Chamber and committees

I reiterate that, with all the issues that you have raised, it is not a case of passing the buck. If anything, what we are trying to do through the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill and the framework legislation is the complete opposite of that.

We want to provide a coherent basis for working across Government and between different public authorities. That is why I have, for example, re-established the ministerial working group on food. We have not yet had our first meeting, because I was interested in getting the stage 1 report from the committee and looking at the outcomes of that before we met, to make sure that we address the issues across the Government, as well. I give you an assurance on that point.

All the issues that you talked about are critically important. I recognise some of the points that you made, which were raised in evidence that the committee heard. We are, of course, committed to addressing those points.

Two different things are probably being conflated. We have a framework bill that will enable all the work that you are talking about to happen, and the further details—the outcomes, measures and indicators—will all be set out in the good food nation plans. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, as I have said, the bill may appear narrow in scope, but it is absolutely fundamental to enabling us to deliver on our ambition to become a good food nation. As I have said, the good food nation plans will set out the details—the outcomes, measures and indicators—of what we will do to tackle some of the challenges that we face, how we are working across all the different policies and, ultimately, how we will measure that and ensure that we are on the road to success in that regard.

A lot of work is under way anyway. You talked about the concern that we would not listen to stakeholders. That is absolutely not the case. I go back to a point that I made in response to a previous question. We are in constant dialogue with our stakeholders. We have listened to the evidence that the committee has heard so far, and we are, of course, keen to see any recommendations that the committee makes in its stage 1 report. I do not want to prejudge that. We will, of course, consider that report carefully.

I should point out that, as this is a framework bill, it is not the place to set out these things individually. It also underpins the work that we are already doing; it is not as if these problems are not being addressed. I have talked about our food for life programme, and there is also the local food strategy. We consulted on that strategy towards the end of last year and we are currently analysing the responses.

This gets to the root of some of the issues that you have raised and what exactly we are trying to address, because the bill itself underpins that work and provides the enabling framework to ensure that it happens and that our policy is more coherent. We are addressing all those issues.

I hope that that would happen anyway. Throughout this process, we have talked about the importance of collaboration with all aspects of society and industry. We have strong links with Scotland Food & Drink. Our relationships are unique, compared with those in other countries. We work closely together.

Pete Ritchie’s evidence was interesting. I also picked out his point about percentages. Even though public food is a small percentage, it has a massive knock-on impact for industry and the private sector through the policies that we decide to implement. For example, private industry and the private sector will be impacted by how we take forward our local food strategy. It would not be true to say that there will be no impact. The collaboration that you have talked about is important. If you have suggestions of any areas in which you think that it could be strengthened, I would be happy to consider those.

No. Section 1(3) talks about what the national good food nation plan must set out, which includes

“the main outcomes in relation to food-related issues”.

It must also set out

“indicators or other measures by which progress in achieving the outcomes may be assessed”

and

“policies which the Scottish Ministers intend to pursue in order to secure the achievement of the outcomes.”

That is the work that will be going into the development of plans.

I believe that the framework will. As I said in my opening statement, the voices of our rural and island communities have been absolutely vital throughout the process. That engagement has been key in developing the draft NPF4. I also highlight that the draft is out to consultation so, of course, any suggestions that we get through that will feed into the finalised framework.

The engagement that took place in the lead-up to publishing the draft NPF4 was extensive. We commissioned research from our policy teams and from external sources to look at the shape of planning policy and how that can help us to develop thriving rural communities. In addition, we had the call for ideas on NPF4—I am sure that the minister will want to give details on that. Furthermore, the Scottish Rural Network undertook activities through the Scottish Rural Parliament, and the chief planner met the heads of rural planning authorities.

All that has been vital and has helped to shape the draft that we have before us, which is out to consultation. I will hand over to the minister so that he can cover any further aspects of engagement.

We have had a consultation on that issue, which I think has just closed recently. The consultation was on the statutory guidance for ministers and other public authorities, who must have due regard to the five guiding principles on the environment in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. The guidance sets out our strategic approach to environment policy, including the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment and how that should be used and applied by decision makers. The consultation has just closed, and we will consider the responses to it closely.

That is something that we are actively addressing as well. As you said, we have the Griggs review that will come shortly. We undertook that independent review to see how we could make the regulation process and development more responsive, transparent and efficient. We will, of course, consider the outcome of that review closely.

Was the other part of your question about the knowledge that is within local planning?

We will have to take careful consideration of that when we look to set the criteria for the new fund and the activities that we would like to fund. Ideally, we could do so much more, if we got the full allocation of £62 million, which we were right to expect and that we deserve.

What makes the situation worse is the fact that, in previous years, we had received an extra £5 million on top of our EMFF allocation in recognition of the significant marine resources that we have in Scotland. However, the UK Government has decided not to give us that uplift. Therefore, the funding that we have is significantly less than the funding that we had previously.

We continue to raise the issue with the UK Government. The matter continues to be a cause of significant frustration and disappointment. We could do so much more for our marine environment, our coastal communities and our fishing industry if we had the full allocation of £62 million.

We have not yet established any criteria for a new fund, but there would have to be alignment with the strategies and vision that we have set out, which is that we want what we do to be to the benefit of our coastal communities and our fishing industry in Scotland.