear to be too narrow, but we are looking at a very specific exercise of powers to ensure that it has a meaningful impact. We could broadly reference other pieces of legislation, but the fear would be that that approach to consideration of the good food nation plan would become so broad as to be almost meaningless or a tick-box exercise, which we are really keen to avoid.
In the exercise of specific functions that are relevant to the good food nation plan, we want to show how the outcomes in the plan are being considered and then see a practical effect from that. This is about fundamentally changing how we work across the Government, and it is a new and innovative approach. I disagree that it is too narrow. It is about achieving balance, and I hope that the table that I have set out for the committee explains some of that. There are areas in which people would like to see a whole piece of legislation covered. We have outlined the reason for the specific powers in each of those areas, but there are other areas that are very broad that do not necessarily relate to food. Procurement is an example. We could take a broad-brush approach, but food procurement is more specific, which is why we have taken the approach that we have.
I think that we have struck the right balance, but the danger is that we end up not making anybody happy. We can only look to monitor the approach and add to it in the future to ensure that we cover all the bases once we have seen how it is working in practice. Ultimately, we are trying to ensure that the good food nation plan has a practical impact. That is what we are trying to implement through the instrument.
Being so narrow might mean that you miss crucial aspects, such as planning. We all know that, if someone lives in a deprived area, the chances are that they will have an expensive corner shop rather than a more affordable supermarket. Planning is crucial to how we implement all of this, and it feels as though an awful lot is missing from the plan. We are not taking the holistic approach that we hoped would come forward from the act and the plan.
I agree about the impact of planning, but we are trying to ensure that we address some of those issues in the most specific way whereby it will have an impact on what we set out in the good food nation plan. I can only repeat what I said about trying to strike that balance. If, in practice, it turned out that we had missed something in the development of our policy on a specific area, we would bring forward another instrument to try to address that. The monitoring and the work that is taking place across the Government will be really important in picking that up.
Given that that is the case, would it not be better to withdraw the regulations and come back with something more overarching?
I would not agree with that. The approach that we have taken is not so broad stroke that implementation of the plan would not mean anything and would not work in practice.
This has been a long process—we first consulted on the measures early last year—so I would not want to withdraw the regulations and delay any further. We can only look to improve the process from here. I believe that we have covered all the key bases that are set out in the good food nation plan, and we can only look to add to that in the future. I would be concerned if the regulations were not approved, because I think that we have a strong basis here, and not approving the regulations would delay the plan being brought into consideration.
09:15
Are there any other considerations as to why the regulations need to be approved today? Is it because of the constraints in the act that you need to publish the plan within three months of the consultation?
I do not believe so. We consulted on the measures a long time ago, and so much work has gone on in both developing the plan and considering the matters that we have been discussing. It is important that we brought forward the draft regulations when we did. I can only repeat what I said about the approach that we have taken and about striking the balance.
So, there is no legal rush to pass the SSI now.
I would have to look for advice on what is set out in the legislation on our bringing the regulations forward.
The legislation sets out a timetable for laying of the good food nation plan, which ministers have complied with. It does not set out a specific timetable for laying the regulations. Nothing in the act requires that to happen now, and that is not the reason for the regulations being brought forward now.
Thank you.
I want to ask about future edits of the SSI. What triggers will the Government keep an eye on to decide whether to produce any revisions or additions to the regulations?
There will be the monitoring work that Tracy McCollin and her team are looking to establish in relation to the reporting mechanisms, first on how the specified functions and descriptions in the regulations are being applied. There will be on-going consideration and discussion between teams to see whether anything could be flagged as an omission. If we discover an omission, we would then make an instrument. As we have already outlined in relation to the review periods that are set out for the good food nation plan and the reporting that we would have to do, it may make sense to consider acting at that point, when more evidence could be available.
The whole Parliament is currently considering a draft climate change plan. It seems odd that ministers will not have regard to climate change or social security under the SSI that is before us. I wonder why there are such big omissions at this point. If the whole point is to have policy coherence and draw all the important threads together, now is surely the time, particularly with regard to climate change, when we should be considering what a good food nation is. Ministers should be thinking across portfolios in such areas. I am not sure why there are such big omissions at this point.
