Chamber and committees

I appreciate that but, in short, will the consultation on the 2026 to 2031 strategy consider how to implement the recommendations from the CCC?

Good morning to the witnesses. Heather Kelman was just talking about the issues that will be included in the consultation on the development of the new strategy, and I was very pleased to hear the commitment that there will be greater emphasis on climate and sustainability. Those issues were mentioned a bit in the previous strategy, but not at a very specific level. How much autonomy does Food Standards Scotland have to set a direction of travel on that?

You will be aware that the Climate Change Committee—the independent advisory body to both Governments on climate—has recently set out its advice on how to meet carbon budgets for the rest of the journey to net zero. There are specific conclusions for agriculture—clearly, there has to be a link between food production and the consumption of food. There is a huge overlap between more sustainable food and healthier food, yet that advice is already getting some reactionary pushback.

The Scottish Government’s climate plan will not be produced in time for you to consult on your strategy for 2026 to 2031. The scrutiny in Parliament of the draft climate plan is likely to run right up until the end of this parliamentary session; it may not even be completed until after next year’s election, in the new parliamentary session. How do you intend to give effect to the very clear conclusions of the Climate Change Committee report about food in the absence of a Scottish Government climate change plan having been published and adopted?

Good morning. Can I just check that you can hear me?

Thank you, convener. Good morning to the witnesses. Will you say a little more about the pattern of complaints that have come in over the years and whether that has changed? In particular, will you say something about public expectations of and relationships to care services, which might have been significantly affected over recent years because of Covid? Have the events of recent years changed the kinds of issues that people have concerns about and raise complaints about, whether or not those complaints end up being upheld?

I can feel the convener’s impatience with me even through Zoom, so I will resist the temptation to carry on with this topic. However, it clearly needs further consideration in the future.

I want to stay with the internal market act. I want to be very clear that I was opposed to the introduction of the internal market act, as were the majority of MSPs. The majority of MSPs support its repeal and I would like to see that, but I am realistic enough to know that the current UK Government does not intend to consider repealing it. We therefore have to make the case for some changes in the review of the IMA that are short of repeal but which respect the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.

What changes would allay the concerns that you have expressed? For example, the process of IMA exemptions is completely undefined—it is at the discretion of UK ministers. Would the addition of specific exemption criteria address that concern? That is similar to the way that the comparable EU legislation used to work when we were an EU member. Let me give an example. A policy that was intended to achieve a public health outcome could be granted an exemption by virtue of satisfying the criteria, rather than our being left with the current lack of clarity in a system where such issues are simply a matter for the minister of the day to make an individual decision about.

The reason that I ask is that I recently visited and had conversations with a care provider in my region, and they made the point that their experience—perhaps you can confirm whether this is felt more widely—is that people are entering residential care later in life as a result of changed attitudes and experiences in recent years. If people enter residential care later, they are more likely to enter at a more advanced stage of various conditions, including dementia. If that pattern becomes established, it will presumably change the pattern of complaints and peoples’ concerns. I assume that it is more likely that there are complaints from concerned family members about residential care than care at home services. Is that right, and do you anticipate that continuing to be a changed pattern?

Therefore, IMA exemption criteria would be helpful. You were asked earlier whether you have reached out as an agency to the UK Government to set out your position on the IMA. I would frame that question the other way around. The UK Government, in considering the future of the IMA, ought to be reaching out proactively to all public bodies that have a responsibility to look after the public interest, including public health. Has there been proactive engagement, even at official level, with you from the UK Government?

My final question is about complaints that are not upheld. You have given us statistics about the proportion of complaints that you investigate that are upheld. Do you take lessons from, and bring into wider intelligence gathering, complaints that are not upheld? Even if there is nothing to investigate, do they tell you anything about peoples’ concerns and experiences?

Thank you.