Chamber and committees

There will be the monitoring work that Tracy McCollin and her team are looking to establish in relation to the reporting mechanisms, first on how the specified functions and descriptions in the regulations are being applied. There will be on-going consideration and discussion between teams to see whether anything could be flagged as an omission. If we discover an omission, we would then make an instrument. As we have already outlined in relation to the review periods that are set out for the good food nation plan and the reporting that we would have to do, it may make sense to consider acting at that point, when more evidence could be available.

It is not the case that we have drawn a line and that nothing else will be considered in the future. I hope that I have been clear in making that point today. The key consideration would be what specified power needed to be exercised that we could consider adding to the specified functions and descriptions or dealing with in a non-statutory way. We are talking about very broad-brush areas in which not every specific policy is linked directly to food. Again, we would give consideration to all such matters.

I come back to the issue of monitoring. If we felt that there were any specific omissions or any exercises of power that had been missed or that we needed to pick up, we would look to address those.

Absolutely. The good food nation plan recognises the importance of our marine environment and our marine industries. Of course, seafood is a low-carbon source of protein. The role that our fishermen play in seafood production is critical, and that is recognised in the good food nation plan.

However, there could be conflict in the future. I agree with what you say about how public bodies interact with the parks and park plans, and there is close engagement as those plans are developed, but it is about striking a balance and minimising any risks that there could be in the future. That is why we have used the wording that we have used.

Ross Greer’s amendment 206 would require public bodies to give greater weight to the first national park aim when having regard to the aims and circumstances in which it appears that the aims are in conflict with one another. There is a risk with that amendment that the primary duties and functions of public bodies could be qualified or imbalanced when they are trying to fulfil their own statutory responsibilities. For that reason, I do not support amendment 206, and I ask members not to support it.

Tim Eagle’s amendments 209 and 211 would reverse the changes that are proposed in the bill as drafted, while Sarah Boyack’s amendments 125 and 130 would change the duty from facilitating the implementation of national park plans to actively implementing the plans. The policy intention behind Sarah Boyack’s amendments is perhaps similar to our policy intention in the bill, but the language that is used in the bill provides a balance between the requirement to implement actions that are within the national park plans and other duties and considerations that public bodies might have. Taking all of that into consideration, I ask Tim Eagle not to move amendments 209 and 211 and Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 125 and 130.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 64, it is important to note that climate change and nature conservation duties already apply to national park authorities. Additionally, one of the existing conditions for designating a new national park is that it would meet the special needs of the area and would be the best means of ensuring that the national park aims are achieved. Through the amendments to the aims in the bill, biodiversity and climate change are two elements that should be considered in achieving the aims. It therefore seems likely that any area that might be considered for future designation would also need to consider nature restoration and climate action. It is not necessary to introduce a separate condition that focuses on an area’s potential contribution to nature recovery targets. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 64.

I have carefully considered amendment 65 and the choice of reporter, particularly in the light of the recent experience in Galloway and Ayrshire, where NatureScot was appointed to consider and consult on a national park proposal and prepare a report for ministers. I appreciate the concerns that were raised during the consultation and reporting process. It is important that we learn lessons from that experience.

Ministers might wish to have the flexibility to appoint someone other than a public body as a reporter if they consider that to be the most appropriate course of action in certain circumstances. I therefore ask Mark Ruskell not to move amendment 65 today, so that we can have further discussions and work on it ahead of stage 3.

Ross Greer’s amendment 207 seeks to make it a statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for any appeal against a planning decision that has been made by a national park authority. That would undermine the established principle of taking a proportionate approach to the appeals process. It is currently for the reporter to determine the most appropriate approach to obtaining the evidence that they need to determine the appeal. Amendment 207 would mean that a hearing would be required for all appeals, even for minor changes of use and smaller-scale proposals that might have limited bearing on the aims of the national park. Ultimately, that would increase the timescale and the costs involved with the planning appeals process for all parties involved. It would also cut across planning appeals regulations that apply across the country. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the committee not to support it.