In some areas, such considerations are already picked up in specified functions elsewhere. I outlined that in my letter in response to the committee, specifically on climate change and some areas of social security. We have picked up the areas where there is a direct link to food. We did not want to duplicate what exists elsewhere, but we have picked up on the key areas that are referenced in the plan, and I believe that we have covered them through the descriptions and functions that we have set out.
I am not saying that those areas are not important; they are all completely interlinked, and we reference that in the good food nation plan. There is wider engagement between teams in recognition of the interlinked nature of those various policies.
If the schedules were updated at some point in the future, including under a future Government, would they potentially include climate change and social security, or is it job done for those areas?
It is not the case that we have drawn a line and that nothing else will be considered in the future. I hope that I have been clear in making that point today. The key consideration would be what specified power needed to be exercised that we could consider adding to the specified functions and descriptions or dealing with in a non-statutory way. We are talking about very broad-brush areas in which not every specific policy is linked directly to food. Again, we would give consideration to all such matters.
I come back to the issue of monitoring. If we felt that there were any specific omissions or any exercises of power that had been missed or that we needed to pick up, we would look to address those.
Were those aspects considered in the development of the draft climate change plan?
With regard to the overall approach that we have taken, I have highlighted the engagement that has taken place so far and the consultation that we have had in those areas. When it comes to the policies that we have taken forward in the draft climate change plan, I can say in relation to my ministerial portfolio that there are strong links to all the key policy areas that we have covered in that plan. I want to make sure that the good food nation outcomes are considered in relation to the development of the policies that we have put forward.
There is nothing specific listed here. I appreciate that there might appear to be omissions, but that does not mean that discussions have not taken place on such matters or that they have not been considered.
Okay. Thank you.
I might be going back a wee bit here. I do not know about you, cabinet secretary, but my head has been so full of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that I have found it hard to come back to the subject of the good food nation.
Mr Hamilton spoke about timescales. You laid the draft plan, which we had 60 sitting days to review. You must lay the final plan within three months, but I note that there is no timescale attached to the “have regard to” duty. Is my understanding of that correct? Am I right in thinking that nothing prohibits you from taking the SSI away, holding a bit more discussion with some of the stakeholders who have raised concerns and then relaying the instrument? That would not cause problems for any of the timescales in the 2022 act.
It would not cause us any legal issues under the act in the sense that there would be a legal duty that we were not complying with, but we would be left in a position where we would have a national good food nation plan that we had no legal obligation to have regard to in the context of specified functions or descriptions of functions. I would not say that that would be without problems, even though it would not involve a breach of a legal duty.
That is true, but that is the important point. It is not ideal, but it is possible that that could happen without any parts of the 2022 act being broken. The 2022 act takes quite a novel approach; it is cross-cutting legislation. I sympathise with some of the points that have been made about the practicality of implementing the provisions across loads of Government departments in different ways. That said, however, we must take into account the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.
Would it not be sensible, therefore, to get round the table with stakeholders and thrash this out? You could tell them all the stuff that you have told us this morning to get them on board and make sure that we are all heading in the same direction, rather than pulling in two directions.
I appreciate the concern that has been raised, but if the regulations were withdrawn and we went back and had those conversations, I do not think that I would be able to say categorically that 100 per cent of people were 100 per cent happy with everything that we had set out in the SSI. We have tried to strike a balance.
The instrument is about the technical aspects of how we put the plan into effect in working across Government. That is why it has been designed in such a way that it relates to the exercise of very specific powers. It represents a strong starting point.
I am concerned about the gap that would exist if the instrument was withdrawn. As has been outlined, we would have a plan, but no regard would need to be had to it when it came to practical implementation. All that we can look to do is to ensure that we monitor the situation and that we can build on the instrument in future if we feel that any key areas are missing in the exercise of the powers in question.
We consulted a couple of years ago, and we have on-going dialogue with stakeholders. We have tried to strike a balance in what we have brought forward.
I accept that, but the duty to have regard to the good food nation plan would not apply only for as long as it took you to relay the SSI. There might be a short period of time in which the final plan was in place but the duty to have regard to it did not apply, but as soon as you brought the SSI back, we approved it and it went through Parliament, that duty would kick in, would it not?
