Chamber and committees

I will speak to amendments 33 and 34. Amendment 33 echoes the sentiments of the Scottish Food Coalition. However, it differs from Beatrice Wishart’s amendment because it reflects the work of the coalition and addresses issues to do with waste and processing.

The bill should set out a small number of high-level outcomes or objectives that are to be achieved, instead of leaving those entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine, unaided by anything in the bill. The use of the phrase “must include” in amendment 33 means that the objectives must be included, but it would be open to ministers and public bodies to add any others as they wish, as the cabinet secretary stated. Therefore, amendment 33 is a starting list; it sets out the minimum outcomes.

The amendment addresses issues to do with obesity, agricultural skills and local supply chains. I want to work with Beatrice Wishart, if possible, and come back with a revised amendment that supports the aims that we both want to pursue while reflecting the aims of our individual amendments. I hope that she will work with me at stage 3 to do that.

Amendment 34 seeks to build on the work that has been done with the Soil Association and particularly some of the briefings that have been provided to the committee during its scrutiny of the bill.

The Soil Association’s “Grow Back Better Manifesto” highlights the needs for schools to become accredited under the food for life scheme, which promotes food education and diet. Amendment 34 would ensure that the Scottish Government supported children to eat their five a day by encouraging schools to adopt a whole-system approach to food. That is embodied in the food for life schools award. Independent evaluation shows that pupils in schools that take part in the food for life scheme are twice as likely to eat their five a day compared with children in match-comparison schools. They also eat a third more fruit and vegetables overall.

I believe that amendment 34 builds on the good work of the food for life scheme and would foster positive change in schools across Scotland.

I think that the words should be strengthened. That would be something to discuss. It would be good to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

Amendment 31 seeks to address a number of issues that I believe the bill should set out to tackle. The bill must encompass diet, climate change, agriculture, resilience and public health, and I believe that amendment 31 matches the ambition that the bill intends to achieve.

In proposed new subsections (2)(c) to (2)(e), which my amendment 31 would insert, I have included agriculture and, importantly, farmers. For far too long, farmers have felt frustrated by the lack of local food in schools and hospitals. If we are truly to be a good food nation, farmers must be absolutely at the heart of the bill.

We also need to improve Scotland’s health record on food, diet and obesity. In Scotland, 65 per cent of people are overweight and a third are obese. When it comes to our diet, we have been branded the sick man of Europe, because people regularly eat calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient foodstuffs. According to current trends, by 2035, more than 480,000 people in Scotland will be living with diabetes. It is estimated that 6.7 per cent of men and 4.2 per cent of women are living with chronic heart disease. The issue of diet is covered in proposed subsection (2)(h). I believe that the purpose list—from proposed subsections 2(a) to (i)—is succinct and easily interpreted. The comprehensive list combines to form a robust purpose for the bill.

Amendment 54, in my name and supported by Beatrice Wishart, seeks to ensure that relevant authorities are not short-changed when it comes to implementing these ambitious plans. I want the bill to be a success, but, if it is to be so, we must recognise that authorities need the appropriate funding to fully implement, oversee and execute the provisions.

I move amendment 54.

We are supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 26, which relates to the Scottish food commission, but I highlight that there appears to be a drafting error in proposed subsection (4), as it mentions the Scottish good food commission, rather than the Scottish food commission. Perhaps she could explain that later.

Amendment 56 seeks to introduce a good food commissioner. That is different from but complementary to the commission, and it follows the work of the national food strategy review by Henry Dimbleby.

As members will see, the commissioner would consult a range of stakeholders—from agricultural organisations right through to prison boards. I would want the commissioner to be independent of Government, as is highlighted in proposed subsection (4).

The Government is already supportive of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which has a very successful role, with Bruce Adamson at the helm.

The work of the good food commissioner would be vital in influencing the direction of good food nation plans, and I urge members to support amendment 56.

I would like clarification from Karen Adam on amendment 59, which uses the words “have regard to”. Does she believe that those words are strong enough? Should they be strengthened to ensure that the recommendations from any consultation are properly considered, rather than that being left to the whim of the Scottish ministers?

Could I speak to something that the cabinet secretary said about the phrase “have regard to”? That means taking account of and considering the guidance, but it would be unprecedented not to consider the guidance. I would like clarification, possibly from the officials, on whether the guidance should be specifically considered by the Government, in legal terms.

I am not content, but I will reflect that in my vote.

Thank you.

Another of the annual report’s objectives is

“to work with the Crofting Commission to encourage a healthy turnover of croft tenancies”

to create the demand for new entrants, but the croft house grant scheme gave out only half of its budget between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The budget was £11 million and it has distributed only £6 million. Is there a reason for that?