Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Official Report 623KB pdf

---

Proposed Right to Food (Scotland) Bill

Item 2 is evidence on the proposed right to food (Scotland) bill. I welcome Rhoda Grant MSP and Nick Hawthorne, who is a senior assistant clerk in the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. We have correspondence from four individuals, who ask that the proposal be allowed to proceed to the next stage, and we have a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, which sets out the Scottish Government’s position.

I invite Rhoda Grant to make brief opening remarks before we move to questions.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee to discuss the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal for a right to food (Scotland) bill. It is quite fitting that we are talking about this in challenge poverty week.

The committee is being asked to determine whether it is content with the statement of reasons, which sets out why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a consultation on my proposal.

My proposal is, in effect, the same as the proposal that Elaine Smith lodged in the previous parliamentary session, that is, to incorporate the right to food into Scots law. Elaine Smith obtained the right to introduce a bill, but there was not enough time left in the session to do so. A consultation on her proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a wide range of individuals and organisations from different sectors and backgrounds. The individual responses, and a summary of the responses, are publicly available online—the committee has probably seen them.

The variety of responses to the consultation from the public and other stakeholders across Scotland remain relevant to my proposal, as do many of the studies and papers that have been published on the right to food.

To repeat the consultation process for what is, in effect, the same bill proposal that Elaine Smith originally consulted on and lodged would be an unnecessary duplication of work, particularly given that the consultation closed only a little over a year ago, in September 2020, and such a timeframe fits with that of other bills.

Therefore, I hope that the committee agrees that further consultation is not required in this instance. I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have.

That is great—thank you. The committee is aware that our role today is not to consider whether we agree with the proposal; it is to consider the statement of reasons. We have to be satisfied with two things before we agree to set aside the normal process that members follow in consulting before they lodge a bill proposal: first, that the previous consultation was robust; and secondly, that the previous consultation remains relevant.

Let me ask about the robustness of the consultation. First, I have seen a lot of stuff about percentages flying around, but the overall number of responses was quite low. Why was that? The number certainly seems low in comparison with other consultations, especially given that the issue seems relevant. Secondly, in your statement of reasons, you said that 225 organisations were contacted; will you give us a breakdown of those organisations?

I do not think that the number of responses was particularly low—71 people responded on behalf of organisations and 181 individuals responded, which is a reasonable level of response—but it should be borne in mind that this consultation followed on from the consultation on the proposed good food nation bill. A number of the people who responded to that—about a third of them, I think—recommended that there should be a right to food, so people had already responded clearly to one consultation on the issue. With a consultation on a Government bill, people expect the Government to introduce the bill whereas, with a member’s bill, they are not so sure that that will happen. I think that that accounts for the level of response.

I understand that Elaine Smith sent her consultation to a number of public bodies, such as local authorities and health boards, as well as the trade union movement and interested stakeholders. She made sure that it was out there, and it was well received. Although not every health board or council would respond to such a consultation, some did, and they responded very positively.

Two thirds of the bodies that were targeted did not respond. Do you want to comment on the fact that two thirds of the organisations that were highlighted as being particularly interested in such a proposal did not respond?

As I said, a number of those organisations were statutory bodies, such as health boards, which might not have seen the proposal as their number 1 priority. They might have expected others to respond on their behalf.

Do you not think that the fact that the consultation was carried out at the height of the pandemic would have made it difficult for some of those organisations to respond, because they were working in a different way?

Not necessarily. I think that policy people would have been working from home, as many of us were, and might have had more time to look at the proposal. However, given that there had already been a consultation on the good food nation bill, to which they might well have responded, they might have felt that they had put their views on the record, so there was no need to repeat the process.

Thank you. Maggie Chapman is next.

Thank you for coming along to talk to us.

Following on from the convener’s questions, I am interested to explore the relationship between your proposed bill and other things that we know are happening in the coming year. The Government has made a commitment to introduce the good food nation bill this year. In addition, later in the session, treaties that include the right to food will be incorporated into Scots law as part of the human rights bill. Do you have any comments on that?

I am aware that those pieces of legislation have been promised. It was promised that the good food nation bill would be introduced in the previous session, but its introduction has been held across to this session.

The Government has said that it does not plan to incorporate a right to food in the good food nation bill. It has made it clear that it is looking at the issue more in the context of its proposed human rights bill. However, it is not clear to me whether, as part of the human rights bill, it would have the vehicle for delivery that forms part of my proposed bill. If the committee decides that I can proceed with my bill, based on the previous consultation, the Government will have the opportunity, once I have introduced it, to take it over, should it decide to legislate in that way. Therefore, nothing will be lost—it will be able to go ahead and do that. However, if the Government did not want to have such a vehicle for implementation, I could proceed with the bill, and the Government could comment on it at that stage.

We move to Pam Gosal. Can you hear us, Pam?

We will go back to Pam after we have heard from Karen Adam.

Good morning, Rhoda. You touched on the Scottish Government’s intentions. Have you had discussions with the Government about its policy intentions?

