 The next item of business is debate on motion 3704, in the name of Mary Gougeon, on Good Food Nation, back at Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now as soon as possible. I place an R in the chat function, and I call on Mary Gougeon to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, for around 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland began its journey to becoming a Good Food Nation in 2014, with the publication of our national food and drink policy. This document first set down this Government's ambition to turn Scotland into a country where people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in and benefit from the food that they produce, buy, cook, serve and eat each day. From 2015 until 2017, how to achieve that ambition was considered by a Scottish Food Commission made up of 16 members. Its interim and final reports helped to set out the steps leading to the Good Food Nation Bill. I want to thank them all, all of the people and organisations who responded to earlier Government consultations and engagement, and particularly to my predecessors, Richard Lochhead and Fergus Ewing, for guiding this work and enabling us to reach today's milestone. In a Good Food Nation, everyone in Scotland has access to and the means to afford the healthy, nutritious food that they need with dietary-related diseases such as heart disease and diabetes in decline. This vision sees the people of Scotland taking a keen interest in their food, knowing what constitutes good food, valuing it and seeking it out whenever they can. The environmental impact of food consumption is managed for the benefit of everyone in Scotland. Our vision sees food producers and companies continuing to be a thriving feature of the economy and as places where people want to work. Over the past seven years, we have moved from wanting to become a Good Food Nation to being a Good Food Nation through a range of activities relating to health, knowledge, the environment, the economy and social justice. Examples include supporting the roll-out of the soil associations food for life programme. I am grateful to the minister for taking the intervention. He has just said that he has moved to being a Good Food Nation. However, how does that equate to the fact that Scotland is the second and most obese country in the world after the USA and we are the unhealthiest nation in Europe? We have not moved forward at all, have we, minister? I would say that we certainly have moved forward, but in terms of the comments that I will be setting out today, again, the Good Food Nation itself as a framework bill really underpins the work that we are taking and the future work that we will undertake, because, like a lot of other things, we know that there is still a long way to go and specific challenges that we need to get to grips with and to tackle. I was referring prior to that intervention in relation to some of the examples of the work that we have done in becoming a Good Food Nation. In relation to that, we have supported the role of the soil associations food for life programme, which ensures that more local food finds its way onto school dinner plates, with children eating more healthy and nutritious food. We provide grants to people growing their own food in community gardens, providing a healthy source of food locally and a focus for community events and education. We continue to tackle the suffering that is caused by food insecurity. This financial year, we have provided around £2.5 billion to low-income households, providing £56 million for free school meal alternatives during school holidays, £70 million in flexible local responses to food and financial insecurity, and more than £100 million for the third sector. We are working with the private sector, too. The Scottish Government and the food industry work together through Scotland Food and Drink, a unique partnership that facilitates our working side-by-side. We have supported industry to reformulate high-calorie foods and drinks in order to improve the nation's health, to create regional food ambassadors and to resource regional food groups and events. Those and numerous other initiatives can be found in the latest update of our Good Food Nation programme of measures published on the Scottish Government's website. That programme will now be underpinned by the Good Food Nation Bill's measures, enabling us to build momentum as we improve people's lives through the food that they grow by and eat. Now, we are taking the next steps on the Good Food Nation journey with this bill. It will underpin the good work that we are already doing in law and act as the foundation upon which we build our Good Food Nation. I want to thank the rain committee members for their report and their work in gathering evidence on the bill at stage 1. I will cover some of their conclusions recommendations in today's debate, but I will also provide a full response to that report before stage 2. I also want to thank everyone who responded to the call for evidence, they did so passionately and with a wealth of knowledge of the food system. The committee expected a proper response to the report at stage 1, and we were disappointed that we did not get that. We kept our side of the bargain by keeping to the Scottish Government's timetable, but we just got a scant response, and I think that that is disappointing. I hope that the member would also appreciate that it is only fair that I give that report and all the work that has gone into full and due consideration, which is what I am undertaking. As I have just said in my response, I will be issuing that to the committee prior to stage 2. All of the views and ideas have and are being considered carefully during this bill process. At the heart of the bill is the requirement on the Scottish Government and key public authorities to draft, consult on, publish and keep under review good food nation plans. The scope of that is intended to be broad and ambitious. Through the national good food nation plan, Government will be obliged to set out clearly for the public the outcomes that we aim to achieve in food related issues, the policies that we intend to put in place and critically the metrics upon which our progress can be measured. Scottish ministers will also be obliged to consider how the national good food nation plan relates to specific functions that it carries out, further enhancing our joined-up approach to food policy. The bill creates similar obligations on local authorities and health boards that will lead to greater coherence of food policy at national and local level. I want those good food nation plans to really deliver for our nation's social and economic wellbeing, education, the environment, people's health and economic development. For that reason, I completely agree with the rain committee's view that consultation on our good food nation plans must be as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible. It is only through involving others that we will achieve important changes to our food system and food culture, particularly those whose voices are too easy to ignore and who can benefit the most from change. One of the key issues that had been raised and debated during stage one concerned the right to food and how best to incorporate that into law. We are committed to doing this and set out in the co-operation agreement with the Scottish Greens not only that intention but also how we will do that. The Scottish Government intends to bring together a raft of rights under upcoming human rights legislation. That legislation will incorporate into Scots law the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes the right to adequate food. I am pleased that the committee supports that approach. Our recurring theme in written and oral evidence was also the need for scrutiny throughout the development of the good food nation plans. I agree. I acknowledge the committee's call for a greater role for the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising the good food nation plans in its stage 1 report and its specific recommendations on how to achieve that. I will consider how best to enhance relevant provisions as part of the next stages of the bill process. Another key issue was oversight, with some contributors calling for a standalone food commission to oversee the delivery of good food nation plans. As the committee itself recognises, views are mixed on the merits or otherwise of establishing a new statutory body, what its duties might be and if new or existing organisations would be best placed to carry out any such work. As part of our shared policy programme with the Scottish Green Party, we committed to considering the need for a statutory body such as a food commission. That issue was widely deliberated on during the stage 1 process and I am carefully considering the committee's conclusions and recommendations on oversight. Finally, I want to turn to the question of outcomes and targets. The stage 1 process gathered a wide range of opinions and views from stakeholders. Some called for the inclusion of detailed targets on the face of the bill, others wanted to see more high-level objectives, while many also called for a statement of intent or some incorporation of the vision on the face of the bill. The Scottish Government has already set food and nutrition-related targets such as reducing food waste by 33 per cent by 2025 and aiming to have childhood obesity by 2030. We have also taken action to reflect the need to meet such targets, such as publishing guidance on healthy eating in schools to improve the nutritional quality of school food. I agree with the committee when it does not recommend that targets be included on the face of the bill, but I note that members concluded that the Scottish Government should consider how we might better reflect our high-level objectives in the bill and I will undertake to do that. I really look forward to this afternoon's debate and to hearing the different contributions from members, but if there is one thing in the chamber that we can all agree on, it is surely the importance of food in our lives, of having healthy, sustainably, locally produced food more available to all in Scotland with people appreciating the role and significance of having good food and being a good food nation. I am therefore proud to move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Good Food Nation Scotland bill. I can advise the chamber that we are quite tight for time, so interventions will probably have to be accommodated into speaking slots. I call Beatrice Wishart on behalf of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Bill for around nine minutes. I am pleased to speak to the committee's stage 1 report on the Good Food Nation Scotland bill this afternoon, although perhaps not pleased at the reason that I am speaking rather than the convener is due to his absence from Parliament and we wish him well and a speedy recovery. I would like first to thank everyone involved in the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee's stage 1 inquiry. The committee was able to draw on a wealth of quality evidence to inform its conclusions and members were encouraged by the passion and expertise of those advocating for change in the food system. Before I discuss the substance of the committee's report, I would like to put on record my disappointment that a more detailed written response has not been provided by the Scottish Government to inform the debate today and I look forward to receiving a detailed response to the committee's recommendations prior to stage 2. The Good Food Nation Scotland bill is described by the Scottish Government as framework legislation. The bill creates this framework by placing a duty on Scottish ministers and certain relevant authorities, in this case local authorities and health boards, to produce good food nation plans. Those plans are the primary vehicle for driving forward the objectives, indicators and policies that the Scottish Government and those relevant authorities want to employ in pursuit of their ambition for Scotland to become a good food nation. The Scottish Government has, since 2009, published a range of position papers setting out their ambitions for a good food nation and the expectation on the part of many stakeholders was that the Good Food Nation bill would consolidate those existing strands of policy and set out a clear vision for the Scottish food system. Around two thirds of respondents to the committee's call for views felt that the bill should be clearer on its purpose and outcomes and many stakeholders raised serious concerns about what they saw as a lack of ambition for the legislation. The Scottish Human Rights Commission, for example, argued that, and I quote, it's disappointing that the bill is not framed in terms of the ambition to achieve a just transition to a fair, healthy and sustainable food system and does not require that food plans set out the steps that will be taken to eradicate hunger and progressively realise the rights to food, health, equality and a healthy environment. When the committee raised the lack of ambition on the face of the bill with the cabinet secretary, she said that she was aware of those concerns but emphasised that it was the plans themselves that would set out this ambition due to the framework nature of the legislation. While the committee was reassured to some degree by those comments, we nonetheless conclude that, for the bill to be effective, the Scottish Government should clearly articulate those wider ambitions in the plan when it is published for consultation and laid before this Parliament. In helping to drive this wider ambition, the committee explored whether targets or more detailed outcomes should be included in the bill. We took a lot of evidence from stakeholders. Many thought that targets or outcomes should be included on the face of the bill, whilst many thought that targets or outcomes should not. This is a complex issue, not least because different people interpret and understand targets and outcomes to mean different things. Although we agree that it would not be helpful to include numerical targets on the face of the bill, the committee was more persuaded that the bill would benefit from some high-level objectives to reflect the broad vision and ambitions for a good food nation. We urge the Scottish Government therefore to give further thought to how high-level objectives could be included in the bill at stage 2 and, in particular, whether section 15 should be widened to include other policy outcomes. Oversight and accountability of the national good food nation policy and plans was a central theme highlighted in evidence. As drafted, the bill's oversight mechanism is the requirement to lay all national plans in the Scottish Parliament and to lay a progress report every five years. We took a lot of evidence that questioned whether those provisions were sufficient. There was broad agreement across the majority of responses to the committee's call for views for the bill to provide an oversight function beyond the reporting and review mechanisms included in the bill at sections 5 and 6. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the bill be amended at stage 2 to strengthen the oversight function. The committee heard a range of views about what this oversight function should look like and who should be tasked with it. We heard support for this oversight function being incorporated into an existing body, as well as support for a new body to be established, with a range of suggestions as to what sort of body that should be. Committee members agree that we are not in a position to make a clear recommendation on this. We know that the Scottish Government's long-standing position that a new oversight body is not required, but there it is currently considering this under the terms of the Bute House agreement. We asked the Scottish Government to update Parliament on its thinking in advance of the stage 1 debate. We note with concern that this consideration is in its early stages and the committee would assume that any oversight role deemed necessary should be provided for through this bill. The committee also note that the bill does not provide the Parliament with a formal role in approving these plans. We recommend therefore that the bill be amended at stage 2 to give Parliament a greater role, requiring it to give approval of the plans after they have been laid, to ensure that they align with stakeholder expectations and drive the kind of transformational change that we want to see in the food system. A number of stakeholders argued that the bill should either incorporate or align with the right to food. The committee wanted to understand whether the bill was the appropriate legislative vehicle for such a right or, as the First Minister has already outlined under the Bute House agreement, that a right to adequate food be incorporated into wider human rights legislation. The committee was persuaded that the proposed wider human rights legislation is the best means to provide for a right to food and that it would be unhelpful to have this right singled out and excluded from the proposed human rights legislation. On consultation, sections 2 and 8 of the bill provides for a consultation on the draft good food nation plans. The committee recognises that if the national plan is to be effective then it must draw on the experiences of everyone using and working within the Scottish food system. We heard compelling evidence from organisations like the Food Train, Obesity Action Scotland and the Food Foundation about the need for a comprehensive and wide-raging consultation exercise. The committee firmly believes that consultation undertaken by Scottish ministers on the draft national good food nation plan must be as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible. The committee also agrees with the evidence that it received that the consultation methods should use should be tailored for each specific audience and that one size will not fit all. We therefore welcome the commitments made by the cabinet secretary and our officials that the Scottish Government's approach to the consultation will be as open, accessible and inclusive as possible. As I have already mentioned, the bill requires relevant authorities to publish a good food nation plan. That places a similar requirement on relevant authorities to those placed on Scottish ministers by section 1 of the bill, although there is no requirement for relevant authorities' reports to be laid in the Scottish Parliament. In evidence, it was clear that while some local authorities embraced the good food nation vision some time ago, other authorities will be at an earlier stage of their good food nation journey. The committee therefore considers it essential that those authorities have access to information and advice to support the development of their plans and called on the Scottish Government to set out its response to this report, how it intends to provide this information and advice. Sections 4 and 10 of the bill provide that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to their good food nation plans when exercising specified functions. Those functions are to be set out in subordinate legislation. The committee believes that sections 4 and 10 are key to the effectiveness of the plans. We agree that it is regrettable that a draft list of all the specified functions was not available to inform parliamentary scrutiny, although we welcome the cabinet secretary's confirmation that this list will be included in the consultation on the draft national plan. The committee honed in on one particular aspect of section 4, which was the provision for the subordinate legislation, setting out the specified functions to be considered by Parliament under the negative procedure. Officials told us that this was because the subordinate legislation would likely include a long list and did not meet the usual criteria for the affirmative procedure. The committee agrees that the decision about which of the Scottish ministers' functions should be exercised with regard to the good food nation plans should meet the criteria for the affirmative procedure and that the Parliament should have a stronger role in scrutinising those specified functions. Accordingly, we recommend that any regulations made under section 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure. I have something to say about the financial memorandum costs, but suffice to say that the good food nation bill offers a real opportunity to transform Scotland's relationship to food, but if the plans are to drive this transformational culture change, then they must be robust with clear objectives, adequate resources and effective oversight and accountability mechanisms. National and localised plans also need to work together coherently and complement existing and future policy initiatives. Here we have it, the SNP has finally introduced its promised good food nation bill six years late, promised in its 2016 and 2020-21 manifestos. We are here, all very proud of what Scotland produces, exporting £6.3 billion of food and drink annually, but we need to do more to promote our produce at home. Tuning into RadioFall's food programme for their peace on the good food nation bill, it was highlighted why we are debating this legislation today. Scotland has been branded the sick man of Europe when it comes to our diet, with people regularly eating a calorie dense and nutrient deficient foodstuffs. We have 66 per cent of adult population estimated to be obese, and according to current trends, by 2035 more than 480,000 people in Scotland will be living with diabetes. It is estimated that about 6.7 per cent of men and 4.2 per cent of women are living with chronic heart disease, and we have to reverse those trends urgently. It is therefore important that the bill has a purpose clause setting out what the Government's intentions are through the act as a whole. The Scottish Food Coalition and others believe that we all have a right to food, and it should be included in the bill. I am yet to be convinced that the Cabinet Secretary has addressed this, and it will be interesting how the Bute House agreement reflects the intention through the forthcoming human rights legislation. We have heard from a range of stakeholders on the draft bill, and I want to thank them for their valuable input. Stakeholders have a great expectation of this bill, and therefore it is incumbent on me and my colleagues in the rain committee to ensure that we get this right. The bill has been welcomed by many, but simply does not go far, some people say. We support the bill at stage 1, and given the wealth of evidence and consideration of the rain committee's report, substantial revisions are required to ensure that the bill is fit for purpose. First and foremost, there is an expectation that local authorities will need significant resource to deliver the good food nation plan. It was noted that the financial memorandum, which the British Wish-Up did not get time to cover, lacks detail in relation to the costs that are likely to fall to relevant authorities. If local authorities are expected to shoulder the weight of responsibility, the Government must recognise that the support should extend to access to information and advice to support the development of the plans, as well as that financial resource. I want to touch on the points of importance that I feel are reflected in the rain committee's report, namely that the bill should consider high-level objectives, which in short are the link between the Scottish Government policy and the broad vision and ambitions for the good nation policy. I have not got time to cover everything today, and I am hoping that my colleagues and other colleagues in the rain committee will cover those other aspects today. First, I want to talk about farmers and food producers who should be at the heart of Scottish procurement to support jobs, the environment, skills development and the social impacts that we see right across Scotland. Dave Mackay of the Soil Association made this connection between food and farming clear when he said that we want to see our Government join the dots between the interconnected climate, nature and dietary health crisis. We all know that local multipliers also show that money spent by local authorities will return that investment to the local economy and have wide-ranging benefits and cost savings for local authorities. However, there is still a disconnect between local producers and the food served in hospitals, in schools and in prisons. Locavore is a Scottish-based company, and it has made great strides in supplying food locally with veg grown on three sites within 10 miles of Glasgow city centre. That is a good example. In East Ayrshire, we heard in the committee from Mark Hunter that they have very good links with other food sectors in the local authority area. If we can get a good food education programme in the schools, we can support the health agenda and, obviously, the economic development of our local community. Furthermore, there is an appreciation and an understanding that the whole food system from gate to plate and back is needed. We understand, although, that several public sector organisations who want to support local procurement find that the budget constrains them, which means that this is simply not possible, and the Government must address that. I would like to see more detail within the financial memorandum, reflecting that. Food education, as I have said, is vital. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that there are several social factors impacting people's ability to source, purchase, cook and consume good food. They range from transport infrastructure, income knowledge and the skills to prepare healthy meals. It should be noted that a third of respondents to the consultation mentioned education also heard from the acclaimed Great British menu chef, Gary McLean, who said that we are failing to educate the next generation about food and preparation. He said that it goes back to the fact that those life skills have not been getting passed down from parents to kids for three or four generations. That is exactly why we need this bill to deliver on this matter. Does the member not recognise that poverty is as big a driver of food inequality as anything else? Of course it is a driver, but he responded to my Twitter account when I posted about education, and he said that he fully supported it. I am surprised that he is not stating that he will get it right. In The Borders, you can cook in people's is offering classes and demonstrations, talks and workshops on food and health-related issues all over Scotland. They found that half of Scottish children from urban areas think that oranges grow in Scotland and that 70 per cent think that cotton comes from sheep. I have long championed food and countryside education, and it is vital that we use this bill to educate people on the importance of good local food and how to reduce waste. I will move on because time is short, but there must be effective oversight of the good food nation policy and accountability for the statutory good food nation plan. The Scottish Environment Link said in its response that the lack of an oversight function means that a vital piece of the jigsaw is missing and risks the effectiveness of the legislation in driving the changes that are urgently needed. The Scottish Conservatives agree, as does the committee, that the current oversight provisions in the bill are the requirement to lay all national plans in the Scottish Parliament and to lay a progress report every five years are insufficient. We will seek to address that at stage 2, with a view to strengthening the oversight function and allowing Parliament to become the accountable body. Furthermore, many stakeholders, including Norrish, Scotland and obesity action, agreed that there is a need for an oversight body. I ask the cabinet secretary for urgent clarity on whether the Scottish Government intends to designate one. In conclusion, we support the bill at stage 1, but we fundamentally believe that it is lacking in the provisions required. I will leave a quote from Professor Mary Brennan, who said, "...there is a great commitment to move the needle in the right direction, improving our health, social and economic outcomes and playing our part in improving our environmental outcomes with careful management and collaboration, co-creation between national and local levels and public bodies and with a clarity of purpose on the direction of travel delivery as possible." We seek to strengthen the bill in stage 2. I now call on Colin Smyth for around seven minutes. Thank you to the Rural Affairs Committee for the extensive evidence that they gather to inform the stage 1 report. Like the committee, Labour is happy to support the principles of the bill at stage 1, but we do believe that it needs to be significantly strengthened. I want to begin by paying tribute to the work of the members of Scotland's Food Coalition that the trade unions, the charities, the diverse alliance of civil society in Scotland who have come together to fight for food justice. They recognise that, in a country with so much fine food and drink, with plenty of land, plenty of sea, plenty of talented producers, there is no reason why we should not have plenty of good food for everyone. However, the reality is that too many people in Scotland are still going hungry or are reliant on food banks to eat. Far too many people are employed in jobs in the food and drink sector, which are insecure and poorly paid. Too many agricultural practices continue to be incentivised by a Government support system, despite its negative impact on our climate and wildlife. However, too many of our farmers and fishers cannot make a decent living. I simply do not understand your saying that the farming system that is continuing to degrade our countryside when there are numerous schemes to help us to protect the environment through the EU policies and the policies that a Government is continuing with. If Mr Fairlie thinks that the current scheme is so perfect, then I do not understand why the Government has promised to bring forward legislation to change that scheme that is frankly failing to deliver. I think that Mr Fairlie wants to keep having a debate, I am happy to have that but I think that there needs to be changes, so does his Government. However, the members of the Food Coalition recognise that our food policies are not perfect and that we need to find a better, fairer way to feed ourselves that does not damage our people and does not damage our environment. The Parliament has an opportunity to recognise that as well, but only if we get the bill right. I recognise that we have come up a long way, somewhat slowly, since the publication in 2014 of the national food and drink policy. I recall one of the first elected being told by ministers that we did not really need legislation to become a good food nation. I have had motion after motion calling for the right to food to be enshrined in law, voted down time and time