Chamber and committees

I am conscious of the time, but I will give Adam Stachura his “Dragons’ Den” moment. What is the one policy change that we need to make or recommend, or it is just about ensuring that existing policies are better adhered to?

Martin Avila, you probably do not agree that ownership does not matter; you think that the properties should be in community ownership. That would be a real incentive, because the community, rather than absent landlords, would be driving things.

Pauline Smith, can you say a wee bit about the work that the Development Trusts Association Scotland has been doing with the Scottish Land Commission on the vacant and derelict land project? I visited the High Mill project in Carluke, which is one of the fantastic derelict buildings projects that was supported. When you reviewed the work, you made a number of recommendations. Where are those recommendations? Are they being taken forward by policy makers? What do we need to do to support projects of the type that the trusts support?

I am sure that we can follow up where we are with that. That would be great, convener.

Presumably, there is a difference between Buchanan Galleries and Dumfries High Street. Nobody will be queuing up any time soon to build a shopping centre on Dumfries High Street, so why are those properties held on to? Is it the same issue relating to investors not having the money to get the work done?

I will follow on from Colin Beattie’s questions. Dementia Friendly Prestwick is based on the dementia friendly communities in Japan, and its work is very much driven by volunteers and by working with Alzheimer Scotland and the local health board. For example, staff in shops have been trained to be dementia friendly. A lot of community work has been done.

Would you like the committee to recommend any specific policy-related or legislative change to support the people whom you represent and drive the work forward? Nicoletta Primo mentioned the pavement parking ban. Should we ban A-boards on high streets, for example?

Like amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, and amendment 31, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, amendment 2, in my name, seeks to provide a purpose clause in the bill. That purpose should be unambiguous, and the bill should enable Scotland to become a good food nation. It must establish a clear framework for legislation and policy that aims to ensure that everyone in Scotland can fully realise their right to food, protects and enhances our environment and animal welfare, improves public health and delivers improved social and economic wellbeing, which is a key point in the Government’s vision for the good food nation.

In its stage 1 report, the committee highlighted that two thirds of respondents felt that the bill needed to be

“clearer on its purpose and outcomes”.

Many stakeholders raised “serious concerns” about the bill’s “lack of ambition” and direction. The bill has been described by the Scottish Government as giving practical effect to the right to food as well as being a means of ensuring that the food system contributes to improved social, economic, environmental and health outcomes. However, those principles need to be in the bill and, crucially, must relate to the bill as a whole, not just a “good food nation plan”, as is suggested in amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

The bill is an opportunity to set out the Government’s ambition for the future of food policy, and that goes beyond just a good food nation plan. Amendment 9 does not achieve that. Unlike the purpose clauses that have been proposed, it simply asks for “regard” to be had to a number of areas, and even the wording of those areas does not offer any meaningful direction of what we want the bill to achieve. A statutory expression of purpose would provide a clearer, more specific statement of the aims of the bill to ultimately assess progress. That is the very clear view of stakeholders, and it would be hugely frustrating if, at this stage in the bill process—when there has been so much consensus from so many organisations and such strong cross-party support—the Government were to unilaterally opt out of that consensus. I urge members to support the amendments in the group, particularly those that propose a purpose clause, because the bill would be weaker without them.

We set targets for what happens in Scotland. We are not in a position to set targets for what happens in England, so I am unclear what point Rachael Hamilton is making about cross-border procurement. Those targets have been proposed in a number of discussions and a number of submissions that were made to the committee by members of the Scottish Food Coalition.

The principle of having targets and indicators in the bill is important. If any member believes that those specific targets are not achievable or should not be in the bill, it is open to them to change them when it comes to stage 3. However, it would be remiss of us not to include targets, as they allow us to measure Government progress, which is incredibly important.

I cited the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 because I do not think that anyone could reasonably say that that act would be improved by removing the target of reaching net zero by 2045. That target is very much the focus of Government activity. When it comes to delivering our ambition to be a good food nation, there is no reason why we should not have ambitious targets for that, too. As I said, if a member believes that a specific target is not achievable, they could amend that at stage 3. However, the principle of having targets in the bill is important.

The amendments in my name seek to ensure that the bill establishes an independent Scottish food commission. Responsibility for food issues in Scotland and the UK is spread across many portfolios, departments and public bodies, in both local and national Government.

The majority of responders to the committee’s call for views at stage 1 shared the view that there should be an independent public body set up, with the Scottish Human Rights Commission arguing in its written evidence that the oversight role should be undertaken by a new body because allocating responsibility to an existing body is

“likely to underestimate the scale of work involved and the specialisms required to deliver it.”

An independent commission would provide expert advice to and scrutiny of Government and would help to ensure that Scotland’s journey to becoming a good food nation is fair for everyone. Advice and scrutiny will be critical to a just transition for the food system as Scotland’s economy shifts and changes in response to the climate, nature and health crises that we face.

The amendments in my name would provide full legislative provision for the establishment of a new body modelled on that of the Scottish Land Commission in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

The provisions for the strategic plan include a requirement for the new commission to settle its relationship with Food Standards Scotland and any functions carried out by the Scottish Parliament. That is modelled on a duty of Environmental Standards Scotland that is set out in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021.

Labour is sympathetic to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 56, which would establish a good food commissioner, and I know that my colleague will vote for it. However, given the range of areas and specialisms that are covered by our ambition to be a good food nation, we agree with stakeholders that we need a wide breadth of experience covering a range of sectors in any body that is established, which is why we would prefer there to be a commission. What is clear is that any commission or commissioner should be independent rather than sit within a Government body.

The issue has been kicked into touch by the Government on numerous occasions, and we simply cannot keep doing that. The cabinet secretary might say today that the Government wishes to keep considering the issue. I am happy to have those discussions, but I believe that we should do so with a commitment in the bill, agreed at stage 2, for there to be a commission and that those discussions should be about the detail of that commission and how it would function.

I therefore urge members to support my amendments, even if there are parts of them that would require further amendment at stage 3. They are about the principle of establishing an independent commission. It should be a fundamental part of the bill, and its exclusion would be a significant omission and would undermine our commitment to be a good food nation, which I know was a concern of the committee. It would also significantly undermine the cross-party consensus that was built up during the development of the bill and, perhaps more importantly, the consensus that we have seen among the range of stakeholders that have worked tirelessly to get us to this stage. I strongly urge members to listen to the views of those stakeholders and support the amendments in my name.

Amendment 7, in my name, seeks to ensure that indicators are included in the bill.

If the bill is to function effectively, it would benefit from having a number of indicators linked to strong outcomes to enable the measuring, monitoring and reporting of progress. Those indicators should be aligned to the UN sustainable development goals and the national performance framework in a similar way to those in the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Ideally, such targets and outcomes should be measurable, both because that is intrinsically preferable and to improve the effect of reporting and scrutinising provisions.

The phrase “must include” means that the objectives listed in amendment 7 must be included, but, of course, it is open to ministers to add any others as they wish. Therefore, the list in the amendment is a starting list or a list of the minimum indicators that are required. A number are already Government objectives, so there is no reason why they would be excluded.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 is an important example of indicators providing a clear, measurable statement of intent. No one would reasonably argue that that act would have been better without an indicator committing the Government to achieving net zero by 2045. There is no reason why the bill should not set out our measurable ambitions for being a good food nation.

I urge members to support amendment 7.