In the previous parliamentary session, I had discussions with the previous Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity about the proposed good food nation bill, because I was interested in whether the bill would include commitments such as those that I am seeking. I have not had formal discussions in this session, although I have been lodging questions and trying to get more information.

I am happy to work with the Government on my proposal and would look forward to doing that; I would like to see what it is doing and how we can work together. I think that most people would agree that in a country that is as rich as ours and that has the food supply that we have—we are so proud of the food that we produce—no one should be going without food. I think that we can all sign up to that aim, and I would be happy to work with the Government to try to realise it.

Thank you.

We can come back to Pam Gosal now.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, Rhoda.

We hope that we are getting over Covid, and we are in a very different place. Rhoda, you said that no further consultation is needed, but would there be a benefit in talking again to organisations, given that they were consulted more than a year ago?

I do not think so. We have had a Government consultation and Elaine Smith’s consultation, and a fair amount of discussion has taken place—the statement of reasons goes over that ground. Other proposals, including for good legislation, have come forward with much less consultation and far fewer consultation responses. The issue has been well consulted on and another consultation would simply delay action.

If the pandemic has shown us anything, it is the need for a right to food in Scotland. We have seen people going hungry. When people were self-isolating due to Covid, they needed things in place that ensured that they were able to eat. In the past fortnight, we have heard about the very sad case of a pensioner in Scotland who starved to death. I do not think that we can afford to delay action on an issue that is costing lives—it is also costing life chances, because we know that young people who grow up without having an adequate diet end up having huge health issues, for which we all pay, down the line. We see malnutrition and we see obesity—there are huge problems that we need to deal with, right now. The pandemic has, if anything, delayed legislation in the area. We cannot afford to delay further.

Good morning, Rhoda. The statement of reasons highlights the extensive consultation that was carried out in the previous session—both the official consultation and the Co-operative Party’s email campaign—with 93 per cent of respondents in favour of the proposal. Do you think that that majority support still reflects public opinion? If there has been a change, what do you think that it is? What would be the effect of a delay?

I should say that I am a member of the Co-op Party—that is in my entry in the register of members’ interests. The party is very keen on the proposal.

I am working with the Co-operative Party and with stakeholders; I have had meetings, reasonably regularly, with people who responded to the consultation on the previous bill proposal. A number of those people wanted to become much more involved, so we have set up a steering committee with organisations and individuals who are keen for the proposal to go forward and I am working closely with them.

10:00  

I have been in touch with the respondents to the consultation and they are still incredibly keen. One of them—I should remember this—consulted recently and did some polling. The overwhelming support in the public for the introduction of a bill was there for all to see.

We all take food for granted, in a way. During the pandemic, many people realised that it could not be taken for granted. There were times when people were afraid to be tested because they were afraid that they would have to isolate and would not have food. Suddenly, people began to realise and live other people’s day-to-day experience of wondering where they would get their next meal. If anything, that has moved the right to food up in the public consciousness. Therefore, it is still as important, if not more important, to have a right to food.

The effect of consulting again would just be delay. We should have introduced a right to food in the previous parliamentary session. That is what people expected but the pandemic slowed the process down and stopped it happening. If we owe anything to the people who were hungry during the pandemic, it is to put the right processes in place to ensure that people are fed.

Thank you for coming. We need to pay tribute to Elaine Smith for what she did. Thank you for taking on the role.

We have heard that, in your opinion, it is enough that the previous consultation went out to a large number of individuals and organisations. We have also heard about the human rights bill and the good food nation bill that the Scottish Government proposes to introduce. How do you see the process moving? Will there be resource implications depending on how matters develop, because other organisations and other bills will be involved? How does that fit in the process?

I am not entirely clear about how the Scottish Government intends to introduce its human rights bill, so I am not clear whether there will be a vehicle for delivery in it. People could argue that human rights are all our rights and that they already exist. However, we still have people who do not have a right to food in Scotland. My proposed bill is designed not only to enshrine the human right to food in Scottish legislation but to provide a vehicle for its delivery, because that is hugely important.

If you were to push me, I would say that I would have liked to have seen the right to food at the heart of a good food nation bill. That is why I spoke to the Scottish Government in the previous session. We already invest £100 million—huge amounts of public money—in our food system. I hear from workers in that system that the front-line producers of food are the people who are going hungry. They produce the food but still do not have a right to food.

I would have wanted to see a right to food at the heart of a good food nation bill. However, my proposed bill, which would have a vehicle for delivery, would work alongside that. It is not one thing; it is not about ticking a box. It will take some time to implement a right to food and to change the system, because our food system is so disjointed. That is why everyone has been calling for a good food nation bill, which would not only highlight our natural resource but ensure that the way that we produce food does not leave people behind. My proposal is part of that.

Including the right in a good food nation bill would be my preference, but it does not look like that is possible. I hope that, if we have a right to food bill, it will work alongside a good food nation bill and changes to our food system to ensure that everybody has a right to food.

I am sorry—that was a bit of a long way round to a short answer.

I will follow on from the points that you have made. We received a letter from the cabinet secretary making it clear that, in her view, the right to food is central to the wider human rights work. I note that a number of respondents to Elaine Smith’s consultation made the point that, rather than the issue being taken forward in isolation, it should be part of a wider human rights approach and wider legislation.