again. However, thanks to the tenacity and unity of purpose from members of the Food Coalition and many others, we now have a bill and we now have at least the promise of the right to food. However, it is clear that the bill does not go far enough. What should be a historic opportunity to transform Scotland's food system to reduce food insecurity by ensuring that everyone has access to healthy, sustainable food is in danger of being a missed opportunity. It is the political equivalent of standing in front of an open goal and then belting the ball over the bar from six yards. The Government says that it is a framework bill, but it is an empty frame without a vision. Labour is clear that the purpose of the bill should ultimately be to enable the right to food. It should say that. As the UN special rapporteur, Professor Michael Fackrey, said to the committee that, given evidence on 28 February, if the good food bill is strengthened and infused with human rights commitments, Scotland will stand out as one of the leading nations that seek to promote and realise the right to food for its people. It is a view shared by the overwhelming majority who gave evidence to the committee. In their written submission, the health and social care alliance said that it was, and I quote, "...disappointed that the bill did not take this opportunity to embed the right to food into Scots law." Although it acknowledged that the Government has said that it wants to embed that right within wider human rights legislation, it went on to say that that is no reason not to start now and indicate how seriously Scotland takes both the right to food and human rights. Scottish Labour believes that the bill should be unambiguous in its purpose to ultimately enable the right to food, but we will work with the Government and how best to achieve that. We support the widespread calls to amend the bill in five key areas to define the purpose of the bill, to have clear, measurable objectives, to establish an independent food commission, to strengthen the parliamentary scrutiny process and ensure that ministers have a duty to act in accordance with the national good food national plan, not simply have regard to it. I hope that the Government will work with all parties to enable those amendments, because I believe that we can show unity behind a strong bill. One of the challenges that we have is the fact that the Government has not published a response to the committee's stage 1 report, so we have not yet clear what amendments the Government will bring forward between the very short time of stage 1 to stage 2. However, if the Government does not bring forward amendments in those five areas, Labour will. We are taking each of those areas in turn. We believe that, as we do the overwhelming majority of respondents to the committee, the bill should have a purpose clause and that should include giving practical effect to the right to food. As WWF said in its written submission, the bill should establish high-level principles and objectives for Scotland's food system, providing the overarching framework for what a good food nation means in practice. It is encouraging that the committee has urged the Scottish Government to include high-level objectives at stage 2, but we do believe that it should go further and not only should it be on the face of the bill, but that it should be measurable. In evidence to the committee on 26 January, the Trussell Trust highlighted that child poverty targets had been on the face of the Child Poverty Scotland Act 2017, which focused the sector on a unified goal and maintained momentum. Does anybody seriously think that the climate change act should not have had a measurable commitment to net zero by 2045? Why should we not show the same ambition and clear, legally binding targets when it comes to tackling food poverty or tackling childhood obesity? The bill needs to set a clear direction also for future policy. As Voluntary Health Scotland said in its written submission, the bill should establish high-level policy principles and objectives for fixing Scotland's food system and that this should, in a quote, inform and underpin all future food-related legislation and policy, including but not limited to the agriculture bill, the circular economy bill, the environment bill and future public health measures on food. It was an important point, also made by RSPB, and one kind who rightly highlighted that animal welfare should be prioritised in this bill and future policy. Labour also shares the view that the bill should provide a more comprehensive oversight function. As the Scottish Environment Link argued in its written submission, the lack of an oversight function means that a vital piece of the jigsaw is missing. We support the call from the Scottish Food Coalition for an independent Scottish Food Commission who highlighted the example and their evidence to the committee on 19 January of the Scottish Land Commission. The view that the role should be undertaken by a new body was also backed by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and it is written evidence when it made the valid point that allocating the role to an existing body and a quote is likely to underestimate the scale of the work involved and the specialisms required to deliver it. The way in which the bill is scrutinised by Parliament also needs to be clear. We believe that the national good food nation plan should ultimately require the approval of Parliament. Finally, we share the view that the well-worn legislative phrase requiring the minister to have regard for their own national good food nation plan should be replaced with to act in accordance. For far too long, too many people in Scotland have lacked adequate access to food, exposing the gross and inadequate inequalities that we face today. In a nation that provides so much outstanding food and drink, it really is to a nation's shame that many children in Scotland still go to bed in the great... You have to conclude now, Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We do have a long way to go to make sure that this bill is a bold good food nation's bill, but we support the principles of the bill and we will work with the Government and all parties to deliver the changes that are needed. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate. I called any mental to be followed by Maurice Golden for up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The good food nation bill is the first piece of legislation that I have been involved in, and I would like to thank the committee clerks and my fellow committee members for all our hard work and dedication to this vitally important issue. We took evidence from organisations from Shetland to Argyllin Bute, from Zero Waste Scotland to the Scottish Food Coalition. Evidence to support a bill that will take Scotland further along the road to becoming a good food nation by creating a national plan and requiring plans to be created by public bodies. As Jane Jones of Argyllin Bute Council said, we are already on that journey. We are not at the very beginning of it. We need to recognise the progress that we have already made, but the good food nation agenda gives us the opportunity to do more. Food and cuisine are important to me. My culinary journey has been a bit of a winding road, turning down good Scottish puddings covered in custard at school to looking forward to them when at a freezing filming location. Only eating haddock smothered in ketchup as a child to enjoy fish of every variety as my top food choice. Personally, I am pleased that the Scottish Government has the vision of Scotland as a good food nation, where it is normal for Scots to love their food and know what constitutes good food. We took evidence from Robin Gurley, who helped to develop a recipe for success when he was at East Ayrshire. He said, if you look at the work of Scotland food and drink, other industry bodies, our colleagues working in health and those working in climate, you see that there is a consensus to do something better with food. Also, those who serve and sell food from schools to hospitals, retailers to restaurants, serve and sell the best. One of my own staff recalls with pleasure the lunch that he and his friends enjoyed when Danunga grammar school upped its game and began to provide food that was both nutritious and delicious. He also reflects on how those meals were especially important to youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Scottish Government invested £5 million in food education projects from 2010 to 2017, so here we see public policy actually improving the lives and health of vulnerable individuals. That is the next part of the vision for Scotland as a good food nation, that everyone in Scotland has easy access to the healthy and nutritious food that they need. Food does not just feed the body, it enriches our lives in other ways. It is a way of bringing people together, from burned suppers to the food served at the Seat Gwdoiras. For all too many children, home cooking is a ready meal served in front of the television, but serving—I will not touch you, Rachel Ms Hamilton— but serving attractive food in schools and other institutions will allow us to offer many more people the opportunity of eating together, of sharing food together, united by the joy of good food. By creating good food nation plans, the connection between food and health will help to reduce dietary-related diseases but also support people with long-term conditions. Two weeks ago, I visited the recently opened dialysis unit in Rothsy, Isle of Bute. I met a patient who received dialysis three times a week. Until the unit opened, he had to travel to Inverclyde. He told me the difference of having his dialysis close to home. He had time to prepare his evening meal ready for when he returned from his treatment instead of a microwaved meal. The food that he was eating was healthier and he was happier. In our evidence, we got some stark figures from Ian Gland of Zero Waste Scotland about the environmental impact of food. An area larger than China is used to grow food that is never eaten. One billion hungry people in the world could be fed on less than a quarter of the food that is wasted in the UK, the US and Europe. In hospitality and food services here in Scotland, the equivalent of 106 million meals are discarded every year. That is one out of every six meals. Ian Gland concluded by saying that Scottish households need support to end food waste and to recycle as much as possible. Wasting food is wasting water, energy and resources. The good food nation bill should be an enabler for this support. Finally, Scottish producers ensure that what they produce is increasingly healthy and environmentally sound. Professor Mary Brennan of the Scottish Food Coalition said that a good food nation produces food that does as little harm as possible to the environment. It produces and consumes food that is produced to the highest welfare and wellbeing standards. It looks after its natural resources, the animals, fish, watercourses and marine environments that are central to our existence. Shopping for tempting food can and should be an enjoyable exercise, but it becomes a misery if most of what you can see is too expensive and you and your loved ones must do without. Although minimum wage levels, the cost of fitting homes and an increase in national insurance are subject for different debates, today we can continue putting Scotland on a course that will make school meals, hospital meals and all food served by public bodies support the health and wellbeing of our nation. Serving the right food can also improve our communities and environment. Sourcing local ingredients sustainably supports local communities, cuts food miles and it helps us on the road to net zero carbon emissions. In this complex and turbulent time in world history, increasing food self-sufficiency makes strategic sense too, but to do this we need to support Scottish producers in ways that enable them to provide quality ingredients at prices that people can afford and what producers we have. In my constituency, Argyll and Bute, SMEs who are coffee roasters, tea growers, dairy beef and lamb farmers, ice cream producers, vegan cheese makers and shellfish fishers and not forgetting folk with gardens and allotments growing their own fruit and veg. I will finish with a quote from Professor Michael Fackrey, UN special rapporteur on the right to food who provided a video statement to the committee. Covid-19 has laid bare the inequalities and underlying issues in every country's food system. In this context, your good food nations bill is a timely and exemplary response to address deep-rooted challenges. I support the motion. The good food nation bill touches several different policy areas, so today I will focus my comments on the bill's potential for driving progress on both sustainable agriculture and the wider environment. Where this bill can do the most good is helping farmers answer the question. How do they produce more food whilst using fewer resources? That is the problem that we face in a world where the population is rising, but the resources are dwindling. Coming up with solutions gives Scotland the opportunity to lead the world in sustainable food production. To do that, we need a better idea of the wider impact that food production has on society—the economy, the environment and people's wellbeing. An approach that has been championed by NFUS and one that would let us build a picture of the food value chain, such as the condition of local supply chains, the effect imports are having and, ultimately, how we ensure food security. Given that we have just come through a pandemic where just-in-time supply chains were stretched and food security was, at times, a genuine concern for some, there are issues that the good food nation bill should put front and centre, alongside which farmers should be recognised as part of the solution to creating a more circular food production system that helps to restore nature, protect wildlife and fight climate change. I wonder whether the member could reflect on that point about food security. Given that it is his party in government who are signing post-Brexit trade deals that Scottish farmers have warned will bring down standards for food and environment and, indeed, undermine their business, I wonder whether he could reflect how that supports food security. I am quite surprised by that intervention, because every part of the UK is set to benefit from the trade agreement. Scotland exported £126 million worth of beverages to Australia in 2020, and the deal will remove tariffs of up to 5 per cent on Scotch whisky. New Zealand LAM was already quota free before this deal, so I hope that that answers the question from the member. No, I need to make progress, but I understand why the member did not ask me about tackling climate change, because that would be a series of failures from the Scottish Government. Three years in a row failed to meet their emissions targets. However, the obvious starting point is to make farms more efficient, because more efficient farms are more sustainable farms. To do that, we need to reduce waste, for example, reducing discharges with precision fertiliser and slurry operations or closed nutrient loops to prevent nutrient loss. Fertiliser is an especially big challenge right now. The warren Ukraine having sent price skyrocketing with nitrogen nudging £1,000 per ton. The effects of that are already being seen with farmers being persuaded to adopt regenerative practices where possible. There are environmental benefits such as boosting biodiversity, but also a potential for financial savings. Regenerative farming is able to deliver both. Of course, no system is 100 per cent efficient. They will always be waste, but we should then look to create value from those wastes, building new revenue streams for farmers, creating jobs and reducing environmental impacts. The James Hutton Institute has been doing important work on that, looking at how farm waste and co-products can be used to produce, for example, bioplastics, a protest that has the potential to displace fossil fuels and with the associated emissions savings. In turn, that supports the aim of businesses to decarbonise their supply chains, but those solutions need help to make them work. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives were ahead of the curve on that. For the past several years, we have called for direct financial and technical support for farmers to install new equipment and upgrade infrastructure. We would further assist food producers through our Scotland first strategy, encouraging public services to use local food where possible, to shorten supply chains, to help to improve animal welfare and to reduce environmental impacts, in turn to promote good Scottish fare and to help to support over 150,000 people in the food and drinks supply chain. Unfortunately, the Good Food Nation Bill, which is currently drafted, simply does not cover any of that insufficient detail. We hear about public bodies producing their own Good Food Nation plans, but without knowledge exactly what they will be. Equally, there are no high-level targets or outcomes to guide individual plans, both points highlighted by the Rural Affairs Committee. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's assurance that some of the detail will be found in the individual plans, but they need direction to support national objectives, especially environmental progress, where it seems an obvious link to the Good Food Nation Bill. That is just not happening. Just listen to the likes of the Scottish Environment Link. It says that the bill, and I quote, is significantly lacking, particularly from an environmental perspective. While Nourish Scotland warned that, and I quote, it is lacking in ambition and purpose. Let me be clear. I want to see food production improved, farmers supported and an environment protected. We all do, but this current draft is too weak to do that. That must be resolved at the committee stage if we are going to build a good food nation. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Golden. I now call Willie Coffey, who joins us remotely to be followed by Rhoda Grant, for up to six minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the bill and the committee's detailed scrutiny and report at stage 1. The aims of the bill are fairly straightforward to produce good food nation plans and to have regard for those plans when exercising other functions. I particularly enjoyed reading the section of the committee's report on what exactly having regard to actually meant, but I will mention that later on if I get the opportunity. The principles behind the bill for me are a natural consequence of Scotland having an excellent world-class reputation for producing quality food, and taking that a step further by creating local food plans is world-leading. It is nice to think that other nations look to Scotland to lead on how to become a good food nation, and that expectation will certainly have been enhanced by the committee's diligence in scrutinising the Government's proposals. You can see that quite clearly if you read the report, and I am pleased to see the bill also got the unanimous support of the committee, albeit with a number of recommendations to strengthen it. It is quite a name to ask the nation to embrace a good food nation plan that we all take pride in the food that we produce, buy and cook, and ultimately enjoy every day. As ever, the test of success will be whether it is easy to adopt across a diverse country like Scotland and how effective it will become in meeting those aims. There was some good discussion by the committee on how that could be done, too. The Government describes it as a framework bill, and the committee looked in detail about whether it should include targets and outcomes on the face of the bill itself. From what I read, a number of targets were offered during evidence, but the committee I think took the reasonable view that it was not appropriate to include targets in a framework bill like this, especially when the key driver would be the development of local good food plans across the country, varied as they no doubt will be. One big issue that came up, of course, was the duty of oversight and where that should lie. It is clear from the discussions surrounding this in the report that the current proposals to lay the national plans in the Parliament and for a five-yearly progress report are not thought to be sufficient. I think that it is also fair to say that there was no agreement about whether a new body should provide that oversight or whether that duty could be placed on an existing body in Scotland. Of course, I would be grateful to committee members who are speaking if they can further clarify that point, but it looks to me that some work still has to be done on that side of the bill. One aspect of the bill that took me by surprise was the proposal that there should be a statutory right to food. I was genuinely pleased to read this in the plan to incorporate the bill or within the human rights legislation, which raised quite a bit of discussion too. From what I can see, the committee supported it being contained within the human rights legislation with strong references to that right that made clear within the bill. Again, I commend the committee on exploring that important aspect of a person's right to an adequate standard of living, with food clearly being a key part of this. I return briefly to the debate on what having or regard to actually meant. The bill asks ministers to have regard to the national good food nation plan when exercising other duties, and the discussions seem to centre around what that actually meant. Demonstrating by evidence that the plan had been part of a wider consideration was how I read it, but I think that a wise move in my part would be to leave it to other members to explain it more fully. I am grateful to colleagues in my own council at East Ayrshire, who reminded me at the committee, who reminded the committee that some authorities are already on the good food nation journey, and they are recognised as one of the leading authorities in Scotland when it comes to farming, food production and celebrating good food. There are over 1,000 SME food and drinks businesses across Ayrshire, and East Ayrshire is leading on the food and drink work stream of the local economic partnership. As part of the Ayrshire road deal, we are developing a centre of excellence to support the industry, too. That, of course, was led in the early days by Robin Gurley, who was mentioned earlier by Jenny Mantle. Many other members are extremely proud of the quality of produce coming from my part of the world here in Ayrshire, with the finest milk and dairy products and offer, as well as our quality beef, which also gave its name to the curing process for baking products enjoyed by so many members in the Parliament and across the world, too. Lastly, please also remember that it will not be too long before our famous Ayrshire planties will be on the market, and by that, Presiding Officer, I commend the committee on their excellent work and look forward to the contributions from other members in the chamber. Thank you, and I now call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Karen Adam. Up to six minutes please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are rightly proud of Scottish produce. However, our food system has huge disconnects and long food chains, leaving producers very distanced from their customers. It is often the middlemen that reap the profit. I want to focus on the issue of the human right to food and why it should be at the very heart of this bill. The co-op party tells us that 81 per cent of Scotland supports the right to food being enshrined in the Scottish law. It is a Government's first responsibility to ensure that its citizens' needs are met and that the most basic of those needs is food. We cannot be a good food nation when so many people go hungry and malnourished. Too often, those who produce their food are among those who have no access to it. The Baker's Food and Allied Workers Union surveyed their members last year. 40 per cent of respondents went hungry at some point during the pandemic because they could not afford food. Those are people who are going out to work to provide our food, but their pay is not sufficient for them to buy it. They are not alone. That is commonplace through our food industry. We see food prices subject to rampant inflation with some staples increasing by as much as 45 per cent in the last year. The war in Ukraine is unlikely to make that any better. It is time for the Scottish Government to get a grip. Plans and fancy words do not feed people. We need action. The right to food should be at the heart of this bill and, with it, a body charged to deliver that right because it cannot be delivered by the free market. The idea of a commission is not new. We have several commissions and committees overseeing, advising and reporting on progress in other areas such as climate change and poverty. As Colin Smyth said, the Scottish Food Coalition argued for this at committee. They are asking for a body such as the Scottish Land Commission that would advise government and other public bodies on drawing up their food plans. That body would assess those plans and their implementation. It would report to Parliament on the progress made towards Scotland becoming a good food nation. Many others such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission are also doing for an independent body. Shrining the right to food in a human rights bill will not change anything. Those are rights that we already have, but many cannot exercise those rights. The challenge is to give people access to the right to make it a reality. We face a cost-of-living crisis and it is only going to get worse. The Government is missing an opportunity to make a real difference to people's lives. It is not just about anger and how it dehumanises people. It is about the personal cost to people themselves and the cost to society. Dealing with health inequalities that are caused by malnutrition costs us all dear. Prevention must be the better way. The issue is also more complex and simple and financial, although affordability plays a huge part. We know supermarkets and are not normally situated in deprived communities. People who live there are often left to depend on more expensive smaller shops. Neither can those on a limited income afford a large food shop to be delivered to their door. It is also about the inability to access food. Older people may have had their driving licence revoked and may not be physically fit to go shopping, and they are also less likely to be online and book a shopping delivery. There is an increase of older people being admitted into hospital who are underweight and I am sorry, I am really short of time. What does this say about us as a society? We are a rich country and yet we are seeing diseases and conditions related to malnutrition return. We are seeing an increase in obesity. We all know that processed food is cheaper than good quality food. Compare the price of pie beans and chips with that of a roast in it. Processed food is loaded with unhealthy fats and sugar and yet it is affordable to those on low income. That stores up problems for the future. My colleague Elaine Smith consulted on a right to food bill and it won support in this Parliament. Because the Government parties wanted to kick the proposal into the long grass, I have similarly had to consult and I have, but my wish would be that the right to food and a commission to oversee it, its implementation, would be included in this bill. That is where it would have maximum effect. The Scottish Government could stand proud of world-leading legislation and I urge it to do that. If it does, it will have the support of my party. If it does not, I will bring forward legislation and it will have to look at the hungry people in Scotland in the eye when they voted down. They will need to explain from their position of privilege why they cannot afford our citizens that basic human right to food. I hope that they will reflect on that and ensure that all our citizens can exercise their right to food. That Scotland's wonderful produce is something that we can all enjoy. The Good Food Nation bill could play a crucial role in setting the direction of travel towards a fair, healthy and sustainable food system in Scotland. World-leading legislation that establishes the core purpose of the food system in law with accompanying systems of governance that ensures progress and accountability can catalyse a transformation in how our food system works. That has been the aim and objective of the work that I have experienced as a member of the rural affairs, islands and natural environment committee. By taking a whole system approach, the Good Food Nation bill creates a revolutionary framework that ensures that people's fundamental human rights and the integrity of our ecological home are promoted today and into the future. The cost of living crisis has created a growing situation where food is at the heart of some of our biggest challenges in this country. During committee, we discussed food insecurity. That brought back forgotten memories of just how creative my own family would have to be. Not out of choice but out of necessity. I myself spent time living in a food insecure home. I remember the innovative methods that I used to make a small amount of food stretch a long way to feed my entire family. You simply cannot afford what you cannot afford. To our nation's own detriment, the most affordable foods are the ones often high in salts and natural carbohydrate sugars, particularly long-life canned and packet goods that are needed to stock food banks. That creates a whole host of societal and cultural issues, particularly feeding into the direct link between poverty and poor health outcomes, and the implementation of the bill could contribute towards combating that. I hope that through our work we have swept aside the rhetoric of the past around education as a silver bullet, long gone are those arguments that obesity is a consequence of ignorance. From inequality, ill health and ecological damage, I recall many pieces of evidence that shed light on a food system with a sense of injustice that the good food nation bill will address. Not least now, in the context of doing what we can when we can. To mitigate against and protect our people in Scotland who are reeling from an escalating cost of living crisis, we are seeing people who maybe for the first time are being priced out of a decent diet. They are reliant on food banks and who are suffering the consequences of malnutrition and food insecurity. Engaging with this piece of work has and will be invaluable. This legislation, supported by existing rights and fleshed out as the cost of living crisis grows, will and has to make progress. Whole generations are growing up hungry, children's educational attainment is being affected, opportunities are being denied and