Chamber and committees

The evidence given to the committee on targets has been really interesting. I am looking forward to seeing what the committee’s stage 1 report says about that issue, because a lot of contrasting opinions have been expressed in response to the committee’s questions.

Some of those who gave evidence expressed concern that, as you suggest, targets could be leading us by the nose. As the committee has heard from many stakeholders, the bill covers so many different areas that it could just be one long list of targets. The concern was expressed that that would become the focus of work on the issue instead of the fundamental change that we want to bring about. Even if we had a narrower range of targets, that could still become the focus.

Another reason why we did not want to put targets in the bill is that the situation is evolving. The targets might change over time and go out of date quite quickly, and, if they were in primary legislation, we would have to amend that primary legislation to change them.

The most appropriate approach is to set out in the plans the outcomes that we want to achieve. Again, the evidence on that has been really interesting. For example, Food Standards Scotland said that it would like to see an outcome related to the Scottish dietary goals. There are a broad range of areas that we would want to cover.

Robin Gourlay said in evidence that he acknowledges that targets would be helpful but that that is not what the bill is about. He said that, instead of being about hitting individual targets, the bill seeks approaches that will drive change in the food system. Concerns were also expressed by the local authorities when they gave evidence to the committee.

I hope that that helps to explain why we have proposed to have outcomes and measures in the plans rather than in the bill.

What we have set out in relation to local authorities is for the preparation of the plan itself. Health boards already have plans in place, and that is where the costs are expected to be negligible. In much the same way that we will continue to have discussions with COSLA, we intend to continue the discussion when it comes to implementation and once we have a better idea. Each plan may be different, so it is not possible for us to quantify all those costs at the moment.

The approach that we have taken and talked about here is about trying to get a balance. It is important that we provide a basis on which consultation and discussion can take place; we are not trying to impose our view. As I said in response to previous questions, we would not form a plan in isolation; we are in constant dialogue with stakeholders. We would not write a plan in isolation and then unleash it on the public; we very much want to hear people’s views and take them on board. As I said, we want the process to be as inclusive as possible. The proposed approach is more about trying to provide the basis that enables discussion to take place, but if the committee recommends otherwise and thinks that the area could be improved, I will be happy to consider its recommendations.

That is part of the work that we will undertake to go through all the possibilities thoroughly. The issues that you have talked about are exactly those that we have experienced in considering the matter before. That is why we need to undertake detailed work to see whether that should be considered.

As you have said, there are a number of bodies. I know that people have suggested in other evidence sessions that it could be something for Public Health Scotland or Food Standards Scotland as well. That is why we are undertaking that work.

Yes.

I am sorry, but I missed the first part of your question.

There absolutely is such a commitment; we have made the commitment that that right will be in the human rights bill. In effect, though, all the work that we have talked about today is what gives effect to that right, and section 3 specifically requires us to have regard to it. Let me provide that assurance.

The commitment is in our manifesto, as you rightly said, but we need to take time to undertake a detailed review of the existing bodies and consider international comparators. The discussion about whether there should be an oversight body and the number of bodies that already exist in this space has come through in the evidence, and it has been interesting to consider what has been said. It is important that we take time to get the approach right. There is a commitment, as part of the Bute house agreement, to give the matter further consideration. The work is on-going.

Not at the moment. I hope that I have been able to explain the rationale for setting out the relevant authorities in the bill as we have done. Again, I note that we have the power to amend that list, and if the committee has any recommendations for authorities that it thinks should be added to the list, I would be happy to consider them.

I have listened to the evidence and the concerns and views that people have expressed that the bill is too narrow in scope, but I come back to the fact that it is a framework bill that underpins the work that we are already doing. It puts the good food nation plans on a legislative basis. The plans will contain the detail.

I know that we will probably come on to discuss participation, scrutiny and how all of that will take place, because parliamentary scrutiny throughout the process will be important. However, given the nature of some of the policies that we are talking about, we have set out in section 1 that the plans will contain the outcomes, indicators and measurements of what we are looking to achieve. The plans will ultimately set out all of that and how it will be achieved.