We now have a manifesto commitment, which is in the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party and is re-emphasised in the letter that we received from the cabinet secretary. Does that not make a significant difference to what was consulted on more than a year ago, when none of that was in place? We now have certainty that the Government will take the matter forward.

I will come on to the process points.

If the Government wishes to introduce the bill in another form, I do not think that anything that I propose today—that is, approving the right to go forward without another consultation—would interfere with that. I would certainly make sure that the bill’s aims were met through the Government’s human rights bill.

I will get Nick Hawthorne to cover the process.

Good morning. Nothing affects what the Scottish Government can or will decide to do, in that sense. Should the committee approve the statement today, Rhoda Grant would have the right to introduce a final proposal in the one-month period in which she would have to seek support from 18 other members from at least two parties to earn the right to introduce a bill. At that stage, the Government has a formal right to indicate that it will legislate within two years to deliver the terms of that final proposal.

That was not, in fact, my question. My question was whether the fact that the Government has made a commitment in such clear terms, in the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party and in the cabinet secretary’s letter, changes things. It was about whether, in light of that knowledge of the Government’s proposal, folk should be able to say whether Rhoda Grant’s bill should go ahead.

As Nick Hawthorne said, approving the statement of reasons and allowing the proposal to go forward today would not interfere with that in any way whatsoever.

I think that the convener is asking me why I am pursuing the matter, because he believes that the Scottish Government will do that. I am pursuing it because, although I know that the Scottish Government has said that it will enshrine human rights in Scottish law, I am not clear about whether it will provide a vehicle to ensure that those human rights are implemented. My bill would do both—it would not only enshrine in Scottish law the human right to food but provide a vehicle to oversee the implementation of that. That is the bit that I am not entirely clear about in relation to the Government. However, as Nick Hawthorne said, if the Government is clear that it wants to do that, it can take over the bill. Approving the statement of reasons would not affect that.

Given the complexity of the food system, it would—in a way—be better if the Government did take over the bill, because it could make it move in ways that I, as a member, probably could not. It could tie it up much better and produce much more complex legislation. I am pursuing the matter not to try to beat the Government to it but to make sure that that happens. If the Government decides to take over the bill, I will cheer it on and happily hand over the proposal.

One would hope that the Parliament could work together on the matter. My point was not really the one that Rhoda Grant picked up on. It was more about the relevance of the consultation that took place and whether anything has changed—my point was that what has changed is that commitments have been made. However, Rhoda Grant might have said as much as she wants to in that area.

As nobody wants to contribute further, I thank Rhoda Grant for her evidence. I hope that we were not too challenging in our questioning. I know that being on the other side of the table is a hugely different experience.

We are required to make a decision on whether we are satisfied by the statement of reasons. I remind members that our decision should be based on whether we agree that the member’s statement of reasons means that no further consultation on the proposal is necessary. We are not deliberating on whether we agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. That would be for a later stage, depending on the outcome today.

Given that Fulton MacGregor will be joining us remotely, I propose to call each member in turn and ask them to indicate whether they are satisfied. For clarity, if members are satisfied, I ask them to vote yes; if they are not satisfied, I ask them to vote no; or they can abstain. I will go around the room, starting with the deputy convener.

I am not satisfied, no.

No, I am not satisfied.

I realise that I have just come in, but I have been following proceedings on BlueJeans. Am I able to make a comment?

Yes, you can make a comment prior to voting.

I thank Rhoda Grant for taking the bill forward. I, too, pay tribute to Elaine Smith for the work that she did in the previous session of Parliament. As a declaration of interest, I note that I signed up to support the bill and am still very supportive of its aims. I followed what was said today, so I know that the Government has written to the committee to say that it is keen to bring forward such proposals, as part of an overall human rights bill, as well as the good food nation bill. That is a pretty significant change in circumstances. I also feel that the co-operation deal between the Scottish National Party and the Green Party has propelled the matter forward.

However, with a degree of reluctance, at this stage, I am inclined to vote that I am not satisfied.

I vote yes.

I am satisfied that the consultation was comprehensive and did not ask organisations that were consulted previously, which would have put more pressure on them by asking them to comment again. I am satisfied with the statement of reasons and vote yes.

I am also satisfied with the statement of reasons and vote yes.

Thank you. On balance, that gives us three votes for satisfied and four votes for not satisfied with the statement of reasons. The committee is therefore not satisfied with—[Interruption.]

I am sorry—I have not voted. I, too, am not satisfied. However, there is a good piece of work to go ahead with, and the committee will have a particular interest in that area. I encourage Rhoda Grant to engage with the Government, but that is up to her. If she sees fit, she could consult further and bring back another proposal. That would be within the rules.

However, as my vote is for not satisfied, so there are four votes for not satisfied and three for satisfied. The committee is therefore not satisfied with the statement of reasons.

That concludes consideration of this item. I thank Rhoda Grant and Nick Hawthorne for attending.

10:14 Meeting suspended.  

10:17 On resuming—