Chamber and committees

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.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that local authorities face different challenges across Scotland, such as different aspects of child poverty that have affected various areas and other health inequalities. There are also geographical differences and population differences, but that is recognised in the wording of amendment 54, which would ensure that “adequate support and resources” would be “available to relevant authorities”. It is important, so I will press amendment 54.

I have a question on amendment 7. How did you arrive at the 60 per cent and 25 per cent figures in proposed new subsections (3A)(f) and (3A)(g)? As a South Scotland MSP, did you take into account whether it was possible to achieve those specific figures? Obviously, procurement happens on both sides of the border.

I will press amendment 32. I believe that we are sympathetic to Monica Lennon’s amendments 70 to 72, but we will not support Colin Smyth’s amendment 7, on the basis that we feel that the targets are not achievable.

Given the evidence that we have heard from stakeholders that they are supportive of meaningful action, I was disappointed to hear the cabinet secretary say that the Government does not support setting out indicators and targets in the bill. I reiterate that I would like to work with Beatrice Wishart and come back to the committee with an amendment that achieves the aims that we both seek.

My amendments 43 and 44 seek to include integration joint boards as relevant authorities. The Scottish Food Coalition welcomes the proposal in section 7 to require local authorities and health boards to develop good food nation plans. However, the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 permits the establishment of separate bodies known as integration joint boards, which may take on responsibility for a number of local authority or health board functions. Such arrangements are especially commonplace in the social care sector, where food, diet and nutrition are especially important.

The integration joint boards, which will become community health and social care boards, should also be required to produce good food nation plans, as they oversee the delivery of all community health and social care services and support in local areas, monitoring and improving impact, performance and outcomes for people.

The provision of food is integral to care, hospital discharge and food security, whether that is in early years provision, home care, crisis care, care at home or residential care. My amendments would ensure that such joint bodies do not slip through the net and that either they have to produce their own good food nation plans or the delegated functions are addressed by their parent authority’s plan.

Amendment 57 seeks to ensure that, in exercising their functions under this legislation, Scottish ministers and each relevant authority

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way.”

Many groups are affected by communication disadvantage, including disabled people. Indeed, Camphill Scotland has stated that, regardless of the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty, it is vital that amendment 57 be agreed to if the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plan as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible.

The amendment is vital for several reasons. First, it would place in the bill statutory duties to ensure that the Government and relevant authorities, in exercising their functions under this legislation,

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way”,

including in the preparation of, respectively, the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans.

Secondly, the Scottish Government’s consultation document on the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty states that the regulations giving effect to the changes to the PSED will not be introduced to the Scottish Parliament until late 2022 and will not come into force until 2025. By that time, we expect that the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans will have been developed and introduced. Amendment 57 is therefore essential in ensuring that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation,

“have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way”

and that, as a result, inclusive communication will be used to shape and inform the preparation of the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans.

It is unclear what the Scottish Government’s proposed changes to the PSED will be. If they promote inclusive communication and meet the needs of those who are affected by communication disadvantage according to Camphill Scotland’s expectations, that will be all well and good. However, this is still an important amendment that seeks to recognise the importance of inclusive communication in all of this.

I move amendment 57.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s words. It is important that we listen to stakeholders, particularly on inclusive participation and communication with people who are on the margins, including disabled people. The duty would cement the ambition to achieve a wide and inclusive participatory process. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to work with me to bring the provision back in a way that could be workable for the Government, possibly by changing the wording. On that basis, I will not press amendment 57.

Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.