Chamber and committees

Yes. There are some broader areas that you could say are not covered, but if you look at the specified descriptions, you will see that the regulations pick up some of the key areas, such as how policies, strategies or any legislation that is developed will have to consider the good food nation plan. Issues such as nutritional recommendations, information requirements and diet-related health conditions will be picked up as part of the specified descriptions. The regulations will ensure that we give the plan due consideration.

I can only reiterate what I said about the strong relationships that exist between health and food policy and the amount of work that has been going on between policy teams to make sure that there is collaboration across the piece and that the plan is given due consideration in those policy areas.

I would not necessarily agree with that, because, if you look at some of the areas that are captured by the specified descriptions, you will see that they include areas that have a direct link to those issues in relation to which there will be the greatest effect. I outlined some of that in response to Emma Harper’s question. In relation to some of the other areas, we are simply not duplicating functions or descriptions that exist elsewhere in legislation.

I had engagement with the seafood industry fairly recently in relation to an issue that was raised by an MSP, but that was about a more specific matter. Officials in the good food nation team and across other policy areas regularly engage with our seafood stakeholders. Those meetings cover a wide variety of matters, as well as the issues that we are discussing today.

If you are talking specifically about the list of specified functions in schedule 1, we have tried to capture the issue at a strategic level through the national marine plan. The issue is referenced in the specified functions and descriptions, and there is a wider recognition of the issue in the plan itself.

I appreciate what you set out and the genesis of the amendment, but I have to be clear that this just has not featured among the issues that have been raised with me in relation to national parks. On the overall priorities that have been raised with me in relation to national parks, I have not had a call for us to reconsider the boundaries. Notwithstanding that, there are significant issues in relation to the timing and the resource set out in the amendment, which means that I am unable to support amendment 27.

Amendment 214, in the name of Tim Eagle, would also require time and resource, which could impact on the important delivery priorities of our national park authorities. In responding to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I made it clear that our national parks are accountable and transparent and deliver on their objectives. There is already oversight of their performance by ministers, and their annual accounts are laid before the Parliament, which also has the ability to scrutinise the performance of our parks if it wishes to do so. Therefore, an independent review is not necessary. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 214, and I ask members not to support it.

First and foremost, the two committees received a lot of written evidence in response to the call for evidence. Thinking back to my opening comments, that reflects the broad range of interest in the work that we are doing.

In relation to some of the concerns about the indicators and targets, which came through in other pieces of written evidence and in what the committee heard directly, the indicators that we have brought forward for the outcomes will help to provide the initial baseline from which we can look to progress. Although I understand and appreciate the concern about the lack of new targets or indicators, that is not to say that we will not develop that work. We have been open and transparent in the plan about the areas where we need to collect more data to be able to look at indicators in the future or to develop new targets.

We have also asked bodies such as the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to help us with some of that work and to consider what that could look like—which could include indicators or targets in relation to animal health and welfare—because we recognise that we do not have all the information that we need. When we look to develop new information or new targets, the data collection can be quite a big undertaking in itself. The plan is a really important first step, which will help us to develop the baseline from which we can look to continue to improve. We needed to be able to collect all that information, but we recognise that there is more work to do, and the plan is just the first step.

Yes. I am happy to keep the committee updated on when we are looking to trigger section 10. We do not want to put local authorities under particular pressure now, when we are still trying to bottom out what resources might be needed for section 10, given the work that it has taken us to get to this stage.

That is what we are working on right now. We are considering what those resources will look like.

Even more broadly, though, the delivery of the plan ultimately falls to many different areas. As I said, I was at the Health and Social Care Committee last week, at which we discussed the work that is being delivered through the population health framework. My portfolio, in and of itself, cannot necessarily fund all that work. Some of it falls within the budgets of other portfolio areas.

We are discussing what that initial resource looks like and what is needed to get the plans off the ground and that initial bit of work developed.

I appreciate that, from the outside, the plan can appear to be very cluttered. Of course, a lot of things are going on in all the portfolio areas across Government, but some of the areas that you have mentioned have their own requirements. For me, it is about how all those areas deliver our overall good food nation outcomes.

I referenced the population health framework, and there has been close co-operation between the good food nation team and those who are working on population health. A diet and healthy weight implementation plan will be developed on the back of that, which will help to deliver the good food nation outcomes that we have set out. The indicators will help us to get the baseline information to monitor how all of that is being done.

We also cannot forget that one of the most important things in the 2022 act is the specified functions, the descriptions and the fact that, as we are developing new policies, strategies and plans, we must have regard to the good food nation plan.

We are trying to embed a different way of working across Government and with local government and health boards. I do not see it as just another thing that people do and tick off—we are giving effect to this plan. It is, I hope, the first in a long line of plans.

You made reference to the food-growing strategies, which are another legislative requirement. A strategy could form part of a local authority’s good food nation plan, but there are very different legislative requirements for it compared to what we will be asking of local authorities for the good food nation plans.

You are absolutely right. We already have policies in place in that regard through national planning framework 4. In considering hot food takeaways in particular, there is a specific policy that quite clearly says that development should not be supported where there could be a risk of it impacting on overall health and wellbeing, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

That overarching policy principle is there, but ultimately, those decisions are for local authorities and their planning and licensing committees. We would expect them to consider the wider overarching policies such as the one in NPF4 that I mentioned.