Chamber and committees

I put the same questions to Judith Higson.

I will leave it there, convener, but I look forward to working on the issue further.

We know that coercive control and abuse often escalates and intensifies post marriage during family separation. We also know that the pandemic has enabled an increase in the exercise of such control. We have had parents and children share their lived experience of family members continuing to abuse and exercise coercive control over children post separation through court processes and contact arrangements. Was coercive behaviour during periods of lockdown and the pandemic more generally seen in the justice system? Is the system equipped to deal with coercive control, and are the people in it trained on it? Are the signs of such control easily spotted? Are they looked for? Has access to justice been hindered because of that? I will start with Dr Scott.

Will the new fund support sustainable fisheries management through the provision of financial assistance for scientific data collection, or does that fall within the scope of the UK seafood fund?

My question is in two parts. First, how do we meet the challenge of an emerging conflict between the concept of permanent development and an increasingly changing coastline, particularly in light of the severe weather environmental changes that we have been having and will continue to have? How can planning policies for coastal and marine infrastructure take account of existing Scottish Government policies for fishing and the blue economy, including a future fisheries management plan and the upcoming blue economy action plan?

I want to discuss targets. I have been talking about that subject over the past few weeks and trying to dig down into it. Everybody seems to have their own specific agenda for the targets that they would like to see.

I have been using the example of obesity, which is not just the consequence of a bad diet or eating too much; a lot of socioeconomic factors come into play. I heard someone say that giving people one hot meal a day could be a target, but if we used a meals on wheels type of service, it might be a meal that just needs to be heated up for five minutes in the microwave or whatever.

My concern is how we ensure that everybody works together and that the targets do not pull the plan apart; the plan should take a holistic view on the good food nation. If we set targets for things that might be consequences of socioeconomic factors—we are looking at a cost-of-living crisis at the moment—will we not set ourselves up to fail? Are we in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees if we get too caught up in setting targets? Should we look more at levers, performance and unintended consequences?

I have found the whole meeting really interesting so far. As we have scrutinised the bill over the past few weeks, the evidence has thrown up memories of watching images of the miners strike on TV back in the day, as others have said. I have been moved—I am sure that other members of the committee have been moved, too—by some of the testimonies that we have heard. For example, Robert Young told the committee that he was arrested multiple times and personally dismissed by the National Coal Board following the strike. He said:

“People have to remember the psychological side of the miners strike ... You have to understand the psychological effect that that was having on people.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 January 2022; c 10.]

Another example is the miner Alex Bennett, who was heavily involved in the strike. That led to his arrest, a fine from the courts and, eventually, dismissal from his job.

The psychological scars of the strike are still being felt to this day. Some of that relates to the atmosphere at the time. It is important that we remember the impact on not only the miners but the people around them, those directly and indirectly affected, and the whole community.

In part, the pardon is an official validation of the struggles that the miners faced. I agree with Fulton MacGregor’s point that, if we start to look into other aspects, such as compensation, that might delay the pardon. However, what more can be done? I know that this might be slightly outwith your remit, cabinet secretary, but you have been considering the bill. What can be done outwith or alongside the pardon to ensure that the struggles are fully recognised and never forgotten? Should we be calling on anyone else to take some responsibility, too?

That was helpful. I agree that we already have many targets. All the stakeholders that have a part to play in the process already have targets. We need to think about how we work that in with the bill without setting new targets and having to prioritise those in the bill. That will involve everybody having a collaborative approach.

Children and young people throughout Scotland have stated how food insecurity affects them. In 2016, one child pointed out:

“When you’re hungry all you can think about is food.”

Another spoke about the impact of food insecurity on learning, stating:

“It’s really hard to concentrate.”

Children also talked about the potential impact of financial insecurity and not having enough to eat, stating that they felt upset, distressed, worried and scared.

That is absolutely heartbreaking. Who could not fail to be moved by it? However, the factors in those statements are not exclusive to good or bad food but are about a raft of measures that are needed to ensure food security, which would all be covered in the proposed human rights bill. How would the panel address the potential for conflict with, and duplication of, existing legislation and work streams if we implemented the right to food in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill?

I am interested in what Iain Gulland had to say about collaborative working and coming together with purpose and sustainable goals. In the past few weeks, I have been asking committee witnesses about targets, and I have realised that stakeholders have very specific targets and asks that often do not cross over with other stakeholders’ ambitions. In that context, can targets be too much of a constraint on achieving our ultimate ambition for a good food nation? Could they constrain local diversity and approaches that are, as Jim Fairlie touched on, bespoke to a specific area?

How do the witnesses envisage a more collaborative and collective plan for food in Scotland? As Iain Gulland touched on, that is important. It would ensure effective action by connecting with sustainable development goals as opposed to targets, which are perhaps a problem that is part of the need for a whole culture change.