Chamber and committees

We are taking forward the commitment and that detailed piece of work is at an early stage. I will keep the committee updated as the work progresses.

Because of all the groundwork that has been done for the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. It was unfortunate that, in the previous session of Parliament, the bill’s introduction was delayed. It was a case of trying to introduce it at the earliest possible opportunity.

It is also about giving effect to the right to food. Although the right to food will be incorporated into Scots law through the human rights bill, it is vital that we have introduced the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, so that there is a framework that underpins the work that we are doing to deliver our good food nation ambitions. We should not delay that process.

The proposed obligation relates to public authorities, but that is not to say that there would not be an impact on private industry as a result of that.

I would be happy to get back to the committee on how such bodies might be considered and what the impact of that might be, if that would be helpful.

The detail of the outcomes that we will be setting out and hoping to achieve will be in the good food nation plans. As far as the oversight and monitoring of that is concerned, the bill itself talks about how progress will be monitored, and there will be periodic reports on and reviews of the plans, which are set out in the legislation, too. We have to report on our plans every two years, with a review after five, and there will be opportunities at those different stages for scrutiny to take place. Again, though, I will be keen to see what is in the stage 1 report and whether the committee feels that that has not necessarily been set out in the bill, that the provision is not strong enough or that there is a greater role for parliamentary scrutiny.

The costs in that regard for health boards were expected to be negligible because they already have in place a number of policies in relation to food. Officials might want to elaborate on that.

It was interesting to go through the evidence and hear comments on that. Obviously, a number of different bodies have different and specific roles and responsibilities. The committee has heard from some of those bodies in taking evidence. The work that we committed to undertake, and are undertaking, to properly scrutinise that will help us to fully assess what that landscape looks like and how we can develop work in relation to that.

I turn that back to the committee and say that I am willing to listen because, obviously, I want to listen as we go through the process. I have tried to explain the rationale for the position that we have reached and for what is in the bill that is before the committee. I am open to hearing recommendations in that regard, given that there have been very mixed views.

As I have said, when the matter was looked at initially, it was not considered that a food commission or an oversight body should be established for a variety of reasons, some of which I have already outlined. I do not think that you would appreciate it if I came here and said, hard and fast, that I was not going to listen to anything that you say or make any changes. That is why the stage 1 consideration of the bill and my hearing all the evidence that the committee has taken are so important. I want to ensure that, when we implement the bill, we get it right. We have already made a commitment to look at the potential for a statutory body. I will not commit further to that at this stage, given that that work will be undertaken.

We would look to publish the national good food nation plan in advance and not expect local authorities to publish theirs at the same time, so that we can set out what we expect from local authorities and help to provide coherence. At the same time, I note the points that we have discussed about the importance of flexibility, which we will take into consideration.

The legislation that we propose is critical in ensuring that that happens. Setting out the framework will enable that to happen and ensure that it takes place.

Absolutely—that point came out strongly in all the evidence that the committee heard. Many people emphasised the importance of collaboration with the food and drink industry throughout the process.

I highlight that we are not developing these proposals in isolation. We have regular contact with our stakeholders and the food and drink industry, including many of those from whom the committee has taken evidence. We will continue to work with them, because it is in our interest, and in everyone’s interest, that we get the approach right. The passion from those who gave evidence to the committee was apparent. I know from the committee’s work that we all have an interest in the bill and that we all want to deliver on our good food nation ambitions, and collaboration is key in that regard.

With regard to the list of relevant authorities and who will be required to produce a plan, a provision for adding other authorities is built into the bill, and I am happy to consider any suggestions from the committee as to who could be considered a relevant authority. We have the power in that regard, which means that we can consider the matter at a future date as suggestions are made and we continue with our work. If it becomes apparent through the process that other bodies should be added and specified as relevant authorities, there is a provision for that.