 Good morning everyone, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in 2022. Before we begin, I remind those members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. Our first item of business today is consideration of the Rural Support Controls, Coronavirus, Scotland regulations 2022, SSI 2022-107, and I refer boards to paper 1 on page 3. Does any member have any comments on this instrument? I would like to ask the Scottish Government why it has chosen to make permanent changes through the regulation 2 and 3, 7B. I would also like to ask the Scottish Government what the new approach of targeted inspections using relevant data and improved education and engagement with applicants means in practice including what data the targeting is based on and I'd also just to make this comment which is that the policy note states that the 2022 regulations will have no impact on stakeholders or members of the public as they simply assist and enable officials to carry out controls despite the coronavirus pandemic and related restrictions but if the regulations mean that there will be fewer on the ground inspections on farms and crops that have not complied with rules on protecting soil and water quality and environmental protection then isn't it the case that the regulations will have an impact on the local environment as well as on biodiversity and the climate and therefore will impact on the public? That's a question I would like to ask the Government. Okay, that's fine. Any other members? So are members content for me to write to the Scottish Government to ask the questions laid out, the Arianna's laid out, no other questions? Okay, thank you. Item 2 of today's business consideration of the consent notification for the animal welfare miscellaneous amendments regulation 2022 and refer members to paper 2 and 3 on page 11. Does any member have any comments on the instrument? So I agree with the Scottish Government's decision however I'd like to ask the Scottish Government to explain how their decision to consent to these provisions being included in the UK legislation can be reconciled with their stated intention to maintain regulatory alignment with EU law and the high standards that Scotland has enjoyed as part of the EU when the UK is applying to join free trade agreements like the CPTPP, which according to a Lord's Committee report raises concerns about food imported to lower standards under cutting UK farmers and undermining the UK food standards regime and CPTPP is comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Okay, thank you. So are members content to write to the Scottish Government outlining the question that Arianna set out and for further information about the requirements for reporting on welfare of animals during transportation and also the Scottish Government's policy of course recovery from transporters and the event of non-compliance with animal welfare? Are we content? Thank you. I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow the cabinet secretary to join us for our next agenda item. I will now move on to agenda number three, the Good Food Nation Scotland Bill, stage two. I welcome the cabinet secretary for rural affairs and islands and our supporting officials. Before we begin, I will explain the procedure briefly for anybody watching. There will be one debate on each group of amendments and I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in that group. I will then call any members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but do wish to speak should catch my attention. If she is not already spoken in the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting members who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, we must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any other member present objects, the committee will immediately move to vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, not moved. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I shall immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. It may be that we are not able to conclude the stage 2 consideration at today's meeting in which case we will do so at next week's meeting. Before we start, I want to draw members' attention to a preemption in the last group scrutiny of regulations. Amendment 60 in this group preempts amendments 61, 62 and 63. That means that, if amendment 60 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 61, 62 and 63. I do not anticipate reaching this group today, but I want to ensure that it is brought to members' attention. That will be included in the groupings documents ahead of next week's meeting. Amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 1. In February this year, the cabinet secretary told the Rural Affairs and Islands and Natural Environment Committee that it is the good food nation in Scotland bill that will put in place the long-term planning that is necessary to make both the practical and cultural changes that we need to make the human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland. I welcome that commitment. This bill has the potential to be a world-leading approach to this matter. The amendment seeks to put that aim and purpose on the face of the bill. When we bring forward legislation, we should have the central aim of that legislation clear for all to see on the face of the bill. The Scottish Government has committed to enshrine our human rights into Scott's law, and I welcome that step. However, without legislation and policies in place, that act will simply repeat the rights that we already have. As part of our ratification of international treaties, we already have the right to food. Despite that, we have a growing problem with hunger and malnutrition, which we must address. If we do not implement that right to food, we store up problems for the future. The cost of poor health, the resurfacing of diseases due to malnutrition, and also the impact of hunger on our younger generations, is impossible to learn on an empty stomach. I welcome moves towards free-school meals and policies that address already hunger. However, those policies simply are a sticking plaster on the problem. To deal with hunger, we need to deal with the root causes and allow every family to be able to feed their own children. The inability to do that is inhumane and so destroying. With the bill, we have the opportunity to put policies and train that will deal with it, and I urge members to support the amendment. My amendment seeks to address a number of issues that I believe the bill should set out to tackle. It must encompass diet, climate change, agriculture, resilience and public health. I believe that it matches the ambition that the bill intends to achieve. In 2C through 2E of my amendment, I have included agriculture and, importantly, farmers. For far too long, I know that farmers have been frustrated at the lack of local food in schools and hospitals. If we are truly to be a good food nation, farmers must be absolutely at the heart of this bill. We also need to reduce Scotland's health record in terms of food and diet and obesity. 65 per cent of people in Scotland are overweight currently, with a third being obese. We have been branded the sick man of Europe when it comes to our diet, with people regularly eating calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient foodstuffs. According to current trends, by 2035 more than 480,000 people in Scotland will be living with diabetes, and it is estimated that 6.7 per cent of men and 4.2 per cent of women are living with chronic heart disease, and that is covered in 2H. I believe that the purpose list from A to I is succinct and easily interpreted, providing a comprehensive list, which is combined to form a robust purpose for the bill. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 2 in my name, like amendment 1 in Rhoda Grant's name and amendment 31 in Rachel Hamilton's, seeks to provide a purpose clause in the bill. That purpose should be unambiguous. That bill should enable Scotland to become a good food nation, establishing a clear framework for legislation and policy that aims to ensure that everyone in Scotland can fully realise their right to food, protects and enhances our environment and animal welfare, improves public health and delivers improved social and economic wellbeing, a key point in the Government's vision for a good food nation. The committee highlighted in its stage 1 report that two thirds of respondents felt that the bill needed to be clearer on its purpose and outcomes, with many raising serious concerns at the bill's lack of ambition and direction. The bill has been described by the Scottish Government as giving practical effect to the right to food, as well as a means to ensure that the food system contributes to improved social, economic, environmental and health outcomes. It needs to say that on the face of the bill, and crucially it relates to the act as a whole, not just good food nations plans, as suggested in amendment 9 from the cabinet secretary. That bill is an opportunity to settle the Government's ambition for the future when it comes to food policy, and that goes beyond just a good food nation plan. Amendment 9 does not achieve that. Unlike the purpose clauses table that simply asks for regard to be had to a number of areas, and even the wording of those areas does not offer any meaningful direction of what we want that bill to achieve. A statutory expression of purpose would provide a clearer, more specific statement of the aims of the bill to ultimately assess progress. That is a very clear view of stakeholders, and it would be hugely frustrating if, at this stage in the bill, when there has been so much consensus from so many organisations and such strong cross-party support, the Government should unilaterally opt out of that consensus. I urge members to support the amendment in this group, but, in particular, those who propose a purpose clause, the bill would be weaker without them. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group. Amendments 9 and 23 in my name are in response to the committee's recommendations in their stage 1 report about giving that further thought to the inclusion of more high-level objectives to reflect the broad vision and ambitions for the good food nation policy. We are aware that that recommendation also reflected the review views of many stakeholders. We agree that it would be valuable to set out our ambition in the bill to underpin what we are aiming to achieve through the bill. We have taken account of both the recommendations of the committee, the contribution from stakeholders to as to how that ambition should be included in the bill, and we have carefully considered how to reflect that input, while also ensuring that any amendment has the legal effect needed and provides that clear direction to ministers, too. Taking all of that into consideration, amendments 9 and 23 set out five principles that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to when preparing their good food nation plans. The five principles are intentionally high-level and are set out in a format that gives them legal effect and provides that clarity as to what is being asked of Scottish ministers as well as relevant authorities, too. We consider that the right place in the bill for those principles is immediately following the obligations on the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to prepare the plans, so that all the provisions in relation to preparing the plans follow on from one another in logical order. Amendments 16 and 25 in my name are consequential amendments arising from amendments 9 and 23. Those amendments are to provide that, as well as having regard to the principles when preparing the good food nation plans. Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must also have regard to the principles when revising the plan. Amendment 27 in my name is also a consequential amendment arising from amendments 9 and 23, and it provides a definition of food business sector, as this term is used in amendments 9 and 23. Amendments 81 and 82 in the name of Ariane Burgess set out that relevant authorities should publish a statement alongside their good food nation plan and any revision of the plan, which sets out how, in preparing or revising the plan, they complied with the requirement to have regard to the national good food nation plan, and with the section relating to principles as is inserted by amendment 9. I am happy to support those amendments. I just want to turn now to the amendments 1, 2 and 31 in the names of Rhoda Grant, Colin Smith and Rachel Hamilton respectively, because I recognise the points that have been raised by the members in discussion on this so far. All those amendments propose texts for a purpose to be set out in the bill. However, as I hope I have been able to outline above, we have taken care when drafting the proposed principles of the bill to ensure that they have that legal effect. Amendments 1, 2 and 31 do not have legal effect. They are statements that do not place a duty on the Scottish Government or relative authorities. The effectiveness of the Parliament's legislative function depends on ensuring that bills that will become the law of the land contain only propositions that will have legal effect. My amendments 9 and 23 have been drafted to reflect the views of stakeholders, to have the text in the bill setting out a purpose or objective but also ensuring that the text has that legal effect. The Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the principles when developing their good food nation plans. That is why I therefore urge the committee not to support Rhoda Grant's, Colin Smith and Rachel Hamilton's amendments in this group for the reasons that I have outlined, and instead support amendments 9 and 23 and amendments 16, 25 and 27, which are consequential to those. Arion Burgess, to speak to amendment 81 and other amendments in the group. 6 to 9 of the bill requires relevant authorities to have regard to the national good food nation plan when preparing their own plans. Amendment 81 and 82 in my name set out that relevant authorities should publish a statement alongside their good food nation plan and any revision of this plan, which sets out how, in preparing or revising the plan, they have compiled with this requirement. The statement would also have to set out how the relevant authorities have complied with the set of principles that would be inserted by amendment 9, which the cabinet secretary spoke to a moment ago, is vital that the relevant authority plans, as well as the national ones, reflect those key principles. They would provide the necessary underpinning to ensure that those plans are effective. Those amendments would ensure that there is clarity about how relevant authorities have considered the content of the national plan when drafting their own plans. They also reflect the importance of maintaining clear links between the national and local, acknowledging that a whole systems approach to food requires effective dialogue between those two levels. I urge the committee to support the amendment lodged in the cabinet secretary's name and amendments 81 and 82 in my name. I would like to comment on the other amendments 31 and 2. On amendment 1, I think that the purpose of the act should be wider than giving effect to the right to food. It should be to achieve all of the principles set out in the Government amendment, which includes the fact that adequate food is a human right and essential to the realisation of human rights. In the case of amendment 31 and 2, I prefer the list of principles in the cabinet secretary's amendment 9. Her list serves to make clear the purpose of the plans and extension of the bill, but it has a firmer legislative basis than a general purpose clause since the principles have a specific legal effect. They need to be reflected in the creation of good food nation plans. Under the bute house agreement, I contributed to the development of Miss Gougeon's principles and ensured that they include good recommendations from witnesses that we heard in rain, including the role of the food system in contributing to the mitigation of climate change, the reversal of biodiversity loss and the improvement in animal welfare, the fact that adequate food is a human right that is essential to the realisation of other human rights and the importance of resilient supply chains, fair work standards and resilient local economies. I will continue to work with the Government to further improve the list of principles through stage 3 amendments. I now call Rhoda Grant to wind up and press or withdraw the amendment. Thank you, convener. I wish to press this amendment and I also support the other amendments in the group, but I have to agree with Colin Smith that the Government's amendments do not go far enough on their own. The purpose of the legislation must be clear on the face of the bill. If we are drafting legislation properly, that legislation lasts for generations, and we must remind future generations what the bill has set out to do. Being clear that the purpose of the legislation is to give effect to the human right to food will ensure that future generations will not face hunger in the way that this current generation has. I appeal to the committee to support this amendment. I believe that it will make a difference to the bill on the way that it is implemented going forward. I am disappointed that Arianne Burgess is not supporting this amendment. I would urge her to think again about it because I believe that this is a principle that the Greens hold dear, and I believe that we will be judged badly if we do not support this amendment. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. We will now go to a vote. Those for the amendment, please raise your hand. Those against the amendment, abstentions, and the result of the vote is two for seven against zero abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. Amendment 31, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is already debated with amendment 1. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we will move to a vote. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of Colin Smyth, is already debated with amendment 1. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we will move to a vote. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for seven against zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 3 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 3 and speak to 15, 17, 28 and 29. Those amendments require plans and revisions to be set out by regulation. Amendment 3 requires this in respect of the first plan and amendment 15 requires it in respect of revisions. Amendment 17 is a consequential amendment. Subsection 4 is no longer required if the plan is set out in regulations, as all regulations are already published and made before Parliament. Amendment 28 of 29 are consequential amendments to make these regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that plans and revisions are subject to scrutiny by the Parliament, both in committee and the chamber, and are voted on. It is only right that these plans are parliamentary scrutiny and approval before we are to put right our food system, which is broken at the moment. Thank you, convener. Thank you. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 5. Oh, I beg your pardon. Rhoda Grant, would you move your amendment, please? I move amendment 3. Thank you. I understand that I want to move amendment 1. That is fine. Amendment 3 is moved. Thank you, Rhoda Grant. Cabinet secretary, you speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group. Firstly, I want to deal with the amendments for additional parliamentary scrutiny. The bill is introduced, contains provision for our parliamentary scrutiny of the National Good Food Nation plan, and Scottish ministers are required to lay the plan before Parliament within 12 months of the relevant section of the bill coming into force. They must also lay a report before Parliament every two years, setting out the progress that has been made in that reporting period towards achieving the outcome set out in the National Good Food Nation plan. They must also review and, if necessary, revise the plan every five years, again laying this revision before Parliament. However, we are taking on board the calls from the committee and from stakeholders during stage 1 seeking greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny for the National Good Food Nation plan. So, amendments 5 and 10, in my name, seek to achieve the same by requiring Scottish ministers to lay a draft version of the national plan before Parliament, with Parliament then given a 28-day period to scrutinise and comment on the draft plan. Scottish ministers will then have three months to finalise the plan before publishing and laying the final plan under section 1 of the bill. Ministers will be required to have regard to any comments made by Parliament when finalising the plan. Scottish ministers will also be required to demonstrate that they have shown regard to Parliament's views by laying a statement alongside the final plan, setting out what representations they receive from Parliament on the content of the plan and outlining how they have had regard to those points when preparing the final version of the plan. Amendment 18, in my name, ensures that this additional scrutiny process will also apply to revised versions of the National Good Food Nation plan in the future. We believe that this approach, fairly and appropriately, increases the amount of scrutiny afforded to Parliament over the preparation of the National Good Food Nation plan, without unduly complicating or delaying the process of publishing, as well as implementing the plans. Collins-Miss amendment 12 proposes a similar approach to scrutiny, albeit with a much longer period of 120 days to scrutinise and comment on the plan. However, as I have set out, we believe that the approach that is set out in amendments 5 and 10 is proportionate and we will still allow for that scrutiny without causing a lengthy delay to publishing the National Good Food Nation plan, which would then have a knock-on impact for the relevant authority plans, too. However, I do think that there is a middle ground to be agreed here, and I would urge Collins-Miss not to press his own amendment, and I'd be happy to work with him in the run-up to stage 3 to try and find a workable alternative. Amendments 10A and 12A from Beatrice Wishart set out that the Scottish ministers cannot lay a final good food nation plan unless the draft version of the plan is approved by a resolution of the Parliament. The proposed approach of laying documents in Parliament, along with a duty to have regard to representations made by Parliament, is an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for good food nation plans. That is the same process that is required for climate change plans under the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009. Adding a separate step requiring parliamentary approval risks significant delays in agreeing and implementing the plan and subsequent local authority plans. I therefore urge the committee not to accept amendments 10A and 12A. Amendments 3 and 15 from Rhoda Grant would mean that the national good food nation plan and any revised national plan are set out in regulations. Amendment 17 is a consequential amendment to amendment 15. A section 6 for the duty to publish and lay a revised plan would not be required. Amendments 28 and 29 are also consequential amendments to amendments 3 and 15 and propose that those regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Regulations set out rules of law and it wouldn't be appropriate to set out good food nation plans in regulations as the plans will contain a mixture of outcomes, indicators and policies and I would therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 3, 15, 28 or 29. Amendment 40 from Beatrice Wishart provides that the Scottish ministers must publish in such a manner as they consider appropriate any national good food nation plan prepared under section 1. The bill is introduced already and has a requirement to publish the national good food nation plan in section 1. For that reason, I ask the committee not to accept this amendment. If Beatrice Wishart's impetus for lodging amendment 40 is to address a concern that there would not be an explicit requirement on the face of the bill to publish the plan, if amendment 3 and Rhoda Grant's name were to be agreed to, then this concern would be unfounded and regulations containing the plan as secondary legislation would of course be published. Amendment 14 and Colin Smyth's name is unnecessary at this stage. Comment on progress is likely to form part of any oversight function on a body that is eventually agreed and I would urge the member not to press his amendment and I would be happy to discuss that matter further before coming to stage 3. In summary, I would urge the committee to support amendments 5, 10 and 18 in my name, which provide an appropriate approach to the committee's recommendation to provide additional parliamentary scrutiny. I would ask Colin Smyth not to press amendments 12 and 14 as I would be happy to discuss those proposals in more detail before stage 3. I would ask the committee not to support amendments 3, 40, 10, A12A, 15, 17, 28 or 29. Thank you. I call Beatrice Wishart to speak to amendments 40 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. Amendment 40 in my name is conditional on amendment 3 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which would require the national good food nation plan to be set out in regulations, which I support. Although new regulations are automatically published, this amendment would ensure that the plan is more widely publicised, which I believe is important in strengthening the scrutiny that the draft plan receives and befits the importance of the bill. I move amendment 40. Amendments 10A and 12A seek to strengthen amendments 10 and 12 in the names of Marie Gougeon and Colin Smyth, which set out requirements on Scottish ministers to lay the proposed national good food nation plan before the Scottish Parliament, though they would require Scottish ministers to have regard to any resolution relating to the plan passed by Parliament, neither required the Parliament to pass a resolution. I believe that requiring Parliament to pass a resolution would ensure that the draft good food nation plan receives proper scrutiny and ensures that Parliament has stated a view on the draft before it moves to the next stage. Amendments 10A and 12A achieve that by requiring the draft plan to be approved by resolution of the Parliament. I move amendments 10A and 12A. Colin Smyth, you speak to amendment 12 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendments 12 and 14, in my name, seek to give Parliament a greater role in relation to the good food nation plan. Ensuring that Parliament is consulted on a plan has to give approval to it and, in the case of amendment 14, ensures that we are sufficient that progress is not being made. The Government is required to set out what action is being taken to address any lack of progress. Those amendments would provide greater accountability of the Scottish Government in achieving its good food nation aims. The Climate Change Act 2019 provides a helpful example of enabling a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency placed in a duty on ministers to lay a draft plan before Parliament for a period of 120 days and to have regard to any representation on the draft plan. The Government thought that that was a reasonable period then, and I agree that that is why it is replicated in my amendment. It is unclear why the Cabinet Secretary thinks that that is not a reasonable period today. The lack of opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the bill is a recurring theme in both stakeholder responses and in the committee's report. One example is in the written submission by Obesity Action Scotland, which stated, "...the Scottish Government has a commitment to open government which outlines the Government's dedication to improving its own practices relating to transparency, participation and empowerment. This commitment needs to be met and enacted in the delivery of the national good food plan, with learnings cascaded down to local plans, Government and scrutiny of Scotland's food system. I would urge members to support amendments to ensure Parliament is given its rightful place and able to effectively hold the Scottish Government to account and how it delivers our collective ambitions to be a good food nation." I note very much the cabinet secretary's offer to consider further the details of my own two amendments, and I would certainly welcome the discussion. There has, disappointingly, been very little engagement to date from the Government on amendments and changes to the bill, but I look forward to that change in the future. I would like to ask that the cabinet secretary, given that the convention would be a committee that would have 60 or 120 days to look at and scrutinise, why do you believe that 28 days is sufficient? That is a proposal that we have put forward, but I hope that I was clear in my explanation and in responding to Colin Smyth's point that I am sorry to feel that my explanation was not clear enough in relation to that in terms of why I would not accept the 120 days, because given that we have 12 months to publish the plan, the concern would be that that could then end up in delays, which is why we have put forward 28 days. As I said in my comments too, I am open to further consideration and discussion on that. I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 3. Thank you, convener. The cabinet secretary says that the provisions are currently made before Parliament, but my amendments would allow Parliament to vote on those plans. Simply laying them before Parliament does not allow that. The cabinet secretary also points out that having regard to means simply that the Government can have regard to the issues raised and then simply ignore them. The only meaningful input that Parliament can have is by voting on those plans, and I would urge the committee to support that amendment. I also, with regard to Beatrice Bushert's amendment 40, that ensures that there is wider consultation and that simply having a vote in Parliament on those plans. I would agree with that, because I think that those plans should be consulted on as widely as possible, so therefore I press amendment 3. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. We will now move to a vote. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is 4-4-5 against, so the amendment has not been agreed. Call amendment 4 in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with amendments 11, 11A, 75 and 80. Colin Smyth, to move amendment 4 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 4 and amendment 11 in my name require the bill to provide for active participation by stakeholders in developing good food nation plans at national and local levels. There should be a duty on relevant authorities that how they seek input and views on good food nation plans should be both intersectional and fully accessible. Relevant authorities should use accessible and inclusive communication to work with people with lived experience in the design of a good food nation plan and their implementation, set out any representations received and how those representations have been considered when preparing any final plans. That should be set out in a statement that accompanies a national good food plan. Relevant authorities should use accessible and inclusive communication to work with people with lived experience in the design of good food nation plans and implementation, including, for example, formats such as community languages, BSL, Braille, Moon, Easy, Read, Clear and Large Print and paper formats. As the committee's report states, many stakeholders highlighted the importance of authorities ensuring that participation opportunities are not stigmatising. For example, Abusity Action Scotland stressed the importance of being mindful of language used to avoid stigmatisation and victim blaming point and all, that weight stigma is often a barrier to both participation and access to services. Participation opportunities in relation to the production of the good food plan should be mindful of that and take steps to ensure that this is eliminated from the production of the good food plans. Given the range of stakeholders with an interest in good food plans, it is important that any consultation is comprehensive, so my amendment 11 sets out a range of interests, which must be included, but, of course, it is open to Government to add to that in any consultation, so it is by no means restrictive. However, it is important that the bill goes beyond simply saying that consultation should be with Scottish ministers or what Scottish ministers consider to be appropriate. I am therefore happy to move amendment 4 in my name. I support the principles of amendment 11 in the name of Colin Smith. My amendment 11A would add the phrase environmental and social after the word international in the phrase Scotland's international footprint to clarify the meaning of the phrase in line with my amendment 6A, encompassing Scotland's carbon footprint and environmental, ecological and social impacts internationally. I move amendment 11A. I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendments 75 and other amendments in the group. Good morning, convener, and thank you to the committee for your work on the bill so far. Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that children and young people are consulted during the preparation of the national good food nation plan in respect of the provision of free school meals. Successive Governments in Scotland have established good practice on engaging with children and young people, and that should be at the heart of our ambition and plan to become a good food nation. Section 3 of the bill states that Scottish ministers must have regard to international instruments and goes on to reference the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including consultation with children and young people on the face of the bill, would provide clarity. I hope that members agree that this is important and helpful amendment 80. Section 7 of the bill covers requirements on public bodies to publish good food nation plans including health boards and local authorities, as members know. Section 8 deals with the consultation arrangements for such bodies. My amendment 80 replicates my previous amendment 75, putting consultation with children and young people on the face of the bill. That includes current schemes in education and any future plans that the Government has on free school meal policy or future legislation. The bill is introduced to allow Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to consult with whoever they would deem appropriate in the preparation of their good food nation plans. Amendments 11, 11a, 75 and 80 all seek to amend the bill to make specific provisions about who should be consulted. It is our view that it would never be practical to list everyone who should be consulted on the face of the bill. The inclusion of a partial list might inadvertently give the impression that those who are listed are of greater importance or should be given greater weight than those who are not listed. Amendment 4, meanwhile, would require that Scottish ministers lay a statement alongside the national good food nation plan, detailing how we have carried out the consultation in an accessible and inclusive manner and providing the responses that we have received. The Scottish Government is always required to conduct consultations with an eye to accessibility and inclusivity and, given the importance of that, understands why the members lodged the amendment. However, it would be useful to better understand the additional benefits that the member is seeking with the amendment to provide. For example, we often receive significant numbers of consultation responses, and those are already published, along with an analysis of the responses. That is done as a matter of course. We do not see a particular additional benefit to laying the consultation responses before Parliament, but we are happy to work with the member between stages 2 and 3 to understand better the aim of the amendment and to see if we can come to a solution together. In summary, I urge the committee not to support the amendments 11, 11a, 75 and 80, and I would ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 4. My amendment 4 is very clear and underpinning the importance of the consultation being comprehensive and inclusive. I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary on potential wording for an amendment at stage 3. On that basis, I will not press the amendment. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? No. I call amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 32, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 32 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 32, I have added a reference to meeting childhood obesity targets because halving rates of childhood obesity by 2030 was a target set by the Scottish Government back in 2018. With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions that it brought about, it created barriers for achieving this goal. Alongside a lack of progress on improving food environments, we looked to be heading in completely the wrong direction. I thank me for amendment 32, and I urge members to support it, because we know that levels of overweight and obesity have remained fairly constant in, for example, primary 1 children since records began in 2001, and this is the first year that we have seen a significant uptake in unhealthy weights. It is important that we address this on behalf of the young people of Scotland, and it is clear that we need an amendment within the bill to help to bridge the gap. Will we tackle unhealthy diets and, in turn, support children to have a healthy diet and reduce childhood obesity? I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 6 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In order for the bill to have its desired outcome, it should specify some high-level outcomes or objectives to be achieved rather than leave these entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine. Those outcomes should be aligned to the UN sustainable development goals and the national performance framework in a similar way to the fuel poverty, targets, definition and strategy Scotland Act 2019 and the climate change emissions reduction target Scotland Act 2019 and the procurement reform Scotland Act 2014. It must also ensure fair work standards, something that is often lacking within the food processing industry. We often hear of people working to produce our food having to rely on food banks themselves to get by. Ideally, such targets and outcomes should be measurable, both because it is intrinsically preferable, but it would also ensure that there would be effective reporting and scrutiny on those provisions. Although those objectives must be included, they do not stop ministers of public bodies adding any others that they wish to. I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 6A and other amendments in the group. I support the principles of amendment 6 in the name of Rhoda Grant. My amendment 6A would remove the word carbon from line 13 in the phrase Scotland's international carbon footprint and replace it with environmental and social. Through the food industry, Scotland has impacted beyond our carbon footprint that includes ecological impacts and human rights obligations, and I believe that that phrase better encompasses that idea. I move amendment 6A. Amendment 35 in my name places a duty on the national good food nation plan to have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full-time education at breakfast and lunch times. It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that there is an element of choice over their food options and that the breakfast and lunch settings in schools are social places where children and young people feel comfortable. That should be covered by the national good food nation plan. I move amendment 35. Amendment 47 in my name sets out a small number of high-level outcomes to be achieved through their local good food nation plans of relevant authorities. The list covers a range of food related issues, sustainable production contributing to climate and biodiversity targets, animal welfare, health and wellbeing, access to food, resilient local food economies, fair and resilient food supply chains, reducing international environmental and social footprint. It is not exhaustive, but rather it is a minimum that enables the relevant authorities to have from the start a list of outcomes to orient their work and provide a common direction while being broad enough to allow for tailoring to local circumstances. I move amendment 47. Amendment 48 in my name requires a relevant authorities good food nation plan to set out how the relevant authority will engage with social care providers to secure the achievement of the outcomes of the plan. Social care settings are often in the private sector, but this amendment ensures that relevant authorities engage with these providers so that the needs of people in social care in relation to food provision are included in the work of the good food nation plans and they are not left behind. I move amendment 48. Amendment 49 in my name places a duty on the good food nation plans of relevant authorities to have regard to the social and nutritional needs of children and young people in full-time education at breakfast and lunch times. It is important that children and young people in primary and secondary education have access to nutritional, varied, culturally appropriate and appealing food at breakfast and lunch times, that there is an element of choice over their food options and that the breakfast and lunch settings in schools or social places where children and young people feel comfortable should be covered by their local good food nation plans of relevant authorities. I move amendment 49. Section 1 of the bill requires that the national good food nation plan must set out the main outcomes in relation to food related issues that Scottish ministers want to achieve, as well as indicators and measures of progress for assessing the achievement of outcomes and the policy that ministers intend to pursue to achieve the outcomes. My amendment 71 states that one of the main outcomes specified under section 3A must be the reduction of food waste in Scotland. We know that one third of all food produced globally is wasted every year, and 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions each year are due to food loss and waste. As a member of the net zero energy transport committee, we are very concerned about food waste, and that is why I was motivated to put this amendment forward. I do believe that that should be on the face of the bill, and I move the amendment in my name. Amendment 76 seeks to ensure the fulfilment of all children and young people's rights to high-quality nutritious food as set out in article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The amendment specifies that that must include the provision of universal free school meals to all children and young people attending local authority nurseries or schools. Committee members may be aware that, through its Food for Thought campaign, the Scottish Trade Union Congress Women's Committee has been campaigning for the expansion of universal free school meal provision to all nursery primary and secondary pupils in Scotland. The vision is to alleviate hunger, poverty and food insecurity and ensure that the rights of all young people to food education and fun, as outlined in the UNRCR, are made real. The STUC Women's Committee believes that that can be achieved by implementing universal free school meal provision, and I fully agree. The campaign seeks to end the long-standing stigma and shame linked to free school meals so that all young people can live with dignity and respect and experience school without fear of poverty-related bullying. Members will be aware that, since 2015, all primary one to three pupils attending local authority schools have been eligible for a free school lunch. In March last year, the Scottish Government announced a public commitment to deliver a phased expansion of free school meals to all primary pupils in Scotland by the end of August this year. Currently, all P1 to 5 pupils can receive a free school meal during term time. The roll-out of expansion to P6 and P7 pupils has yet to be implemented. The Scottish Government's existing commitments are most welcome, and the Good Food National Plan is a brilliant opportunity to build on that ambition. We know that there are well-rehearsed issues with means testing and eligibility criteria, and those are real barriers to the uptake of free school meals. Hopefully, my amendment 70, developed in collaboration with the STUC Women's Committee and the Support of the Air Food for Thought campaign, can be supported by committee members. The committee, which calls for universal free school meals, is backed by the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children's Parliament, Children's First, Child Poverty Action Group, the Poverty Alliance, the Trustal Trust, One Parent Family Scotland and many more. That emphasises why it is important to consult with children and young people. The STUC Women's Committee is also pleased to have secured the support of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Green Party during last year's parliamentary election, as well as the Scotland's Independent Poverty and Inequality Commission. I move amendment 70. 72 seeks to amend section 1 by adding that the National Good Food Nation Plan must set out how Scottish ministers will ensure the free supply of school milk to children in preschool, nurseries and primary schools. The intention is that children have access to the benefits of drinking milk in a school or an early-year setting, including essential nutrients for a growing child, opportunities to develop social skills and encouraging lifelong healthy living habits. I met with the school and nursery milk alliance earlier this year, as did many members from across the Parliament, to discuss the benefits of school milk. Given my earlier remarks about placing the rights and interests of children and young people at the heart of good food nation planning, I believe that it is appropriate to include the important role of milk in schools in the bill. I move amendment 77. That is a similar effect on good food nation plans, produced by public bodies to my amendment 70 on the national good food nation plan. Namely, it is secure that outcomes specified in 3A, the policy specified under subsection 3C, must include the provision of universal free school meals to all children and young people attending local authority nurseries or schools. The amendment states that it should consist of high-quality ingredients, be nutritious, fully inclusive of health, religious and cultural circumstances, be procured locally and meet any minimum standards set out and guidance by the Scottish ministers. Any good food nation plan by a relevant authority must set out how it will ensure a high uptake of universal free school meals and how the views of children and young people are taken into account on the design of school menus, how the scheme should operate and how uptake can be encouraged. I will not repeat points that I have made earlier, but we all know of good work in different local authorities across Scotland. Local in my region, North Lanarkshire clubs 365 would be one example that ensures that young people get a breakfast even out with school term time. In short, we know that the impact of the cost of living crisis and the impact of Covid-19 will be here for a long time, so it is even more pressing that the Scottish Government and this Parliament use the legislative process to get the best possible outcomes for the people of Scotland. I thank the STUC Women's Committee for all their work and all the support that they have garnered and I move the amendment. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 7 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 7 in my name seeks to ensure that indicators are included in the bill. For the bill to function effectively, it would benefit from having a number of indicators linked to strong outcomes to enable the measuring, monitoring and reporting of progress. Those indicators should be aligned to the UN's sustainable development goals and the national performance framework in a similar way to the Fuel, Poverty, Targets, Definition and Strategies Scotland Act 2019 and the Climate Change Emissions Reduction Targets Scotland Act 2019. Ideally, such targets and outcomes should be measurable, both because that is intrinsically preferable but also to improve the effect of reporting and scrutinising provisions. It must include means that those objectives must be included but, of course, it is open to ministers to add any others as they wish. The list of amendments 7, therefore, is a startling list or the minimum indicators required. A number are already Government objectives, so there is no reason why they would be excluded. The Climate Change Act is an important example of indicators providing a clear, measurable statement of intent. No one would reasonably argued that that act would have been better without an indicator committing Government to achieving net zero by 2045. There is no reason why this bill should not set out our measurable ambitions when it comes to being a good food nation. I therefore urge members to support amendment 7. Can I ask Colin Smyth a question, please, on amendment 7, specifically F and G? I wondered how you had come to arrive at the 60 per cent and the 25 per cent figures. I wondered if there had been any account of being a South of Scotland MSP, whether there had been an account taken into whether that was possible to achieve those specific targets or figures, because procurement happens on both sides of the border. Colin Smyth, do you like to respond? I am happy to respond to that. We set targets for what happens in Scotland, and we are in a position to set targets for what happens in England. I am unclear about the point about cross-order, but those are targets that have certainly been put forward in a number of discussions and submissions that were made to the committee from the members of the Scottish Food Coalition. I think that the principle of targets and indicators being in the bill is an important one. If any member believes that those specific targets are not achievable or should not be in the bill, they are open to change that when it comes to stage 3, but I think that it would be very remiss of us not to include a target. We allow us to measure progress from government. That is incredibly important. I use the example of the climate change act. I do not think that anybody reasonably would say that act would be improved by removing the target for net zero, for example, by 2045. That is very much our focus of government activity. There is no reason when it comes to delivering our ambitions to be a good food nation that we should not also have ambitious targets for that. If a member, as I said, believes that a specific target is not achievable, then obviously that is something that they can amend in stage 3, but the principle of having targets in the bill is very important. Would you like me to speak to amendment 33 and 34, convener? My amendment here echoes the sentiments of the Scottish Food Coalition. However, it differs from Beatrice Wish Arts as it reflects the work of the Scottish Food Coalition. It addresses issues to do with waste and processing. The bill should set out a small number of high-level outcomes or objectives to be achieved rather than leave those entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine unaided by anything in the bill. It must include means that those objectives must be included, but it is open to ministers and public bodies to add any others as they wish, as stated by the cabinet secretary. That is therefore a starting list or minimum. Again, it addresses issues with the beastly agricultural skills and local supply chains. I want to work with Beatrice Wish Arts if it is possible to ensure that we can come back to the table with an amendment that supports the aims that we both want to pursue and reflect the aims of our individual amendments. I hope that she works with me at stage 3. Amendment 34 seeks to build the work that has been done with the sole association, particularly some of the briefs that have been provided to the Committee over the Good Food Nation Bill. The Grow Back Better report highlights the needs for schools to become accredited under the so-called food for life scheme, which projects food education and diet. The amendment would ensure that the Scottish Government supports children to eat their five a day by encouraging schools to adopt the whole systems approach to food, and that is embodied in the food of life school award. Independent evaluation shows that pupils in food for life engaged schools are twice as likely to eat their five a day compared to children in match comparison schools, and that they eat third more fruit and vegetables overall. I believe that my amendment builds on the good work of the food for life scheme and would foster positive change in schools right across Scotland. I have a question for Colin Smyth. On amendment 7, in subsection 8, can you tell me what the definition of food worker is? Do you envisage the requirement in subsection 8 to have collective bargaining agreements to include small and medium businesses? I would certainly say that that would be our ambition. We believe that collective bargaining should be extended as far as possible. It would obviously be open to regulations and guidance as to how that would work in practice, but we certainly believe that collective bargaining should go as far as possible. Obviously, that requires, for example, trade union recognition. There is legislation that sets that in place already