 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the sixth meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural environment committee in 2022. Before we begin, just want to ask to all the committee members using electronic devices to please turn them to silent. Our 你time of business this morning is an evidence session on the good food nation Scotland Bill. I welcome to the meeting Mary Gouzre on the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands. We have Scottish Government officials Ashley Cook, Head of Food Policy, Tracy McColloughn, Head of Good Food Nation team, giving evidence with us here in the room. George Burgess, Deputy Director of Food and Drink remotely, and James Hamilton, a beggar pardon. James is with us. If the solicitor for the Scottish Government legal directorate will be in the room with us today, so invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. I'm delighted to be here today to speak about the Good Food Nation Bill, which is an important and long-awaited step as we deliver our good food nation ambitions. First of all, I'd just like to thank those who've appeared to give evidence to the committee and those who have also submitted written evidence. In reading and listening to the evidence given, I absolutely appreciate not just the depth of knowledge but also the real passion from experts across the food system. When you look at the breadth of evidence that the committee has taken and who you've heard from, it's clear to see just how fundamental food and food policy is and how it connects and impacts across so many different aspects of our lives. That's health and wellbeing, education and the environment. I really look forward to the committee's analysis and views on the evidence that you've heard. Our journey to becoming a good food nation has been a long one, which was unfortunately disrupted by the pandemic. It's also a journey that is very much already under way. Our vision is that we want Scotland to become a good food nation where people from every walk of life take pride and pleasure in and benefit from the food that they produce, buy, cook, serve and eat each day. A good food nation is a nation where dietary related diseases are declining. It's also a nation where people have ready access to the healthy, nutritious and local food that they need. Being a good food nation means that our produce is environmentally sound and it also means that we ensure the sustainability of our world-class food industry. The good food nation bill is an important step on this journey. This legislation underpins the work that we're already doing. Our on-going work on the good food nation includes initiatives on environmental protection to the local economy, workers' rights, health, biodiversity, education, public procurement and much more. This bill will put that work on a legislative footing throughout the good food nation plans. The Government will be required to set out its stall for improving the food system, setting out the outcomes that we want to achieve and measure and reporting on that progress. That will ensure that momentum is sustained in making the improvements in food related outcomes that I know we all want to see. In being a framework bill, I know that it can at first glance appear narrow in focus and perhaps a little dry. However, it's this bill that gives us the important tools that we need to continue improving the food system and embedding that change for the long term. It also ensures that there's greater coherence of policy across Scottish Government and makes the necessary links to the decision-making delivery of services at the local level. I know that there has been discussion in these evidence sessions and in the wider food community on the right to food. The Scottish Government believes that the best approach is to bring together a whole host of rights under future human rights legislation. While such legislation is crucial, it is this good food nation bill that puts in place the long-term planning that we need to make both the practical and the cultural changes that we need to make human rights around food a reality for everyone in Scotland. It's only with the buy-in and co-operation of others that we will see that change. We require input and action from our farmers and food producers that grow and make our food, our retailers and the wider food industry, the third sector who care passionately about affecting real change, local government and the health service who deliver key services and indeed of course all consumers. It's my intention that this collective experience and expertise is used in creating the future food plans and setting ever ambitious targets and creating a cultural shift in how we think about food. I'm really looking forward to discussing the bill and food policy here with you today, but I'm also genuinely excited about the next stage in our journey to becoming a good food nation as we put and develop the long-term plans for improving the whole system at both the national and local levels. Thank you very much cabinet secretary. We've now moved to questions. We've got around 90 minutes for questions and I'll kick off. So can you tell us in a nutshell what do you consider a good food nation? I hope I've outlined some of that in the vision that I articulated there in my opening comments and it's really essentially a good food nation is where everyone has who is knowledgeable about food and they know about where their food comes from they appreciate that but it's also vital and crucially important that people can access healthy and locally produced food that's been produced in an environmentally sustainable way so it's about the access to that, the knowledge, the understanding and that is a right that everybody in Scotland should have. You touched on that you thought that some people might be disappointed that this was just a framework and I think that's maybe why some of the witnesses have said that the bill lacks ambition because there's no indication really what that ambition is within the bill. Much of that understands going to come through secondary legislation so at this time it's very difficult to decide whether the bill's actually going to deliver. One of the witnesses suggested that it's a bit like putting the internet into a box so we understand there's right from soil quality right up to the nutrition of people in old folks homes or as we said the right to food or the cost of food but why is so much being left to secondary legislation where Parliament can't actually scrutinise that and it could have been much of the detail could be on the face of the bill. I understand from listening to the evidence the concerns that have been expressed by people in their views on feeling that they've expressed in relation to the think that the bill is too narrow in its scope but essentially that's what we would come back to that this is a framework bill that underpins the work that we're all already doing and it puts the good food nation plans on a legislative basis and it's the plans that will contain the detail of that and of course I know that we'll probably come on today to discuss the participation, the scrutiny and how all of that will will take place because of course parliamentary scrutiny of that and throughout that process is going to be important to that too but I think given the nature of some of the policies that we're talking about here you know we've set out in section one of the bill that the plans will contain the outcomes that indicators the the measurements of what we're looking to achieve so there is the intention there behind all of that and it's the plans that will ultimately set that out and set out how all of that will be achieved. So the plan that the Government pulls together is going to be critical in this and setting an idea of where local authorities might pitch their plans do you think that plan should come before Parliament for approval before you know it the part of legislation should include Parliament's approval for that Government plan? Well there will be the consultation and the development of the draft plans as well and of course in the bill as it's set out at the moment there's the periodic chances for the review of the plans which would take place every every two years we have to report on that as well so I think that what we've set out in the bill provides that opportunity for scrutiny but of course I'm not going to pre-judge or pre-empt the committee stage one consideration of all the evidence that you've heard and of course I'm happy to look at that report when it's being published and to hear any particular recommendations that the committee has in that regard. Thank you. Karen Adam. Thank you community. I apologize that I was waiting for my microphone to come on there. Good morning cabinet secretary. I'd like to ask over the last few weeks I've really been trying to dig down into the reasoning behind some people's desire for targets on this bill and you know over the evidence sessions I've been seen more and more how this could end up kind of leading it by the nose and how targets can actually end up quite meaningless in this past ever changing political and socioeconomic landscape really. I visited a food bank on Monday for example and I was told that after April they're going to be looking at an astronomical increase in demand for the food bank services within the area so in terms of targets and what I've heard about targets and how they can be quite detrimental to this kind of plan that we're looking at what could you see that we could use as markers for outcomes rather than setting targets? It's been really interesting to listen to the evidence that the committee's heard in relation to this and again that's where I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome and the stage 1 report that the