Amendment 208 relates to the public accountability of national park authorities and would ensure that each member provides public-facing contact information. I want to assure members that both of our national park authorities take public accountability and transparency extremely seriously. The name, role and register of interests entry for each board member is publicly available on the park authorities’ websites, along with a phone number and a central email address for board members. Correspondence received in the central mailboxes is transferred by the authorities’ governance teams to the relevant board member. That is not only an efficient way of dealing with correspondence; it is a way to reduce cybersecurity risks. Ross Greer’s amendment would suggest the need for the national park authorities to set up and regularly monitor an individual email account for each board member. That would be 17 accounts for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and 19 accounts for Cairngorms, which I believe would be unwieldy and an inefficient use of public resources. For those reasons, I hope that Mark Ruskell will not move the amendment on Ross Greer’s behalf. If it is moved, I ask members not to support it.

There is quite a lot to pick up on in that question. I will work through it as best I can.

I absolutely appreciate your points about the amount of work that has gone into the good food nation plan, as well as the legislation, which started at the beginning of this session, with the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 following soon after. I appreciate that the committee took evidence in relation to the publication of the draft good food nation plan, but I assure you that I and officials have appeared in front of two other committees of the Scottish Parliament. It was welcome to see other areas having that interest in the good food nation work and to go through that scrutiny process in detail. I will, of course, keep the committee updated when we publish the final version of the plan, based on the recommendations that came out of that scrutiny, including from other committees.

I reiterate that the specified functions and descriptions can appear quite technical or difficult to understand, but what we are doing involves a quite exciting and innovative approach. There are have-regard duties in other pieces of legislation; this is about putting the have-regard duty into practice to make sure that we have joined-up policy working across the piece and across Government and that the good food nation plan and its outcomes are being considered in the development of policies.

The functions and descriptions have been set out between the two schedules. Schedule 1 covers the specified functions—that is, where there is a specific legislative power or regulation-making duty, in the exercise of which ministers would be expected to have regard to the good food nation plan. However, there are of course a number of non-statutory areas in which we would want to consider the good food nation plan, and those are covered by the descriptions.

As I set out in my opening remarks, we have tried to be comprehensive. That has involved extensive working across Government. We have listened to what came through the consultation and have had engagement with stakeholders. However, it was important to get a balance. If a duty is too broad, the concern is that it will become more of a tick-box exercise, rather than addressing and considering the issue in a meaningful way. That is why we have taken the approach that I have outlined.

However, I emphasise again that this is the starting point, not the finishing point. If, as the work develops, it emerges that areas have been missed, we will look to add those to further legislation, through another SSI.

The schedules set out quite clearly the functions and descriptions that we intend to be considered. I have also written to the committee to address some of the committee’s questions and provide some more information, and I hope that that letter answered some of those questions.

Yes, you are absolutely right. That important points about the population food framework and the work that is being done in that regard were raised when I was giving evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The good food nation team and teams in health policy have been working closely together to ensure that there is cross-portfolio working in those areas.

Again, that is because there is already reference to the good food nation plan and how we give consideration to that in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. It is just that the reference has not been duplicated.

I do not think that more time would necessarily have assisted in that. We have also faced criticism in relation to the time taken to develop the plan, but, since the consultation that we undertook on the specified functions last year, our understanding of how it would work in practice has been evolving.

Ultimately, this is about how we put the good food nation plan and its outcomes into practical effect across different policy areas, and it is about how we work within Government to ensure that it has the necessary impact.

When we look through all the comments that have come from different stakeholders, we see that some stakeholders wanted a broader duty to apply. We tried to get the balance right between it not being too broad and becoming a tick-box exercise, and identifying areas that people felt might otherwise be excluded. We have tried to strike the right balance.

As I outlined in my response to Alasdair Allan, the instrument provides a strong starting point for us, because we can only build on it from here.

A number of different things can be done in that regard. First, we will be open to any further suggestions for additions that people feel might be required in the future. Given that this is a novel approach, we need to embed it and see how it is working. The good food nation team will undertake monitoring, and the mechanisms that are established for that will be important.

There will be review points for the 2022 act, when issues can be picked up through evidence taking or scrutiny of the plan, or through committee recommendations. If any suggestions emerge from the committee, stakeholders or the Scottish Food Commission at any point, we will be open to considering them.

In our engagement, a good piece of work has been done explaining to stakeholders a bit more about how we work in Government and how the specified functions and the have-regard duty are intended to work in practice.

We are open to that consideration and scrutiny in the future, and to any recommendations that might be made.

As I say, we have covered the most critical areas in the good food nation plan as it stands, and we have captured the critical functions as well as the wider description. I am more than happy to keep the committee engaged on how the monitoring is progressing in addition to at the specific review points that are set out in the legislation.