to have that in a particular workplace, and it would be those workplaces that are covered by that that would be included. And the definition of food worker? I do not think that there is a legal definition, but it would therefore require the Government to settle in getting into who would be covered by this. Thank you. I also follow on with a question for Colin Smyth. Whilst I absolutely agree about the importance of local procurement, I do have concerns around the requirement for 60 per cent of food-servant premises of public bodies that are sourced from Scotland. Particularly given that the member is a member for the south of Scotland, he will appreciate that much of the food that is consumed in the south of Scotland or a significant proportion is processed. It is short and miles away in Carlyle, and a physical border or a line on a map does not necessarily mean that food is better procured on one side of the border or on the other. I am concerned that it specifies that it needs to be Scotland. We do also import, if you like, food from Northern Ireland, and this amendment would suggest that we could potentially only bring in 40 per cent of the food that we need from Carlyle or just over the border, whereas in Dumfries and Galloway, if we are looking at low-carbon food print and local procurement, that would be more acceptable than bringing it from Aberdeen. I would like to consider that. Potentially, in keeping in mind that there are best practices for local procurement in the likes of East and Ayrshire, which we should look at rather than setting firm figures for Scotland being the place of procurement. I would also like to ask Bishop Wishart on her amendment 6A why carbon was removed and amendment 35 what the definition of social is and what legal basis is the definition of social in our amendment? The reason for removing carbon was to extend the wider ecological impacts and human rights obligations and with a feeling that that phrase encompasses better the idea of the international footprint to widen that definition. What was your second question? A social in amendment 35. That is a good point. I do not think that there is a legal phrase for social. Thank you. Colin Smyth. I think that it is important to remind members that the target is for 60 per cent, not 100 per cent. It does not rule out in any way procuring items from south of the border, in fact, anywhere for that matter. I think that the other provisions make very clear the importance of our carbon footprint when it comes to procurement items, but I make no apologies as a south of Scotland MSP in advocating produce being sourced from the south of Scotland. I want to start by reiterating that the bill is a framework bill, and it does exactly that. It sets the framework for the good food nation plans. I understand and listen to members who have lodged those amendments and know that they feel strongly that the targets, indicators and additional outcomes they want to add to sections 1 and 7 are important and there is merit in adding them. However, my view, which was also shared by a number of stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1, is that setting out that detail of outcomes, indicators and targets on the face of the bill is problematic. First of all, it is challenging to ensure that that they remain up-to-date and meaningful if they are set out in primary legislation and there is a risk that the focus is only on the targets and indicators set out in the bill. I have been listening to the different members' contributions today and I know that there are great many issues that we need to tackle. I do not disagree with that at all or the ambitions of what the amendments are trying to achieve, but it is just that putting them on the face of the bill risks the legislation becoming one long list of targets. In five years time, the targets and objectives may no longer be relevant and being able to take account of that and make changes promptly and easily is most achievable if they are set out in the plan itself rather than on the face of the legislation. If we were to add targets to the bill, there is a risk of future food plans solely focusing on those targets to the neglect of other equally important considerations that we should be taking into account. We want food plans to cover the whole of the wide-raging nature of the Good Food Nation vision. For this reason, I am of the firm view that the place for this level of detail is in the plans themselves. As set out in the stage 1 report, the committee agreed that it would not be appropriate to include detailed targets on the face of the bill and that the Good Food Nation plans are the best place for those to be set out. Other amendments such as Rachel Hamilton's amendment 69 and 46 propose text in relation to procurement. Colin Smyth and his amendment 7 set out a target that 60 per cent of food served on premises of public bodies is sourced from Scotland by 2030. There are, of course, strict rules around procurement, and that might mean that the intended aim of those amendments could not be achieved. As an example of that, the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU contains a duty of non-discrimination in procurement, so a sourced in Scotland target is not compatible with our international obligations and would not be possible. A requirement that imported produce must meet the same standards as food produced in Scotland would have to be considered in the context of international obligations and the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and procurement rules. However, the Scottish Government does, of course, support the use of procurement to improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of other areas and is looking further into opportunities to require local sourcing in public contracts. I hope that this goes to highlight just some of the issues that need to be considered when we are adding text into legislation with regard to targets. I hope that those examples illustrate my point about the risks associated with including texts such as that suggested by the amendments in legislation. I am just touching now on Monica Lennon's amendments 70, 72 and 77. Many of those are already covered by statute and it is not necessary to include those proposed changes in the bill. All education authority in granted schools in Scotland are under a statutory duty to comply with the nutritional requirements for food and drink in Scotland regulations 2008, which set out strict standards that all food and drink service schools have to meet. Those regulations would also apply in relation to Beatrice Wishart's amendments 35 and 49, as they apply to all food and drink provided as part of the school day, including breakfast and lunch provision. Just in summary, again, I would state that this bill is a framework bill and it is not the place for this level of detail. As I say, that would be the most appropriate place for that, would be within the plans themselves. I therefore ask that the committee does not support any of the amendments in this group. Thank you. I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 32. I believe that we are sympathetic to Monica Lennon's amendments 70 and 71 and 72. However, we are not going to support Colin Smyth's amendment on the basis that we feel that the targets are not achievable. I am disappointed to hear that the cabinet secretary has said that setting out indicators and targets on the face of the bill is not something that the Government would support. With regard to the evidence that we have heard from stakeholders that they are very supportive of having meaningful action, I reiterate that I would like to work with Beatrice Wishart and come back to the table with an amendment that supports the aims of what we both seek to achieve. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will go to a vote. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, those abstaining and the result of the vote is 4 for 5 against, the amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 6 in the name of Rhoda Grant, who is already debated with amendment 32, to move or not move. I now call amendment 6A in the name of Beatrice Wishart, who is already debated with amendment 32. We now call amendment 33 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 32. I now call amendment 34 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, who is already debated with amendment 32, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. I now call amendment 71 in the name of Monica Lennon, who is already debated with amendment 32. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to a vote. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against, those abstaining and the result of the vote is 2 for 5 against and 2 abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 70 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 32. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to the vote. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against and abstentions. The result of the vote is 2 for 5 against and 2 abstentions. The amendment has not therefore been agreed. I now call amendment 7 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 32. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to the vote. Those in favour, raise your hands. Those against, those abstaining and the result of the vote is 1 for 8 against, no abstention. The amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 35 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 32. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against and no abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. I now call amendment 69 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 32. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining and the result of the vote is 4 for 5 against, no abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. We call amendment 72 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 32. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we will therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining and the result of the vote is 2 for 5 against, no abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I now propose that we take a short break until 10.25, a short comfort break, and we will resume at 10.25. Thank you. I will continue with the consideration of stage 2 of the Good Food Nation Bill. Can I remind members that it is only the first speaker in a grouping that needs to move the motion? Other members will get the opportunity to move their motion further down the order. Can I call amendment 73 in the name of Ariane Burgess, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings? Ariane Burgess, to move amendment 73 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The bill has introduced requires the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard to the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes in relation to a specified list of high-level outcomes when drafting their Good Food Nation plans. The amendments in this group speak to the importance of ensuring that we take a whole systems approach to food policy. It is vital that the Good Food Nation plans cover all the many policy areas that can affect or be affected by food. Accordingly, amendments 73 and 78 in my name would add climate change and wildlife and the natural environment to those high-level outcomes. I felt that simply stating the environment as a policy area that ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to was too broad and amorphous. Adding climate change and wildlife and the natural environment will help to focus on how the Good Food Nation plans and the policies within them can make an impact on achieving emissions, reduction targets and net zero, as well as tackling the nature emergency and meeting future biodiversity targets. The other amendments in this group, lodged by Jenny Minto, Rachel Hamilton, Monica Lennon and Beatrice Wishart, seek to make further provision about what ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to when preparing their plans. Jenny Minto's amendments 36, 37, 50 and 51 will satisfy calls from stakeholders such as One Kind and Food Train, which have called for the inclusion of animal welfare and social care in this bill. I particularly welcome those amendments, as well as those from Rachel Hamilton and Monica Lennon, which seek to include education, child poverty and list. I move amendments 73 and 78. I call Jenny Minto to speak to amendment 36 and other amendments in the group. The bill has introduced requires Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard to the scope for food-related issues to affect matters listed in sections 15 and 76. Those currently include social and economic wellbeing, the environment, health and economic development. My amendments 37 and 51 add animal welfare to those lists. Amendments 36 and 50 expand on the outcome of health so that it would read health and physical and mental wellbeing, including, in particular, through the provision of health and social care services. Those amendments reflect evidence given to this committee at stage one, and there should be specific reference to animal welfare and all types of health, as well as impacts on the provision of health and social care in the lists of outcomes. I believe that those amendments address those concerns and so urge the committee to support those amendments in my name. I now call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 38 and other amendments in the group. Food education is vital. The committee noted on its stage one report that there are several social factors impacting people's ability to source, purchase food and consume good food. Those issues 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 and, in Excel's submission to the Good Food Nation consultation, it said that home economic teaching levels are at an all-time low, whereas it is the skills that are required to develop the policy and make it common practice for children that it becomes second nature to them as they develop into adulthood. It is good to see that there will be additional bursaries available for those who wish to take up this career. Furthermore, chef Gary McLean 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 and it is vital that we see change in this area as food education in Scotland is essential. My amendments add education to this section to ensure that that is covered. My amendment 39 seeks to give ministers a delegated power to add other items to this list by regulations. This will ensure that more attributes can be added to the list so that the bill remains relevant and dynamic, reflecting food and diet priorities in the future. We will support all the amendments in this section. I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 74 and the other amendments in the group. I welcome the comments that have been made so far and I associate myself with the comments made by Ariane Burgess in particular. My amendment 74 relates to the national good food nation plan. As we have heard, the bill requires ministers in determining the content of the plan to have regard to the scope for food-related issues to affect outcomes in relation to social and economic wellbeing, environment, health and economic development. My amendment 74 adds child poverty to the list, similar to the points that Ariane Burgess made. Social and economic wellbeing is just too wide. Given the need for a joined-up approach to tackling child poverty, it is important that the interests of children and young people are clearly placed on the face of the bill. That will also help Scottish ministers to take up a joined-up approach to meeting child poverty targets. We know that between now and 2030, we need to lift 210,000 children in Scotland out of poverty. My amendment 74 does a similar thing to the good food nation plans of public bodies. I will not rehearse the reasons for that, but I hope that that is something that the committee can support. Amendment 41 in my name requires Scottish ministers to act in accordance with the listed international instruments. I believe that, for the good food nation bill to be a success, the duty on Scottish ministers must be a strong one. The phrasing act in accordance with serves the strength and this duty regarding the listed human rights instruments. I believe that that will strengthen the bill's ability to enable Scotland to fulfil its human rights obligations. Amendment 55 in my name requires relevant authorities to ensure that when determining the content of their good food nation plans, the correct balance is struck between ensuring nutritious food is available and the ability to make choices in settings where all meals are provided. That includes school hostels where all meals are provided for the school children throughout the school week. Providing food has to be about ensuring not only nutrition but the social and cultural aspects of food as well as individual preferences and striking the balance to avoid being overly prescriptive, which can remove the enjoyment and social elements from meals. This amendment ensures that this issue is taken into account in settings where all meals are provided by the relevant authority. I note that amendment 55 has been incorrectly listed as being inserted at the end of line 12. It should be inserted at the end of line 11 and it will be fixed ahead of stage 3. The bill is introduced requires Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard to the scope for food related issues to affect matters listed in sections 15 and 76. Those include social and economic wellbeing, the environment, health and economic development. Jenny Mintle's amendments 37 and 51 add animal welfare to those lists, and amendments 36 and 50 add text after the word health in sections 15c and 76c so that they would read health, physical and mental wellbeing, including in particular through the provision of health and social care services. Ariane Burgess's amendments 73 and 78 propose additional wording in relation to the environment in sections 15b and 76b to ensure that regard is given to climate change and wildlife in the natural