Chamber and committees

I do not think that there is a legal definition, so the Government would be required to set out in guidance who would be covered by that term.

Amendment 76 requires the good food nation plan to be added to the list of national policies and plans that must be considered in future reviews of the national planning framework. I hope that that is a relatively uncontroversial proposal. The draft NPF4 includes a number of references to food—albeit not enough, in my view. It therefore seems reasonable that, in the future, the national good food nation plan should be part of the plans that are considered in any review of the NPF.

Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, there is a requirement to consider strategies and plans in areas such as housing, transport and infrastructure. I hope that the committee will support adding the national good food nation plan to that list.

I move amendment 76.

It is disappointing that the Government does not support what I think is an entirely reasonable addition to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that would require the good food nation plan to be considered when the national planning framework is revised. That sends the wrong message on the importance that we place on the plan and when it comes to influencing policy across Government, which is crucial.

The cabinet secretary said that there is a general provision that relevant policy should be considered and that food will therefore be covered, but we could argue that in relation to any of the plans that are listed, including the ones on transport, housing and infrastructure. It is telling that the cabinet secretary suggested in her comments that the good food nation plan is somehow less important than those plans. That is disappointing. I am happy to press my amendment to stress the importance of the good food nation plan having influence right across Government policy.

My amendments 12 and 14 would give Parliament a greater role in relation to the good food nation plan by ensuring that Parliament was consulted on the plan and had to approve it. Amendment 14 would require the Government, if sufficient progress had not been made, to set out what action was being taken to address that lack of progress.

Amendments 12 and 14 would mean that the Scottish Government was more accountable for achieving its good food nation aims. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 provides a helpful example of enabling a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. It places a duty on ministers to lay a draft plan before Parliament for a period of 120 days and to have regard to any representation on the draft plan. The Government thought that that period was reasonable, and I agree, which is why the same period is replicated in amendment 12. It is unclear why the cabinet secretary thinks that that is not a reasonable period.

The lack of opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the bill is a recurring theme in the responses from stakeholders and in the committee’s report—for example, in its submission, Obesity Action Scotland stated:

“the Scottish Government has a commitment to Open Government, which outlines the government’s dedication to improving its own practices relating to transparency, participation and empowerment ... This commitment needs to be met and enacted in delivery of the national good food plan, with learnings cascaded down to the local plans”,

Government and scrutiny of Scotland’s food system.

I urge members to support amendments 12 and 14, which would ensure that the Parliament was given its rightful place and was able to effectively hold the Scottish Government to account on how it delivers our collective ambition to be a good food nation. I note the cabinet secretary’s offer to consider further the details of my two amendments and I would certainly welcome that discussion. It is disappointing that there has been very little engagement from the Government to date on amendments to the bill, but I look forward to that changing.

My amendment 4 is very clear in underpinning the importance of the consultation being comprehensive and inclusive, and I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on potential wording for a stage 3 amendment. On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 4.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 5 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

That would be our ambition. We believe that collective bargaining should be extended as far as possible. Obviously, we would be open to there being regulations and guidance on how that would work in practice. It requires, for example, trade union recognition. Legislation already exists that puts in place collective bargaining in particular workplaces, and the workplaces that are covered by that legislation would be included.

My amendments 4 and 11 would require the bill to provide for active participation by stakeholders at national and local levels in developing good food nation plans. There should be a duty on relevant authorities to seek input and views on good food nation plans in an intersectional and fully accessible way.

In the design and implementation of a good food nation plan, relevant authorities should use accessible and inclusive communication to work with people with lived experience and should set out any representations that have been received and how those representations were considered when preparing any final plans. That should be set out in a statement that accompanies a national good food nation plan. Accessible and inclusive communication could include formats such as community languages, British Sign Language, Braille, Moon, EasyRead, clear and large print and paper formats.

As the committee’s report states, many stakeholders highlighted the importance of authorities ensuring that participation opportunities are not stigmatising—for example, Obesity Action Scotland stressed the importance of being

“mindful of the language used ... to avoid stigmatisation and victim blaming,”

and it pointed out that weight stigma is often a

“barrier to participation and access to services ... Participation opportunities in relation to the production of the good food plans should be mindful of this and take steps to ensure this is eliminated from production of the good food plans”.

Given the range of stakeholders with an interest in good food plans, it is important that any consultation is comprehensive, so my amendment 11 sets out a range of interests that must be included. Of course, it would be open to the Government to add to that in any consultation, so it is by no means restrictive. It is important that the bill goes beyond saying that consultation should simply be with those the Scottish ministers consider to be appropriate.

I move amendment 4.

Convener, I share your frustration that, just weeks before the bill is likely to become law, we still do not have a clear answer from the Government on a food commission, which should be a fundamental part of the bill. Let us be honest: the reason for that is that the SNP and Greens have not yet come to an agreement on it. There has been no effort by the Government to consult other parties or discuss this important issue, despite the fact that, overwhelmingly, stakeholders are of the view that it should be a major part of the bill.

However, at this stage, I will not move my amendment. If it helps you to know this, convener, I will not move any of my amendments in this group, right through to amendment 103.

I very much believe that the discussions to which the cabinet secretary has committed would have benefited from having something in the bill to discuss rather than the blank page that we currently have. I hope that the discussions will be genuine and across all parties and that we seek to come to a consensus, which will require compromise by the Government. We owe that to the stakeholders who believe that a food commission should be a fundamental part of the bill. We must ensure that we get it right.

I will not move amendment 83, but I reserve the right to bring the provisions back at stage 3. I hope that that will not be necessary, and I think that we can reach a consensus on this important issue.

Amendment 83 not moved.

Amendments 86 to 103 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14—Other defined expressions

Amendment 27 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

It is important to remind members that the target in my amendment 7 is for 60 per cent, not 100 per cent. The idea of procuring items from south of the border—or anywhere, for that matter—is not in any way ruled out. The other provisions make clear the importance of our carbon footprint when it comes to procuring items. However, as an MSP for South Scotland, I make no apologies for advocating produce being sourced from the south of Scotland.

This question is for the team from SDI. Which sectors and areas offer the best international opportunities when it comes to Scottish retailers? How can the support that you provide directly benefit our high streets by ensuring that some of those retailers are not in out-of-town developments, but are based in our town centres?