 Ie dis migrants a decks that we suspended for five minutes for the first division of the stage three. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members, we wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendment should press the requests and speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Given that the cabinet secretary will be participating remotely, like it has been agreed to Italy at Bureau earlier this morning, wrth adonديw hefyd ddydd y c咖 heb y Feidliadolwy, â'l cymdeithasol yng nghydfynig lltaAUDIENCE. Rydgaith bryder weithio i ni dip それich ar gyfer hyn dweud beth dy 성fy wir adonniad ddydd i hi ddam ei wPerasŽ yn Ysgrifffartrwy an journalists. Rydgaith esogeli centersnyddtau am y cyfeftyr arato coronaeth Pro Sort. Lystyiw maym ursujl o fylene monkeys yn unrhyw rhoi mlys dim unrhyw ginifnos. I start with group 1 on purpose. I call amendment 15, in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendment 16. Rhoda Grant, to move amendment 15 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 15 and speak to others in the group. It appears to me strange that the Scottish Government chooses to legislate but refuses to spell out on the face of the bill what the purposes of that legislation is. A purpose clause would provide clarity on the Government's vision for implementing the legislation. We believe that a good food nation bill must give effect to our human right to food. I believe that the cabinet secretary does as well to quote her. It is the good food nation 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 human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland. I welcome that commitment. This amendment seeks to put that aim and purpose on the face of the bill. The bill has the potential to be world-leading in its approach. At stage 2, the Government rejected a similar amendment saying that it had no force in law. Therefore, this new amendment clarifies that by stating that regard should be had to that purpose when preparing and implementing good food nation plans. The Scottish Government has committed to enshrine our human rights into Scots law, and this is a welcome step. Therefore, I cannot understand why they would refuse to state clearly in this legislation that the purpose is to implement our human right to food. As part of our ratification on 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 is poor health and the resurfacing of diseases due to malnutrition. Hunger also impacts on younger generations. It is impossible to learn on an empty stomach. I welcome moves towards free school meals and policies that address holiday hunger. However, those policies are simply sticking plaster on a 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 this bill, we have an opportunity to put policies in train that deal with this, and I urge members to support the amendment. I also support amendment 16 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. It provides a detailed submission on what the bill should do, and none of these points contradict the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Ms Grant. I now call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 16 and the other amendment in the group. Ms Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Without ensuring a good food nation plan has a clearly defined purpose, it is unreasonable to expect the aims of the bill can be met. Amendment 16, which I move in my name, defines the purpose of a good food nation plan. In a manner that matches the ambition that the Scottish Government has for this bill. Plans should, of course, work for producers, purveyors and consumers, but they also need to work for the environment. The inclusion of these points in my amendment are strongly supported by WWF and NFUS. The need to ensure those tasks with implementing plans are guided by a clear purpose has been highlighted by the Scottish Food Coalition throughout the passage of this bill. My amendment seeks to address this need and offers succinct and substantive guidance on this matter that would help fulfil the aims of the bill. Commenting on Rhoda Grant's amendments on the human right to food, whilst the Scottish Conservatives are of the opinion that this could be covered in the Scottish Government's human rights bill, we absolutely understand concerns and reservations about the Scottish Government's pledge to deliver this bill anytime soon. Thank you. As we agreed at stage 2 when this bill was before the committee, this is an important right that we want to see embedded in Scolts law. However, the most appropriate way to do that is through the human rights Scotland bill, where the right to food will be incorporated alongside other international treaties and ensure that they have legal effect. I also note that the bill, as amended at stage 2, includes provision for ministers to have regard to a number of international instruments in relation to the right to food when preparing their good food nation plan. This will ensure that due attention is given to the right to food until the human rights Scotland bill is passed. For those reasons, I will not be supporting Rhoda Grant's amendment 15. On amendment 16 from Rachel Hamilton, the amendment as drafted does not specify Scottish ministers for relevant authorities, so it is unclear where the responsibility for this would lie. Thank you. I call on the cabinet secretary to respond. Cabinet secretary. Amendment 15 would insert wording stating that the purpose of the bill is to give effect to the human right to food through good food nation plans and that regard should be had to this purpose when preparing and implementing good food nation plans. The member lodged a similar amendment in relation to a purpose provision about the right to food at stage 2. I did not support the amendment because it did not have a clear legal effect. Amendment 15 does have a legal effect in that it sets out a duty that regard should be had to the purpose in preparing and implementing good food nation plans. However, I have other concerns about this amendment. It has the effect that the right to food is the sole focus of the legislation, which is not the intention. The bill is intended to cover the whole of the wide-ranging nature of the good food nation vision and not to focus on one particular specific aspect of food policy. Furthermore, it is not clear what amendment would add to the provisions in relation to the right to adequate food that is already in the bill. For example, in sections 1A on principles and 3A on consideration of international instruments. We have also committed to incorporating human rights treaties into domestic law with the human rights bill introduced in this parliamentary term. The human rights bill will give effect a wide range of internationally recognised human rights in sports law as far as possible within devolved competence, including the right to adequate food as part of the overall right to an adequate standard of living. The human rights bill is the appropriate place to address these complex interrelationships between the rights and obligations across four treaties in a single coherent and integrated framework. It is for those reasons that I would ask members not to support amendment 15 in Rhoda Grant's name. Rachel Hamilton's amendment 16 also sets out a purpose provision. My view is, as I set out in relation to Rhoda Grant's amendment, namely that any provision has to have a clear legal effect. That amendment does not. There is no duty that is placed on the Scottish ministers or relevant authorities. At stage 2, I had responded to similar views expressed by stakeholders and the committee that the bill should include high-level objectives to reflect that broad vision and the ambitions for the good food nation policy. The approach that was taken in amendments lodged in my name was that, rather than setting out a purpose provision as proposed by Rachel Hamilton, a set of high-level principles were included in the bill in a format that would give them legal effect. The Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to the principles when developing their good food nation plans and the high-level nature of the principles provides that clarity as to what is being asked of them. It is for those reasons that I urge members not to support amendments 15 and 16. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call Rhoda Grant to wider press or withdraw amendment 15. Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am obviously very disappointed in the response from Government and indeed from the Greens. Their manifesto stated that this bill should include the right to food and how quickly they have ditched their principles for a sniff of power. It is a disgrace. Stakeholders have called for this and the Scottish Government are not listening. The right to food should be enshrined in this bill but the Scottish Government have shown themselves absolutely disinterested in taking steps to deal with hunger and starvation that is happening here and now in Scotland. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary stated clearly that having regard to did not bind them and therefore the excuses she uses not to support this amendment are spurious at best. I would urge other members to look to their conscience and vote for this amendment. Thank you, Ms Grant. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a brief suspension to allow people to get online. A technical break just to allow members to refresh their devices. Okay, a short technical break. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. Point of order, Claire Adamson. Thank you. Sorry, I wouldn't work. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Adamson. We'll make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. Can you wait for your microphone to come on, Mr Macpherson? Point of order, Ben Macpherson. My apologies for that, Officer. I'd be grateful if you could check if my vote was recorded and if not, I would have voted no. It was recorded, Ms Macpherson. Point of order, Shirley-Anne Sanro. Does it appear that my act was working and I would have voted no? It was recorded, but your card wasn't in, so if you could do that, it would be fine. Anybody else? The result of the vote on amendment 15 in the name of Rhoda Grant is yes, 18, no, 64. There were 28 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 16 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. I'm already debated with amendment 15. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. No, there will be a 32nd vote on amendment 16. Votes closed. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. My act did not connect and I was unable to vote. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Macpherson. For a moment, I'm sure that's recorded. I think there's a real difference. Point of order, David Torrance. You need to have your microphone on, Mr Torrance. I wouldn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you. Mr Torrance will make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Pan Duncan Glancy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. My act didn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you. We'll make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Claire Adamson. That act isn't connecting. I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Neil Gray, remotely. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm forced to my act and connect. I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll make sure that's recorded, Mr Gray. The result of the vote on amendment number 16 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 44, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 2, scrutiny of proposed plan. I call amendment 47 in the name of Colin Smith. Group with amendments 49, 50 and 52. I call on Smith to move amendment 47 and speak to all amendments in the group. Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 47, 49, 50 and 52. My name seek to give Parliament a greater period of time than the 28 days currently proposed in the bill to scrutinise the National Good Food Nation plan. In the case of amendment 49, it requires Scottish ministers to lay the proposed plan before the Scottish Parliament for a period of 60 days of which no fewer than 30 must be sitting days. During stage 2, I brought forward a proposal for this period to be 120 days based on the climate change act 2019. The minister raised concerns over the possible impact on the timetable to produce a plan and agreed to what was made following stage 2. As a result of this and following discussions, amendment 49 is a compromise between the current requirement to lay the plan for a period of 28 days in my previous amendment for 120 days. Amendments 47, 50 and 52 are simply consequential to amendment 59. Amendments 50, for example, makes changes to section 1b1 to provide that Scottish ministers must have regard to the things listed in sections 1, 1b during the consideration period rather than before the expiry of the consideration period. Amendment 52, amend section 1b to remove subsections 4 and 5, which relate to the 28-day period. And amendment 47, amend section 1b2 of the bill to specify the subsection of section 1b, which contains the details of the length of the consideration period. Concerns over the lack of opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the plan was a recurring theme in both stakeholder responses and the committee's report. I therefore urge members to support the amendments to ensure that Parliament is given a period beyond the current plan provision of 28 days to effectively hold the Scottish Government to account and how it delivers our collective ambitions to be a good food nation through any proposed national good food national plan. I therefore move amendment 47, in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Smith. I now call the cabinet secretary to respond. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Colin Smyth has just outlined, at stage 2 we had lodged amendments which would introduce a requirement to lay a draft version of the national good food nation plan before the Scottish Parliament for a period of consideration. My amendment had set out a period of 28 days which had been agreed by committee and Colin Smyth's amendment had set out a period of 120 days and I had agreed to work with Colin Smyth to agree a compromise and that's why I fully support the amendments that have been put forward today to require a consideration period of 60 days. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Colin Smyth, to wind up press or withdrawal amendment 47. Mrs Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm happy just to press the amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We turn now to group 3, content of plans and a call amendment 17 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group. Miss Hamilton. Thank you. The good food nation bill represents an opportunity to tackle some of the most pressing issues that Scotland are facing and I have no doubt that the Scottish Government will agree that tackling child poverty would be one of these issues. I know that Monica Lennon will also be pressing amendments to achieve similar aims, which my colleagues and I will support. This has taken on added importance given the global inflationary pressures families across the world are facing. Although the UK Government continued to implement measures to alleviate these pressures, this amendment would pull on a lever available to the Scottish Government to go even further. Amendment 17, which I move in my name, would include tackling child poverty as an issue that this bill must give regard to. As part of this, the delivery of free school breakfasts in Scottish schools should be included. I will shortly move a similar amendment, which these aims on the provision of the free supply of milk to children in preschool nurseries and primary school settings will benefit from which Monica Lennon actually moved in stage 2, but it fell. I would also like to make a comment on Ross Greer's the Green Party's education spokesperson at this point. I just presume that he hadn't had his wheat of bits when he made comment that morning with regards to providing initiatives to provide free school meals. That's regrettable that he had done that. Thank you. Thank you, and I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 1 and all other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendments 1 and the other amendments in my name. It's really there to ensure that Scottish Government are declaring the outcomes of the Good Nation Bill and that they are fully understood and resourced to make it as simple as possible for food producers, local authorities, food procurement contracts and hospital contracts and they are as connected as possible. I think legislation to connect up relevant parties to make the bills asks of our food producers and local authorities and hospitals as straightforward as we can. I can start with amendment 3 that asks that the Good Food Nation plan must set out how relevant authority will ensure that at least 60% of the food it procures is sourced within the UK except in exceptional circumstances and also that free school meals will be locally sourced. For so many reasons, this has to be the direction to travel of this bill. For health reasons, given that Scotland has the unwanted tag of the living life expectancy and already less than the rest of the United Kingdom. Regular fresh local produce the food can be a huge step to addressing this health inequality. For the rural economy we charge our farmers with producing some of the highest quality food in the world we have the highest standard of animal welfare we give them good stewardship of the countryside and ask them to pay their living wage. Surely we must then reward them with purchasing that produce at a fair price to help us with our climate change targets. Farmers are given such an unfair hard time on emissions and climate change. So why are we importing so much of our food for public procurement contracts with all the air miles, road miles associated with this ridiculous behaviour? We have hospitals who have food procured, prepared and pre-packaged in Wales and driven up the M6 to be reheated in the hospitals with over 50% of it wasted. Where is the common sense in that? Recent events have highlighted all too starkly how we must protect and develop our own food security. If we don't support our own food producers right now we risk losing them for good necessitating further imports. That brings me to amendment 2 if we're going to require local councils and relevant authorities to develop plans to improve local procurement and good food standards then we should be making it easier for them to attain those standards. The central excel contract is a Scottish Government contract when it first entered into Parliament procured just 16% of its food from Scotland. It imported chicken from Thailand, it had root vegetables and fruit from Europe, potato powder from Ireland and many dairy produce from abroad. All food stuffs produced here in Scotland with a capacity to increase if the demand dictates. That poor record has hardly improved in the intervening six years to the shame of this Parliament. Make an bold statement taking the lead in creating an excel contract that procures at least 60% of its food from the UK. Scotland preferably shows serious intent in allowing local councils and authorities an easy route to hitting their targets. Finally to amendment 1 by agreeing to my amendment 2 and 3 it makes the improving of fresh food standards for schools and hospitals well within reach surely that's the outcome that we all want and part of the good food nation bill must contain an educational element highlighting improving food literacy where food comes from and how we process food. Too many today have no idea of how food is produced and processed if we are going to get buy-in from the consumer that needs to be dealt with. Reducing food waste with a third of all food wasted we have created a world where if food waste were a country it would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the USA. It takes a landmass liner to produce the food that we throw away but for me the most critical is if we could feed the world starving if we wasted just a quarter less than we currently do and that's what I'm asking for here reducing food waste from over 30% to less than 20% by 2025 and it can be done as a school in East Ayrshire where we threw away 40% of the food and what they did was one of the teachers after lunchtime took that food put it into meals sized boxes froze the food took yesterday's food out, left it on a table and children were allowed to just come and lift that as they will at 4 o'clock in the afternoon under the auspices of protecting the environment there was no other criteria put in place so they now have no food waste. Finally we must process food closer to home we can't be sending food down south and further afield for processing and packaging again this speaks to health it speaks to the local economy and to our environment we do not process much of our produce here in Scotland so increasing that capacity by 50% by 2030 is actually not much of an ask but it is a statement of intent that encourages the private sector to help grow that capacity and remember all of this is against a backdrop where East Ayrshire actually procures 75% of its food locally so it can be done those amendments are enablers we put in place building blocks to help hit the targets we are looking for they are eminently sensible and achievable to not pass them would be to pass the buck to local authorities and abdicate responsibility let's actually make legislation and that enables change I ask the Parliament to support my amendments Deputy Presiding Officer Thank you Mr Whittle and I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 18 I just want to start by reiterating what I've said throughout this process because this bill is a framework bill and it does exactly that it sets out a framework for the good food nation plans and many of the amendments in this group would detail specific outcomes or other matters which plans must contain so for example amendment 64 in Monica Lennon's name on universal free school meals and first of all I just want to thank Monica Lennon for meeting with me to discuss her intention to bring forward amendments at stage 3 in relation to universal free school meals I know that this is an issue that is of great importance to the member as it is to me and other members across this chamber too and our programme for government set out our ambitions to provide free school breakfast and lunches to local authority primary school pupils in Scotland all year round and for all children in state funded special schools in Scotland and we have made significant progress against that commitment Scotland already offers the most generous provision of free school lunches in the UK and local authority pupils in primary one to five and in special schools already benefit from the offer of universal free school meals now we are fully committed to the expansion of free school meals over the course of this parliamentary session and we will continue to work with local authorities to plan for this over the next academic year but I will come back to the detail of Monica Lennon's amendment shortly but now I will move on to setting my view on the amendments in this group in relation to putting outcomes, indicators or targets on the face of the bill my view remains the same on that it is really challenging to ensure that these are and that they remain up to date and meaningful if they are set out in primary legislation and there is a risk that future food plans solely focus on those targets to neglect of other equally important considerations and we want the plans to cover the whole of the by changing nature of the good food nation vision so it's for that reason that I'm of the firm view that the place for this level of detail is in the plans themselves and I know that that was also the considered view of the ring committee in their stage 1 report that the bill should contain high level objectives but not the detailed targets and outcomes amendment 18 in my name has been lodged in response to concerns raised by some stakeholders as well as by members of the committee that there was no clear recognition of the role that the private sector plays across the food supply chain the good food nation plans will contain policies and initiatives that will inevitably involve or affect the private sector in different ways and this amendment would require the Scottish ministers to set out in the national good food nation plan how they intend to ensure that the implementation of the policies in section 13c is informed by the views of the private sector and not to address concerns that have heard voiced by some stakeholders in recent days about this amendment and I want to be clear that the amendment isn't about giving food companies a hand in creating government policy but it is instead about making sure that we properly take into account the views of those that grow, process, transport and self-food around how we implement policies decided by government and given the significant role that businesses of all sizes play in the food supply chain so that government policy would succeed without at least understanding the views of business on how such policy would work in practice and this is a duty to essentially garner those views not necessarily to act on them I would also draw members' attention to the definition of the food business sector in section 141 because it includes everyone involved in the food industry regardless of their size or role and the aim of that is to recognise the role that the private sector plays in the food supply chain and provide a mechanism by which the views of the food business sector will inform the implementation of the policies in the plan and amendment 20 in my name would amend section 15 of the bill to clarify that the requirement to have regard to the list of high-level outcomes in that subsection applies when determining the content of the national good food nation plan so far as that is required by section 13 of the bill In relation to Brian Whittle's amendments 2 and 3 they would place targets in relation to procurement on the face of the bill so for example amendment 2 would require the Scottish Government central excel contract to procure at least 60 per cent of food from within the UK by 2025 and I know that these were similar to amendments lodged at stage 2 which Brent agreed to at that time As I'd set out at stage 2 there are strict rules around procurement and this may mean that the intended aim can't be achieved The trade and cooperation agreement with the EU is a duty of non-discrimination in procurement so these amendments aren't compatible with our international obligations and that's why I'm unable to support them today However, the Scottish Government does support the use of procurement to improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of our areas and we do promote and facilitate procurement of healthy, fresh and seasonal produce in contracts for food and catering too Amendment 1 in Brian Whittle's name would set out a series of outcomes that the international good food nation plan must include including targets around food waste and food processing capacity and Rachael Hamilton's amendments 48 and 65 make reference to the food for life accreditation setting out that this should be one of the indicators used to assess progress in achieving the outcomes of the good food nation plans amendment 66 would require local authorities to set out in their good food nation plans their plans to achieve accreditation absolutely support the aims and objectives of the food for life programme and acknowledge just the great work that has been done through that meaning that we now have 18 local authorities with food for life accreditation however it isn't appropriate to set out that level of detail on the face of the bill the process of obtaining food for life accreditation is a policy initiative that's best dealt with at local authority level and they will set out the indicators that will measure progress against the outcomes set out in their plans setting out an indicator in legislation when the good food nation plans are yet to be drafted is problematic particularly when consultation on those local plans hasn't yet taken place I would also bring to members' attention that the reference in amendment 65 in Rachael Hamilton's name I think it should be to subsection 4b of section 7 rather than subsection 3b as it's currently stated and my view on amendments 1, 4 to 8 6 to 5 and 6 to 6 is as I've set out throughout the bill process that this is a framework bill and the appropriate place for this level of detail is within the plans themselves and I would therefore ask that members don't support those amendments Rachael Hamilton's amendment 63 would require relevant authorities to set out how they intend to work with other relevant authorities in their area to share good practice and to secure the achievement of the outcomes for individuals of social care however it's not clear how that amendment would work in practice so for example the wording in its area is difficult to interpret because it doesn't mean working with relevant authorities within the exact same area with those that overlap boundaries or with those that are adjacent to the local authority the amendment also includes wording that's specific to social care and it's not clear whether the sharing of good practice is a general requirement to social care and it's for those reasons that I would ask members not to support that amendment there are several amendments in relation to the provision of food in schools Rachael Hamilton's amendment 17 would add to section 1 of the bill a requirement for the Scottish ministers to set out the policies that they intend to pursue to reduce child poverty including the delivery of free school breakfast in all Scottish schools and section 1.5 of the bill as amended at stage 2 already requires that Scottish ministers when determining the content of the national good food nation plan to have regard to the scope of food related issues to affect outcomes in relation to child poverty the policies to reduce child poverty will be set out in the plan itself which as a previously set out is the appropriate place for the detail of those policies to be set out the wording of this amendment would also require Scottish ministers to set out how they would ensure the provision of free breakfast to all schools in Scotland including those that wouldn't be under the control of local authorities and I would predict how that would target those children who are in most need of that support. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 19 would require the national good food nation plan to set out how the Scottish ministers will ensure the free supply of milk to children in preschool, nurseries and primary schools. The Scottish Government has committed to delivering a universal Scottish free school milk scheme to local authority primary and special schools and to develop a pilot in local authority secondary schools. The wording of this amendment would also require Scottish ministers to set out how they would ensure free milk to primary schools not under the control of local authorities which is out with the scope of the current commitment that we have. As I've set out previously again this is a framework bill and it wouldn't be appropriate to be prescriptive on the face of the bill about which specific policies should be contained within the plans. Similar amendments in relation to free school milk were lodged at stage 2 by Monica Lennon but those were not agreed to for the same reasons that I've just outlined. Beatrice Wishart's amendment 29 would require local authorities when formulating their good food nation plans to ensure that there is flexibility in meal provision and in particular not to restrict the ability of residents in any school hostels operated by the local authority to make choices in relation to their meals. Evening meals provided in hostels that are run by local authorities must comply with the nutrient standards that are set out in the nutritional requirements for food and drink in schools Scotland Regulations 2020 which help ensure that young people are provided with an appropriate amount of energy and key nutrients to support their healthy growth and development. The food and drink standard set out in the regulations also apply at meal times and are designed to limit the amount of fat, salt and sugar provided as part of a balanced diet. The regulations are already flexible enough to allow school hostel caterers to design menus that meet the needs and preferences of hostel residents. In relation to Brian Whittle's amendment 3 that would require free school meals provided by the local authority to be locally sourced, I would just refer to my earlier comments about the strict rules and procurement but also to the good work that is already being carried out in the Food for Life accreditation scheme that promotes the use of local food. That work is already under way and there are also plans to run a pilot programme looking at expanding food for life into the wider public sector. Turning now to Monica Lennon's amendment 64 that would require a relevant authorities good food nation plan to set out how the relevant authority intends to ensure that universal free school meals for all children and young people are high uptake, free of stigma of universal free school meals and the provision of high quality nutritious food during school holidays. However, careful consideration is required so that a requirement such as this is not added to legislation in a way that may not achieve the desired aim. That, as I have noted throughout the bill process, again is a framework bill and the place for the detail is in the good food nation plans themselves. I also do not believe that the wording of the amendments put forward by Monica Lennon achieves the intended aim. The proposed amendment applies to all relevant authorities and that would include local authorities, health boards and all bodies specified in regulations made under section 72 who would have to include in their plans how they intend to ensure the provision of universal free school meals. However, health boards have no role in the provision of school meals to pupils and as such that would require them to explain how they would do something and ultimately have no responsibility to do. In relation to local authorities it is not just restricted to pupils at schools under the authorities control and so would require the aspect of the plan to extend to independent schools and granted schools. Monica Lennon's amendment wouldn't impose a direct duty on a relevant authority to provide universal free school meals but it does require a relevant authority to include in their plan how they intend to ensure the provision of universal free school meals and the other matters that are set out in paragraphs of B and C of amendment 64. Where legislation seeks to impose a legal duty on a personal body the duty should be express, clear and unambiguous both in the fact that a duty is being imposed but also the terms of the duty. A duty could not be created by adding an amendment in this way. That would require relevant authorities to explain in their plan how they would ensure something that they currently have no duty to do and in relation to paragraph C the provision of meals during school holidays to ensure something that isn't yet a right in sports law. The requirement of paragraph B to set out how the authority would ensure the high uptake of free school meals and how that would be done free of stigma duplicates and so far as it relates the existing legal duty to provide free school meals for duties on education authorities under section 53A protection of identity of pupils receiving free school meals of the education Scotland at 1980. In contrast with the 1980 act there is no definition of school meal and no reference to free school meals being provided to pupils in attendance at schools and it instead refers to children and young people. It is unclear what is intended so for example should it extend to independent schools and home education of children and young people and how that relates to the 1980 act duties. I hope that the reasons I have set out do explain the significant issues concerning these amendments and that is why I would strongly urge members not to accept them for the reasons that I have set out. Thank you cabinet secretary and I have called Beatrice Wishart to speak to amendment 29 and other amendments in the group, Ms Wishart. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Amendment 29 in my name requires local authorities to ensure that their good food is provided in the school meal provision and in particular do not restrict the ability of residents in any school hostels operated by local authorities to make choice in relation to their meals. This amendment has been created to avoid situations that have been brought to my attention in which school hostel pupils felt restricted by the prescriptive nature of their meal provision. In school hostels which are pupils home from home for many, meals of the day are provided and follow school meal regulations enabling that the meals are too prescriptive and do not allow any flexibility for their own choices and independence. Being overly prescriptive with meal provision in school hostels can remove the enjoyment and social elements from meals and can result in pupils rejecting hostel meals to buy unhealthier alternatives elsewhere. As we are aware habits created in life early in life are hard to break and it is an irony that guidance to ensure healthy food provision is driving learners to unhealthy options. Providing food has to be about ensuring not only nutrition but also the social and cultural aspects of food as well as individual preferences. So this amendment would ensure that this issue is taken into account in settings where all meals are provided by the relevant authority particularly in school hostels. I move amendment 29. I now call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 64 and other amendments in the group. Ms Lennon. Thank you. Can I just start by saying I'm sorry that the cabinet secretary is unwell today and unable to join us in the chamber. I hope she's feeling better soon. I will keep my remarks limited to amendment 64 on these benches. We are supporting all amendments in the group but I know we are pushed for time today. The inspiration behind amendment 64 is no secret. It's the STUC's trailblazing campaign Food for Thought making real the rights of all young people to food education and fun. This campaign is widely supported by MSPs and political parties all trade unions anti-poverty charities and children and young people's organisations. So what will the amendment do? Amendment 64 would require the Good Food Nation plan of a relevant authority to set out how it will intend to ensure a, the provision of universal free-school meals for all children and young people b, high uptake of those meals in ways that are inclusive and free of stigma and c, the fulfilment of children and young people's right to high quality nutritious foods during the holiday periods. Building upon my child poverty amendment that was approved at stage 2, amendment 64 seeks to strengthen section 7 of the bill. Section 7, as we've heard, places requirements on public bodies and that's important, public bodies to produce Good Food Nation plans. Section 7 of the bill, at stage 2, makes clear that that talks about areas that they have responsibility for. So we're not trying to throw in things that public bodies have no responsibility when you read the bill, it's quite clear that there wouldn't be duplication of efforts. I think we should all agree that building a Good Food Nation must start with getting it right for all children and young people. Universal free-school meal provision is a critical policy mechanism to help alleviate poverty, mitigate food insecurity and support efforts to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. It is also critically important in embedding whole-school community approaches to nutrition, including the universal approach to universal free-school provision in the Good Food Nation plan will build upon the Scottish Government's very welcome commitments to incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and expanding universal free-school meal provision will also help to deliver on the Scottish Government's aspiration to significantly reduce child poverty and close the attainment gap in addition to becoming a Good Food Nation by 2025. I think it's strange that the bill is silent on universal free-school meals and the rights of children and young people. Just to remind the chamber, I know everyone's had a letter in advance of the day from Rose Foyer, who is the general secretary of the STUC. The STUC represents over half a million workers in Scotland, including teachers who are having to feed children today out of their own pockets and the workers who staff our school canteens. It's really important that we remember that. I'm grateful to Mary Gouge on the cabinet secretary for her time and for her willingness to engage in the issues but I do really feel by not supporting the amendment today that the Government is missing a trick because we can have all the good intentions and all the good policies but if we're not putting it into action we're not helping people who need to help. Just last week in this chamber at First Minister's Questions we were reminded of the rise and hidden hunger in our schools right now. Young people have told Aberlure that their friends who are not eligible for free school meals are going hungry at lunchtime. That's happening in Scottish schools today while others are deliberately saving up their lunch money to give it back to their parents. That is just shameful. I think it's positive that the Scottish Conservatives are backing this amendment. I think it's positive that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are backing the amendment and when I listen to Scotland's children and young people they say that they want all MSPs to work together to make their rights real. I know that Ross Greer is not in the chamber at the moment and he might think it's somehow a disgrace that parties would work together. I think it's actually really positive that we now I know the vote might not reflect on it today but I think we now have a position where everybody in this Parliament wants to expand universal free school meals beyond nursery and primary school into our secondary schools because the issues and challenges don't end at the gates of our primary schools but it is regrettable that the Government and our coalition partners didn't have the foresight to bring these issues into the bill. It's always more challenging for backbenchers and opposition members to try and do that but I do take at face value the good will from the Cabinet Secretary. My plea, if members are not going to support this today, is that we recognise the cross-cutting issues around foods, around education and children and young people's rights and that every minister in Government we double's efforts to make sure that children are not going without foods. We have to question whether we are doing all that we can and if we vote against this amendment tonight then we're not doing all that we can but we'll have to come back again tomorrow in the next day and try and do better. That is what the children and young people are demanding from each and every one of us. That's what the SCUC are saying with one clear voice that no longer will the workers who staff our schools and who look after children across Scotland except crumbs from the Government table we have to do more we have to start focusing on what we can do and I think just to conclude I welcome the feedback from the Cabinet Secretary and I fully understand the needs for legislation to be well drafted and not to have unintended consequences. When I was meeting the Cabinet Secretary yesterday I said some of the objections I was hearing had parallels with the period poverty legislation when the political will wasn't there so I would ask perhaps the green members to reflect on that. This shouldn't be about party politics and who's bringing forward the amendment. We have time to get this right people should look to their own conscience and I know there's people on the back benches today who really want to back this amendment it'll be a real shame if there's pressure from their party whips to do otherwise I move the amendment in my name Thank you Ms Lennon and I call Colin Smith In the absence of the opportunity to intervene in the cabinet secretary's lengthy response I'd be grateful for the opportunity to ask the cabinet secretary some questions on our response amendment 18 in the cabinet secretary's name makes provision for the implementation of policies relating to the national good food nations plan to be informed by the private food business sector that we have an issue with but maybe the cabinet secretary could explain that many other sectors with an interest in those policies have been excluded from this particular statutory footing sector such as those concerned with social wellbeing, climate change, wildlife, the natural environment, animal welfare and workers rights should they not have the same statutory rights as the private food business sector the cabinet secretary continues to oppose the bill having a small number of high-level objectives and miserable indicators linked to outcomes which would better enable the monitoring and scrutiny of progress. The Scottish government has passed a number of bills in the past few years which include targets and outcomes on the face of the bill that the climate change and emissions reduction target bill the Child Poverty Scotland Act and just recently the draft circular economy bill d collaboration phoblwst y Gwg Fwrdd ddechrau i gael ar gymdeithasol fod y sicr oedd gwaith a'i amser. Gwestiaethach gwaith yn gallu gafodd wedi bod arno yn teimlo i'r Gwôn Ddolygu yn odbydd frontiad o bethau, ac i gael agorweithio gwneud i gael ar yr ystod yn teimlo i'r gweithio, ond ac yn gallu gweithio gwneud i gael ar gael ar gyfer oeddguaith. Mae Gwyneth mewn dda i fy ngheith gan gyffredigio gyfanol i gyfedigio i'r Gymdeithasol I'm sympathetic with the aims of the amendments in this group to expand the provision of free food to school-age children, and it's an important step towards closing the attainment gap. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that amendments passed in this chamber can be put into effect. I will start by addressing amendment 64 from Monica Lennon, which would introduce a blanket approach to school meal provision, including providing food to those who attend fee-paying schools where arguably there's not a need. The amendment text as drafted would also apply to all relevant authorities under the bill, even those with no role in the provision of school meals. It is unclear who the duties are to apply to, and as this issue was also not raised with the committee during our evidence gathering at stage 1, we have not collectively agreed recommendations on this issue. I'm disappointed that instead Labour is raising this issue at the 11th hour when time to agree a constructive way forward has run out. Are you taking intervention? I'm grateful to the member for taking the intervention. It was disappointing that the member voted against the early reiteration of the amendment at stage 2 without any question following the instructions from the SNP cabinet secretary, but this is not the 11th hour. This is a campaign by the STUC that the Scottish Greens signed up to prior to the election last year, made a flagship commitment in your manifesto, which I absolutely welcome. It's a shame that your party has forgotten all about that. It's a shame that the Green Party has forgotten that, Presiding Officer. Is the member now saying that the Scottish Green position has changed? Are you now a party in favour of means testing and where, in the amendment or the bill, does it relate to independent schools? Which public body has responsibility for independent schools? I'm proud that the Scottish Greens have already taken steps to widen free school meal entitlement, as we have committed to. That includes using budget negotiations to expand free school meal provision to all pupils in P1 to P3 and P1 to P5, covering more than 120,000 children. We have also provided councils with more than £30 million this year to upgrade school catering facilities ahead of further expansion, and we will continue to work constructively with the Government to secure further progress. I will turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. As this is a framework bill, Rachael Hamilton's amendment 17 and 19 on school breakfast and milk provision are at a level of detail that would be best placed in the good food nation plans rather than on the face of the bill. I also note that the Scottish Government has already committed to delivering a universal free school milk scheme to local authorities in special schools and will pilot a rollout in secondary schools. Amendment 4865-68 also includes detail on accreditation schemes that would be better placed in plans than in legislation. Brian Whittle's amendment in this group would insert a number of targets into the bill, and, as discussed at stage 2, these are problematic in framework legislation of this kind. Additionally, as they touch on issues of trade, we must be careful in how provisions in the bill would interact with the WTO rules and the UK's trade agreements with the EU. We will support amendments 18 and 20 from the cabinet secretary, which ensure that the good food nation plans are realistic and informed by those who work in the sector from farmers and crofters through jobs in the supply chain to hospitality and retail. Since the private sector accounts for the vast majority of food supply and will be impacted by the plans, it is crucial to involve them from the start of the journey to a good food nation plan. No, I won't take an invention, I'm just going to wind it up. Finally, amendment 26 from Beatrice Richard seeks to ensure flexibility in meal provision in local authority-run hostels. This is already provided for in the nutritional requirements for food and drink in Scotland regulations 2020, so we will not be supporting this amendment today. As we are nearing the agreed time limit, I am prepared to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4a to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. With that, I call Brian Whittle. I thank the good food nation bill. We have such an opportunity to tackle health issues and education issues that have plagued this Government to support the rural economy and to commit to climate change. What the Scottish Government is doing is asking local authorities to come up with plans, but in the Cabinet Secretary's response, she has indicated that the Scottish Government is unwilling to make incontentious amendments to the bill—incontentious amendments that are supported by the NFU. I understand procurement law quite well, and there is nothing in those amendments that contravene that law. The fact of the matter is that East Learshire has been doing exactly what my amendments have asked for for years, so that argument does not hold water at all. The reality is that we could pass and put those on to the face of the bill and we could use secondary legislation to change anything that we need to do in the future. The reality is that the Scottish Government will risk a verse, and without tangible outcomes means that there is no way of us measuring success or otherwise. They are abdicating their responsibility. As for the Greens, they have abdicated all their responsibilities and all their principles. The Scottish Government has missed a huge opportunity here, and it will leave the good food nation bill a shell of what it should have been. I will call on the cabinet secretary to respond before I invite Rachael Hamilton to wind up. I will try to cover most of the points that have been raised there. Reflecting on Colin Smyth's issues and the points that he has raised, this certainly is not about excluding others in relation to the amendments that I have brought forward, but it recognises that all the initiatives that we are going to take forward will involve the private sector in practice. It is important to remember that everyone is going to have an opportunity to input into the development of the food plans, and we have already said that we want our consultation to be as broad and inclusive as possible. Of course, there will be that opportunity for people to feed into it. It is also important to remember that we brought this amendment forward because we listened to the evidence that the committee had heard when it was taking evidence throughout the passing of the bill, and it takes into account that evidence that was taken by the committee, which is why we have brought this forward, too. In relation to the outcomes and indicators, as the committee stated and agreed to by them, the face of the bill is not the place for the targets and the outcomes that we want to see. Some of those that had been proposed at stage 2 would have become out of date very quickly, and we are not averse to looking at outcomes and indicators and how we monitor our progress, but the detail of that should be within the good food nation plans themselves. I am also coming back to Monica Lennon's points, and I welcome the discussions that I have had with the member in relation to the amendments that she has brought forward. We did have constructive discussions with the Trade Union representatives as well. I do not think that we are far apart in what we are trying to achieve here, but there are specific issues that we have with the particular amendments that have been brought forward, which I have outlined today. I hope that I have been really clear about the commitment that we have made to the expansion of free-skill meals. It is the Government that has enacted that and taken that and driven it forward, and we are committed to working with our local authority partners to take that forward further. I hope that the members across the chamber can take some assurance from that today, but there are particular issues with those amendments as they have been brought forward, as there are in relation to the amendments that have been brought forward by Brian Whittle. It is, again, for those reasons that I would urge members not to support those amendments. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am going to take a brief intervention from Finlay Carson, and we will come back to you again, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have just heard clear what the protocol was with the minister attending remotely. It was back in 2016 that the SNP first put the commitment to the Good Food Nation and its manifesto, but failed to deliver. In 2021, the regurgitated good food nations suggested that we were going to create a single market brand for Scotland called Sustainability Scotland. They were also going to create a single independent Scottish Food Agency, but yet we hear today over and over this as a framework bill. So why is the cabinet secretary failed to deliver on the aspirations of the stakeholders that have engaged in the belief that this bill was going to be transformational, and we have got the bill in front of us that is not fit for purpose? I welcome what she has said in the tone of it, but it is about action. I know that she has raised a concern about children who are homeschooled, and if that was in the good food plan, how would that work? Is it the Government's view that children who are homeschooled should be excluded from accessing universal free schools? We know from our constituency mailbox that there are many children who are homeschooled, sometimes because they have additional support needs and the school has not been properly resourced to meet their needs. What will the Government do in the meantime to support those children if they are experiencing hunger? Touching on that last point first, we do not want to see any child or any young person going hungry, which is why we have taken a number of pieces of action to try and combat the poverty and the extreme poverty that we know that people are facing at the moment. Again, I think that the amendments that have been brought forward today, there are particular issues with that, which is why we are in a position that we are unable to support them. However, the commitment in relation to the provision of free school meals is still there. Coming back to the points that Finlay Carson had raised, he raised some of the other manifesto commitments that the Government is still committed to taking forward. I would completely disagree with his comment that the bill is not fit for purpose. We have listened to the evidence that the committee has taken. We have brought forward a number of amendments taking into account the evidence that the committee has heard and its recommendations in the report. I would just disagree with that statement. I will press amendment 17. If it is okay, I would like to respond to the cabinet secretary's comments. On amendment 4865 and 6863, which I did not originally move, I apologise for that, Presiding Officer. Amendment 48, which I want to speak to with regard to the Food for Life scheme, I cannot understand why the SNP Government will not support children within school settings to eat their five a day by encouraging all schools and all local authorities to adopt that whole school approach and embed that in the bill, because we know that independent evaluation has shown 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. It would be good to hear really why, because I do not believe the reasons that she has given that it is problematic. With regard to amendments 17 and 19, I believe that those amendments, I just want to reiterate, they actually strengthen the outcomes to tackle child poverty alongside the pilot that the Government is putting forward for developing free school meals. With regard to Ariane Burgess' comments, I think that there was plenty of time within the committee process to actually have addressed some of the issues that, if the Greens are so passionate about ensuring that children do not go hungry. Just on amendment 63, I want to be clear that I do not see the problems with overlapping on boundaries of local authorities, Cabinet Secretary, because those could be overcome. Those amendments were brought forward at stage 2 with regard to the importance of the outcomes for individuals in receipt of social care. We know that we have a national care strategy coming along. Why does the Cabinet Secretary not believe that the provision of food is integral to social care? Whether it is early years provision at home care, crisis care or residential care, I just think that it is important that she recognises that this bill should have teeth, this bill should have ambition and, unfortunately, it has not been delivered by this Government. I wonder whether you were expecting the Cabinet Secretary to make any response to any of the comments that Rachel Hamilton has made, and then I will have to come back to you, Ms Hamilton, to formally move the amendment before we can proceed to a vote. I would just reiterate the points that I made earlier in response to the points that were raised by Rachel Hamilton, because it is not clear from the amendments what they would be looking to achieve, and it is that lack of clarity in the language that has been used in the drafting of the amendments as to why we are in a position that we are not able to support them. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed that there will be a one-minute division. Members who cast their votes now. My internet connection did not connect. I would have voted no. No, my vote was not recorded either, I do not think so. Thank you, I will make sure that is recorded. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I also would have voted no connection, I am afraid. Point of order, Angus Robertson. I would have voted no as well. I will make sure that is recorded, thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 17 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 46, no 63. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now, I call amendment number one in the name of Brian Whittle, already debated with amendment 17. Brian Whittle, to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That amendment is moved, the question is that amendment one be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is not agreed, there will be a 30-second division. Members who cast their votes now. It is the vote closed. Point of order from Claire Baker, who joins us remotely. We have Claire Baker's audio. Point of order, Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, my app said I have not voted, I believe I did vote, and I did vote yes. Thank you, Ms Duncan-Glancy, I will make sure that is recorded. Point of order, Claire Baker again. I'm afraid we've got connection issues there, so we'll just have to proceed, I'm afraid. And the result on amendment number one in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 42, no, 66. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment two in the name of Brian Whittle, already debated with amendment 17. Brian Whittle, to move or not move? Move, Presiding Officer. That is moved, the question is that amendment two be agreed to, are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There shall be a vote and therefore members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Neil Bibby. My app didn't work out with the voted yes. Thank you, Mr Bibby, make sure that's recorded. And point of order, Shona Robison online. Thank you, Ms Robison, I'll make sure that is recorded. Point of order, Craig Hoy online. Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app didn't work out with the voted yes. Thank you, Mr Hoy, we'll make sure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number two in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 40, no, 67. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 18 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 17. Cabinet Secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you, the question is that amendment 18 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 19 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 17. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. Thank you, that is moved. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed, are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, there will be a division. Member should cast their votes now, this will be a 32nd division. And the vote's closed. Point of order, Neil Bibby. My hand wouldn't connect again, I would have voted yes. Thank you Mr Bibby, we'll make sure that's recorded. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. Excellent field again, I would have voted no. Thank you Mr Macpherson, make sure that's recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment 19 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 46, no, 63. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 48 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 17. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move, that is moved. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed, are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, there will be a division. Members should cast their votes now, again a 32nd division. And the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 48 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 46, no, 64. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 17. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you, the question is that amendments 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We now move to group 4, matters to be taken into account in preparing plans. I call amendment 4 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments 5, 8, 9, 10 and 14. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 4 and speak to all amendments in the group. Miss Hampton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendments on matters to be taken into account when the government or relevant authorities are preparing good food nation plans seek to allow the bill to be updated when required. This will ensure the bill can be expanded to adapt developments. The last two years have seen a lesson in how rapidly the world can change. And it's vital that the bills we pass in this parliament are suitably adaptable in certain areas to keep up with this. Important legislation should not be allowed to stagnate, and my amendments will provide the necessary flexibility to prevent this from happening. Amendment 14 would ensure that any updates to matters to be taken into account when preparing plans are subject to the affirmative procedure. And I move the amendments in this group. Thank you very much, Miss Hamilton. As nobody else has requested to speak, I call the cabinet secretary. Stage 2, Rachel Hamilton, lodged similar amendments. I set out my concerns at that time regarding the particular wording of those and had asked the member to work with me to identify alternate wording. I want to thank her for doing that ahead of stage 3. Those amendments would adjust the text in section 15 and section 76 to add further clarity on the need to have regard to, among other things, as well as the specific matters that are listed. Amendment 10 would amend section 76 to add any other matter specified by the Scottish ministers to the list of high-level outcomes that allow for flexibility to add other matters to that list in the future. I support those amendments and would encourage members to support them too. Thank you, and I call Rachel Hamilton. Do I have to press or withdraw the amendments, Miss Hamilton? I would just like to thank the cabinet secretary for working with me in this group of those amendments, and I press the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Are you ready to debate it with amendment 4? Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. That is agreed. Group 5 on the principles, and I call amendment 21, in the name of Rhoda Grant. Grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings, Rhoda Grant to move amendment 21 and speak to all other amendments in the group, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to move amendment 21 and speak to amendments 22, 27, 30, 31 and 34. Amendments 21 and 30 ensure that regard must be had to the principles outlined, not only when preparing plans, but also when implementing them. Amendment 21 refers to section 1A, placing duties on Scottish ministers. Amendment 30 refers to section 70, referring to health boards local authorities and other specified public authorities. Included in these principles is the fact that adequate food is a human right as part of the right to an adequate standard of living set out in article 11 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and is essential to the realisation of other human rights. Amendment 27 and 34 strengthen this principle in section 1A and 70 respectively by adding how the plans can be used to ensure that this right is implemented. That is added to the end of the clause to ensure that the plans are used to ensure that the right is implemented in Scotland. As I said before, the Government have acknowledged that this bill is a vehicle for ensuring access, people access to their human rights and therefore it should ensure implementation. Those amendments do just that. Amendment 22 and 31 place a duty on Scottish ministers to have due regard to good food nation plans, which again strengthens this part of the bill. We are supportive of the other amendments in the group. I would like however to ask Rachel Hamilton for some clarity on her amendments 24, 25 and 26. It is well understood that the processed food can be cheap but laden with fat, salt and sugar and therefore is detrimental to health. However, some foods, especially plant-based food, can be highly processed when used as a meat substitute and it could be argued that these foods are still nutritious and essential to a vegetarian or vegan diet. We would like to support those amendments because I believe that the sentiments are right but need reassurance from Rachel Hamilton that they will not have these unintended consequences. Thank you, Ms Grant. I am Burgess to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendments 23 and 33 make a small change to one of the principles that was added at stage 2 by the cabinet secretary. The bill states that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities must have regard to these principles in preparing their good food nation plans. Principle B, as drafted, is that the role of sustainable food production is contributing to mitigation of climate change, halting and reversing of the loss of biodiversity and improvement in animal welfare. My amendments changed the phrase sustainable food production to sustainable food systems and supply chain. This small change in wording carries significant meaning. First, it expands the sphere of consideration to include what happens to food after it is produced. This includes food consumption and food waste or reuse. The choices we all make about the food we eat, the choices public bodies make about the food that they procure and serve and how much of it goes to waste are crucial factors when it comes to sustainability of the food system. I believe that that should all be kept under consideration and included in this principle. Second, by explicitly including the supply chain within this principle on sustainability, it recognises the environmental improvements that can be made by, for example, using less packaging and shortening supply chains to reduce emissions from travel and refrigeration, while allowing for flexibility to fit the approach to particular circumstances. This complements the consideration of resilient supply chains in principle E. My amendment 23 makes this change in relation to the national plan and amendment 33 makes this change in relation to relevant authorities plans. I do not support the other amendments within this group as I believe they are unnecessary and do not add civic significance, meaning beyond, which is already in the bill. There is a clear and undeniable link between ultra-processed food and poor health outcomes amendments 24, 25 and 26, which I move in my name. I acknowledge this link and provide an impetus for the good food nation plans to include provisions to reduce consumption of these foods in settings where it is possible through this bill. I understand the concern that has been raised by Rhoda Grant, and if she will allow me, I will explain what an ultra-processed food is defined as. I do think that the concerns are perhaps unfounded when I looked at the concrete definitions of the term from the EMJ, the British Heart Foundation, the Soil Association and even the BBC, all of which came to the same conclusions of how the term should be defined. The Soil Association defined it as foods that typically contain little or no whole foods are ready to consume or heat and are made using industrial additives and processes. They often bear little resemblance to the real foods found in nature. They are often high in fat, salt and added sugar and depleted in dietary fibre. If that description does satisfy Rhoda Grant's concerns, I would appreciate her support on these amendments, because they provide a fantastic opportunity to encourage the consumption of more whole foods, while reducing the consumption of less healthy foods. On amendment 32, my amendment on the importance of supply chain transparency, sustainability and traceability relates to the need for an enhanced approach to public sector procurement, that this bill has the capacity to achieve. Understanding where our food comes from, how it is procured and the impact of the food we consume on the environment are key considerations that must be made when these plans are being drawn up, and we heard evidence to that effect. Those considerations should influence how relevant authorities and the Scottish Government conduct future food procurement. In turn, this amendment would help foster more sustainable supply chains for public sector bodies and help to improve the overall quality of the food that it procures. On Arrian Burgess's amendment, we will be supporting her amendment. However, I am disappointed that we went through all these stages without any discussion from the Greens regarding some of the amendments that have been brought forward at this stage, so that is disappointing, but we will be supporting that amendment. Thank you. I now call on Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 67 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Be with me here as I am downing in too much paper. Apologies. I am afraid that I have managed to lose my piece of paper on that, Presiding Officer. I know that this amendment will not be supported by SNP and Green Members. It fits with the amendment that was discussed in the earlier grouping. It is about trying to embed the rights of children and young people into the bill. I have reached out to colleagues as recently as last night, so it is disappointing that it is not going to get support. I hope that the cabinet secretary said earlier that the willingness to work beyond the bill today is something that we can take at face value. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will deal with Rhoda Grant's amendments first. Amendments 21 and 30 would require the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities, respectively, to have regard to the principles set out in sections 1A and 7A when implementing the good food nation plans, in addition to the current requirement to have regard to the principles when preparing the plans. The existing duty to have regard to the principles when preparing the good food nation plans will ensure that consideration will be given to the principles when implementing the plans, since the policies included in the plans will have been prepared after having had regard to the principles. Amendments 22 and 31 propose changing the duty in sections 1A and 7A from have regard to have due regard. I set out the Scottish Government's position at clearly stage 2 that the appropriate legal duty is to have regard to, because that is a meaningful legal requirement, and it is an obligation to consider that matter when we are making a decision. Amendments 27 and 34 propose amending sections 1A and 7A to add wording about ensuring the right to adequate food is implemented. Sections 1A and 7A start with the duty for Scottish ministers to have regard to the principles when preparing their plans, so there is already that need to have regard to this right when formulating the plans. It is for those reasons that I would ask members not to support those amendments. Turning now to Rachel Hamilton's amendments 24, 25 and 26, those all propose the addition of wording to section 1A in relation to ultra-process foods. I would probably just start by reiterating what I have said in discussion on previous amendments that this is a framework bill and the place for this level of detail is in the good food nation plans themselves. The principles are intentionally high-level and adding in text on a specific issue such as that would not be appropriate here. It is also not clear what natural means in relation to foods. The word nutritious, which is already in section 1A, in section 7A of the bill, is amended at stage 2, is broad enough to ensure that food is healthy and that the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities will have to have regard to that when preparing their plans. Ariane Burgess's amendments 23 and 33 would replace the word sustainable food production with sustainable food system and supply chain in section 1A, in section 7A. I support that amendment and the view is that, if members were to agree to that change, the intention behind Rachel Hamilton's amendment 32, with regard to adding wording about supply chain transparency, sustainability and traceability to section 7A, would be addressed. Monica Lennon's amendment 67 proposes adding wording to section 7A in relation to article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the amendment does not accurately reflect the wording of article 24. Article 24 does not provide a right to high quality nutritious food. The right set out in the article is to the enjoyment of the highest sustainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. It goes on to require state parties to pursue implementation of this right and take appropriate measures, including to combat disease and malnutrition, through the provision of adequate nutritious foods. Accepting the amendment would place a requirement on relative authorities to explain in their plan how they would intend to do something that they are presently not under a duty to do. It is for these reasons that I would urge members not to support the amendment today. In summary, I would ask members to support amendments 23 and 33 in Ariane Burgess's name and not to support the remainder of the amendments in this amendment. I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 21. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I intend to press amendment 21. I am also happy to support Rachel Hamilton's amendments, given the assurances that she provided. I also share her concerns about the Greens' very late amendments, while they accuse others, such as Monica Lennon, of proposing late amendments that they themselves do. I am disappointed that the minister has rejected my amendments. I believe that they would strengthen the bill. The bill is incredibly timid, and it is quite sad that this Government will not take amendments that would make it a much better bill. That is shown by her rejection of amendments from myself and Monica Lennon, which would enhance people's already human right to food. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed for the question. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Mr Stewart. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Brian Whittle. My app hasn't connected at a voted yes. Thank you, Mr Whittle. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you, Matt, not working avid of voted no. Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 21, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 45, no 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment number 22, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 21. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app wouldn't connect, but I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Duncan-Glancy. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 22, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 46, no 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 21. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 24, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 21. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you. My app throws I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Neil Bibby. I had problems with my app. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Bibby. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app has frozen as well, that doesn't seem to be working very well, and I would have voted yes to that. Thank you, Mr Mountain. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 24, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 43, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 25, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 21, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 25, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 43, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Members will note that we are nearing the next timeline in order to allow debate on group 6 and 7, under rule 9.8.5A. I'm minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is that the time limit for debate on amendments be extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We do hope to get this time back. I call amendment 26, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 21. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. My app didn't connect this time, and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr McMillan. We'll ensure that it's recorded. Point of order, Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Ms Maguire. We'll ensure that it's recorded. Presiding Officer, I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Hawley. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 26, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 42, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 21. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move, moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Katie Clark. My app didn't work. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Clark. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 19, no, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 49, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 47. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 50, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 47. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed to. We now move on to group 6, specifying new bodies. I call amendment 51, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments 58 and 62. Rachel Hamilton, to move, amendment 51, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 51 and the other amendments. My amendments on publishing information about any public authority, the Scottish Minister's intent to specify in regulations under the relevant section and the timescale for making the regulations seeks to encourage greater transparency over good food nation plans. The publication of this information will allow for greater level of scrutiny over the plans and their implementation, particularly in terms of timescales for delivery, ensuring that relevant authorities and indeed the Scottish Government are held to account over the delivery of the plans are paramount. To vote against this amendment would undoubtedly suggest an intention to evade accountability over the delivery of the aims of the bill. Amendment 62, in my name, seeks to include IJBs, integrated joint boards as a relevant authority, as supported by the food train. The inclusion of IJBs as a relevant authority has also been called for by the Scottish Food Coalition, which has been very involved in the process of this bill with all parties. We know the preventative importance of food for health and wellbeing, so this amendment will ensure that social care is explicitly covered, given the lack of statutory requirements on IJBs to produce a food plan. The IJBs will become community health and social care boards and should be required to produce good food nation plans as they oversee the delivery of all community health and social care services and support within their local area, monitoring and improving impact performance and outcomes for people. Before I move on to the next speaker, abstentions were omitted in the last results and there were 26 on amendment number 27. For clarity, there were, yes, 19 and no, 65. There were 26 abstentions. IJBs oversee the delivery of community health and social care. Therefore, we very much support their inclusion as a relevant authority in this bill. The provision of good food is absolutely integral to care, whether it is hospital discharge, food security and home care, crisis care, care at home or residential or nursing care. Amendment 62 ensures that such joint bodies do not slip through the net and either have to produce their own good food nations plans or that the delegated functions are addressed by the parent authority plans, which are not currently clear in the bill. Our health and social care partnerships produce plans on a whole host of areas relating to care, so it makes no sense for good food nations plans not to be one of those. They are best placed to lead on plans relating to adult social care. Therefore, Labour very much supports the amendments in this group. In relation to Rachel Hamilton's amendments 51 and 62, our requirement was put in place at stage 2 by Karen Adams's amendment 59 for consultation before regulations were made to add a new body to the list of relevant authorities. Setting out an intention to do so, as described in Rachel Hamilton's amendments, would be pre-empting the results of any such consultation. In addition to that, adding a new relevant authority is also subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would then be an opportunity for scrutiny of the regulations at that point. That would also apply to amendment 62, which proposes to add integration joint boards to the list of relevant authorities. It would be preferable to carry out a consultation, as it would be required if, as I hope, members agree to pass the bill today before adding any new relevant authorities. In addition to that, we have the forthcoming national care service Scotland bill, which could well likely result in changes to the format and status of the board. The inclusion at this stage would be premature. For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendments 51, 58 and 62. I do not agree with what the cabinet secretary said. I think that integrated joint boards are an important relevant authority, and they should hold parity with other relevant authorities within the scope of the bill. I do not believe that we should wait for a preemption of results of consultation, because there are enough stakeholders out there that agree that IJBs are important in terms of the delivery of the bill, and I will press my amendment. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 51 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 45, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 52 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 47. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Move on to group 7, healthy basket guarantee. I call amendment 53 in the name of Rachel Hamilton in a group on its own. Rachel Hamilton to move and speak to amendment 53. Amendment 53, which I move in my name, would ensure what we call healthy basket guarantee. It should be considered when good food nation plans are drawn up. The healthy basket guarantee encourages retailers to ensure healthy food items such as fresh food and veg remain at affordable prices to encourage healthier eating. Whilst this does not pertain exclusively to public sector bodies, the example that I would give is during the pandemic, which showed that there were occasions where food had to be procured to buy the public sector from the private sector for individuals such as those shielding during the pandemic. It was widely reported that this food was not nutritionally adequate. A healthy basket guarantee would ensure that if such schemes were to be repeated, which they may do, the most valuable money options would always provide a high level of nutritional adequacy for those who have to rely on them. Furthermore, the priorities of the bill have progressed since we started the bill at stage 1, because it has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis and it could provide a deeper understanding of food insecurity. I call the cabinet secretary. I am of the view that this amendment should not be supported. Again, this is a framework bill in the place for this level of details in the good food nation plans themselves. In addition to that, the term healthy basket guarantee is not defined, so it is therefore not clear what the amendment would place a legal duty on Scottish ministers that requires them to do, so I urge members not to support this amendment. Rachel Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 53. Thank you. Once again, the Scottish Government is not supporting me on what is a proportional measure to ensure that food security is tackled, the cost of living crisis is tackled and that people have the ability to access fresh fruit and vegetables at affordable prices to encourage healthy eating. I will be pressing the amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. My app seems to have failed. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 53 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 47, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move on to group 8 consultation. I call amendment 54 in the name of Colin Smith, grouped with amendments 55, 55A, 59, 60 and 61. Colin Smith, to move amendment 54 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 54, 55, 55A, 59, 60 and 61 in my name would require the consultation process undertaken by Scottish ministers in the development of the national good food nation plan to be as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible. Amendments 54 specifically would enable participation of those with a range of lived experience of food-related issues. As we discussed in previous amendments, food policy is not just a matter for big private food producers. It impacts on everyone's life, such as their health, to decent standards on their workplace, from the impact on an environment to animal welfare. Amendment 55 would amend section 2 of the bill to add a new subsection requiring the Scottish ministers, when Laine had proposed the national good food nation plan before the Scottish Parliament, to also publish a statement summarising the consultation process, undertaking any responses to that consultation and setting how they had regard to those responses in the preparation of the plan. Amendment 55A would require the statement to set out how Scottish ministers had ensured that that consultation was accessible and inclusive. Amendments 59 and 61 are simply consequential to amendment 55 and ensure that the provisions relating to the preparation of the plan in the first place would also apply when revising the plan. Amendment 60 would amend section 6 of the bill as amended to remove a reference to the subsections removed by amendment 52. Given the range of stakeholders with their interest in good food nation plans, it is important that any consultation is comprehensive and inclusive, and those amendments seek to achieve just that. I am happy to move amendment 54 in my name. I will speak to amendment 55 first. If that is agreed to, as I hope it will be, that amendment would, as Colin Smyth has outlined, require Scottish ministers to publish a statement when laying the proposed national good food nation plan, summarising the consultation process, any responses to it, and then setting out how section 2 1b of the bill is amended at stage 2, and what will become section 2 3 of the bill if Rachel Hamilton's amendment 6 is agreed to have been complied with. I support consmouth amendment 55 and the consequential amendments 59 and 61, and I would also support amendment 60. Turning now to amendments 54 and 55A, in Colin Smyth's name, as I set out at stage 2, I do not support making specific provision about who should be consulted as the member has done in his amendment 54. It is our view that it is not practical to list everyone who should be consulted on the face of the bill, and 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 55A would require the statement referred to in amendment 55 to include information outlining the efforts that were made to ensure that the consultation was accessible and inclusive. My view is that that is unnecessary, because the requirement to consult is already very broad, and in combination with amendment 6, lodged by Rachel Hamilton, amendment 55 already requires ministers to set out how they have complied with the requirement to communicate in an inclusive way. I also have concerns that the term accessible is used and amendment 55A is not defined. It is for those reasons that I would urge members not to support amendments 54 and 55A, but I would encourage members to support the other amendments 55, 59, 60 and 61 in this group. Colin Smyth, wind up and press or withdraw amendment 54. The consultation undertaking good food plans by relevant authorities needs to be wide, inclusive and participatory. It needs to enable participation of specific groups such as those vulnerable to food insecurity, people with protected characteristics and those with experience of food-related issues, and that is what those achievements seek to deliver. Earlier, we had a debate over the fact that the Government had given private food companies a statutory authority when it comes to the implementation of good food nations plans, an authority that it will not give to any other stakeholders. The cabinet secretary there has just said that we should not single out a particular sector by failing to support amendment 54, which seeks the views of those up with lived experience such as those with an interest in fair work. The cabinet secretary is doing just that. It is, frankly, hypocritical to say in the implementation that we should single out a particular sector, but when it comes to producing those plans we should not get the views of those with lived experience. I am more than happy to move amendment 54 in my name, because the reality is that the failure of the SNP in Greens to support that amendment really does show a lack of priority when it comes to the development of good food nations plans. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. I would be grateful if you could check if my vote has been registered and if not, I would have voted no. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms White. We will ensure that that is recorded. Mr McPherson, I confirm that you did vote to vote as being recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 54 in the name of Colin Smith is yes, 46, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 9, which is the importance of communicating in particular ways. I call amendment 6, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 6 in my name. Amendment 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 43 in my name all aim to ensure that Scottish ministers and relevant authorities have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. If the Scottish Government wishes to fulfil its ambition to make consultation on the good food nation plans as wide, inclusive and participatory as possible, amendments surrounding inclusive communication should be accepted and welcomed by all parties in the chamber. The amendment set out that regard must be had to this when consulting on the draft good food nation plans, when publishing any document under section 1 to 6 and section 7 to 12, and when consulting on regulations under section 4, 7, 2, C or 10. Amendment 13 provides a definition of the term communicating in an inclusive way. Presiding Officer, would you like me to speak to section 16, 1A of the Bill? Yes, please feel free to speak to all members. That particular section relates to regulation making powers and requires that, before making any regulations under section 4, 7, 2, C or 10, Scottish ministers must consult those as they consider appropriate and have regard to the responses. The purpose and effect of amendment 43 is to amend section 16, 1A to provide that when consulting under section 16, 1A. Scottish ministers must have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way. I speak to amendments 56 and 68 and I welcome the amendments in the name of Rachel Hamilton and can remember you will be supporting those amendments. As I said earlier on this afternoon, the rights of children and young people should be at the heart of Scotland's plans to becoming a good food nation. Amendments 56 and 68 would require Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard to the importance of communicating in a way that is effective in engaging children and young people when consulting on their good food nation plans. I previously introduced proposals at stage 2 that are quite similar to the amendment. Unfortunately, they were not supported at that time. Following further discussion with the cabinet secretary, I believe that we have reached a position where we can agree on those amendments. I hope that members will be able to support amendments 56 and 68 today. Those amendments are intended to ensure that consultation in those circumstances is carried out in a way that takes account of the fact that there may be a need to have a different approach to consultation to encourage children and young people to take part. That is intended to help to ensure that their voices are heard. Ms Lennon, if I could just stop you for a moment, I am very aware of various conversations that are taking place across the chamber. I would be grateful if we could do, Ms Lennon, the courtesy of listening. Please continue. I really appreciate that. I am struggling with my voice today, and we are talking about the importance of communication, which obviously does require good listening skills. I am grateful to the STUC and other organisations that have backed those amendments. They were linked to the other amendments that I have spoken about already today. Those amendments, together with those set out by Rachel Hamilton, are important under strength in the bill. I move amendments 56 and 68 in my name. I call Ariane Burgess to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. I support Rachel Hamilton's amendments that would require Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to have regard to communicating in an inclusive way, as well as Monica Lennon's amendments, which highlight the need to sometimes take a tailored approach to communicate effectively and inclusively with young people. The rain committee report noted that consultations on the good food nation plans should be as inclusive as possible to ensure that the plans draw on a wide range of perspectives, knowledge and experiences—for example, on the lived experience of workers in the food supply chain—those who face food insecurity or those who have first-hand knowledge of food policies in other countries. I welcome those amendments, which extend the principle of inclusivity to many aspects of the good food nation process through inclusive communication. Amendment 40, in my name, provides that the Food Commission, if agreed to, would have to have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way when publishing any documents. That relates to amendments that I will speak to later in the debate in relation to the establishment of the Food Commission—group 11. The purpose of amendment 40 is to provide consistency in relation to the importance of inclusive communication and to embed the importance of inclusive communication in the work of the Food Commission. At stage 2, I asked Rachael Hamilton to work with me prior to stage 3 to find a workable alternative to amendments on inclusive communication lodged at stage 2. As I previously set out, the Scottish Government's approach to consultation will be as open, accessible and inclusive as possible. I am really pleased that Rachael Hamilton has worked with me to find a wording that is workable in practice. I welcome and support those amendments and also Arianne Burgess's related amendment 40. In relation to Monica Lennon's amendments 56 and 68, I have had productive discussions with the member since stage 2, which have included the importance of consulting children and young people. I therefore support amendments 56 and 68 in relation to the importance of communicating in a way that is effective in engaging children and young people. I thank my colleagues in the chamber and the cabinet secretary for engaging so positively. It is quite amazing what we can do when we work together. I also thank Camp Hill, for whom they believe that these amendments are so important, and all of us here today have agreed with them. My party will be supporting all the amendments in this group. I am impressed. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 55, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not move. I call amendment 55A, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 55A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. My app has not worked. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Maggie Chapman. The result of the vote on amendment 55A, in the name of Colin Smyth, is yes, 44, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that amendment 55A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 56, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 6. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question is that amendment 56A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move on to group 10, review and report. I call amendment 57, in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with amendments 69, 70 and 71. Colin Smyth to move amendment 57 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 57, in my name, seeks to ensure that Scottish Ministers are required to report on the outcome from the National Good Food Nations plan and the actions it will take if policies are insufficient to achieve those outcomes. This amendment would mean that there is greater accountability for the Scottish Government in delivering good food nations plans and will ensure that both achievements and any lack of progress can be properly scrutinised by Parliament along with the actions Ministers intend to take to remedy any lack of process. I am therefore happy to move amendment 57, in my name and grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for working with me on the detail of this amendment. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 69 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 69 on the procurement of food by local and relevant authorities aims to champion local produce with rules on local public procurement being strengthened through this Bill. Members will notice the words within that amendment 69, which discuss the provenance, particularly the postcode, and ensure that even suppliers who are small suppliers under £1,000, which are currently not recorded by local authorities, are able to be part of that process and also the spend of local and relevant authorities on their food procurement. Authorities should be understanding of where their food comes from and the local food producers should, where possible, always be preferred to producers from further away. The environmental argument for this is clear. I cannot see why Members would not support this. There is a strong economic case for greater levels of local procurement. The Scottish Government wants to champion a circular economy and spending local resources on local produce, putting money into local businesses for the benefit of local communities, is a fantastic opportunity within this amendment to do so. It is absolutely key to unlocking the potential of this Bill, making it work for authorities, local businesses, the environment and the people who, at the end of the day, will be consuming more high-quality and tritious local produce. To speak to the other amendment in this group 71, I refer members to amendments 62 and 63, and I move the amendment in my name, if I haven't already done so. At stage 2, I have asked Colin Smyth to work with me prior to stage 3 to discuss how to address in the progress reports any areas in which outcomes are not being achieved, and I have had productive discussions with the member on this matter, and I support his amendment 57 in relation to the issue. Turning now to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 69, aside from the additional bureaucratic burden that would place on the relevant authorities to record the information that is required, I am also concerned in relation to the drafting. For example, the definition of locally is that in the local authority area or from within Scotland. It also leaves questions as to how to deal with food comprised of components that originates in multiple locations. Amendment 70 would require relevant authorities' progress reports to include information on how the relevant authority has ensured that the food it procures has been procured locally and sustainably. The principles that are set out in section 7A of the Bill already require each relevant authority to have regard to the role of sustainable food production and the fact that each part of the food system and supply chain plays a significant role in the provision of food. Amendment 70 is aiming to achieve what is already covered, meaning that it is not needed. I also have a concern that the use of the word ensured in that amendment suggests that there is an obligation on relevant authorities to procure local and sustainable food, and that obligation does not currently exist and adding a requirement for relevant authorities to report on how the ensured food is produced locally and sustainably would not be an appropriate way to impose such a duty. It is for those reasons that I do not support amendments 69 and 70. There are also issues with the wording of the amendment 71, similar to those that I mentioned earlier. In relation to amendment 63 in Rachel Hamilton's name, the first part of the amendment would mean that the progress report that the relevant authority must prepare by virtue of section 11 of the Bill would have to set out how the relevant authority has worked with other relevant authorities in its area to share good practice. It is not clear what that would mean in practice. For example, does its area mean an exact same area, areas that overlap with other relevant authorities or areas that are in close proximity or adjacent to one another? The second part of the amendment then appears to link the sharing of good practice with a specific outcome in relation to social care, and it is not clearest to the aim of that wording. Aside from the issues with the wording, I would again reiterate the same point that I made previously about the framework, this being a framework bill, and the place for detail in relation to the specific outcomes that are in the good food nation plans themselves. The progress reports must set out progress being made towards achieving outcomes in the plans, and so there is already a mechanism by which that will be captured. The reference to subsection 3B of section 7 should, I think, be a reference to subsection 4A of section 7. In summary, I would ask members to support Collins' mis-amendment 57, but not to support Rachel Hamilton's amendments 69, 70 and 71. I was listening with interest to the cabinet secretary's response to Rachel Hamilton's amendment, specifically around the amendment that says that the proportion of its food is procured from within the local authority within Scotland, within the rest of the United Kingdom. Can I say to the cabinet secretary that, five years ago, I asked all 32 local authorities what they procured and where they procured it from, and they were able to tell me every single item of food that came into the public procurement process. I do not understand, cabinet secretary, why you object to Rachel Hamilton's amendment 69. Thank you. I call the cabinet secretary to respond to that point. In response to the points that Brian Whittle has raised, I believe that I have answered that in the initial comments that I outlined in response to an outlining the position on Rachel Hamilton's amendments. First of all, I mentioned the point about the bureaucratic burden, but there is also the issue in relation to the definition of the wording that is used in the amendments, too. I call Colin Smith to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 57. Happy to press amendment 57 in my name, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 51. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 58 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 44, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smith to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Colin Smith, already debated with amendment 54. Colin Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move on to group 11, the Scottish Food Commission, and I call amendment 28 in the name of Arianne Burgess, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. Arianne Burgess to move amendment 28 and speak to all amendments in the group. My amendment 28 to 30 and 44 to 46 proposed to add to the bill provisions establishing a food commission to provide an oversight and scrutiny role for the delivery of the provisions of the bill. Considerations of the need for a food commission is part of the Bute House agreement and has also been discussed throughout the bill process with a wide range of views expressed. I welcome the cabinet secretary's approach to working with members of the committee and others to listen to the views expressed on the preferred approach and to working with me and to deliver our shared commitment to the Bute House agreement. My amendments 36, 37 and 38 set out provisions in relation to establishment, functions and independence of the commission. Amendment 39 sets out provisions in relation to the funding and financial assistance that Scottish ministers may provide the commission. The functions set out in amendment 37 of the commission are to, among other things, scrutinise and make recommendations in relation to the good food nation plans and progress reports, conduct research and provide advice to Scottish ministers and relevant authorities in carrying out their duties under the bill. Those provisions aim to capture the range of views expressed as to what the functions of the commission should be and to provide the necessary oversight that the committee and a wide range of stakeholders want to see included in the bill. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Would the member agree with me that it was somewhat disrespectful to the working of the committee that the Government's amendment only came forward at the very last minute that allowed us no scrutiny whatsoever in such an important part of the bill? I thank the member for that intervention and I would say that there has been no disrespect here. There has been a long, on-going, drawn-out process to try to discover the correct approach for this and this is what I am bringing forward today. Amendment 38 sets out that the commission is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government and is intended to provide the level of independent scrutiny that has been one of the main drivers for establishing a food commission. Amendment 39 sets out provisions in relation to funding and financial assistance that may be provided by Scottish ministers. Amendment 46 provides the schedule that sets out the detail with regard to the constitution and operation of the commission. That includes provisions on the status of the commission, the powers it has to carry out its functions, details of the procedures associated with the commission, accountability, the number of members of the commission and information relevant to terms and conditions, remuneration, the appointment of staff, the application of legislation relating to public bodies and the amendments needed as a consequence of setting up the commission. Amendment 28 and 35 are consequential amendments in relation to the Scottish ministers and relevant authorities having regard to recommendations made by the commission when reviewing good food nation plans. Amendment 44 and 45 are consequential amendments that set out that regulations under the section would be introduced by amendment 37 and under part 5 of the schedule, as introduced by amendment 46, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I believe that this is appropriate because the regulations concerning the functions and composition of the commission are of sufficient significance to warrant active parliamentary approval. My amendments set out detailed provisions of the establishment of a statutory food commission on the face of the bill and reflect the views of the committee, parliamentary colleagues from across the chamber and those of our partner organisations such as the Scottish Food Coalition. They also represent the accumulation of a commitment contained in the bute house agreement to consider the need for a statutory body such as the food commission. It is for these reasons that I strongly urge Parliament to accept these amendments. I now turn to Colin Smyth's amendment 37A, which amends my amendment 37A to require that the commission, when carrying out its functions as described in amendment 37, must have regard to the principles set out in section 1A of the bill. This amendment is not needed, given that the food commission has an oversight role, so when carrying out functions such as scrutinising plans and progress reports having regard to the principles would not be required in order to carry out this function, I ask that Parliament does not support this amendment. Rachel Hamilton's amendments 41 and 42 are identical except for the addition of 6F, which is dependent on her amendment 16, in relation to setting out a purpose of the bill being accepted. Miss Hamilton's amendment set out regulation making powers to establish a food commission rather than a set out in my amendments the detail of the constitution and operation of a food commission. It is for these reasons that I ask Parliament not to support the amendments in Rachel Hamilton's name. In summary, I ask members not to support the amendments in the name of Colin Smyth and Rachel Hamilton and for the reasons I have set out strongly urge members to accept the amendments in my name to establish a food commission and I move amendment 28. The fact that Labour supports amendments to establish an independent Scottish Food Commission will not come as a surprise to anyone. It is a key element of my colleague Rhoda Grant's right to food bill in that of Elaine Smith's in the previous Parliament. I myself and Rhoda Grant proposed amendments at stage 2 of the bill to deliver such a commission only for green and SNP MSPs to vote down that independent food commission. I have to say thanks to the relentless campaigning by members of the food coalition. I am pleased that they have forced a U-turn from the Greens and SNP and they are now backing the establishment of a commission and we won't see the Greens ditch yet another manifesto commitment in the way they ditched the commitment to enshrine the right to food through the good food nations bill. However, unfortunately, the failure to do so earlier and the inclusion of such a major element of the bill on the last day for government amendments means that there has been no opportunity for any meaningful scrutiny of the detailed proposal. I ironically something Ariana Burgess complained about regarding less detailed amendments earlier in the debate. There are parts of Ariana Burgess's amendments which are concerning. For example, the provision for as few as three commissioners, something that has never been proposed by anybody during the consultation on the bill. It is important that the commission has expertise across the whole food system and limiting the number of commissioners may restrict its ability to represent all food-related issues. Maybe Ms Burgess can explain in her closing comments why there is a limit on the number of members when we do not, for example, set a limit on the number of members of the Scottish Land Commission. She could also explain who actually supported the limit at any time during the consultation on the bill. I am also concerned that the amendment seeks to limit the work of the commission to that related to the content of the good food nations plan. It is unclear if those plans exclude important matters relating to food policy. The commission may be limited in how it is able to respond. My amendment 37A seeks to address the concern to an extent and focus the work of the commission on the principles that inform the preparation of the plans that are laid out in sub-section 1A and 7A of the bill, irrespective of whether those principles are properly reflected in good food nations plans and are reinforcing the importance of those principles. Ariana Burgess says that amendment is not necessary. That is not the view of the Scottish Food Coalition, which makes a mockery of her claim to be listening to stakeholders. Therefore, I urge members to support my amendment to make sure that the Scottish Food Commission is as effective as possible in providing expert advice and supporting Parliament in its scrutiny of Scotland's progress towards becoming a good food nation. Members will be aware of what seems to be some cross-party consensus on the need for an establishment of the Scottish Food Commission to provide oversight and ensure that we get the most from this bill. Amendment 41, which I move in my name, is based on the evidence provided by Dimbleby's important work on the UK national food strategy. The commission would consult a range of stakeholders from agricultural associations, organisations to prison boards and everything in between. Those stakeholders are best placed to understand what works best for their respective industries and roles within the public, private and third sectors. That will guide the implementation of the good food nation plans and ensure that they deliver for Scotland. We know in the chamber that the Scottish Government have often been found guilty of marking their own homework. Marine Scotland, during the Clyde fisheries fiasco, the OECD assessment of NHS Scotland dealing with poor performance. The SQA's exam chaos is absolutely imperative that those mistakes are not repeated with the Scottish Food Commission and that it is allowed to operate truly independently of the Scottish Government. I would add that I understand that Ariane Burgess has submitted a similar amendment to this. I am absolutely sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. However, given that she represents the party of government, I was disappointed about the manner in which those amendments came about. As I said in my speech in the committee stage 2, I was thankful to the Scottish Government for meeting with me to discuss the matter and offering that collegiate approach to the matter of a Scottish Food Commission, among other things. However, the Greens' decision to vote against any amendments relating to the establishment of a good food commission or the office of a commissioner from the Labour and Conservatives was surprising, and Ariane Burgess did not attempt to approach any Opposition members regarding her amendment on this matter. A long drawn-out approach, as she described it, is just poppycock. It was just that the Greens remained opposed to a commission in stage 1 and stage 2 and remained deathly silent, with a lack of transparency and a refusal to seek input from those evidently sympathetic to the aims of the amendment. It was disappointing and regrettable. We should be taking every opportunity to work together on this bill that has taken six years to come to fruition. We should be taking that approach in all stages where it relates to such common threads and themes that we all agree with in terms of our values. I hope that, going forward, the Greens will think somewhat on their duplicitous approach to amending legislation, particularly given the work that Labour has done on this, on the Labour benches and all the people who have been so involved in this, particularly the Scottish Food Coalition, the WWF and many others. I will move my amendments 41 and 42 in my name. I welcome the change of heart by Arianne Burgesson, the cabinet secretary, who voted against a food commission at stage 2. Although I have tried to cut the wings of the commission before it gets started, I believe that the caliber of the commissioners will make sure that it works. I agree that the process for drafting the amendment was a stitch up, which I suspected and said as much at stage 2. Despite the reassurance to the contrary from the cabinet secretary, that is simply what happened. Can I put on record my thanks to campaigners, the Scottish Food Coalition, the co-op party, Lane Smith and many others, who sustained campaigning and has forced the Government into this very welcome U-turn? At stage 2, a number of members proposed amendments to the bill that would see the introduction of a new Scottish Food Commission to provide greater oversight. At stage 1, the cabinet secretary said that she was not in a position to support the amendments, but the intention was that oversight would be addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. There was, after all, plenty of time to do that for it to come before the committee before stage 2. At that time, I expressed my disappointment at the way in which the process had been handled. The commission could play a pivotal role in supporting the delivery of the good food nation plans and is something a substantial volume of stakeholders have called for. The Scottish Government had had ample time when drafting the legislation to consider the inclusion of a food commission but opted not to do so. If the inclusion of a food commissioner is integral to the governance of the good food nation plans, why not include a commission on the face of the bill so that committee and stakeholders could have properly scrutinised the proposals? It is also hypocritical for Ariane Burgess to criticise others for last minute stage 3 amendments when her own amendments should have been scrutinised at the committee stage. That sets a worrying precedent whereby we are presented with framework legislation that contains limited details, using plans defined in secretary legislation to drive policy development. We then have a major addition to the bill announced days before the stage 3 debate providing limited scope for scrutiny. Whilst the cabinet secretary wrote to the committee to confer her intention to support a good food commission, the letter included no information to assist the Parliament's scrutiny of those legislative proposals. It was only after the request for further information that limited details about the costs, functions and status of the commission but did not allow proper time for scrutiny of those. No, I won't. That follows the very disappointing and what I consider disrespectful approach that the Scottish Government has taken to this bill, which saw the response to the stage 1 report not being received until almost five weeks after it was published and over a month after the stage 1 debate. That response, in my opinion, was less than helpful in assisting the committee in its stage 2 deliberations. I would ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what has been less than satisfactory process followed during this bill. Before I call the cabinet secretary, I am aware of a conversation that has been going on in the chamber for some time, and I would be grateful if it could either be drawn to a close or taken elsewhere. I call the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was looking to start this off in a positive tone, because I do think that it is a really positive of the amendments that we have seen brought forward today. I just do not think that it is fair either the way that this is being characterised or discussed in the chamber by some of the members so far. I think that there has been a real mischaracterisation of the process. Finlay Carson criticises the Government for introducing or for supporting this amendment, but I think that we would have been criticised if we had not done so either. I think that that is what has been important about this process, is that we have listened. That is why we did not support the amendments at stage 2, and that was so that I could have these discussions with other members, with other parties across the chamber, to really get their views, so that we are now in a position where we can support the amendments of Arianne Burgess today. I really just wanted to thank the members of the rain committee and other members who have met with me to discuss those issues, as well as the stakeholders who have made their views on this known throughout the process. I think that it was important that we did that, and we listened to what various members had to say. As I said in a recent letter to the convener of the rain committee, it was important to take the time to consider all the viewpoints relating to oversight. I have had really productive discussions about the preferred option for oversight of the bill, because, of course, there are also a variety of things that we have to take into consideration, looking at the costs and ensuring that there is appropriate oversight and scrutiny of the implementation of the good food nation plans. The Scottish Government had also committed, as part of the Bute House agreement, with the Scottish Green Party to consider the need for a statutory body such as a food commission. I would like to thank Arianne Burgess for working with us to deliver our shared commitment, and I fully support the proposals lodged in her name to set up a statutory food commission. Setting up the food commission is set out in Arianne Burgess amendments will strengthen the good food nation bill and provide that further impetus on Scotland's journey to being a good food nation. I look forward to working closely with other organisations and bodies in the food and drink landscape to achieve that shared goal. Turning to Colin Smyth and Rachel Hamilton's amendments, Colin Smyth's amendment would require the commission to have regard to the principles set out in the bill when exercising its functions, but that amendment is unnecessary because the food commission has an oversight role. When, for example, carrying out a function of scrutinising the plans and progress reports, having regard to the principles is not required or indeed appropriate, it is for that reason that I urge members not to support amendment 37A in Colin Smyth's name. Rachel Hamilton's amendments 41 and 42 are almost identical, with the exception of the inclusion of subsection 6F in amendment 41. I believe that that is to reflect that one is reliant on amendment 16 in the member's name being agreed to. In both of those options, the amendment would mean the establishment of a food commission with the substantive work of doing so being left to regulation making power rather than, as in Arianne Burgess amendment, the detailed provisions for setting up a food commission on the face of the bill. The detail set out in Arianne Burgess amendments in this group would provide the clarity needed on the functions and structure of the food commission, and it is for those reasons that I would ask members not to accept the amendments in Rachel Hamilton's name. In somebody, I welcome and fully support the amendments in Arianne Burgess, the name today, and strongly urge members to support her amendments to establish a food commission. Thank you. I call on Arianne Burgess to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 28. Thank you Presiding Officer. Over a month of taking evidence in RAINN committee, we heard why our food system would benefit from fundamental change and why food commission is needed to motivate, support and oversee the transition. After many constructive discussions with the cabinet secretary, as she has just outlined, Scottish Government and the Greens have agreed that an independent food commission would be best placed to effectively perform this oversight role to help to ensure that good food nation plans really deliver a successful transformation of our food system and supply chains. I am well aware of the need to be exceptionally careful with public spending at this time due to a range of pressures, including the on-going constraints on the Scottish Government budget. That is why this amendment sets out the framework for a lean, streamlined commission with a maximum of four members plus a chair. It is a similar model to the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the ability to expand or contract as required. I am confident that this will be a wise and worthwhile investment that will help local authorities, health boards and the Scottish Government to save time and money in the long run and will deliver significant benefits across portfolio areas. I strongly urge members to accept the amendments in my name to establish a food commission and I move amendment 28. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? My apologies, I did not pick up on that. No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Natalie Dawn. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app did not work, but I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Dawn. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 28, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes 79, no 1. There were 25 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 51. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Siobhan Brown. It wasn't working and I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Brown. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Collette Stevenson. Had I been able to fall out of voting, no. The result of the vote on amendment 62, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes 45, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 63 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 17. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Point of order, Stuart McMillan. Correct, and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr McMillan. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Brian Whittle. Sorry, my app wouldn't connect. Had I voted yes. Thank you, Mr Whittle. We will ensure that it is recorded. That was a yes. I'll go to Mr McPherson first and then I'll come to you, Mr Gibson. Point of order, Mr McPherson. The voted no. Thank you, Mr McPherson. I'll ensure that it is recorded. That was a no from Mr McPherson. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you. Again, there was no connection and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that it is recorded. I call Anna Sarwar for a point of order. Apologies, brilliant officer. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Sarwar. We'll ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 63 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 46, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Brian Whittle. Already debated with amendment 17. Brian Whittle to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Ben McPherson. I was unable to connect again. I would have voted no. Could you please repeat that, Mr McPherson? Unfortunately, I was unable to connect again and I would have voted no if I'd been able to. Thank you. We'll ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Ash Regan. Sir, my act did not connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Regan. We'll ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 3 in the name of Brian Whittle is, yes, 42, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of Beatrice Wishart. Already debated with amendment 17. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Angus Robertson. The act didn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Robertson. We'll ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Jim Fairlie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My act didn't connect and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I will ensure that it is recorded. I just ask members for some silence because we're finding it difficult to hear up here now. I would be loath to miss anyone's vote. Can I call Ruth Maguire for a point of order? Presiding Officer, could you just check whether my vote registered? I'm unsure. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Maguire. It hadn't registered, but we'll ensure that it's recorded. Point of order, Michael Matheson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My act didn't work. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Matheson. We'll ensure that it's recorded. I call Natalie Dawn for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My act didn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Dawn. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 29, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, is yes, 45, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 64, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 17. Monica Lennon to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Ben Macpherson. I was unable to connect and we devoted no. Thank you, Mr Macpherson. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 64, in the name of Monica Lennon, is yes, 46, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 65, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 17. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 65, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 45, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 66, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 17. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 66, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 44, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 88, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 4. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 4. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Y cwestiw ni'n sylw The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Paul Cain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I couldn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Cain. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 30, in the name of Roda Grant, is yes, 45, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 31, in the name of Roda Grant, already debated with amendment 21. Roda Grant, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We will move to a division. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Craig Hoy. Apologies, Presiding Officer. My arm couldn't refresh. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Hoy. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 31, in the name of Roda Grant, is yes, 44, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 32, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 21. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. Couldn't connect to the system. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 32, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 45, no 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 33, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 21. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 34, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 21. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. I could not connect to the digital platform and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Paul O'Kane. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I couldn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr O'Kane. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, John Swinney. I couldn't connect to the app and I would have voted no, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Swinney. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 34, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 18. No, 62. There were 25 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 67, in the name of Monica Lennon. Already debated with amendment 21. Monica Lennon to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Finlay Carson. We'll to vote. I would have abstained. Thank you, Mr Carson. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My vote is recorded no, but I thought I pressed yes. I don't know that there's a lot that can be done, but I dislike it on the record that I had hoped to vote yes for the amendment. Ms Duncan-Glancy, you are quite correct. There's not a lot that can be done now, but your comment is on the record. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 67, in the name of Monica Lennon, is yes, 17, no, 65. There were 25 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 68, in the name of Monica Lennon. Already debated with amendment 6. Monica Lennon to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 69, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 57. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order. Once again, you could not connect to the digital platform. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 69, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 42. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 70, in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 57. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Point of order. Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My voting app failed during that vote. I would have voted. Can I just ask again, Mr Mountain, how you would have voted? Yes, I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Mountain. We'll ensure that's recorded. Colin Smyth, point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I couldn't connect to the app and I would have voted yes if I had done so. Thank you, Mr Smyth. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 70, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 44. No, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 71, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 57. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order. Kevin Stewart. My app has failed, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Stewart. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 71, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 44. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 35, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order. Arrian Burgess. Presiding Officer. My app didn't work, and I didn't vote on my own amendment, but I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Burgess. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order. Ben Macpherson. The connection did not allow me to stipulate the correct vote, and I would have voted yes. Fair with me a moment, Mr Macpherson. I can confirm that your vote did register. The result of the vote on amendment number 35, in the name of Arrian Burgess, is yes, 80. No, one. There were 26 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 12, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 36, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 36, in the name of Arrian Burgess, is yes, 81. No, zero. There were no abstentions. My apologies. There were 26 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 37, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. I call amendment 37A, in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 28. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. It moved. The question is that amendment 37A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 37A, in the name of Colin Smyth, is yes, 45. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call upon Arrian Burgess to press or withdraw amendment 37. Press, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 37, in the name of Arrian Burgess, is yes, 81. No, 0. There were 26% abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 38, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 39, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 48, in the name of Arrian Burgess, already debated with amendment 6. Arrian Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 41, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 28. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order. Kenneth Gibson. I am unable to connect to the digital platform, and I voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. We will ensure that record. An additional no. The result of the vote on amendment 41, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 42, no 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 42, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 28. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 42, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 41, no 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 13, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 43, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 14, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 4. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 44, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 45, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 46, in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 28. Ariane Burgess, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. Point of order, Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've voted yes. Thank you, Mr Bibby. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Collette Stevenson. My app's bros. Had it been working, I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Stevenson. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 46, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is yes, 80, no one. There were 26 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed and that ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware at this point in proceedings, I'm required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the Good Food Nation Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a super majority to be passed at stage 3. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business. That concludes decision time and we'll now move on to members' business. I'd be grateful if members who are doing so could leave the chamber quietly.