environment as part of the consideration of the environment in preparing the good food nation plans. Those amendments reflect evidence given to the committee at stage 1 and feedback that the Scottish Government has also received from stakeholders that there should be specific reference to animal welfare, climate change and biodiversity and all types of health, as well as impacts on the provision of health and social care in the lists of outcomes. Rachel Hamilton's amendments 38 and 52 and Monica Lennon's amendments 74 and 79 add education and child poverty respectively to the lists in section 15 and 76, and I would support those amendments. Those amendments mean that when determining the content of their respective good food nation plans, Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the scope for food related issues to affect outcomes in relation to animal welfare, a broader description of health, climate change, wildlife and the natural environment, education and child poverty. In our view, the additions proposed in amendments 37, 51, 36, 50, 73, 78, 38, 52, 74 and 79 are appropriate and ensure that those important matters will be considered when determining the content of the good food nation plans, and it allows for future additions to the lists in section 15 and 76. However, in relation to Rachel Hamilton's amendments 39 and 53 that propose wording that would allow other matters to be added to the lists in sections 15 and 76, the benefits of those amendments aren't so clear. There is already a requirement to have regard among other things to the subject matters listed in those sections, so again the benefit of adding that amendment isn't entirely clear. However, if the member would agree not to press the amendments at this point and consequential amendments 84 and 85, I'd be happy to work with her before stage 3 to try and identify alternative wording. Turning now to Beatrice Wishart's amendments 41 and 55, I'd reiterate that again this is a framework bill and the level of detail that's asked for here would be more appropriately included in the good food nation plans, and for that reason I would urge the committee not to support that amendment. Amendment 41 would require Scottish ministers to act in accordance with the international instruments listed in section 3 of the bill rather than to have regard to them in preparing the national good food nation plan, but we consider that the appropriate legal duty here is to have regard to and Parliament has endorsed this form of legal duty on numerous occasions as evidenced in the statute book, because this is a meaningful legal requirement. It's an obligation to consider that matter when making a decision, and there are many examples of Government ministers and public bodies being successfully challenged in court for failing to have proper regard to the matter, and stakeholders will be able to hold the Scottish Government to account. In this context, a duty to act in accordance with a provision in an international agreement would be tantamount to incorporation. The Scottish Government is committed to incorporation of the rights listed in section 3 of the bill as introduced in the upcoming human rights bill, and it's important that we don't pre-empt that bill by incorporating certain rights here, and not doing so will ensure that we create a coherent rights framework, which avoids the fragmentation of rights and inconsistent mechanisms for the enforcements of rights. For those reasons, I would strongly urge the committee not to support amendment 41. In summary, I would urge the committee to support the amendments proposed by Jenny Minto, Ariane Burgess and Monica Lennon. I would ask that Rachael Hamilton not to press amendments 38 and 53 and the consequential amendments 84 and 85 so that we can work together in advance of stage 3 to identify a workable alternative to that. For the reasons that have set out, I would ask that the committee also do not support amendments 41 and 53. I now call on Ariane Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 73. Thank you, convener. My amendment 73 along with amendments 36 and 37 from Jenny Minto, 74 from Monica Lennon and 38 from Rachael Hamilton ensure that ministers and relevant authorities are regard to the scope of food-related issues that would affect the outcomes of good food nation plans. Specifically, my amendments 73 and 78 ensure that consideration is given to both the climate emergency and nature crisis in their own right, while Jenny Minto's amendments ensure animal welfare is given consideration that it just deserves. Monica Lennon has made it an important contribution, including child poverty, as has Rachael Hamilton on including education in consideration of good food nation plans. In regards to amendments 39 from Rachael Hamilton, as a cabinet secretary explained, the benefit is not so clear, but I hope that the Scottish Government will work with Rachael Hamilton to take the idea forward through stage 3. I move amendment 73. Thank you. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 73. Jenny Minto to move or not move? The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 73. Jenny Minto to move or not move? The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Do we all agree? We are agreed. I call amendment 74 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 73. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachael Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. And I call amendment 8 in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendment 42 and 22. Rhoda Grant to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 8 and speak to amendment 22. Those amendments to the implementation duty seek to ensure that ministers or as appropriate relevant authorities, when determining how to deliver the good food nation plans, must consider how their actions enhance human rights and, in particular, the right to food. Those amendments are modelled on section 1 of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 and do not represent legal incorporation of the right to food. The Scottish Government, having expressed it, wished to do that under a separate human rights bill. Those amendments do not increase the recognition of the aspect of a good food nation and will improve the implementation through the plans. In particular, it will ensure that consideration of those matters in preparing the plan under section 3 is continued into the implementation phase. I move amendment 8. Thank you. I now call Beatrice Wishart to speak to amendment 42 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 42 in my name strengthens the human rights commitments in the bill by adding to the list of international instruments listed in section 3. This amendment inserts the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment 12, right to adequate food to the list following on from article 11. So far as it concerns adequate food of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, general comment 12 contains details on state's obligations relating to the production, availability, affordability and access to adequate food. Therefore, linking the general comment 12 as well as to article 11 gives the human rights perspective on food issues a much stronger basis in the bill and demonstrates strong commitment to ensuring that the national good food nation plans are in line with international human rights agreements on the right to adequate food. In response to Rhoda Grant's amendments 8 and 22, I know from the member's comments that those are modelled on the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, which sets out a similar requirement. However, I would like to highlight that the legislative landscape is different now. We have committed to incorporating human rights treaties into domestic law, and a human rights bill will be introduced in this parliamentary term. The human rights bill will give effect to a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in Scots law as far as possible within devolved competence, and that includes the right to adequate food as part of the overall right to an adequate standard of living. The good food nation bill is introduced also contains provisions that require Scottish ministers to have regard to the international covenant on economic and social and cultural rights, and other specified provisions in international human rights instruments when preparing their national good food nation plan. The aims of Rhoda Grant's amendments are therefore already achieved by the provisions that are set out in the good food nation bill. The human rights bill is the appropriate place to address the complex interrelationships between rights and obligations across four treaties and a single, coherent and integrated framework. Therefore, I would strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 8 and 22. Turning to Beatrice Wishart's amendments 41 and 42, 41 would require Scottish ministers to act in accordance with the international instruments listed in section 3 of the bill rather than have regard to them. The Government considers that the appropriate legal duty is to have regard to them. A duty to act in accordance with something would be a more appropriate for guidance, which sets out how a function is to be carried out, so it therefore would not be appropriate in the context of this bill to include a requirement to act in accordance with these international instruments, which could be tantamount to incorporation. The Scottish Government is committed to incorporation of a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in the upcoming human rights bill. That is the right place for that to be considered in order to ensure that we create a coherent rights framework, which avoids the fragmentation of rights and inconsistent mechanisms for the enforcement of them. It is equally important not to cut across the on-going work that we are doing on UNCRC incorporation. We remain committed to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the maximum extent possible as soon as that is practicable. I consider that have regard to is the most appropriate legal duty. It is a meaningful legal text that can and has been enforced through the courts, as I have touched on in previous comments today. Amendment 42 adds general comment 12 on the right to adequate food to the list in section 3 that Scottish ministers need to, as currently drafted, have regard to, or as Beatrice Wishart proposes in amendment 42, act in accordance with. Now, general comments aren't legally binding in international law, and while they can provide useful guidance, they're not drafted with the particular Scottish context in mind, and so there shouldn't be a requirement for them to be followed in this bill. The upcoming human rights bill will consider the role of general comments in interpreting these international human rights standards as part of that coherent rights framework. So I would therefore strongly urge the committee not to support amendments 41 and 42. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 8. Thank you, convener, and I support all the amendments in this group, but I'm deeply disappointed at the Government's approach. We need a vehicle to implement our human right to food, and while I welcome the human rights bill, this bill is the vehicle for implementing the right to food. Indeed, this morning, sadly, it shows that the Government is only really willing to pay lip service to that right when it is keen to vote down any amendments that will actually make that right a reality. This bill should be the vehicle for making that a reality, so I press amendment 8. Thank you. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? That's too far, five against, two abstentions. The amendment has not therefore been agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 3. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will therefore move to the vote. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? The result of the vote is too far, seven against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. The question is that section 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Amendment 9. We are not agreed. Amendment 9 will now move to the vote. Those in favour? Those against? Those abstaining? The result of the vote is seven, four, three against, zero abstentions. The amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I'll just pause for a second. We've got a correction. The result of the last vote was the result was six, four, three against, zero abstentions, and the amendment has been agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I call amendment 10A in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 3. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? 10A, begir pardon. I'll just repeat that. The question is that amendment 10A be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is four, four, five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has not been agreed. The cabinet secretary to press or withdraw amendment 10. Move the amendment. And the question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we... Well, as amended. I'll read that again. The question is that amendment 10, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Well, to clarify that. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. And I call amendment 11 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 4. Colin Smyth to move or not move. And I call amendment 11A in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 4. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 11A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will therefore move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is two, four, seven against, and amendment therefore has not been agreed. Colin Smyth to press or withdraw amendment 11. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will therefore move to a vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is two, four, seven against, and amendment has not been agreed. Now call amendment 75 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 4. Monica Lennon to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 75 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will now move to a vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is four, four, five against, zero abstentions, and amendment has not been agreed. And the question is that section 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now call amendment 41 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 73. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will now move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions, the result of the vote is four, four, five against, zero abstentions, and the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 42 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 8. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will now go to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstaining, and the result of the vote is four, four, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment has not therefore been agreed. And the question is that section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 12 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 3. Colin Smyth to move or not move. In light of the cabinet secretary's comments, not move, convener. I call amendment 13 in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendment 24. Rhoda Grant to move amendment 13 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 13 and speak to 24. Those amendments are about strengthening the impact of plans. Amendment 13 ensures that the Scottish ministers must act in that or national plan. Amendment 24 ensures that relevant authorities must also act in accordance with their plans. In the bill, as drafted, they are only required to have regard to their plans, and we heard this morning that this carries no weight whatsoever, given that the comments and thoughts can also be disregarded. Those amendments will strengthen the impact of plans and ensure that they are adhered to and move amendment 13. Thank you. Any other members? Those amendments would require Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to act in accordance with their respective good food nation plans. It is the Government's view that the current wording of have regard to is the appropriate legal duty, and indeed this is a legal duty that the Parliament has endorsed on numerous occasions elsewhere in the statute book, as I have alluded to in previous comments. A duty to act in accordance with something would be appropriate for guidance that sets out how a function is to be carried out, and in the case of good food nation plans, which include outcomes, indicators and policies, the duty to act in accordance with would not be as effective. The good food nation plans will be relevant to a wide range of policy areas and functions, and a duty to have regard to the plans, as is currently the wording in the bill that is introduced, will ensure that the plans are appropriately and effectively considered in those contexts. The current wording to have regard is, as I have already stated, the appropriate legal duty, and it is a meaningful legal requirement, and this duty to have regard to something is an obligation to consider that thing when making a decision. I would disagree with the comments that have been made by Rhoda Grant today that it is only required and it does not hold anyway, because what this ultimately means is that Government ministers and public bodies could be challenged in court for failing to have proper regard to a matter, and there are many examples where that has already happened. Stakeholders will also be able to hold the Scottish Government to account, so taking all of that into account, I am aware of the view that the current wording of have regard is the appropriate legal duty, and I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. I am sorry, Rhoda Grant, to wind up in place where they are not adhered to. Therefore, I pressed the amendment 13. I am sorry, Rhoda. We lost your audio there. Could you wind up and press or withdraw amendment 13, please? I am pressing amendment 13. I am the Cabinet Secretary already stated on record this morning that they only need to consider those plans, not adhere to them. Therefore, this amendment means that those provisions will be adhered to. It seems to me absolutely meaningless of plans that will not be adhered to, so that is my reason for pressing. Thank you. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 14. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I now call amendment 14 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 3. Colin Smith to move or not move? In light of the cabinet secretary's comments, convener, I am not moved. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I now call amendment 15 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. I am not moved. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will therefore move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 16 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call amendment 17 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. I now call amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 3. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call amendment 76 in the name of Colin Smyth, in a group on its own. Colin Smyth to move and speak to amendment 76. I move amendment 76, which requires the good food nation plan to be added onto the list of national policies and plans, which must be considered in future reviews of the national plan and framework. I would hope that that is a relatively non-controversial proposal. The draft MPF 4 includes a number of references to food in it, albeit not enough in my view. It therefore seems reasonable that, in future, the national good food nation plan should be part of the plans that are considered in any reviews of the MPF. It is a requirement under the Town and Country Plan in Scotland Act 1997 to consider strategies and plans in relation to areas such as housing, transport, infrastructure and so on. I hope that the committee will support adding the national good food nation plan to the list. I am happy to move. Amendment 76 seeks to add a further matter to the list of plans, policies and strategies that ministers must have regard to when revising the national planning framework. The existing list was debated at stages 2 and 3 of the planning Scotland bill in the last session. The Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 already includes a general provision that ministers must have regard to relevant policies and strategies in revising the MPF. As the draft MPF 4 includes food to the extent that it is able to, food would be a matter for consideration in a future review of the MPF. Ministers would therefore be required to have regard to the national good food nation plan. Adding to that list might also set a precedent where future bills deem it necessary to have supporting policy referenced in the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997. That would dilute the highlighting of certain policies in the current list within the act and likely become excessive, unwieldy and burdensome over time. That burden could also extend out to planning authorities of local councils and national park authorities and an extended list could create a burden of addressing issues that are less core to the operation of the planning system. Section 4 of the bill already confers a power for specified functions, the exercise of which requires Scottish ministers to have regard to the national good food plan to be listed or described. That would be the more appropriate place to consider how to reflect the planning system, given that the committee agreed in the stage 1 report that this is a framework bill. Karen Adams amendment 59 would require consultation on those specified functions, which would provide a suitable opportunity to involve planning authorities at that stage. Therefore, I urge the committee not to support amendment 76. I call Colin Smyth to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 76. Thank you, convener. I have to say that it is disappointing that the Government does not support what I think is an entirely reasonable addition to the Town and Country Planning Act to consider the good food nation plan when revising the national planning framework. I think that it sends the wrong message when it comes to the importance that we place on the plan and when it comes to influence and policy across government, which is crucial. The cabinet secretary says that there is a general provision to consider relevant policies, so that food would be covered. You could argue that for any of the plans listed whether it is transport, housing or infrastructure. It was very telling that the cabinet secretary suggested in her comments that the good food nation plan was somehow less important than these. I think that that is disappointing, so I am happy to press my amendment to stress the importance of the good food nation plan influencing right across government policy. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 19 in the name of Maurice Golden, grouped with the amendments that are shown in the groupings. Maurice Golden to move amendment 19 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I would like to speak to and move my amendments in this group. While I welcome the proposal to require local authorities and health boards to develop good food nation plans, those amendments would make education institutions also to produce good food nation plans. The result of that is to add the Scottish funding council to the list of relevant authorities in the bill. Thank you, and I call on Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 43 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 43 and 44 in my name seeks to include integrated joint boards as a relevant authority. The Scottish Food Coalition welcomes a proposal in section 7 to require local authorities and health boards to develop good food nation plans. However, the Public Authorities Joint Working Scotland Act 2014 permits the establishment of separate bodies known as integration joint boards that may take on responsibility for a number of local authority or health board functions. Such arrangements are especially commonplace in the social care sector where food diet and nutrition are especially important. The integrated joint boards, which will become community health and social care boards, should also be required to produce good food nation plans as they oversee the delivery of all community health and social care services and support within local areas monitoring and improving impact, performance and outcomes for people. The provision of food is integral to care, hospital discharge and food security, whether that is early years provision at home care, crisis care, care at home or residential care. The amendment ensures that such joint bodies do not slip through the net and either have to produce their own good food nation plan or that the delegated functions are addressed by their parent authority's plan. I would like to speak in support of amendments 19, 20 and 21 in the name of Maurice Golden. Those amendments highlight the limited number of public bodies that are currently covered by the provisions of the bill. It is clear that there are more public bodies that could play a vital role in producing good food nation plans and delivering real action towards addressing food poverty in Scotland. Those amendments are right in seeking to bring the Scottish funding council into the scope of the bill. As the major public body determining funding for higher and further education, the Scottish funding council could produce a good food nation plan that would enable colleges and universities to tackle food poverty among students. Let's be clear that food poverty is a real issue facing students in Scotland today. Back in February, NUS Scotland published research exposing the true scale of student poverty with 8 per cent of students found to be reliant on food banks. That is a statistic that should shame us all into action, which is why I would urge members to support those amendments today. I would like to speak to amendments 19 and 20. Our committee has heard from witnesses suggestions of numerous bodies and organisations that could be added to the list of relevant authorities that are required to produce plans. After reflecting on all the suggestions, I am content with keeping the core list as it is. Once we start adding additional organisations such as Scottish funding council, it begs the question why we are not adding other organisations such as Nature Scotland, SIPA or the Scottish Prison Service. However, I believe that there needs to be a clear process set out for adding additional bodies to this list of relevant authorities. That could take the form of a consultation. I plan to support Karen Adams amendment 59, which would require ministers to consult before specifying additional public authorities. The decision to add any new relevant authorities should be subject to this consultation or to another agreed process or criteria to be established. Maurice Golden to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 19. I beg your pardon. I am not invited to the cabinet secretary. My apologies. I do just really want to thank the members for bringing these amendments forward, because I can completely understand the reasons and the rationale for doing that. I am really trying to ensure that Scottish funding council and IJBs have a role to play in achieving our aim of being a good food nation. The committee itself has recommended that there should be some level of consultation and scrutiny associated with the decision to specify additional relevant authorities. It was always intended that that consultation would be undertaken, so I agree that setting out provision for additional scrutiny in the bill would be appropriate in this case. As Ariane Burgess touched on, Karen Adams amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities. I welcome that amendment and I would be urging the committee to support it when we come to debate it later on. In addition, the committee's stage 1 report requested any exercise of the power conferred by section 7.2c to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments 68 and 68 in the name of Alistair Allyn to be debated later provide for that extra scrutiny too. The bill as introduced contains a provision to enable additional relevant authorities to be specified. If, in the future, after we have had consultation, it was decided to add either the Scottish Funding Council or integrated joint boards, there would be the opportunity for that to happen. To include those bodies on that timeline using the section 7 power and following that consultation gives us that opportunity to be clear in practice what that would mean for those bodies too and whether their inclusion would effectively deliver our good food nation ambitions. As the committee has noted, there is a need for some level of consultation if new public bodies are to be added to the list of relevant authorities. It is for that reason that I would strongly urge the committee not to support those amendments, essentially to allow time for that consultation so that we can figure out the implications of that to happen. I now call Maurice Golden to wind up press or withdraw amendment 19. I would expect the committee to agree that we want the scope and impact of the good food nation bill to be felt throughout Scotland. Therefore, the argument that we do not add additional bodies because we want to limit the scope of the bill would appear to me to be contrary to the aims of the bill. I also think that, particularly with respect to educational institutions, we do not need to consult to know that students are facing food poverty. If individuals on the committee or indeed in Parliament are not aware that educational institutions and good food nation plans will help to alleviate food poverty, that is depressingly concerning. There is absolutely no need to consult if you are educated and informed about the requirements for good food nation plans and the impact that they can have for students and wider the impact of educational institutions. I would like to press, convener. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 43, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 44, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call on amendment 20, in the name of Maurice Golden, already debated with amendment 19, Maurice Golden to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against and abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 45, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 32, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 47, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 32. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We therefore move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 77, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 32. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question therefore is that amendment 77 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We now move to a vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 46, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 32. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 48, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 32. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 49, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 32. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We therefore move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21, in the name of Maurice Golden, already debated with amendment 19. Maurice Golden to move or not move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 78, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 73. Ariane Burgess to move or not move. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 50, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 73. Jenny Minto to move or not move. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 51, in the name of Jenny Minto, already debated with amendment 73. Jenny Minto to move or not move. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 52, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 79, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 73. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 53, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions. The result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 22, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 8. Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is two for, five against, zero, two abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I suggest that we have another short break until approximately 11.35. I will now continue our consideration of stage 2 amendments for the Good Food Nation Bill. I call amendment 54, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, in a group on its own. Rachel Hamilton to move and speak to amendment 54. Amendment 54, in my name, is supported by Beatrice Wishart, who seeks to ensure that relevant authorities are not shortchanged when it comes to implementing those ambitious plans. I want to see this bill a success story, but in doing so we must recognise that authorities need the appropriate funding to fully implement, oversee and execute the provisions. I move the amendment. I can absolutely understand the intention of this amendment, but I have concerns both about the wording, adequate and efficient, because that could mean different things to different people. I also have concerns about including the requirement to set out in this amendment in legislation. Provisions such as this are not included in legislation because their budgetary decisions are not legal decisions. Having such a requirement in legislation could result in a scenario whereby a relevant authority could include a very ambitious policy in their plan and it could potentially make it difficult for the Scottish Government to manage the funding that it allocates in an equitable way. I am fully aware that it will be necessary to ensure that financial support is available to implement good food nation plans, and we have mechanisms in place to discuss funding for local authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders, too. Within the scope of agreed budgets, relevant authorities will make decisions about the way in which to deliver their functions and services, and that is exactly as it should be. Relevant authorities are best placed to make those decisions. We will continue to discuss the financial impact in implementing the plans with COSLA and local authorities. Any requirement for additional financial support has to be taken through existing mechanisms such as COSLA's formal financial governance processes, including the joint Scottish Government and COSLA settlement and distribution group and COSLA leaders. Given the issues with the wording of the amendment and the established mechanisms that we have in place to discuss any requirement for additional support with COSLA and health boards, I would ask the committee not to support the amendment. I call on Rachael Hamilton to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 54. I agree with the cabinet secretary that local authorities face different challenges across Scotland. Their needs will be different, particularly the challenges that they face could be different measures of different aspects of child poverty that have affected various areas and other health inequalities. There are also geographical differences and population differences, but that is recognised in the wording of the amendment, which ensures that adequate support and resources are available to relevant authorities. It is important, and I will be pressing the amendment. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstaining, and the result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, who is already debated with amendment 73. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstaining, and the result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against zero abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is 6, 4, 3 against zero abstaining, and the amendment is therefore being agreed. I call amendment 80 in the name of Monica Lennon, who is already debated with amendment 4. Monica Lennon, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against zero abstaining, and the amendment therefore has not been agreed. The question is that section 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 81 in the name of Arian Burgess, who is already debated with amendment 1. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 24 in the name of Rhoda Grant, who is already debated with amendment 13. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is 2, 4, 5 against 2 abstaining, the amendment therefore is not agreed. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Called amendment 25 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1. Cabinet secretary, move formally. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call amendment 82 in the name of Arian Burgess, already debated with amendment 1. Arian Burgess, to move or not move. And the question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call amendment 26 in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 26 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 26 and speak to amendment 30. Amendment 26 creates an independent Scottish Food Commission, totally independent of government. This commission would assist in the drawing up of the Good Food Nation plan and also provide advice to ministers and other organisations. It would also have the ability to carry out research for themselves. It would operate in a way that is similar to the Scottish Land Commission, which we are all familiar with. We all know that we have a human right to food, but that has not been realised for many people. The commission would keep government and other bodies focused on this right and its realisation. It also allows for government to amend the remit of the commission to ensure that it remains relevant to the needs of our population going forward. Amendment 30 is a consequential amendment, making the process subject to an affirmative procedure. I also support the other amendments in this group. All would work well with my amendment, albeit if they may require some tidying up at stage 3. I call Beatrice Wishart to move amendment 26A and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 26A in my name amendment 26 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which I support and the establishment of an independent Scottish Food Commission. I believe that this commission is essential in co-ordinating good food nation plans across the food policy landscape. My amendment 26A adds to the functions of the committee listed in amendment 26 by specifying that the commission would have the functions of co-ordinating with relevant authorities in the development of their good food nation plans, promoting good practice in relation to good food nation plans and monitoring the implementation of good food nation plans. I believe that those are key roles that the Scottish Food Commission can play in the enactment of the bill. I call on Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group. I just highlight, convener, Rhoda Grant's amendment 26, which relates to the Scottish Food Commission, of which we are supportive. However, there appears to be a drafting error in 4, which perhaps she could explain. At the end, it relates to the Scottish Good Food Commission rather than the Scottish Food Commission. With regard to amendment 56, it seeks to introduce a good food commissioner. That is different to the commissioner, but complementary. It follows the work of the national food strategy by Henry Dimbleby. As members will see, it will consult a range of stakeholders from agricultural organisations right through to prison boards. I want the commissioner to be independent of the Government as highlighted in section 4. The Government is already supportive of the young people's commissioner and it is a very successful role with Bruce Adamson at the helm. The work of the commissioner will be vital in influencing the direction of good food nation plans. I urge members to support my amendment and I move the amendment in my name. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 83 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendments in my name seek to ensure that the bill establishes an independent Scottish Food Commission responsibility for food issues in Scotland and the UK spread across many different portfolios, departments and public bodies in both local and national government. The majority of responders to the committee's call for views at stage 1 shared the view that there should be an independent public body set up with the Scottish Human Rights Commission arguing in its written evidence that the oversight role should be undertaken by a new body because allocating responsibility to an existing body is, to quote them, likely to underestimate the scale of work involved and the specialisms required to deliver it. An independent commission would provide expert advice and scrutiny to Government and help ensure Scotland's journey to becoming a good food nation is fair for everyone. Advice and scrutiny will be critical to a just transition for the food system as Scotland's economy shifts and changes in response to the climate, nature and health crises that we face. The amendments in my name provide full legislative provision for the establishment of a new body, modelled on that for the Scottish Land Commission in the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016. The provisions for the strategic plan include a requirement for the new commission to settle its relationship with Food Standards Scotland and any functions carried out by the Scottish Parliament. That is modelled on a duty of ESS to settle in the UK withdrawal from the European Union continued to Scotland Act 2021. Labour is sympathetic to the amendment from Rachel Hamilton, establishing a good food commissioner. I know that my colleague will be voting for that. However, we believe that, given the range of areas and specialisms covered by our ambition to be a good food nation, we agree with stakeholders that we need a wide breadth of experience covering a range of sectors within any body. Therefore, we would prefer a commission. What is clear is that any commission or commissioner should be independent, not sitting within a Government body. That area has been kicked into touch by the Government in numerous occasions, and we simply cannot keep doing so. Maybe the cabinet secretary will say today that the Government wishes to keep considering the issue. I am happy to have those discussions, but I believe that we should do so with a commitment in the bill agreed at stage 2 in support of a commission ahead of stage 3, and those discussions should be about the detail of that commission and how it would function. I therefore urge members to support my amendments even if there are parts that would require further amendment at stage 3. That is about the principle of establishing an independent commission. It is a fundamental part of the bill. Exclusion would be a significant commission and would undermine our commitment to be a good food nation. I know that that was a concern of the committee. It would also significantly undermine the cross-party consensus that was built up and developed in the bill, and the consensus that we have seen from a range of stakeholders who have worked tirelessly on getting us to this stage today. I therefore strongly urge members to listen to the views of those stakeholders and to support their amendments today in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with the intention to establish effective oversight arrangements to ensure successful delivery of good food nation plans. I am happy to support amendment 10 in the name of Marie-Gougeon, which will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is only part of what is needed and it is clear that we all agree that the issue of strengthening oversight still needs to be addressed. At the same time, the committee report was not conclusive as to the best approach to oversight, and today we have a number of amendments taking quite different approaches. In order to develop a robust and effective approach to oversight, I am content to continue to work with the cabinet secretary on that, in line with the Bute House agreement. As part of that, I think that we need to take a fresh look at all options, including a food commission, as many organisations have called for, as well as a food commissioner. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up a big appointment. I'm missing the cabinet secretary again. I call on the cabinet secretary. I'm keen to cut me out, but that's okay. I know that it has been demonstrated by the variety of amendments that have been put forward and lodged on the issue. I am aware that the creation of a new body such as a food commission or putting in place a new food commissioner is something that members of the committee and a number of stakeholders feel is really important for the success of the Good Food Nation Bill. I very much recognise the intent of those amendments in helping us to make the most out of the food plans that will stem from the bill, too. However, I know, as did the committee in its stage 1 report, that there is a broad spectrum of views that was put forward on the creation of a new statutory body. For example, some food business groups oppose the creation of a new body, highlighting the need to carefully prioritise government spending on food policies and other initiatives. Setting up a new statutory body requires careful consideration to justify both the role and remit and the costs of setting up such a body. We committed, as part of the Bute House agreement, with the Scottish Greens to consider the need for a new statutory body. I continue to work with colleagues in the Green Party and including Ariane Burgess on developing a way forward on oversight that balances the range of views from stakeholders as well as the associated costs that there would be as a result of that. As we can see before us today, there are a variety of different options and a variety of different models that can be considered for oversight. Those will vary in terms of efficacy and costs. Although I am not in a position to support those amendments today, as I set out during the stage 1 debate, it is my intention that oversight is addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. I would like to extend an invitation to those members who have lodged those amendments to discuss a way forward on oversight with me. I hope that we can work together to find a balanced approach that takes account of the costs to ensure the appropriate oversight and scrutiny of implementation of the Good Food Nation plans. We therefore ask that the members do not press the amendments today and, instead, to commit to working with me, as well as with Ariane Burgess, in the coming weeks to find an approach to the oversight of the implementation of the bill. I ask members not to press amendments 26A5683 to 103 and associated consequential amendments 1364 in relation to a Food Commission or a Food Commissioner. In the event that they are pressed, I urge the committee not to support them to enable those constructive discussions to take place in advance of stage 3. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up on amendment 26. I thank Rachael Hamilton for her support and for her attention to detail. The Scottish Food Commission should, of course, be the Scottish Food Commission, but it gives me the excuse to say that we should be aspiring that everyone should have a good, nutritious diet if the amendment were to pass the bill to undertake to correct it at stage 3. I listened very closely to what the cabinet secretary said, and initially, in her winding-up, she seemed to say that she would work with Ariane Burgess to reach an agreement on that. Laterally in her statement, she seemed to include the rest of us. Before I press or withdraw, it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary that she will indeed work with everybody who seeks to amend the bill at this stage, and it will not be a stitch-up between herself and the Greens. I was distracted, Rhoda Grant. Can you repeat that, please? I was somewhat concerned at the start of her summing up that the cabinet secretary seemed to say that she would speak and work with the Greens, according to the Bute House agreement, to reach a settlement on this section between them. Laterally in her summing up, he included the others of us with an interest in this section to this. I am looking for her commitment that this will not be a stitch-up between herself and the Greens, and indeed she will try and reach consensus between all of us who have an interest before I press or withdraw the amendment. Can the cabinet secretary like to respond? Yes, I am happy to respond to that. First, I regret the use of that language in terms of a stitch-up, because I am really trying to be open in working with all members in relation to the amendments that have been set out today. What I was outlining at the start of my remarks was obviously the commitment that we have in the Bute House agreement and the on-going work that we agreed to in relation to Food Commission. Given the amendments that have been lodged today, that is why I also said in my comments that I want to work with other members so that collectively we can find a solution before coming to stage 3. Thank you. Given how late on we are in the process and given the emphasis that so many stakeholders put on the requirement for an oversight body and also the parliamentary timescale has not been helpful, we had our stage 1 debate and we did not get a response from the Scottish Government until five weeks after our report was published. Can you commit to bringing forward amendments in a short timescale? Given that stage 3 will probably be in two weeks' time, will you commit to bringing forward a firm commitment to amendments that will address the concerns that have been raised today? First of all, I believe that a date has been set for the stage 3 consideration, which would allow time for that to happen. Of course, I have committed to discussing that with members and also I have made a commitment that we will deal with this conclusively by the end process of the bill. Again, I know that there are a variety of different options that have been put forward by members and that is why I am keen to have that discussion. I call on Beatrice Wishart to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 26A. Thanks, convener. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said and I believe that it is vital that there is an independent oversight body to ensure that Scotland as a good food nation is fair to everyone and the co-ordination across what we heard in evidence about the food policy arena being cluttered. I think that that would help the journey towards our good food nation and I am inclined to move to press the amendment 26A. Given that Beatrice Wishart wishes to press 26A, my withdrawing at this stage would prevent her from doing that. I will continue to press amendment 26, but I would welcome discussions with the cabinet secretary about finding a resolution that suits all our purposes. Beatrice Wishart, can we confirm that you pressed amendment 26A? I did, yes. You did. The question is that amendment 26A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will therefore go to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against, zero abstaining. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call on Rhoda Grant to press or withdraw amendment 26A. Given that Beatrice Wishart's amendment has fallen and given what I said before about constructive discussions with the cabinet secretary, I will withdraw at this moment, but I reserve the right to come back at stage 3. Now, amendment 56, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is already debated with amendment 26. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Those in favour, those against, those abstaining. The result of the vote is four for five against, no abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call on amendment 57 in the name of Rachel Hamilton and a group on its own. Rachel Hamilton, to move and to speak to amendment 57. The amendment would ensure that Scottish ministers and each relevant authority in exercising their functions under this legislation have regarded the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. Many groups are affected by communication disadvantage, including disabled people. The group camp Hill has stated that amendment 57 is vital, regardless of the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty, for the following reasons. If the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plan as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible, it is vital that amendment 57 is accepted. This amendment requires statutory duties to be placed on the face of the good food nation bill, which will provide that the Scottish Government and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation, have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. That would include its functions in relation to preparing the national good food nation plans and the good food nation plans, respectively. Secondly, the Scottish Government's consultation document on the proposed changes to the public sector equality duty stated that the regulations giving effect to the changes to PSED will not be introduced in the Scottish Parliament until late 2022, and the regulations will not come into force until 2025, by which time we would anticipate that the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans will already have been developed and introduced. Amendment 57 is therefore essential to ensure that the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities will, in exercising their functions under this legislation, have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. That will help to ensure that inclusive communication is used to help to shape and inform the preparation of the national good food nation plan and the good food nation plans. It is unclear what the Scottish Government's proposed changes to the PSED will look like. If those proposed changes promote the inclusive communication and meet the needs of people affected by communication disadvantage towards camp hills, organisations and expectations, they are all well and good. However, I believe that this is an important one, and it recognises the importance of inclusive communication within it. Responding to that, I can absolutely understand the desire that is set out in the amendment for any consultation to be as inclusive as possible, and I absolutely support the aims behind it. That is an important issue, and I know what has been set out in the committee's stage 1 report. The committee welcomed the commitments made by both myself and officials that the Scottish Government's approach to consultation will be as open, accessible and inclusive as possible. As we set out in our response to the committee's stage 1 report, we intend that this will be the case for all future consultations on the good food nation plans and agree that consultation methods should be tailored for each specific audience. We already aim to be as inclusive as possible in the way that we communicate. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the amendment, I am unsure what the additional benefit is of setting out a requirement in legislation to have regard to that with regard to the exercise of all functions within the bill. For example, I can see how the duty would operate in the context of duties to consult, and I would support that aim. However, it is difficult to see how a duty to have regard to inclusive communication would operate in the context of some of the other duties that are outlined there. For example, the duty to review the good food nation plan and to have regard to the good food nation plans when exercising relevant functions. That goes beyond what was set out by the committee in the stage 1 report. I have some concerns that because of the wording of the amendment it may not be workable in practice. For those reasons, I urge the member not to press the amendment, and I would be happy to work with Rachel Hamilton in the run-up to stage 3 to try to find a workable alternative. I welcome the cabinet secretary's words. It is important that we listen to stakeholders, particularly when it comes to inclusive participation and communication for those people who perhaps are on the margins, including disabled people. I think that it would cement the ambition to achieve a wider and inclusive participatory process. I welcome your response to say that you will work with me to bring this back in a way that could be workable for the Government in possibly changing the wording. On that basis, I will not be pressing this amendment. I will start again. What I first need to do is ask our members that are content that Rachel Hamilton can withdraw amendment 57. Any objections? No. Thank you. I now call amendment 83 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 26. Colin Smyth to move or not move. I have to say that I share your frustration that just weeks before this bill is likely to become law, we still do not have a clear answer from the Government on such a fundamental part of the bill. Let's be honest, the reason for that is because the SNP and Greens have not yet come to an agreement. There has been no effort whatsoever from the Government to consult or discuss such an important issue with any other party, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming view from stakeholders that this is such a major part of the bill. At this stage, I won't press my amendment and if it helps you, convener, that's all the amendments right through the list to number 103. I do very much believe that the discussions that the cabinet secretary has committed to would have benefited from having something within the bill itself to discuss rather than the blank page that we currently have, but I hope that those discussions are genuine and across all parties and that we do seek to come to a consensus. That will mean compromise from the Government. I think that we owe that to the stakeholders who believe that this is such a fundamental part of the bill and we should make sure that we get that right. At this stage, I won't press the amendment but I do reserve the right, obviously, to bring those back at stage 3, but I hope that it won't be necessary because we can reach a consensus on this important issue. Thank you. Can I just confirm with Colin Smyth whether you are not moving? Amendment 83. I'm not moving amendment 83 yet. I call amendments 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103, all the name of Colin Smyth and all previously debated with amendment 26. I would invite Colin Smyth to move amendments 86 to 103 on block. And the question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Sorry, no, because he hasn't moved them. And I'll call amendment 27, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 1, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. And the question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And I'll call amendment 58, the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 19, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. And the question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Will therefore move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining. And the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. And the question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And I'll call amendment 59, the name of Karen Adams, grouped with the amendments that are shown in the groupings. As previously advised, amendment 60 preempts amendments 61, 62 and 63. Therefore I cannot call amendments 61, 62 and 63 if amendment 60 is agreed. Karen Adams to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 59, in my name, proposes that Scottish ministers should be required to consult before making regulations under sections 4, 7 to C or 10 of this bill. That means that ministers would need to consult before making regulations to specify functions in the exercise of which they are to have regard to the national good food nation plan. Before making regulations to specify a public authority as a relevant authority, and before making regulations to specify functions in the exercise of which the relevant authorities are to have regard to their good food nation plan. Taken together with amendments 68 and 68 in the name of Alistair Allyn, which would require the use of the affirmative procedure for several regulations making powers that are currently subject to the negative procedure. Those amendments seek to answer the recommendation in this committee's stage 1 report for greater levels of scrutiny and consultation for the secondary legislation that will result from this bill. Amendments 61 to 67 in this group, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, present alternative routes to achieving that extra security, sorry, scrutiny, but it is my view that these go beyond what the report from this committee had suggested would be proportionate or necessary. I therefore move amendment 59. I call Alistair Allyn to speak to amendment 68 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. Like Karen Adam, my amendments here are seeking to respond to a call from the committee itself for more scrutiny in specific areas. The bill, as introduced, contains a number of regulation making powers. Amongst them are powers for ministers to specify functions or descriptions of functions for Scottish ministers and relevant authorities. Additional authorities are relevant and a time frame within which a relevant authority must produce a good food nation plan. The bill, as it stands, also provides that any regulations made using these powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee has agreed that that offers insufficient opportunity to scrutinise this secondary legislation. In our stage 1 report, the committee requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers, and any exercise of power conferred by section 7 to C to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. My amendments are 60 and 68, convener, for that extra scrutiny. They also ensure that, if Scottish ministers wish to make regulations to make a public body a relevant authority, that will be required to produce a good food nation plan. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I believe, convener, that this is the correct level of scrutiny for those regulations, and I respond to the committee's views on that. I urge the committee to support those amendments in my name. Thank you, convener. Those six amendments are in three pairs. Amendment 61 removes regulations under section 4 of the bill relating to the effect of the national plan from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 65 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 62 removes regulations under section 7 to C or 3B relating to the designation of specified public authorities as relevant authorities from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 66 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 63 removes regulations under section 10 relating to the effect of the relevant authorities' good food nation plans from being subject to the negative procedure, and amendment 67 adds those regulations to the affirmative procedure. In those three cases, my argument is the same. I believe that the affirmative procedure to be the most appropriate in those cases enables a greater level of parliamentary scrutiny over those regulations, and I believe that this is required for the good food nation bill to be as robust and effective as possible. I get clarification from Karen Adam. On 59B, the words have regard to, does she believe that they are strong enough should they be strengthened to ensure that recommendations from the proposed consultation are properly considered rather than leaving it to the whim of Scottish ministers? I have regard to, in specific, in 59B. I think that they are strong enough words. I was just wondering if Ms Hamilton was proposing something else. Well, I think that the words should be strengthened, and I would rather that you did strengthen them than that would be something to discuss, but it would be good to hear from the cabinet secretary as to what her views are on it as well. First of all, I will address the point from Rachel Hamilton and the question that was put to Karen Adam there, because I think that we have covered this and the wording in previous discussion on other amendments today. Have regard to, those words have been used specifically because they have a legal effect, and I have already outlined today that ministers are held to account for that and to that, and they have been held to account previously, so that is why those words specifically have been used, because there is that strength there and the ability, as I say, to hold Scottish ministers to account. In relation to the amendments that are set out here, the bill, as introduced, confers several powers on the Scottish ministers to make regulations. As introduced, the bill provides that any regulations made using those powers will be subject to the negative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. The committee's stage 1 report requested that the first exercise of the power conferred by section 4 to specify functions for the Scottish ministers in any exercise of the power conferred by section 7 to C to make a public authority a relevant authority should be subject to greater levels of parliamentary scrutiny. An amendment 68 and 68 in the name of Alasdair Allan provide for that extra scrutiny. As I say, that is as recommended in the committee's stage 1 report, and accordingly I am grateful to Alasdair Allan for bringing forward those amendments and I encourage the committee to support them. The committee's stage 1 report also recommended that there should be a formal provision for consultation with regard to specifying additional public authorities, and I agree that additional scrutiny would be appropriate in this case, and Karen Adams's amendment 59 proposes a requirement for consultation if a new public body is to be added to the list of relevant authorities, and I agree with this amendment and would ask the committee to support it. In our view, amendments 59, 68 and 68 add an appropriate level of additional scrutiny to the Scottish ministers powers to make regulations under this legislation. I would now turn to Beatrice Wishart's amendments. Amendments 62, 63, 66 and 67 would make regulations made under sections 7, 3, B and 10, subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has indicated that they are content that the negative procedure is appropriate for those powers, and for that reason I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. Beatrice Wishart's amendments 61 and 65 would make regulations made under section 4 subject to the affirmative rather than the negative parliamentary procedure, and as noted in relation to the other amendments in this grouping, in Beatrice Wishart's name, the DPLRC were content that section 4 was subject to the negative procedure. Alistair Allyn's amendments 68 and 68 are, in response to the approach that is recommended by the committee, namely that the first set of regulations made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, with subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I am of the view that Beatrice Wishart's amendments go further than the approach that is recommended by either the DPLRC or the committee, and for that reason I would urge the committee not to support those amendments. In summary, I would urge the committee to support amendments 56, 68 and 68, and not to support amendments 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 or 67. Thank you, and I'll call Karen Adam to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 59. Thank you, convener. As has been said, us as a rain committee felt that there should be stronger role for Parliament in scrutinising specified functions, and we'd recommended as a proportionate approach that the first set of regulations made under section 4 should be considered under the affirmative procedure, and subsequent amendments considered under the negative procedure. I move amendment 59. Can I speak to something that the cabinet secretary said about have regard to? It is to take account of the guidance and consider it, but it would be unprecedented not to consider it. However, I would like clarification possibly from the Scottish Government clerks as to whether that is specifically in legal terms something that should be considered by the Government. I do not think that I could probably add much more to what I've already intimated and the responses that I've given to the committee previously. We use that specific language particularly because it has that legal effect, and it's taking advice, I think, that that's the language that we would normally use in relation to consultations and where that's set out and other pieces of legislation too. Again, it's because of the legal effect that this particular language has is why that would be appropriate. I'm not content, convener, but that's probably what will reflect in my vote. Can I just ask Karen Adam to press or withdraw amendment 59? The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is seven for, two against, and no abstentions. Seven for, two against. I'm sorry, can we run the vote again please? Can you make sure you make it clear what your vote is? The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Thank you. We will go to the vote. Those in favour, raise their hands please. Those against, those abstaining, and the result of the vote is seven for, two against, and no abstentions. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I now call amendment 60 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 59. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move? Move. To move. I remind members that if amendment 60 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 61, 62 and 63, as they will have been preempted. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, and the result of the vote is five for, four against, the amendment has therefore been agreed. I now call amendment 28 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 84 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I now call amendment 65 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved, convener. I now call amendment 29 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 3. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 66 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved, convener. I now call amendment 85 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 73. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We'll move to the vote. Those in favour? Those against, abstentions, the result of the vote is four for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 67 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 59. Beatrice Wishart, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 30 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 26. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. I now call amendment 64 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 26. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Moved. And the question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not and we will move to the vote. Those for, those against, abstentions, the amendment is big apparent, that's four votes for, five against, zero abstentions, the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 68 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 59. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move? Move. And the question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 17 and 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? And the question is that the long title be agreed. Are we all agreed? And that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank you all for your patience and I now formally close this meeting.