potential is not being realised. It would be true to say that in the rural affairs islands and natural environment committees deliberations there has been attention in our discussions around setting targets within the legislation. Part of the problem is what targets actually mean in this situation. This piece of work should be led and delivered holistically and not by the nose of targets. I will explain why. The roll-out of the good food nation bill can be led by seeing the positive impact of our changing culture around food. This wraparound approach gives a flexibility and vision to how performance is measured, a path not focusing upon targets that could restrict and narrow our performance outcomes. The here-to-day, gone-tomorrow targets that become meaningless in a rapidly changing landscape will not assist the path of the bill into practice and lived experience. People who are experiencing food poverty are not concerned about targets, but on actual performance and their own personal reality of easy access to good food. Facilitating the more holistic approach underpins the work being done already gives a legislative basis. Parents are going out to work without having eaten enough because they have given up meals so that their children can eat. What an indictment this is of our political and economic system, that must change and this bill addresses that. As we now know only too well in our contemporary context, the social, economic and political landscape could change dramatically even in the coming months. Asking what could be used as markers for outcomes from the law, we must not fall into the trap of targets that become in the focus rather than driving fundamental culture change. We must value the people who work to produce and process food and the farm animals, the wildlife and natural resources that enable us to eat well. We need a just transition to a food system founded on the principles of social and environmental justice and this bill again will do that. We need local authorities to play their part in also supporting this change in ways that drive forward a nation and a cultural movement for getting back to growers, which can be supported by including allotments and community gardens in planning decisions. Growing supports our environment, our mental health objectives, it can be therapy and community bonding for young and old alike, it provides green spaces for people to enjoy. We saw how important that was, particularly during the pandemic. To imagine a nation of good food that we can all support with the framework bill, that includes a vision of a country where we can appreciate and take part in the process of farm to fork, boat to bowl and propagation to our plate. I now call Liz Smith to be followed by Jim Fairlie up to six minutes please, Liz Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are numerous reasons why it is a privilege to live in Scotland, but for me there are three worth mentioning in the context of this debate. The unique splendour of our landscapes, particularly on days like today when it's not raining, the abundance of our natural resources and our capacity to produce world-class food. I thought that Colin Smyth made some interesting points about the potential that we have. Good food is a very large part of being able to live well. Therefore, it goes without saying that we must harness everything in our power to ensure that it is accessible to all. Without good food, there is no access to good health, to a strong economy and to a strong sense of wellbeing. This chamber knows only too well that over the years I have generally been pretty hostile towards national plans of any sort, because past experience with plans in this place has not been encouraging. Too many national plans have been overlained with too much bureaucracy and burdens on stakeholder groups, with artificial targets and with situations where we have ended up with people being told by the state what to do rather than for taking their own responsibility. Before I comment on this particular plan, I want to concentrate on three themes that are within the bill, which I believe can be the focus for the desired aim, namely to ensure that Scotland is a world leader when it comes to good food. Those three themes are very much around the availability of food, the production and its preparation. First, on the question of availability, it's not just about the supply of food, but it's about how pricing affects consumer demand and the related elasticities within that demand. All too often—and it's a bit of a myth—people tell us that good food is always going to be more expensive. That is simply not true. Indeed, some of the best and most wholesome food is the cheapest. Take homemade soup—I have heard Mr Fairlie on this point during the election campaign in the chamber since. Take the homemade soup situation with quality vegetables that we have in our local shops and on our farms—Coffee made the point—and a traditional dish of Scottish mints and tatties can be as good as any when it comes to quality food. It's a lot cheaper than a fish supper or a pizza carry-out. So, too, with a myriad of straightforward recipes, which make—yes, of course. I thank the member for giving way and bow to no one in my respect for mints and tatties. Given what she said about making a bowl of soup, does she recognise that, in many communities in Scotland, accessing a shop that sells fresh vegetables is no simple task? I absolutely do. I'm coming to a point—again, I'm going back to some of the suggestions that Mr Fairlie's had in the past. You're quite right. It's not just about accessing that. It's about actually knowing what to do when it comes to making the soup. That's the important point as well. When it comes to the education that's involved in this, I think that is absolutely crucial. I don't often agree with Mr Fairlie in this chamber, as everybody knows, but he's made a very strong point in the past about young people in schools knowing what they have to do. I think that it's a very important part of the curriculum that we should be educating our young people and, indeed, how to avoid waste. I'm obviously not a farmer by any sense, but I do live in the farming communities in Persia. I live in awe of what they managed to do, often against the elements and very difficult circumstances. Yes, it's absolutely true that they've had their difficulties with Brexit and with Covid and, if such, they've not had their troubles to seek, but they also have some big asks of us. On top of the list for them, quite rightly, is that they want us to buy local, and that includes local authorities and other institutions doing their bit when it comes to procurement. That is something, as Rachel Hamilton rightly said, the Scottish Conservatives have been calling for this for a very long time. That procurement is absolutely vital, not just in terms of harnessing the best of our local areas but in terms of supporting jobs and the related rural industries. If the bill is going to be effective, facilitating that local procurement is an absolute key component. Of course, there's another important issue here, and that is the culture that surrounds the preparation of the food. Far too often these days, mealtimes are squeezed. There are two problems in that. It often means that poorer quality food is being served. Karen Adam made this very sensible point. It certainly means that quality family time around the dinner table is often reduced. Personally, I think that the French have a lot to teach us in trying to address that issue, because food in France is very much seen as a national treasure. I think that we need to do an awful lot more to imbue exactly the same culture across Scotland. Quite a bit is about attitudinal changes, and we know from various other policy aspects in this chamber that changing attitudes and behaviour is not easy, but I don't think that we should just sit back and say that we're not going to try. I think that the committee has come up with some very interesting suggestions about what the basket of indicators has to be, as opposed to the actual targets. I think that that's a very important part of the recommendations of the committee report. I want to finish on that point. I think that Beatrice Wishart on behalf of the committee raised some very interesting points about the procedures that the committee will have to recommend to the Parliament to ensure that we are going about this legislation in absolutely the right way so that we are actually delivering what the intention is, rather than getting round up in some legislation that is actually not going to be very effective. I'll leave it there, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call on Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Ariane Burgess, up to six minutes please, Mr Fairlie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Not often I would agree with this myth, but there was so much in there that I would absolutely agree with. So I'm going to take in a wee history lesson of my involvement with this whole debate, Presiding Officer. In 1995, the Aberdeen Evening Express reported on a chip shop in Stonehaven selling mars bars deep fried in batter during the school holidays, especially targeted at children. It was a novelty story. It was picked up by the press across the country and around the world. It was described in one newspaper as Scotland's craziest takeaway, but it became synonymous with obesity, ill health and a high fat diet, doing nothing to enhance the already poor reputation for Scotland's appreciation of and relationship with food. The irony is that Scotland's larder, as we've already talked about, is world-renowned and has been for generations. The lamb, the beef, venison, salmon, shellfish, whisky, potatoes, haggis, neeps, the world knows all about our loved home produce, yet we still had the reputation for being the sick man of Europe, with a very unhealthy relationship with alcohol and fatty obesity-inducing foods. Absolutely. I'm very grateful to Mr Fairlie for taking intervention. I want to if he'd agree with me in considering this, we have to look at planning and where we put fast food outlets and whether or not we allow things like burger bands anywhere close to our schools, so that we can encourage our children to an uptake of school meals. Absolutely. Tim Fairlie is something that I called for when I was on the outside of this chamber, so I completely agree with that. It didn't add up, and someone had to take an initiative to change the attitude that we had and the obesity challenges that we had. Hungry for success is a national nutritional standards programme for schools that was launched in 2003 in a bid to tackle the highest level of obesity in Europe, and that was a significant step forward. Then came schools health promotion and the nutrition Scotland act of 2007, and it remains the overarching legislation around food provision and a whole-school approach to promoting health and wellbeing. A review of the regulations took place in 2017 and were revised again in 2021, meaning that schools now take account of health and wellbeing planning, and we introduced universal free school meals and primary schools, and this is to promote social justice and is a vital service as the cost-evalve crisis that we are facing takes hold. I've spoken before of my experience working with Perth High School to help them develop as a health promotion school, and the programme we set up given young people access to and participation in whole food chain processes from growing to preparing to cooking and then selling. What those young people got out of that was life skills and an introduction to vibrant, exciting industry, with the possibility of developing a career for themselves. My involvement at that level with my children's school was mainly down to a changing attitude and culture around food across schools and local authorities, driven by these various governmental initiatives, and in particular the 2008 national food and drink policy for Scotland. This was a landmark piece of work from Richard Lochhead and the first of its kind in Europe. I'm not going to quote what he said because I don't know what time. In 2009, Robin Goorley chaired the national food and drink policies public sector working group, aimed at creating new opportunities for food and drink, SMEs and better public procurement by the public sector organisations. His success in East Ayrshire meant that he was the right person to chair this group looking at how we could put the talk into action. The report that he authored was aptly called Walking the Talk, Getting Government Right. In that report, sustainable development and accounting for social, economic and environmental value of food and awarding contracts was introduced, as was the social return on investment. Those were two vital elements in driving the move away from pens per meal to deliver wider value for money across society, a crucial difference in changing attitudes to the real value of food and public procurement. Seeing the whole picture from legislation in this place to working with it in the fields if you'll pardon the pun has been of huge value and emphasises to me why we need to get it right. Our global reputation for quality food is fabulous. Our imagery and marketing have been superb. The Scottish Whiskey Association were undoubtedly front runners—I'm sorry, I don't have time—and others are learning from them. The Scottish Government's genius incorporation of Scotland food and drink to be that collaborative linchpin for the whole food industry under the stewardship of James Withers has been a massive success. Our reputation for quality places tea out in Scotland is growing. Led, I'm very proud to say, by my brother's restaurant, The Gleneagles, and still the only two Michelin star restaurant in Scotland. Appreciation of our home-grown and local food offering has grown massively. Again, I'm proud of my own small role in establishing Scotland's first farmers market, which led to an explosion of farmers markets across the country, farm shops, local food delivery businesses and creating that connection between growers, farmers, fishers and producers and consumers has been pivotal in getting us to where we are now. Our street food culture has equally grown exponentially. Small artisan traders are getting out there and cooking fabulous tasting locally sourced to top quality foods. A world away from when I started festival catering, where organisers now recognise that quality food is something to be proud of and an important element of any event. I mention all this to emphasise that we are on a journey, a journey that has been on for a long time and one in which we have made great strides and improvements. There is a danger in this debate that we are dismissing all that has gone before without recognising its value and, importantly, its lessons. We have come an extremely long way in a relatively short period of time, but there is much more to do and that is where this good food nation bill comes in. Its requirement to set out a plan has been criticised for lacking ambition, for being too narrow, for not having targets and for missing an opportunity. I disagree because those claims are missing the fundamental point of what has already been achieved. This bill is the next stage to embed and boost all that good work. It is a framework bill that will focus the minds of those in the public sector to ensure that every aspect of their thinking has a regard to food and its role in every function of their operation. Across all departments, local authorities will have to take a licence of all those aspects and include them in their thinking. I will finish. The bill strengthens the levers for change and continues the cultural shift that Scotland has been on for over two decades. When we look back in five years' time, we will be able to measure success by improved health, economic development and the cultural shifts that we witness in everyday life and how much closer we are to being a good food nation. I now call Arianne Burgess. We will follow by Foisle Chowdure up to six minutes, please, Ms Burgess. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Getting food right in Scotland will play a crucial role in our country's wellbeing. The good food nation bill is not just about what is on our plates. It is about every single activity that puts food on to that plate and what happens when the scraps are scraped off the plate and the plate is washed. Food entwines many systems. It engages thousands of people in sectors from soil science to food growing and harvesting, fishing and farming, through to cooking and serving, preparing and packaging, delivery and retail. It involves all of us as we all buy and eat food. Food is at the centre of our lives. We must recognise that the way that we produce, procure and value good food can help us to make massive strides in response to our climate and nature emergencies, our health and education crises and our growing food insecurity and mental ill health challenges. That is why the Scottish Greens ensured commitments to support better procurement and organic farming in the Bute House agreement. For years, countless people and organisations across Scotland, as Jim Fairlie has just outlined, have been pushing for this good food nation bill. Why? Because until now we have not been doing such a great job at providing genuinely nutritious food for people. We need this good food nation bill to help us all to do better. This bill can be strengthened at stage 2. The 45 organisation strong Scottish Food Coalition states in its response to the rain committee's report that the bill must be strengthened as it currently has no clear goals, principles or direction and minimal mechanisms for participation and accountability. The majority of people who gave evidence to the committee agreed that the bill needs more detail, clearer ambition, clarity of vision, outcomes and levers for change. I would like to highlight key areas where public bodies can be supported to develop and deliver on strong good food nation plans and signal to the private sector the clear change in direction that we must make. Firstly, a purpose statement at the start of the bill would make clear the direction that the Scottish food policy should be heading. Anna Taylor, who gave evidence to the committee, the chief independent adviser on England's national food strategy, called for a statement that sets out the benefits of a good food nation will bring to people, animals and our environment and that the role that we want food to play in society and our lives. Stakeholders have suggested that this could be underpinned by a list of high-level objectives as we've heard discussed already and a set of outcomes such as addressing the environmental impact of food production and the level of food insecurity in society. Just like the outcomes in the island acts, those will function as guide rails to help ensure that the plans all move us towards the same shared vision of a good food nation while leaving room for different policy approaches to getting there as appropriate to different regions. One necessary outcome I would like to highlight in increasing the share of local food procured by public bodies. This is reflected in commitments that we will now be delivering from the Butehouse agreement. Supporting Scottish producers and supply chains through public procurement is essential for increasing food security, which is becoming ever more critical as shown by the war in Ukraine. It will also boost our health and local economies and protect our climate and nature. Support must be put in place to enable local authorities to pull on this important lever. In evidence, people highlighted the need to provide advice and guidance to the public and private sectors to benchmark and measure progress and to involve citizens, food workers and stakeholder groups in inclusive processes to develop informed and effective food policy. An independent oversight body could play an important role here. Several stakeholders have called for a Scottish Food Commission with a role and remit similar to the Scottish Land Commission. Others have used the comparison of the UK Climate Change Committee, a purpose-built cross-cutting body with expertise in all aspects of climate change. We need a body with wide-ranging expertise like that for food. Another cross-cutting issue, and I am grateful that the cabinet secretary has indicated that she is considering the oversight body. Finally, we heard interesting arguments from several stakeholders that the bill should recognise a proposed right to food. I am pleased that this crucial right is expected to soon be incorporated into Scots law through the Scottish Government's human rights bill. In closing, I trust that I have expressed the urgency for Scotland to become a good food nation. We all have a lot on our plates, but we must use this opportunity to strengthen this vital bill to ensure that the good food nation plans and policies serve up the outcomes that we all know we need for our health, food security and our planet. I now call Faisal Choudry to be followed by Collette Stevenson. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Choudry. I must first refer members to my entry in the register of interest. As many members will know, I come from a background in the food business, and the issue of good food is one that is close to my heart. I must commend the work of the committee in examining this bill and allowing us to now debate its merit. The stated aims of this bill are policy memorandum that sounds very novel, to commit to Scotland producing, selling and eating good food, to see dietary diseases in decline, to encourage healthy and environmentally sound food productions. However, what we have before us lacks significant details, even when we take into consideration that this is a framework bill. As the committee's report notes, Scottish ministers have admitted that they did not have to legislate, they create good food plans for Scotland, but they wanted to give the plans teeth. We are therefore left to wonder why are the ways in which the good food nation plans may by not made clearer in the bill. I agree with the Scottish Food Collusion Assessment that there should be, at the very least, be a purpose on the face of this bill. That purpose should ensure that right to food as one of the first principles when it comes to good food, surely all else must flow from that. That is because even more relevant given the cost of living crisis people now face. However, there could also be some much more. The Scottish Food Collusion also suggests that, including objectives based around the UN's sustainable development goals into the bill. We could even ensure and protect Scotland's place as a fair trade nation in the bill, ensuring that we are considering sustainable development across the world when we import the food that we cannot grow ourselves. The fact that there is much vision in the bills before us feels like a missed opportunity. There is also wider point here about the Scottish Government's legislative agenda. The cross-party group on international development last week heard about the prospect for a well-being and sustainable development bill, also promised in the SNP manifesto at the last election. That bill is apparently intended to ensure policy coherence on sustainable development within the Scottish Government's legislative and regularity approaches to governing. How then are the principles of well-being and sustainable development not reflected within this bill? Will this bill have to be amended by that one? Of course, it is up on all of us here to foresee these problems and deal with them at later stage, but I worry that it shows a lack of joining up thinking in the Scottish Government's approach to the framework it seeks to build. We must also ensure that this framework bill provides adequate room for this Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government's plan. As the several of these responded to the consultation on the bill have noted, this is another aspect that is sorely lacking from what we see in front of us. It was only a few weeks ago that many of us here were criticising the UK internal market bill and the reliance on common frameworks that shut this Parliament out of decision making on matters of great importance to Scotland. We should not accept another framework being created that shuts this Parliament out of decision and only adds an executive power. This is something that it needs dealing with in later stage. In conclusion, my assessment is that the principles behind this bill are admirable, but it is held back by a lack of imagination into the good that it could do and by a lack of avenue for scrutiny when it comes to the involvement of this Parliament. Should we agree to it today, we should also take with us the determination to repair this at the later stage. On this basis, I will be voting in favour of this general principle of this bill. Thank you. I now call Collette Stevenson, who will be the last speaker in the open debate up to six minutes. I remain members of my register of interests. Scotland is a nation with excellent food. With the right frameworks in place, we can take full advantage of this. Scotland can become a good food nation where everyone takes pride and pleasure in and benefits from the food that they produce, buy, cook and eat every day. I welcome the introduction of the good food nation Scotland bill and support everything it sets out to do. As an overarching framework bill, it will not only underpin the work that the Scottish Government is already doing but will also put the good food nation plans on a legislative footing and ensure that we maximise the benefits from our natural larder. There are the obvious health benefits, both physical and mental, of eating and having access to good food. It moves towards more sustainable and local products and also benefits the environment with lower food miles. It will also sustain and create more local jobs. That is why it is important that there is a duty for ministers to consider all of those factors set out in section 1 of the bill. Food is a huge industry and East Kilbride is home to many businesses in the sector, some local and some global. We have a long-standing tradition of dairy businesses around East Kilbride and that is still the case today. Thorntonhall farmhouse ice cream is a family business. They keep their own dairy cows, milk them and make excellent fresh ice cream. McQueen's dairies delivered fresh milk and other products all sourced from a farm-owned co-operative. One of the dangers of unhealthy food and eating lots of it is the salt content. Low salt-based East Kilbride is helping to tackle that through their low sodium products. Many public services such as hospitals, schools and nurseries provide food arguably some of the most important meals. The bill will expand on the work to improve the nutritional content of food from public kitchens as well as increase the use of locally sourced and produced foods as an important step in creating a good food nation. Key to that is good procurement. The supplier development programme does great work and I encourage small businesses in East Kilbride and across Scotland to do their free tender training. Councils and other public sector agencies take out large food contracts for schools, care homes, hospitals and cafes. There are big companies with dedicated tendering officers, the means to bid for multimillion pound contracts and to sort the necessary logistics. Small businesses can struggle to bid for large contracts and often rely on subcontracted opportunities. Without good supply chain visibility, however, it is difficult to see the local benefits and know the source of the different food products supplied. Beef, for instance, might be frozen from the other side of the world or it might have been sourced a mile down the road. Sometimes large companies cite commercial sensitivity and refuse to divulge details of subcontractors. I would like to see supply chain visibility increased, whether that is by promotion and encouragement or through guidance or legislation. That is vital so that politicians, policy makers, businesses and customers can see where food comes from, consider the jobs that are getting created and supported locally and see the community benefit from these large contracts. The proposed community wealth building bill will develop procurement practices to support local economies, including small businesses. It will also encourage school canteens to use more food to produce locally. As a nation, sometimes we are not the best at taking advantage of our natural lardar. I believe that Scots should eat more indigenous food. That would boost our economy and help to support a good food nation. As the cabinet secretary knows, I have a constituency interest in lowland deer management. Venison is local, sustainable and healthy foods, but the way things are right now is not a protein that many people could afford to eat much of. Given the lack of localised lardars, the high cost perhaps reflects the long-winded path to process venison. From my discussions with deer managers, that cost could be reduced drastically with the right support and a more localised approach. I hope that with improved procurement and a bigger focus on local food, that we will see some benefits on that front. I support the good food nation Scotland bill. It provides the framework to ensure that Scots from every walk of life can benefit from and take praise in the food that they produce by, cook, serve and eat every day. I have spilled the water and now I can get started. I thank colleagues on the committee and everyone who contributed evidence in helping to produce the committee's report. I think that it is clear that there is broad support across the country and within Parliament today for the principles underlying the good food nation bill. That is important because, as the cost of living crisis deepens and more people across Scotland are faced with the realities of food insecurity, transformative change within our food system is long overdue. However, the food insecurity that so many now face is not just being driven by the current cost of living crisis, it has been allowed to develop by political choices made over the last decade. The choice of our Governments not to tackle low pay or insecure work or inadequate social security provision. With this bill we have an opportunity to transform our food system, to take action to end food poverty in Scotland. However, in order to do so, I think that it is clear that the bill must be strengthened in a number of areas. As we have heard today from Rachel Hamilton throughout the committee's evidence sessions, the idea of incorporating a right to food into Scots law through the bill was repeatedly raised. It is something that is being called for by campaigners such as those from the Scottish Food Coalition and the Bakers Union. As the bill stands, these campaigners are rightly concerned that it lacks a clear purpose and will do little to bring effect to the right to food, even if it is introduced in future human rights legislation. The General Secretary of the Bakers Union, Sarah Wooley expressed this concern when she said that no good food nation bill in 2022 can be taken seriously without a statutory commitment to deliver a right to food. I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on the need for the bill to be given a clearer purpose ahead of stage 2. As Colin Smyth outlined, this could be achieved, as suggested by campaigners, through the introduction of a purpose clause in the bill, making it clear that the bill will give effect to the right to food. I also believe that the bill needs high-level objectives that would help to guide the implementation and measure the success of good food nation plans. We heard earlier in the debate from Karen Adam that people in food poverty do not care about targets, they care about actual outcomes. That might be true, but without the targets we have no way to mandate and measure the change we need to see. As the bill currently stands, there is no requirement for the good food nation plans to have objectives and indicators in relation to the wider food system. That means that there is no mandate to support sustainable agriculture, or to improve animal welfare, or to enhance paying conditions within food supply chains, and it means that there are no indicators that can be used to measure the success of good food nation plans. If we are serious about transforming Scotland into a good food nation—which I think we all are today—we must take a system-wide approach to food policy that addresses those issues. We also heard earlier from Arianne Burgess about calling from campaigners for a purpose-built cross-cutting Scottish Food Commission. Like them, I believe that there is a role for a statutory oversight body to monitor the development and implementation of good food nation plans. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, such an independent oversight body could not only provide scrutiny of good food nation plans but also contribute to their development through actions such as research support. The body could also improve accountability by supporting Parliament in its scrutiny of the national good food nation plan and the Scottish Government's overall progress towards delivering a good food nation. Back in August, the Scottish Government recognised that there might be a role for such an oversight body to monitor the delivery of good food nation plans, so I hope that it will now look again at including proposals for such a body ahead of stage 2. While Labour supports the principles underpinning the good food nation bill, we believe that it is clear that the bill should be strengthened. The bill should be given a clearer purpose to give effect to a right to food. It should include high-level objectives and indicators to help with the development of good food nation plans and to measure their success. It should provide for a statutory independent oversight body. The Scottish Government has a political choice to make. Will it push forward with an empty framework or will it work with campaigners and cross-party to create a bill fit to bring about the transformational system change that our nation needs? I am delighted to be closing this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As many in this chamber will know, bringing forward the good food nation bill is something that I have pushed for long and weary in this place through all the false dawns promised by the Government as they kicked the can down the road for years. It is a hugely important piece of legislation with potentially significant impacts across all portfolios and across all of society. It is brought forward against the backdrop of Scotland being the unhealthiest nation in Europe, the second most obese country in the world after the USA, as well as many other poor health indicators. I have to tell the cabinet secretary that it is worse than it was seven years ago, so I am not quite sure whether she has claimed that over the last seven years we have become a good food nation bill. I would be really interested to see where the evidence for that comes from. That is despite our farmers producing some of the highest-quality food in the world. The Scottish Government has a target to reduce childhood obesity by 50 per cent by 2030, but there is no mention of that on the bill and no route of how they would achieve that target. I would suggest that the good food nation bill should at least acknowledge that food will have a bearing on that target. The impact of getting this right are many. The obvious health links making sure that children have access to the highest-quality locally produced food, because adult health outcomes are developed in early years. That applies at preschool, where introducing a level playing field for the roll-out of our 140 hours should include funding for healthy meals. We know that the PVI sector is being squeezed by the current Scottish Government deal. That will inevitably put pressure on those nurseries to deliver quality food. Our free school meals should most definitely be locally sourced and of the highest nutritional standard. I think that we should be encouraging that uptake of school meals. I think that it is a certain intervention early on on that. We need to look at the planning as to where we put fast-food outlets and whether we allow things like burger vans outside of schools. In education, as Liz Smith quite rightly pointed out, it is such an important point. Learning about good nutrition is key. It is key because it leads to good learning and closing the attainment gap. Who would have thought that agreeing with Jim Fairlie in this chamber—both Liz Smith and I agreeing with Jim Fairlie—is the end of his political career. He called for more education in schools about the value of food, the health, wellbeing and environment provision that should be provided on the bill. We agree, Mr Fairlie. What about supporting a rural economy by local procurement policies as demonstrated by East Ayrshire, who sits at about 75 per cent locally procured food for schools? Five years ago, I did a study as to where local council schools and hospital food came from. The results were as astounding as they were damming, with only 16 per cent of food procured into the Scottish Government central excel contract coming from Scotland. With quality of food in some areas, especially our main cities being particularly poor, that is the point that Rachael Hamilton made about the fact that the Scottish diet has become calorie-dense and nutritionally poor. Of course, Maurice Golden, the guru of the circular economy, spoke knowledgeably about the opportunity that we have to develop a sustainable food economy and decarbonise our food supply. We need to reduce the miles that our food has to travel from processing and consumption, which can only benefit the environment. While we are on the subject, targeting food waste should surely have been put on the bill. After all, we throw away about a third of our food. All the while, we are debating how we tackle food poverty. If it were a country, food waste would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gas after China and the USA. As Jenny Minthill pointed out, we require an area the size of China to produce all the food that we discard. There is no mention of that on the bill. I am bringing forward the bill that the Scottish Government has avoided all the real issues that the good food nation bill should be addressing. Instead, it is another smoke and mirrors, unicorns and rainbows. In fact, all that is to me is that the Scottish Government is saying that it wants councils to come up with a plan, although it is making sure that there is nothing that they can be measured against, whereas the financial memorandum to support our local authorities. The bill should have clear purpose. It should link up food production with processing and procurement and then reducing food waste, ensuring that there is adequate and culturally acceptable food consumption sustainably preserving access to food for future generations. It should not only contain clear targets but a route to get there and a way to measure progress against those targets. I will take an intervention. Can you explain to me how you legislate for how people eat and how you change culture? How do you legislate for that? What you do, Mr Fairlie, is create an environment where we encourage our children to eat school meals, we create an environment where we educate—no, it is not—where you educate, you have to legislate and create a framework that allows that to happen. I think that what the Scottish Government is really good at is setting world-leading targets without any practical way of achieving them. However, Mr Fairlie, in this instance, they have not even bothered to do that. The Scottish Food Coalition is damming in its briefing on the bill, saying that it has no clear goals, principles or direction with minimal mechanism for participation and accountability. The bill is not only years late than being laid, it is a shadow of what it could and should be. Somehow it has made its way through the Scottish Government machine, it has been trampled on, it has been kicked about and reduced to a next-to-nothing bill. What an opportunity miss, the Scottish Government has a lot of work to do before this bill has any real meaning. No wonder the Scottish Government insists that it marks its own homework, because if anyone else did it, they would be lucky to get an F. What this debate has exposed is the Scottish Government's need to get back to the drawing board, do the job that it is supposed to do and produce a bill worthy of the title. I now call on Mary Gougeon, cabinet secretary, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government, up to eight minutes please. I really just want to start by thanking all the members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. Food is fundamental to all of our lives, it touches us right across society, across government, you can see this from the sheer breadth of organisations and interests that gave evidence to the committee and just from the sheer range of issues that have been raised across the chamber today during the course of the debate. As I mentioned at the start, Scotland has been on a good food nation journey now for many years. We have taken many important steps in improving people's lives through food policy, from tackling issues around health and diet to addressing the environmental impact of food. This bill is not intended to be the culmination of that journey, it is the next important step in it. I think that Jim Fairlie made this point really well in his contribution today, because we cannot forget or dismiss the work that has led us here or forget what has come before. This legislation ensures that government can be held to account by everyone who is affected by food policy decisions through the creation of new and innovative national and local food plans. There were so many different issues that were raised during the course of today. I really want to try to uncover as much as I possibly can in closing. One of those was food security, and that was touched on by a couple of members. It was raised by Jenny Minto and by Maurice Golden. The horrific events that we have watched unfold in the Ukraine over the past few weeks have brought all of that into sharp focus. We have recognised, as a Government, the importance of our primary producers and food production, which is why that is one of the key pillars that we set out in our vision for agriculture. That is why the good food nation bill is mentioned within that vision, as well as our local food strategy, and why we have committed to continuing to support our food producers. We live in a country that is so plentiful in terms of what we produce, and we often talk about the fantastic natural lardar that we have, but, in spite of that, we also had the powerful interventions today that were made by Karen Adam and Rhoda Grant about the food insecurity that people face, the levels of ill health and malnutrition. One of the things that shocked me in going through the evidence that Brian Whittle touched on in his contribution was about food waste. Some of the statistics that we heard from Zero East Scotland when they were giving evidence to the committee about the sheer levels of food that we see going to waste in this country. We produce so much good food, but how do we make that accessible? How do we reduce food waste? How do we build a food system that works, that is fair to our farmers and crofters, that is connected through short supply chains and better connecting people to their food and where it comes from? We heard from SNP-backed benches about the need to shorten supply chains, which you have just mentioned, and to ensure that smaller producers get a look in when they are being successful in that procurement process. Does the cabinet secretary support a wholesale reform of procurement in Scotland? We are looking at issues in relation to shortening supply chains, which I will also come to touch on, and which we are considering through our draft local food strategy, too. In relation to trying to address some of those questions that I set out, the bill will underpin what we are already doing on food policy, but it will also give us the extra tools that we need to maintain momentum and to increase the synergy of food policy between the national and the local. The bill is important in helping us to really affect the changes that we know we need to see in our food culture and how we think about food and the food that we choose to eat. That can only be achieved through long-term planning that links government activity with that of other public bodies such as local authorities and health boards. In touching on some of the other issues that were raised today, the right to food was a topic on which there were very strong feelings expressed. I know that some stakeholders in giving evidence on this, such as Food Train, had expressed their disappointment that a delay to incorporating the right to food is a delay in protecting human rights, whereas others such as Nordic Scotland had commented that the right to food needs to be incorporated as soon as possible, while also understanding the reasons for including it in a broader human rights bill. I really want to reiterate my view that I absolutely agree that the right to food should be incorporated into Scots law. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that across the chamber, but, as I noted in evidence, given that human rights are indivisible in so many ways, including the right to adequate food in the human rights bill provides the best opportunity to address complex interrelationships and avoids a fragmented approach to the incorporation of human rights, and that is something that we have committed to. While the right to adequate food will be put into law as part of future legislation in this parliamentary session, the Good Food Nation bill presents us with the opportunity to help to make that access to healthy, local and nutritious food, a reality for all the people of Scotland. There were a couple of other points that were raised in the debate today that I want to touch on, some that were raised by Beatrice Wishart in relation to the role of local authorities. Not at the moment, I just want to continue to make progress. Beatrice Wishart talked about local authorities being at different stages in development of food policy, asking what more we could do in this regard to assist. I want to give the students that we are giving further consideration as to how we can help with that, and we will continue to work closely with local authorities and with COSLA. That is also in relation to the finances, which I know was an issue that was raised at committee 2. In relation to targets, again, points that were touched on by Brian Whittle, Maurice Golden and others across the chamber today. I understand why there are calls for including targets in this bill. That question was discussed extensively during the evidence sessions at the committee. Stakeholders ranging from the Scottish Food Coalition to the Royal College of Nursing among many others had given examples of targets that they would have liked to have seen in the bill. Each of those food policy targets is important. However, we firmly believe that the best place for those targets is in our plans, following widespread and inclusive consultation with all of our stakeholders. Good Food Nation covers such a broad range of policy areas, each of which contributes a basket of potential targets. Those could never all be adequately captured on the face of this bill, but limiting to a subset of specific targets risks that the Good Food Nation plans, not at the moment, end up focusing narrowly on those targets to the detriment of other food policy ambitions. I know that that was a concern that was also articulated in evidence that the committee heard, that targets become the focus, which means that the wider ambitions suffer. That was a point that was well articulated by Karen Adam in her contribution today. We also need to retain the flexibility to amend and update targets as we progress and constantly having to update primary legislation would not easily allow for that to happen. In relation to parliamentary scrutiny, again, a point that had been raised today, linked to the discussion on oversight is the role that Parliament can play. Again, that has been highlighted by Beatrice Whitter among other members. I absolutely appreciate the importance of the role that Parliament plays in providing scrutiny, and I also note the committee's recommendations in that regard. I have taken on board the committee's recommendations, and I am actively considering how to enhance that role that Parliament will play in the development and scrutiny of the national Good Food Nation plan. There were also points that were raised in relation to a food commission, and I would like to begin with responding to that question of whether a new statutory body should be set up in the context of Good Food Nation plans. There were a wide range of views that were expressed in response to the committee's call for evidence, as well as during the committee's stage 1 evidence sessions, some such as the Scottish Food Coalition have been very clear that there has to be that independent oversight, whereas others such as COSLA do not believe that a new body is required to oversee the implementation of the bill. The evidence given to the committee included a range of views of the pros and cons of a new body, its governance and its functions, but there was not any general agreement on the need for such a body. We have committed to considering the need for a statutory body such as a food commission as part of the Bute House agreement, and we are considering all the options that are available to provide that oversight role for delivery of the provisions in the Good Food Nation bill. In its first year, the Scottish Food Commission published an interim report that refreshed the vision for a Good Food Nation. That vision still holds true today. It sits at the heart of the premise for this bill and it will be reflected in the high-level objectives that the national and local plans will seek to deliver, but there is one key ambition that is set out that it is hard to legislate for. Other countries look to Scotland to learn how to become a Good Food Nation. Presiding Officer, there has already been intense international interest in what Scotland is doing. It was a privilege indeed to have the UN special rapporteur on the right to food give evidence on our bill and its proposals. People are excited by the scale of our ambition and our willingness to legislate to achieve it, something that few nations have done. I look forward to the next stages of Scotland's Good Food Nation bill to continue to co-operate and collaborate during stages 2 and 3 to arrive at a final bill that we can hopefully all be proud of. As we turn our vision into reality, we can hope that other countries will indeed look to Scotland to learn how to become a Good Food Nation 2. I therefore invite Parliament to approve the general principles of the Good Food Nation Scotland bill. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on the Good Food Nation Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is approval of an SSI. I ask Ben Macpherson to speak to and move motion 3722 on approval of an SSI. Presiding Officer, in response to the shocking and developing situation in Ukraine, the Scottish Government continues to take urgent steps to resettle people fleeing here. The Home Office has announced that it has created new schemes for Ukrainian people to come to the UK to settle, one, the Ukraine family scheme, which allows those living in the UK with family in the Ukraine to bring them to the UK to settle, and two, the homes for Ukraine scheme, which allows individuals, charities, community groups and businesses in the UK to support a Ukrainian person to come here. Normally, many forms of social security assistance have eligibility restrictions for those who are subject to immigration control. However, individuals coming from Ukraine will not be subject to immigration control, which means that they will not be affected by any such restrictions. Moreover, the immigration restrictions are not the only obstacle individuals arriving from the Ukraine, including those who already have a right of a boat in the UK with normally face. The Department for Work and Pensions laid emergency regulations yesterday, coming into force today, which seek to exempt those individuals from two remaining obstacles to immediate eligibility for social security assistance, those being the habitual residence test and the past presence test. Those tests appear in both UK and Scottish social security legislation. Applications of those tests, each of which require an individual to have spent a certain amount of time in the UK to establish their eligibility, would be likely to stop individuals from arriving from Ukraine from being able to claim support until they have been here for up to six months. The DWP regulations therefore seek to supply those tests for people in specified groups arriving from Ukraine. If passed, they will enable those people to be able to access social security benefits from day 1, and I commend UK ministers for their actions in this regard. The regulations before this Parliament proposed to make mirroring modifications to devolve social security legislation. Those amendments are being made to both UK benefits delivered under agency agreement in Scotland and regulations made under the Social Security Scotland Act 2018. In addition, we are making equivalent amendments to the regulations for council tax reduction entitlement in the same instrument. I appreciate that the Parliament has not had its usual opportunity for full scrutiny of those regulations, and I am aware that that is far from ideal. However, the pace at which the legislation has to be developed in order to meet the necessary timescales meant that normal scrutiny was simply not possible in this case. I hope that Parliament can empathise with that given the situation and the circumstances. I am grateful to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for working with Scottish Government officials to help to bring forward this urgent legislation in the shortest time possible, and Scottish Government officials worked at pace with UK Government officials as well commendably. Scotland is a welcoming country and wants to be so for new arrivals coming from Ukraine. I hope that colleagues will agree that the instrument is necessary in order that we can ensure that those arrivals from Ukraine, fleeing situations that we cannot even imagine, are able to access crucial social security support on arrival in Scotland. I move the motion. Thank you. Minister, the question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item is approval of an SSI, and I ask Claire Holly to move the motion. Thank you. Motion 3688, and the question on that motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 3736, 3737, 3738 and 3741 on approval of SSIs. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and all moved. Thank you, and I call on Brian Whittle. Can I confirm, Mr Whittle, that you are speaking on motions 3736 to 3738? That's correct, Presiding Officer. I rise to oppose those motions on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. At the Covid Recovery Committee, my colleague Murdo Fraser and I had the opportunity to question the Deputy First Minister John Swinney on the reasons that the Scottish Government was pushing forward with its plans to extend emergency powers. I think it's fair to say, Presiding Officer, that we did not get any satisfactory answers. The reality is that when asked, John Swinney could not give me any advantage that would have been gained had the Scottish Government had these powers at the start of the pandemic, and we have to remember at that time, when asked to do so, this Parliament acted quickly to scrutinise Scottish Government plans and passed that emergency legislation. I would also suggest that, with the hybrid technology now deployed, we are able to do that even quicker. The question has to be why the Scottish Government is trying to bypass this Parliament. John Mason. Will the member accept that one of the answers at committee was that the numbers in hospital at the moment with Covid are exceptionally high, and this is not a good time to be reducing the powers that the Government has? Brian Whittle. I think that the member is obviously part of that committee as well, but if you remember what the answers gave there was that the fact is that there are a lot of people in hospital at the moment, but the actual severity of that is low. The deaths are low. The other fact is here, and I will go back to the point that this Parliament is able to move legislation extremely quickly, and the majority of the rules are not in law, they are just guidance. Given that we know that the public adhere quite strictly to public health guidance, it is our view that we should proceed to address Covid through public health guidance rather than through extended extraordinary and emergency powers by another six months, as the instrument seeks to do. We recognise that there are some aspects of the instruments that are beneficial such as the provision to allow nurses rather than doctors to administer vaccines. However, given that we cannot amend status to the instruments before we must either accept them as a whole or reject them as a whole, given the extent of the emergency powers that the Scottish Government seeks to extend, we must reject them as a whole. All we are asking is that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise legislation before it comes into being, as is Parliament's responsibility. As we have come to expect, the Scottish Government is not comfortable with scrutiny, but, on this occasion, we need to—there is no need for the extension as requested, and I would ask Parliament to reject those motions. On the question of scrutiny, I regularly appear in front of the Covid Recovery Committee to explain the necessary measures that the Government has to take in these extraordinary circumstances, and I will happily appear in front of the committee on any occasion that the committee wishes to see me to scrutinise and to answer the points that the committee wishes to put to me. I faithfully answer the questions that Mr Whittle and his colleagues put to me in committee. I cannot be responsible for the fact that Mr Whittle does not like the answers that I share with him, but I faithfully attend that committee to give the answers on behalf of the Government. Of course I could wait to hear that. In that case, Mr Swinney, will you answer me the question that I asked during the Covid Recovery Committee? How would you be benefited for those powers to have been in place prior to the pandemic? At that time, you did not answer me. This is a pretty fundamental issue, because it will affect the Covid Recovery and Reform Bill that Parliament is going to fully scrutinise in the normal parliamentary process. What relates to that is whether or not we have a statute book that is capable of addressing the emergency circumstances that we have faced. The United Kingdom Parliament has legislated in the past for England and Wales to have statutory powers to enable—Mr Whittle mutters from the sidelines, it is not the same—it is exactly the same. What the United Kingdom Parliament has legislated for is for there to be powers that can be exercised by ministers where there is essentially the emergency of a pandemic. We do not have those powers in Scotland. We had to legislate for them in a great degree of a hurry at the start of the pandemic. What the Government is asking to do here is, with Parliament having considered this legislation, to extend that for some limited provisions for a six-month period, and Parliament can consider the full legislation. There are four sets of regulations in front of Parliament today. I will not rehearse all the details about them, but unless they are passed today, there will not be the ability, for example, for local authorities to be able to take the type of wide public health interventions that local authorities have taken to deal with the pandemic at local level, because those are inherent in the health protection coronavirus restrictions and the directions by local authority regulations. If we do not extend the deadlines for those regulations tonight, the ability of us to maintain, for example, the face coverings arrangements that we have in place—given the point that Mr Mason has just made about hospital cases—is more than 2,000 people in hospital with Covid, a larger number that we have never heard as many people in hospital before in the pandemic with Covid. There is a gravity of the situation that we need to continue to address. Of course, there are measures that the Government is removing as a consequence of those regulations tonight. That is consistent with what we say in the strategic framework that we will not retain any of those powers or responsibilities a moment longer than necessary. I invite Parliament to support the statutory instruments that are in front of Parliament tonight. They are essential to ensuring that we have the public health protections in place to deal with a continuing, severe situation from Covid. It is the duty of Parliament to ensure that we have the legislative framework properly considered that can address that very situation. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 3704, in the name of Mary Gougeon, on stage 1 debate at Good Food Nation Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 3722, in the name of Ben MacPherson, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 3688, in the name of Claire Horrie, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next question is that motion 3736, in the name of George Adam, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will have a short technical suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.