That presumes that we could take it away and do that work before the end of the parliamentary session. I do not think that that is a given, due to the amount of legislation that we have to deal with.
I stress once more that there has been a lot of on-going dialogue. I acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders expressed during the consultation and engagement, but we would not be able to satisfy some of those concerns, because doing so in some areas would require there to be a far broader duty, which could mean that the implementation of the have-regard duty would have less effect.
I believe that we have struck the right balance, and I hope that the committee feels that it is able to support the regulations today. Of course, we welcome any scrutiny and any recommendations on how we can build on the instrument, but I am concerned about the gap that could exist. I think that we have a strong foundation to build on, and we can only look to improve it.
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, of which I am a member, has discussed non-communicable diseases. Some 32 per cent of people in Scotland are obese, we have challenges with type 2 diabetes and we have kids who are not as tall as kids in other European countries because of malnourishment. If we approve the regulations today, that will allow the necessary cross-Government portfolio working to take place, given that the issues around addressing the food system and supporting a healthier nation are complex. Is it the case that the purpose of the regulations is to enable the cross-portfolio work in Government that is required to tackle the issues that I have listed?
Yes. There are some broader areas that you could say are not covered, but if you look at the specified descriptions, you will see that the regulations pick up some of the key areas, such as how policies, strategies or any legislation that is developed will have to consider the good food nation plan. Issues such as nutritional recommendations, information requirements and diet-related health conditions will be picked up as part of the specified descriptions. The regulations will ensure that we give the plan due consideration.
I can only reiterate what I said about the strong relationships that exist between health and food policy and the amount of work that has been going on between policy teams to make sure that there is collaboration across the piece and that the plan is given due consideration in those policy areas.
I am a bit confused by Emma Harper’s question. I can understand why she has taken that line, but the Scottish Food Commission expressed concern that the plan is weak with regard to the integration of environmental and health aspects. It suggested that the Government cannot deliver the good food nation policy while, in effect, ignoring climate obligations and public health outcomes, and that there are failings or shortcomings in how the public health outcomes and climate issues in the schedules tie into the have-regard duty. That is almost contrary to what we have just heard from the cabinet secretary.
I would not necessarily agree with that, because, if you look at some of the areas that are captured by the specified descriptions, you will see that they include areas that have a direct link to those issues in relation to which there will be the greatest effect. I outlined some of that in response to Emma Harper’s question. In relation to some of the other areas, we are simply not duplicating functions or descriptions that exist elsewhere in legislation.
You said that there are still on-going discussions with stakeholders. What engagement have you had with the seafood industry?
I had engagement with the seafood industry fairly recently in relation to an issue that was raised by an MSP, but that was about a more specific matter. Officials in the good food nation team and across other policy areas regularly engage with our seafood stakeholders. Those meetings cover a wide variety of matters, as well as the issues that we are discussing today.
In response to our call for views, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association said:
“the Good Food Nation framework is only meaningful if it recognises seafood as a pillar of Scotland’s food production”.
Is seafood recognised as a pillar of Scottish food production?
Absolutely. The good food nation plan recognises the importance of our marine environment and our marine industries. Of course, seafood is a low-carbon source of protein. The role that our fishermen play in seafood production is critical, and that is recognised in the good food nation plan.
The seafood sector also includes the aquaculture industry, but it feels like aquaculture has been left off the list.
If you are talking specifically about the list of specified functions in schedule 1, we have tried to capture the issue at a strategic level through the national marine plan. The issue is referenced in the specified functions and descriptions, and there is a wider recognition of the issue in the plan itself.
As there are no further questions, we move to agenda item 2, which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move motion S6M-19472.
Motion moved,
That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Good Food Nation (Specified Functions and Descriptions) (Scottish Ministers) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]
As members do not wish to debate the motion, is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)
Emma Roddick (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Evelyn Tweed (Stirling) (SNP)
Against
Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Tim Eagle (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Beatrice Wishart (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off a report on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes our consideration of the instrument. I thank the cabinet secretary for attending. I will suspend the meeting for 10 minutes to allow a changeover of witnesses.
09:32 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance