Will the member take an intervention?

Once again, the Scottish Government is not supporting me on what is a proportionate measure to ensure that food security and the cost of living crisis are tackled and that people have the ability to access fresh fruit and vegetables at affordable prices, thereby encouraging healthy eating.

I intend to press amendment 53.

Amendments 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 43, which are in my name, all aim to ensure that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities

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

If the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plans as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible, amendments on inclusive communication should be accepted and welcomed by all parties in Parliament. The amendments in my name set out that regard must be had to that when consulting on the draft good food nation plans, when publishing any document under sections 1 to 6 or sections 7 to 12, and when consulting on regulations under sections 4, 7(2)(c) or 10.

Amendment 13 provides a definition of the term

“communicating in an inclusive way”.

Presiding Officer, would you like me to speak to section 16(1A) of the bill?

My amendment on publishing

“information about any public authority that the Scottish ministers intend to specify in regulations under”

the relevant section

“and the timescale for making the regulations”

seeks to encourage greater transparency of good food nation plans. The publication of that information will allow for a greater level of scrutiny over the plans and their implementation, particularly in relation to timescales for delivery. Ensuring that relevant authorities and the Scottish Government are held to account over the delivery of the plans is paramount. To vote against the amendment would undoubtedly suggest an intention to evade accountability over the delivery of the aims of the bill.

Amendment 62 in my name seeks to include integration joint boards—IJBs—as a relevant authority, as supported by The Food Train. The Scottish Food Coalition, which has been very involved in the process of the bill with all parties, has also called for the inclusion of IJBs as a relevant authority.

We know the preventative importance of food for health and wellbeing, so amendment 62 would ensure that provisions explicitly cover social care, given the lack of statutory requirements on IJBs to produce a food plan.

The IJBs will become community health and social care boards. They should be required to produce good food nation plans, as they oversee the delivery of all community health and social care services and support within their local area, monitoring and improving impact, performance and outcomes for people.

I move amendment 51.

There is a clear and undeniable link between ultra-processed food and poor health outcomes. Amendments 24, 25 and 26 acknowledge that link and provide an impetus for the good food nation plans to include provisions to reduce consumption of those foods in settings where it is possible, through the bill.

I understand the concern that has been raised by Rhoda Grant and, if she will allow me, I will explain what an ultra-processed food is defined as. I think that the concerns are perhaps unfounded, from looking at the concrete definitions of the term from The BMJ, the British Heart Foundation, the Soil Association and even the BBC, all of which came to the same conclusion about how the term should be defined.

The Soil Association defines ultra-processed foods as those that

“typically contain little or no whole foods, are ready-to-consume or heat, and are made using industrial additives and processes. They often bear little resemblance to the real foods found in nature. They are often high in fat, salt and added sugar, and depleted in dietary fibre.”

If that description satisfies Rhoda Grant’s concerns, I would appreciate her support for my amendments, because they provide a fantastic opportunity to encourage the consumption of more whole foods while reducing the consumption of less-healthy foods.

My amendment 32 on

“the importance of supply chain transparency, sustainability and traceability”

relates to the need for an enhanced approach to public sector procurement, which the bill has the capacity to achieve. Understanding where our food comes from, how it is procured and the impact of the food that we consume on the environment must be key considerations when the plans are being drawn up. The committee heard evidence to that effect. Those considerations should influence how relevant authorities and the Scottish Government conduct future food procurement. In turn, the amendment would help to foster more sustainable supply chains for public sector bodies and would help to improve the overall quality of the food that they procure.

We will support Ariane Burgess’s amendment. However, I am disappointed that we went through all the stages without any discussion from the Greens regarding some of the amendments that have been lodged at this stage.

Members will be aware of what seems to be some cross-party consensus on the need for the establishment of a Scottish food commission to provide oversight and ensure that we get the most from the bill.

Amendment 41, in my name, is based on the evidence provided by Dimbleby’s important work on the UK national food strategy. The commission would consult a range of stakeholders from agricultural associations and organisations to prison boards and everything in between. Those stakeholders are best placed to understand what works best for their respective industries and roles within the public, private and third sectors. That will guide the implementation of the good food nation plans and ensure that they deliver for Scotland.

We, in the chamber, know that the Scottish Government has often been found guilty of marking its own homework—Marine Scotland during the Clyde fisheries fiasco, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s assessment of NHS Scotland dealing with poor performance, the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s exam chaos. It is absolutely imperative that those mistakes are not repeated with the Scottish food commission and that it is allowed to operate truly independently of the Scottish Government.

I understand that Ariane Burgess has submitted an amendment that is similar to amendment 41, and I am absolutely sympathetic to the aims of that amendment. However, given that she represents a party of Government, I was disappointed about the manner in which her amendments came about. As I said in my speech in committee at stage 2, I was thankful to the Scottish Government for meeting me to discuss the matter of a Scottish food commission and offering a collegiate approach to that, among other things.

The Greens’ decision to vote against any amendments from Labour and the Conservatives relating to the establishment of a food commission or to the office of a commissioner was surprising, however, and Ariane Burgess did not attempt to approach any Opposition members regarding her amendment on the matter. She described it as a long, drawn-out approach, but that is just poppycock. It was just that the Greens remained opposed to a commission at stages 1 and 2, and they remained deathly silent with a lack of transparency. A refusal to seek input from people who were evidently sympathetic to the aims of the amendment was disappointing and regrettable.

We should be taking every opportunity to work together on the bill, which has taken six years to come to fruition. We should take that approach at all stages when it relates to common threads and themes that we all agree with in terms of our values. I hope that, going forward, the Greens will think somewhat on their duplicitous approach to amending legislation, particularly given the work that has been done on the bill by people on the Labour benches and all the people who have been so involved in it, particularly the Scottish Food Coalition and the WWF among many others.

Without ensuring that a good food nation plan has a clearly defined purpose, it is unreasonable to expect that the aims of the bill can be met. Amendment 16 defines the purpose of a good food nation plan in a manner that matches the Scottish Government’s ambition for the bill. Plans should, of course, work for producers, purveyors and consumers, and they also need to work for the environment. The inclusion of those points in my amendment is strongly supported by WWF Scotland and NFU Scotland.

Throughout the passage of the bill, the Scottish Food Coalition has highlighted the need to ensure that those who are tasked with implementing plans are guided by a clear purpose. My amendment seeks to address that need by offering succinct and substantive guidance on the matter, which would help to fulfil the aims of the bill.

I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendment on the human right to food. Although the Scottish Conservatives are of the opinion that that could be covered in the Scottish Government’s human rights bill, we absolutely understand concerns and reservations about the Government’s pledge to deliver that bill any time soon.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill represents an opportunity to tackle some of the most pressing issues that Scotland faces, and I have no doubt that the Scottish Government would agree that tackling child poverty is one of those issues. I know that Monica Lennon has also lodged amendments to achieve similar aims, which my colleagues and I will support.

Tackling child poverty has taken on added importance given the global inflationary pressures that families around the world are facing. Although the UK Government continues to implement measures to alleviate those pressures, amendment 17 would pull on a lever that is available to the Scottish Government to go even further. It would include tackling child poverty as an issue that the bill must have regard to. That should include

“the delivery of free school breakfasts in ... Scottish schools.”

I have also lodged a similar amendment, which seeks the same aim regarding

“the free supply of milk to children in pre-school”,

nursery and primary school settings. Monica Lennon moved that amendment at stage 2, but it was disagreed to.

I have a comment to make on Ross Greer, the Green Party’s education spokesperson. I presume that he had not had his Weetabix that morning when he made the comment that he did about initiatives to provide free school meals. It is regrettable that he did so.

I move amendment 17.

Amendment 53 would ensure that a healthy basket guarantee is considered when good food nation plans are drawn up. The healthy basket guarantee encourages retailers to ensure that healthy food items, such as fresh fruit and veg, remain at affordable prices, in order to encourage healthier eating. Although that does not pertain exclusively to public sector bodies, the example that I give is that, during the pandemic, there were occasions when food had to be procured by the public sector from the private sector for individuals such as those who were shielding. It was widely reported that that food was not nutritionally adequate. The healthy basket guarantee would ensure that, if such schemes were to be repeated—which they might be—the best value for money options would always provide a high level of nutritional adequacy for those who have to rely on them.

Furthermore, the priorities of the bill have progressed since it was introduced at stage 1, because the issues have been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, and that could provide a deeper understanding of food insecurity.

I move amendment 53.

I press amendment 17.