committee produces in relation to targets because I know that there's been a lot of contrasting opinions that have been expressed in relation to this and in relation to the questions that you've posed as well and it's been really interesting going through some of the evidence in that regard and the concern that's been expressed by some of the people who'd given evidence that you know exactly as you've suggested that it could be either leading by the nose but also the concern that the bill could just be because this covers so many different areas as we've heard and as you've taken evidence from so many different stakeholders too it could just be one long list of targets and then that then becomes the focus rather than the fundamental change that we want to see but again even if you had a narrower range of targets again that could become more of the focus of where the work goes again rather than driving that fundamental change. We also didn't want to put targets on the face of the bill because this is a situation that's evolving now these targets may may change over time and we want to ensure that we have that if that's within primary legislation the targets could become or could go out of date quite quickly which means that we would then have to amend primary legislation to change that so I think that setting out the outcomes that we want to see and doing that in the plans is the most appropriate place to do that as well but again the evidence has been really interesting in relation to that for example I know that Food Standards Scotland had given evidence about the Scottish dietary goals they would want to see that as an outcome there so I think that there are a broad range of areas that we would want to cover and again just reflecting back on the evidence and the evidence that Robin Gurley gave in relation to that and the targets to where he'd said that you know he takes the point that targets would be helpful but that's not what the bill is about and he's outlined that it's talking about seeking things that will drive change in the food system rather than hitting individual targets and I know that those were also concerns that were expressed by the local authorities when they'd given evidence to the committee as well so I hope that that helps to explain why we've proposed to have the outcomes and measures within the plans rather than on the face of the bill itself. Thank you. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Just to be clear are you planning to look at targets within secondary legislation because I understand that the secondary legislation will be developed in parallel with the main bill so he's saying that whilst targets may not be on the face of the bill there may be targets in the secondary legislation? No, well it's actually in section 1 and if you look at section 1 and subsection 3 in there it talks about what the national good food nation plan must set out and within that we've said that it needs to set out the main outcomes in relation to food related issues. It also must set out indicators and other measures by which progress and achieving outcomes can be assessed as well as the policies which Scottish ministers intend to pursue in order to secure the achievement of the outcomes so that's the work that would be put in the development of the plans. Thank you. I'll get supplementary from Mercedes. Hi, good morning. On the topic of targets we heard from the Scottish Food Coalition that they would like to see high level targets within the bill around things like a living wage and collective bargaining rights for food workers by 2025, halving childhood obesity by 2030 and halving food waste by 2030. I appreciate what you've just said about targets within the bill and that the national plan will need to set out indicators and measures. Do you agree that targets such as those suggested by the Scottish Food Coalition should be included within those indicators and measures for the bill? They could, albeit I met with the Scottish Food Coalition recently as well as looking at the evidence that they had provided to the committee. All of the issues that you've raised there and the targets that they've talked about and the measures there are critically important and are obviously areas that we would look to address. Again, as I've set out there, it's the outcomes that we would want to set out in the plans themselves where we would look to address a lot of those issues because we do have a lot of targets that are out there at the moment and I know that that was something that had been highlighted in the evidence as well, so it's about well collating those targets but looking at particularly what I'm interested in is how we deliver the outcomes of what we want to see and I think that that's of critical importance. I suppose there's a concern. We've heard that food workers in particular are facing food poverty, so the people that are producing our food are often not able to afford it themselves. I don't think that any of us want to see that continuing and for the buck to just be passed down to back and forth between different agencies or different levels of government, so it would be really good to have a very clear commitment from the Government today, if possible, that you do want to see collective bargaining rights for food workers and you do want to see them paid a real living wage. I would just want to reiterate that of all the issues that you've raised there and this is not the case of passing the buck, I mean if anything what we're trying to do through the good food nation bill and on this framework legislation is the complete opposite of that. We want to provide a coherent basis of working across government and between different public authorities as well and that's where I mean for example I've re-established the ministerial working group on food. We haven't yet had our first meeting because I was interested in obviously getting the stage 1 report from the committee and looking at the outcomes of that before we met to make sure that we are addressing these issues across government as well, so I just want to give you an assurance on that point and of course all the issues that you've talked about are critically important and I recognise some of the points that you've made there that have been raised through the evidence that the committee has heard too but of course we're committed to addressing those points. Rachel Hamilton your comments there about targets because how will the good food nation bill actually change Scotland's relationship with food if we don't have targets that address childhood obesity and halving that by 2030? So for example would the Scottish Government be open to looking at the framework as in say the example of the islands act where issues were dealt with within the act however it was still a framework built so would you be open to looking at ways that actually targeted approach could shape the way that local authorities deliver and change Scotland's relationship with food? That's the thing again that's what I'm more than happy to consider these issues and look at the committee's stage 1 report and any recommendations that you make in that regard too because these are critical issues that we want to try and address we want to work across government to address these issues I mean you talked about the obesity targets there but again this is some of the detail that of course will be part of the plans and where we hope to address a lot of these issues as well as setting out the measurements to really monitor the progress and assess ourselves against the measures that we're taking in that regard. I wonder if I could ask on a similar theme to the question of how we assess what local authorities are doing following the publication of the plan the phrase that you have is have regard to and I think that that's got a well understood legal meaning but I just wonder if you could say a bit more about what you would understand your meaning of that to me? Well essentially I mean it does have a legal definition so I'll probably pass over to that point if you want to give a further explanation on that James. The legal meaning of have regard to is an obligation to take the thing you require to have regard to into account when you're making the decision following short of an obligation to comply with that or to make that your main consideration or your most important consideration so the test is essentially that the decision maker has to have that thing in mind when he's making the decision. There are a number of successful challenges where public authorities and ministers have lost legal challenges on the basis they've not taken things into regard to things properly so it's a meaningful legal test and there's plenty of examples of ministers being held to account on that basis so essentially it's a requirement to have something in mind where you make a decision but it's not necessarily the main consideration for you, the only consideration that you use, that's essentially the requirement to have the consideration to that. If I could just follow up on that as well I think in terms of how we could demonstrate that we've also complied with that and obviously given regard to that that's something that could also be set out in the good food nation plans. For example if it was in relation to a function in question whether that was given grants that could be expressed in the grant paperwork as to how we've given regard to that. If it was legislative purpose as well that could be specified in the policy note too so I think there's different ways that we could demonstrate that we have given regard to the good food nation plan. Thank you, that was a very helpful legal explanation I wasn't trying to put to the Government on the spot about legal explanations but that's very helpful to have and I was just keen to know as well you've said a bit about you know how you would hold yourselves to that standard so I just wonder how you would assess whether others in the public sector for instance in local authorities were living up to the standards that you were setting. Again that's of course when I've talked about in the act the different outcomes and the monitoring that we would want to see and local authorities will have the exactly the same obligations but of course we would be continuing to liaise with local authorities as well throughout the development of the plans and to ensure that we have those effective mechanisms in place. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, convener. We have specified functions in the bill, do you have any examples of specified functions under sections 4 and 10 that the Scottish Government anticipates will be set out in secondary legislation? Yes, so we envisage these primarily being for subject areas and I know that I've written to the committee and outlined some examples in that regard in relation to for example whether that's food in schools or community growing but I don't know whether Tracy would want to come in and give just elaborate on some of those examples that I've previously written to the committee about but I'd also be happy to provide further examples of how that might work in practice if the committee would find that helpful but I'll hand over to Tracy at this point. Yes, I think we spoke about this last time when we were giving evidence from the official session so the specified functions would be either by a description of a function or by a reference to legislation so with school food it could be something like the provision of food in schools or provision of a school meal but it could also have very specific reference to pieces of legislation as well and those were set out in more detail in the examples that was in the letter the cabinet secretary sent to the committee. We're working on others in the background in relation to things such as food waste or food insecurity and animal welfare and we'll be producing those worked examples to a company of the two that we've already provided. I don't know how much more detail you would like at the stage. That's absolutely fine, it's being worked in as we will all affect. Oh yes, it's definitely being done in the background. We're working with policy colleagues to get those worked examples up in preparation for those being set out to specified functions in the secondary legislation. Thank you, convener. Following on from the convener's earlier questions about consultation for the secondary legislation and also what element of parliamentary scrutiny the Parliament could have on this and I note that it's currently looked at as a negative procedure as opposed to the affirmative procedure so I was just wondering what the thinking was behind that and if you could perhaps elaborate a bit more on that. No problem, first of all I would say that it's been outlined as a negative procedure because these could be quite detailed and lengthy lists and something that we may want to modify over time as well so that's the most effective way of being able to modify that if we were to make changes to the list of specified functions too. In relation to when the detail of that would come out, the intention is that the draft specified functions would be available as part of the consultations that would take place on the national food plans as well so of course people would be able to make their opinions known on that and again with that being in secondary legislation if there were any particular opinions expressed about that through the consultation any proposals for other specified functions that should form part of that list, we then have the mechanism to be able to modify or amend that as well. I don't know if James are officials would have any further information to add on that point. We consider that negative is the appropriate procedure for that, taking into account the sorts of things that are usually reserved for affirmative procedures like creation of criminal offences and provisions that have significant effects on individuals or creation of new charges and things like that so having regard to the importance of the parliamentary time, the cabinet secretary's time, this is more of a detailed technical provision that is more appropriate for the negative procedure. Thank you for those answers. You will have read the evidence that we've had with regards to participation and people wanting to be involved and also the oversight that you've touched on as well and I'm just wondering if there's perhaps an opportunity to look at this and rethink the negative procedure to bring it into an affirmative procedure. I mean again for the reasons outlined by James there I mean that's why it's been set out as the negative procedure and you know as I'd intimated him a previous response that it's because of the detailed and lengthy list that there would be and obviously that would form part of the consultation and we'd be happy to take views on that too so I don't know if that answers your question. I mean in relation to participation and our willingness to listen to that I mean obviously I'm explaining the rationale of why we've arrived at the position here but of course I really want to read what the recommendations and the conclusions that the committee has reached on this as well and to consider well if there are improvements to be made to fully consider that so yes of course we will consider any recommendations that are made. What plans do you have to consult on the secondary legislation if it's again if it's going to be running parallel what are your plans right now to consult how broadly are you going to consult on the secondary legislation given that it's hugely important that again we're looking at a framework bill but the secondary legislation that's going to be the guts of the bill if you like what are your plans to consult? As I've said that would form part of the consultation that would be undertaking on the national food plans so it's not that we would be consulting on the regulations in and of itself but that would form part of the consultation and of course we would listen to any responses that come back as a result of that. So you're going to consult on what's going to be in the plans rather than what's likely to be in the... Well the regulations would be set out prior to that sorry if I've not been clear in setting that out I mean again I don't know if there's any further information. Can you just set out exactly what the process is so from today when do you plan to consult on the secondary legislation and how broad will that consultation be? As I say we wouldn't be consulting on the secondary legislation in and of itself the regulations would be set out we would set out the specified functions and preparation of the plans and it's that that would go out to consultation. So it's maybe a daffladi question not quite understanding so the secondary legislation will be put in place and the affirmative method will be used to approve it through Parliament and then at that stage there's no consultation on that secondary legislation up to that point the consultation will only happen on what needs to be in the plans If you're speaking about the instrument that would be brought forward in relation specifically to the specified functions obviously there's a number of different instruments that we have in there some for the affirmative some for the negative procedure but again that's why we've set it out the way that we have so there wouldn't be a specific consultation as planned at the moment on the specified functions the specified functions would be set out in regulations that would then form part of the consultation that we when we go out to consult on the national food plan but again the purpose of that being in secondary legislation is that we can take opinions on the specified functions that we've set out and look to modify it based should there be any recommendations for proposed changes throughout that process. Okay thank you. Aran Burgess. Thanks. Good morning cabinet secretary. I'm going to change themes a little bit and introduce the theme around relevant authorities and the duties to produce plans and I've got two parts from a question so the local authorities and health boards have been identified as relevant authorities required to produce good food nation plans but given that most local areas are covered by both local authority and a health board I'm concerned that this will result in competing or contradictory plans for the same area. I agree with sterling council suggestion that local bodies should work together to produce a single plan and I'd like to hear your views on the idea of asking local authorities and health boards to work together to produce a single good food nation for each health and social care integration partnership area. Again I'm more than happy to hear if there are particular recommendations that the committee has in that regard and to consider these. I mean the reason why the relevant authorities have been set out the way that they are in the in the bill as it stands is that local authorities and health boards are the public bodies whose remit has a considerable impact in relation to policies on food. Now I know that there had been some suggestions there about integrated joint boards but of course we feel that the way that we've set this out at the moment and is setting out the authorities as we have given the impact that they have on food policies that was the most reasonable and logical place to start as well. I also think in relation to integrated joint boards I think it was perhaps food train who talked about the impact of food on social care which of course is critical throughout all of this as well as bearing in mind the other proposals for reform of social care which will be taking place in this session of the Parliament too and for us just to be mindful of that but again we do also have within the bill that through secondary legislation we can amend the authorities and again I'm more than happy to consider any recommendations that the committee has in that regard. Thanks for that and then the other part my question is is can I also ask if the government has identified possible criteria for deciding which other public bodies might be designated as specified public authorities in the future? Not at the moment like I say I hope of it being able to explain the rationale of why we've set out the local the relevant authorities as we have but again we have the power to amend or to change that and if the committee have any particular recommendations of authorities that they think perhaps should be added then of course I'll be happy to consider that. Thanks very much. Just on that point the if an additional public authority to is to be added it's subject to the negative procedure but DPL are suggested that that sub-ledge should be subjected to the affirmative procedure to allow extra scrutiny. What should we use on that? Again if that's the recommendations of the committee then of course I'll consider that. Okay Jenny Minto. Thank you convener. Really just following on from Ariane's question we heard some evidence last week about how the bill will give us the opportunity to perhaps think differently about good food and making the best use of public investment in public sector food. So I suppose just exploring a wee bit more about other organisations whether it's other public bodies or third sector bodies that could be described as specified public authorities to take consideration and to do plans. I also touched in my earlier question about collaboration and the importance of lots of different organisations work together which Ms Burgess's question touched on as well so I'm interested to see how you see the act working or the plans working to support that collaboration. Absolutely and I think that's a point that came out strongly in all the evidence that the committee had heard about you know the collaboration right throughout whether that's you know the food and drink industry and I think so many people emphasise the importance of collaboration and that's one point I would want to highlight is that you know we're not developing all of this in isolation we of course have regular contact with our stakeholders with the food and drink industry and with many of the people that you'll have taken evidence from as well and we'll obviously continue to work with them because it's within our interests and it's also within everyone's interests that we all want to get this right again you know the passion that came across from the people that gave evidence to the committee was so apparent and I know from the from the committee yourselves we all have an interest in this and we all want to make sure that we are delivering on the good food nation ambitions so collaboration within that is absolutely key and again when it comes to the relevant authorities or how these and who would be looking to provide a plan we have the that's why that's built into the bill that we can add to that and more than happy to to consider any suggestions the committee has in that regard of people that could well be considered relevant authorities but of course we have the power there which means that we can go on to consider that a future date as well as the suggestions and as we continue to do this work and if there are other bodies that throughout that become more apparent that should be should be added and specified as relevant authorities perfect I also think it's important to remember as well that one size doesn't fit all when we're looking at plans across different local authorities and different health boards and I suppose as well when we're looking at outcomes as well and outcome may be achieved differently in my own constituency of Argyll and Bute that might be achieved in Glasgow city you're absolutely right and that was one point that took away from the evidence as well just the importance of the the flexibility around that and of course everybody's coming from a different starting point here you know some people and like for example the local authorities that you'd heard from where Argyll and Bute and from East Ayrshire as well and a lot further along that road and have undertaken that journey and but when they were talking about the importance of flexibility because it's it's perhaps been slightly easier in some regards but for some local authorities as what it will be for others and trying to reach a good for nation ambition so I think that's what it's important there's there's the flexibility within those plans for local authorities to to really establish what the outcomes could be and that is meaningful outcomes for them. I can't remember if it maybe was Jane Jones from Argyll and Bute who talked about and forgive me if I get that wrong or if it was in someone else's evidence about you know if we were to set a target for example of 60 percent in relation to procurement now that might be okay for some but it would be an absolutely enormous challenge for others so I think that's where what we've set out and the way we've set that out in the bill provides for that that flexibility and recognising local local circumstances too. Thank you. Just very briefly, how would you consider student bodies so refectories wherever in halls or residents you know they work on a more or less a private basis but it's public funding often that goes towards them should student bodies be subject to producing a plan? I mean what we're looking at here is in relation to public authorities but of course that's not to say that there wouldn't be an impact on private industry as a result of that I mean in relation to I'd be happy to get back to the committee on that specific example if you think that would be helpful or how that might be considered or what the impact might be. Yeah I appreciate it because we certainly something came up in conversation it's that they're delivering a public service with through public funding but potentially our arms line so it'd be interesting to find out how that might be might be dealt with. Thank you. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks convener and good morning cabinet secretary. Actually my second question follows on from your response to Jenny Minto about asking about you know ensuring that it's not a one size fits all and recognising that some local authorities have progressed more with food related policies than others so I suppose my question around resources how will the government ensure that all local authorities are enabled to achieve what they're being required to do given the the variations and where they're at at the moment. Yeah you're absolutely right I mean we've set out in the financial memorandum some of the costs that we expect to be incurred through that and that's been primarily in relation to the production of a good foundation plan but obviously as I've just said in the previous response as well everybody's at a different stage of this journey so implementation for some may not be as much of an issue as it may be for others because if you're just starting out that journey then you need to to find out how you're going to make this work and how that work is going to be resourced but as for other local authorities they've already built that in so we are continuing in discussions with COSLA about any of course I should mention at that point as well we don't know it's not possible for us to quantify or to put in the financial memorandum what the on-going costs may be of implementation of a plan because obviously each plan may be different and we don't know what the what the on-going implications of that would be but that's where on-going discussions with COSLA will be important in that regard to ensure the authorities have the right resource in place but like I say some have been able to do that already in-house and through the other pieces of work that they've been involved with as well. And then when we took evidence from Public Health Scotland we heard it was difficult to comment on the possible costs for health boards because there was little detail about what the plans should include so I wonder if you could expand on the reasons why and it's probably a similar answer to the local authorities but why the financial memorandum doesn't anticipate any additional cost or activity on the part of health boards and how would the good food nation plans interact with existing NHS plans? That's the thing there wasn't any specific the costs were expected to be negligible in that particular regard in relation to health boards because they already have a number of policies in place in relation to food but I don't know if officials would want to elaborate on that in terms of some of the policies that they already have in place. Yeah so when we were drafting the financial memorandum we were working with colleagues within the Scottish Government that worked directly with health boards and that was the information that was sent back to us was that the there was a lot of structure already in place where they felt that there would be negligible costs because they would already be doing that work. I mean obviously as we move along through the process of the bill we are keeping in touch with that team in order to ensure that once there's clarity as to what will be in the good food nation plans and further discussions on that it may be that the health boards will be able to be with colleagues in the Scottish Government and provide further information that would be more detailed as to what it is they already do and what it is they think that the additional requests on them from the the bill or the act whether that would have any further financial implication for them but at this stage the work that we've done is as the feedback we've got from that and the information we've got back from the colleagues that work directly with health boards is that the cost was being negligible. Thank you. So just to clarify the health boards have come back and said that they agree with you that there won't be financial implications of producing a plan or my fear is that the plans may be restricted given a health board's budget and they might say well we would like to be that in the plan but actually we can't implement that and the plan would suggest that we should implement it. So are you saying that health boards have come back and said we don't have any concerns about the cost or resources of implementing or putting a plan together but then in the future implementing it? The way it has worked is that we have polycolleagues that liases with the health boards so they haven't replied directly to us the way that we do it is we work through the colleagues that work with the health boards on more directly on a day-to-day basis and during the drafting of the financial memorandum we asked several times is this correct that the costs will be negligible and the response was always the same from that team but I think we do need to take into account that we're setting out in the bill what the bill is a framework bill so that's the information that they have at the moment so I think it's possibly once there's more detail on the good funation plans we will have to go back again and just so that they can clarify whether what they thought the bill was setting out is actually the reality of what the good funation plans will set out in terms of the health boards so I think there would have to be an on-going discussion about that in order to make sure that that assessment of the financial costs to them are negligible so at the moment they are not responding because they really can't because they don't know what it might entail so it's not that they don't think there's any cost they're just unwilling to see what those costs might be because of the uncertainty of obligations in the plan I don't know that that is the case I mean we asked for information and that's what we got back I mean I wouldn't want to be putting words into their mouth that they is that that they don't know the we requested information by the liaison and we know we clearly set out what the draft bill was and that was the response that we got so it is quite concerning the financial memorandum suggests there's no cost and we're not confident that that's actually the case that's that that is quite concerning in relation to that it's probably the same in what we've set out in relation to local authorities in terms of that's for the preparation of the plan itself and again because the health boards already have these plans in place that's where the costs would be expected to be negligible but much as in the same way we've been continuing to discuss that with COSLA the intention would be to of course to continue that discussion when it comes to the to the implementation and once we have a better idea because obviously each plan may be different so it's not possible for us to quantify all those costs at the moment okay thank you ed gem fairly thanks convener um he actually touched on it before i was one of the things i was going to ask was the reasons why the financial memorandum didn't include the implementation of all the costs um but one of the things that struck me was we've already got and we talked about this earlier we've got a number of local authorities who are well ahead of the game started their journey 10 years ago and they took the money from hungry for success and recipe for success and they used it in the way that it was required to be used in order to improve the food offering so if other local authorities are going to need funding will they be given that additional funding or is a case of the funding was already provided with recipe for success and hungry for success previously and you know they're going to have to catch up how do you see that working well that's the thing it's it's hard because you know as we've talked about everybody's at a different stage and without knowing the detail of what's going to be in local authority plans it's not possible to quantify at this stage but again that's where the ongoing discussion that we'd be having with local authorities in cosla will be important to see if that what if any extra resource would be required because uh some local authorities already have that built in through the fidualated work that they've been doing you know you've cited the example there there's also the funding that's already allocated to local authorities to support um fidualated matters whether that's through free school meals and things like that too so again we would be having that ongoing dialogue to identify if there were going to be any challenges there when it comes to the implementation of the plans okay so we've got local authorities in the past who have been given funding used it in exactly the way we want it to be used east air should have obviously been the most obvious example and i better not forget my colleague Jenny Minto's argile because she's very proud of the fact that argile are doing so argile and view are doing so well um but in relation to the the set of the plans will there be something that the government can say this is where you need to be because they've been given money before and haven't done it so how do we ensure that they actually do it this time and make it happen because we've heard in evidence you may far harder for people in Glasgow to set out a plan to get them up to standard than what it is in somebody like rural Persia so i presume the government will have some way of saying that this is what we require you to do is that correct well that's where i mean obviously we'd be looking to publish the the national good food nation plan in advance so that i'm not expecting local authorities to publish theirs at the same time so that we can obviously help set out and provide that coherence and the expectations of of what we would we would hope to see and be expecting from from local authorities in that regard while at the same time noting all the points that we've discussed today about the the importance of of flexibility and taking all that into consideration too okay i take the point about flexibility but i really want to emphasise the fact that we've got to get them to do it getting them to actually implement it and do it but that's where i think the legislation that we're bringing forward is so critical in ensuring that that takes place and that's really what's setting out this framework will enable that will enable that to happen and to ensure that takes place thank you very much Rachel Hamilton thanks convener okay so it's it's quite a good progression on from that last set of questions because we know that money spent by local authorities will return investment to local economies and that's you know what we all want to encourage however during our evidence sessions cabinet secretary we've heard from many stakeholders that there are huge challenges to procurement and they're not only bureaucratic challenges there are infrastructure issues there are processing facility issues there are budget restraints and so what i want to ask you is do you believe that the procurement system in scotland is broken well that's where it was really interesting going through the evidence that the committee had heard and i think it was probably the evidence that came from the local authorities themselves where they talked about the flexibilities that they felt existed within the within the procurement system as it was that was essentially enabling them to you know whether that was you know maybe it was robin girly he'd talked in one of the the first sessions about being able to to break down their procurement of meat for example into 70 different lots where they could ensure that they had local suppliers and enable local suppliers to take place in that process you know that's the evidence that i'm really interested in hearing is from the stakeholders themselves as to you know is the procurement system working or exactly as you've suggested is that an area that we need to look at so again i think if there are any particular comments or recommendations that the committee has in that regard but i think that that's certainly one thing i took from the evidence that the local authorities in particular felt that the procurement process enabled and allowed that flexibility for them so on that particular point do you think that there should be a reporting requirement on the sourcing of food for public procurement i mean again i'm more than happy to listen to the any views that the committee has in relation to that and that's something potentially could be looked at as part of the the development of the of the good food nation plans because i do think that what we really want to do is try and harness the power that we have within the public sector in relation to in relation to our food policy because i think that there is a lot of power there where we can have a huge impact and we've seen the impact of some of that work for example through the food for life programme that we work with the soil association to deliver and you talked as well about the positive impacts that we see from that we can see that through the education through health through the positive impact on the local economy and through the food for life scheme we currently have 18 local authorities who are part of that which of course we would hope to reach all local authorities and where that is having a real positive impact so that's very much work that we would hope to continue and continue to develop and cabinet secretary can i push you on the financial aspect of delivering this in fairness and equity to all local authorities so that the policy statement is the ambition of the policy statement is met and so that everybody has access to good food so would it be would it be in the interest of the Scottish Government to look at the financial implications of areas that don't have access to short supply chains to actually be funded in a more generous way so that everybody from city centres to island communities can actually benefit from the intention of the good food nation bill sorry i'm not too sure if i understand the question are you talking about the government to directly let me expand cabinet secretary so it's so for example if there are not local facilities for say abattoirs there's not the infrastructure there's not the processing facilities there's not that there's limited transport you know these are all the things that we're hearing that are holding people back from supporting local producers supporting farmers getting involved in that local procurement activity so do you think it would be the right thing for the Scottish government to support areas that have more difficulty in accessing local food because of those challenges and is that something that you would possibly consider well that's what i mean essentially the good food nation bill is the framework bill and it's to underpin the work that we're currently undertaking but it's also to ensure that we're addressing a lot of the issues that we see in a coherent way whether that's across government itself but also with other public authorities too in relation to some of the issues that you've talked about there i mean a lot of these could well be addressed or looked at in terms of the outcomes that we would want to try and resolve as part of the good food nation plans i don't think that the bill isn't the place for us to specifically set that out because it is a framework bill as as i've outlined yeah i think this is where you know we have highlighted the limitations of this and that's through the evidence given by the stakeholders and i think it just goes it just doesn't go far enough and as you have quite rightly said you will listen to stakeholders but what i'm concerned about is whether you will actually listen to stakeholders and take on board the issues and challenges that they are presenting or whether the Scottish Government will just fall back on an excuse that the good food nation is just a framework bill because i cannot see and i have no guarantee so far from anyone in government or civil servants that this good food nation bill will set out to deliver the policy intent that you are clearly wanting to achieve i feel like it's probably conflating two different things because we have the framework bill that enables all that work that you're talking about to happen and the further detail of that the outcomes the measures that indicators are all going to be set out in the good food nation plans and what we're doing with this legislation i mean we can't lose sight of the fact that as i've said it may appear narrow in scope but it's absolutely fundamental to enabling us to deliver on our ambitions to become a good food nation and it's the good food nation plans that will set out the detail as i've said the outcome the measures the indicators as to how we are what we're going to do to tackle some of the challenges that we're faced how we're working across all these different policies and ultimately how we will will measure that and ensure that we're on a road to success in that regard and a lot of work is undergoing throughout this anyway i mean you talked about there the concern that we wouldn't listen to stakeholders which absolutely is not the case and again we come back to a point that i'd made earlier in response to a previous question that we'd in constant dialogue with our stakeholders we want to we've listened to the evidence that the committee have heard so far and are of course keen to see any recommendations that the committee comes forward with in its stage one report and i don't want to prejudge that and of course we will be considering that carefully when it comes forward okay thanks cabena thank you edg jim fairly yeah i'm just we follow up to that you know many countries i actually don't entirely agree with what my colleague rachel hamlin says there that some of the areas who are not doing the not achieving the highest standards don't necessarily have access to the the provisions to be able to do it you know some of the cities have got slaughterhouses and processing facilities on their doorstep but they're just not connected so and perth you've got the they had the the lamb processing and the lamb that went into school meals in Highland Persia that was done collaboratively through the local networks and we were fortunate to have that close at hand but we've also got the other local authorities that we spoke about earlier on who are doing a good job so is there a possibility for those local authorities who are not fully engaged with the process at the moment is there value in asking likes a cosla to bring all the local authorities together to say this is where everybody is because local authorities mostly won't know where they are so is it is there an opportunity to bring these local authorities together say right well we know where you are know where you are this is how we got to where we are and get them to work collaboratively collaboratively as a national organisation with one year go i mean in relation to some of the points that you talked about there i mean again this is a framework bill and it's it's not the place for all of this to be individually set out on the face of it and again this is also the bill that underpins the work that we're already doing so it's not as if these these problems aren't being addressed so for example i've talked about the food for life programme that we're undertaking there's also the local food strategy which we consulted on towards the end of last year and we're currently analysing the responses to that because that gets to the root of some of the issues that you've raised there and exactly what we're trying to address and it's the bill itself which underpins that work and provides the enabling framework for all of that work to happen and to make sure our policy is more coherent so we are addressing all of these issues okay thank you and shorts up from Karen Adam thank you convener um it was just to say you know trying to dig down a little bit more into that and the scope of the bill because i think we can end up um you know what we're trying to do here and i'm trying to gather evidence um and see this from a an implementation point of view but i felt there when Rachel Hamilton come in it just kind of adds a bit more tentacles to something that's not necessarily what i felt you were trying to get across the bill was so i mean i'll caveat this in terms of what kind of scope are we looking for this bill to cover for example i mean i have shipbuilders in my constituency who have serious issues with labour shortages because of the eu exit now it's really impacted upon their work to build and to repair boats which are needed to go out and catch fish which we then you know need to land and eat for example if we're looking at the good food nation bill surely we're not looking at it in that um you know ever encompassing um kind of scope you know to go as far as you know shipbuilding there surely there has to be um what is the scope that we're looking at here because we could be picking up problems forever that i've got nothing to do with this and if we just kind of if we can crack on with the good food nation bill and the overarching framework of it and what it's supposed to be would that then help and support these other factors industries and more collaborative working i know it's a really important point and i think that's where it's important again to draw focus on what this bill is actually setting out to do and what it then enables us to do and again it provides that legislative framework and underpinning of the work that we're already undertaking but again the detail of what we hope to achieve and how we'll deliver on our good food nation ambitions is in the good food nation plans and it's the the framework it's the good food nation bill which provides the framework and the legislative underpinning for these plans and for that to take place so you're absolutely right in raising that point but i think it's important to again focus on exactly what this bill itself will do because i think a lot of the points that have been raised are you know points in discussion for some of the other policies we're considering or we'd form part of the discussion on the good food nation plans thank you that's really helpful so we're focusing on thank you we'll move on to theme three um alasar alan thank you convener um we've um talked in this committee um quite a bit about how this bill relates to a human rights bill and i appreciate that much of what's on the plan for this this bill will will touch on issues that come up in that that piece of legislation too um i wonder tells a bit about how if the how the plan that will come out however of this bill will be agile enough to in your view to deal with emerging situations and we've touched on this already but one emerging situation is that fuel poverty is is bound to create food insecurity as we go forward and energy prices increase so i use that as an example but can you say a bit about how plans need to be flexible and and why you think this one or if you think this one is agile enough to cope with emerging situations like that i do feel like it is in the way in what we've set out in the bill so far and you know we've talked previously about some of the um the regulations that allow us to be agile in that way and maybe it comes back to the discussion that we touched previously in relation to targets and the reticence to put that on the the face of the bill because you know they evolve and they change over time which means that we then have less flexibility and legislation can go out of date very quickly in that regard but i do feel that what we've set out in the content that we have established in the bill allows us that that flexibility to to deal with any emerging issues and also in terms of the the frequency with which we have to review the bill um the frequency with which we have to report on the bill as well we can always try and ensure it as far as we possibly can that it's up to date that it's still meeting the challenges that we feel it needs to try and address thank you and without holding accountable for the forthcoming piece of legislation on human rights are you able to say anything about how the right food and other rights might be integrated in that bill i mean yes well that's fair i mean absolutely clear that we absolutely as a government agree to implementing and incorporating the right to right to food into scots law and it's just essentially the vehicle that we choose to do that and we felt that it was more appropriate based on the the recommendations of the human rights commission to that that should form part of the the human rights legislation which is due to be introduced this parliamentary session and that's because i mean the human rights the national task force on that stated that it would help to reinforce the interrelationships between rights and obligations because it is it's it's incorporated with so many other rights that are of vital importance as well that was felt that it makes more sense and it would be more appropriate for that to form part of human rights legislation and to be incorporated into scots law in that way and but that's where i mean we have in section three of the the bill itself we in the where we've talked about that we must have regard to the international instruments that are listed and the first within that list is article 11 so far as it concerns adequate food of the international covenant on economic social and cultural rights so we've said in the bill that we must have regard to that in our legislation and all the pieces i mean some of the pieces that i've worked that i've discussed today whether that's our you know our local food strategy food for life all the other different initiatives that we've got at the moment and not just within my own portfolio but across government too are all about putting a giving effect to that right essentially and it's something that we're already trying to give effect to but it's through that legislative vehicle that it will be incorporated into scots law finally convener on the subject of integration i wonder where scotland's food footprint around the world features in the government's thinking as it approaches this bill and i appreciate as caron has pointed out the bill can't be about everything but presumably the government wants to do no harm at least and hopefully do some good in terms of integrating how we think about food in scotland with how we think about our food footprints in the developing world or the work we're doing there so i just wonder if this features in the government's thinking when it approaches the bill on the plan absolutely and again that's why we've established and i've re-established the ministerial working group on food as well because food is something you'll have seen from the evidence that you've taken and just from the the sheer variety of different stakeholders that you've heard from too that touches on so many different areas and is a fundamental aspect of so many different areas and it's also something which links all of us in some way so that's where the ministerial working group on food will be really crucial in that and ensuring that we have that coherence that we're considering all the relevant issues that we need to consider as we look to develop our good food nation plan. I just wanted to ask or to get some clarification about what you were saying on the right to food and about so it sounds as if you're saying you you support a right to food in scots law and it's just about the vehicle in which that's introduced and you think it would be more appropriate in the human rights bill that's coming forward later in the session so i just wanted to ask and apologies if this is an obvious question but so can it only be in one place a right to food? In terms of incorporating it into the scots law i mean again that's a hope of being able to outline the rationale as to why that's been made and that was based on the recommendations that we've received as well that rather than separating out this individual right because they're they're indivisible in so many different ways and there's that interrelationships between the different rights and obligations that because we're looking to incorporate that as part of the human rights bill that that is the place that that should be taken forward but again that's why we've also made the reference in section three of this bill so that we are to recognise that and to ensure that we have regard to that as well and so just to clarify it does that mean it wouldn't be possible for it to also be in this bill or it's just a preference we're just trying to establish whether it's a legal technicality or whether it's a political choice oh no well it's a choice that's why we're taking it through the human rights legislation because of the the rationale that i've set out it's not that it would be legally impossible for that to take place but because of the interdependencies and the fact that it ties in with so many other rights it makes sense for that to form part of the human rights legislation and again that's based on the recommendations that we've received as well but it could also be in the good food nation bill if you wanted it to be again it's not in the bill because we've committed to introducing it as part of the human rights bill again it's not legally impossible for us to introduce a right to food but it's we've chosen we've decided that it would be that the human rights bill would be the place to to take that forward okay or i don't know James if he was anything else you wanted to add i think it would be problematic to have the right to food in more than one piece of legislation i think if you consider the legal machinery that would sit behind the incorporation of an international right and all the other rights as well it's much preferable to have that in a single piece of legislation as a consistent piece of legislation if you do it in two different places inevitably there'll be inconsistencies and a conflict our i think the scottish government's ambition is to have a single coherent framework with with all the social economic rights in a single place with a single enforcement framework so it's not that it's impossible it's just significantly optimal our our strong preference to do that in a single place to avoid fragmentation to avoid there would be lots of disadvantages to that and that's consistent with the with the task force recommendations on coherent implementation of rights so it's a strong preference with with lots of sort of justifications for that and so the reason behind that would be to make implementing the right as effective as possible but not to do with just making your jobs easier or something no no it's it's about effective implementation inconsistent implementation of all the different rights and i think it's important to sort of bear in mind that a lot of the social and economic rights are are interdependent so it's it's important it's it's also preferential for stakeholders to have a one consistent system that they can enforce rights against the different new government and other public bodies that that are required to come compatibly with those rights as well and then this human rights bill that comes forward later on will that then relate explicitly back to the good food nation bill so that there's a link between the right to food and the human rights bill and the plans it's not possible for me to say that at the moment i believe that the consultation on that act is due to come forward on that bill sorry is due to come forward this year so it's not possible for me to comment on the on the detail of it but again that's why we also have the ministerial working group on food to make sure that we're addressing these issues where they cross cut across other portfolios okay thank you that's helpful can i just it's obvious that you appreciate or you consider the right food being really important on that basis can you tell me what you believe the timescales are for bringing forward the human rights bill given that we've been consulting on this bill really broadly since about 2006 it's taken a long time and witnesses have said it's important to bring this right food in as quickly as possible what's your understanding of the timescales for the human rights bill i can't give a definitive timescale on that and again it's not a bill that's within my my own portfolio either but again we have committed to introducing that this parliamentary session and i believe that the consultation on that is due to take place this year okay um beat your switch it thanks convener i think a lot of my questions have been answered with the previous two questions there but i wonder what the response would be to concerns that if the human rights bill is delayed in any way then there could be a gap of years without the right to food being enshrined in legislation so i wonder what your views would be on that again i would just highlight the section three that we have in the bill as well where we must give regard to that so and we're also through all the different policy initiatives that i've talked about that's how we're we're already delivering and trying to make sure that we deliver on the on that human right and we have to give regard to it so that's very much the intention so even regardless of when the human rights bill comes into comes into force or when that's brought forward which again there is a commitment to do that this parliamentary session we'll still be doing what we can to ensure that we're delivering on that and do you think there's any way that can be strengthened without going to the you know having it fully enshrined in the good food nation bill i know that that's evidence that the committee have received that i know that some would like to see it the right to food incorporated within this bill but there were also there was also evidence taken about what could other references be made or to strengthen that i mean i do feel that what we've set out here and what we have in the bill as it stands is adequate in relation to that but again if there are any particular recommendations or thoughts that the committee brings forward in the stage 1 report then of course i'll consider what recommendations are made thank you thank you yeah um professor mary brennan suggested that the bill's credibility will be damaged if the right to food wasn't explicitly positioned as part of the bill um and also robin ghwily suggested that the commitment to and the effects of delivering the right to food should be explicit in the good food nation scotland bill do you think that's going to be the case is there going to be enough in the bill to deliver what the likes of mary brennan and and robin ghwily and other witnesses have suggested that there will be enough in there to you know that will be the effect of delivering the right to food within the bill without waiting for the the human rights bill no absolutely i would just reiterate what i'd said to be a triswisher in response to her question too i mean obviously in section three we've we've outlined that we must have regard to the international instruments where that is outlined i believe what we've set out is adequate but i understand the evidence that the committee's taken and again if there are any particular recommendations you have on that regard then i'm happy to consider that thank you jenny mento thank you convener i'd like to move on to participation in the process and i think you've touched on this in some of your earlier answers we got a lot of evidence throughout the sessions that we've done and also through written evidence of the importance of getting a wide range of views into the process whether that's from children and we heard specifically from jane jones with regard to the importance of the 1140 hours of child care and how that can set children on a journey to improving their knowledge about food and sitting down for a meal and and then we also heard more about how to reach people and also the importance of getting evidence the lived experience evidence and then just last week i met with some farmers as well who see this bill as very important we've touched on before the importance of local procurement and how that works so i'm interested to hear how your thoughts on how you think the participation should look like and how that will feed into the development of the plans i think everything you've outlined there is of absolute importance to us and all the points that you've talked about there and i know that Karen Adam has raised previously about the importance of having that lived experience feeding into this i mean i see that as absolutely vital and i want us and will be ensuring that we are as inclusive as possible i mean because i think i don't want the good food nation plans as we develop them to be something that we're thrusting on people it should feel like it's something that belongs to everyone and especially when we're looking at the local authorities because we want to make sure that ultimately these are plans that deliver and achieve the outcomes that we want to see and we're only going to achieve that if we ensure we have that participation and people feel like they're actively involved in it i know that there's been lots of different suggestions as to how that could take place throughout evidence as well but i do think that you know that's something that we try to do again we continually engage with our stakeholders anyway and i don't want consultation that takes place to just be right we stick something online and we hope somebody will you know tick a few boxes that we need to go out and make sure that engagement is strong so we're getting that that active participation and i think probably a good example of work that we've done in that area recently is in relation to the consultation process that we took in relation to the local food strategy and the work that we did there so i don't know if officials could give more detail on that i'm looking at you ashley but i don't know when it might be the approach that we took to that which i think was exactly about some of the topics you've talked about that and making sure that we get in that lived experience too yeah the consultation was done in conjunction with nourish scotland who arranged a lot of different workshops in a lot of different areas and i think they had different themes as well so it was much more than just putting something online it was having these very focused discussions within the within the workshops and i think prior to the workshops there were also various themes and questions that were put forward to the participants so it's the analysis has just come in i saw a draft of it just recently so it's very detailed and there were a lot of different opinions expressed and i think they're working your way through that and picking all that out will obviously be quite tricky but i think doing it through the through the workshops has helped focus people's discussion on that and also helped people hear different views so that within the group they would also obviously be arranged views and i think that's always quite helpful i think you get to a better end point with that so that was one way in which the consultation was done quite differently i think and using an organization with experience of that was very helpful and provided some really good feedback so i think the as i said the draft analysis is back just now so it's going to be published i think i think by the spring but spring's a bit vague isn't it but i think they're the next couple of months anyway so it was a very useful exercise and i think the people that were involved with it were very impressed with the range of views that they were able to get and contributed to the development of the final strategy itself yeah we took some evidence about citizens assembly is as twilight this was a way forward and i'm sure you've seen dr revington's advice or his the evidence that he gave about the importance of participation but also the requirement for mechanisms for the information on best practice and how we achieved so it sounds like that was incorporated perhaps into some of these evidence sessions there are maybe no evidence sessions but the sessions that you you set up yeah i think there's always there's a whole range of models for consultation and i think i mean the phrase it's come up quite a lot in this session has been that the one size not fitting all so i think you need to adapt your approach depending on where you're going who you're speaking to so things like the structured workshops of citizens assembly i think it was mentioned i think jane jones was mentioning the network the community networks that they have set up so there are a whole range of different models and they all have their advantages and disadvantages and it's a matter of trying to adapt what would work best for the people that you want to get the opinions from yeah i think it's interesting looking at our gylem but because of the the diversity of that community and how one thing might work well on one island but might not work as well on another island and its understanding and i think that's i think that's something that jane jones and her team have worked on really well and also talking about collaboration as well across local authority areas which my colleague Jim Fairlie touched upon as well and i think that the importance thing is one size remembering one size doesn't fit all but there's also a need for collaboration where i'm learning from best practice in other areas and also we're really open to looking at all of these examples as well and that's what it's been really useful to hear all the evidence that's been given in relation to that because it's within our best interest and with everyone's interest that we absolutely get this right and we can only do that by by listening to people and i want to make sure that we have as open accessible and inclusive a process as possible and i do think that point about lived experiences is absolutely vital within that too. Thank you. Thanks, cabinet secretary. This all sounds very positive and that you're listening and it's open and transparent but so how do you respond to the concerns that the consultation requirements gave greater weight to the Scottish Government views rather than those of stakeholders and the general public? So for example the Scottish Government and relevant authorities are required to consult after to be consulted after rather than before the government drafted their initial good nation plans and after rather than before when you review your good nation plans after five years why was that decision taken? Well i think it's i think the approach that we've taken and that we've outlined here is really about trying to get that balance as well because i think it's important that we provide a basis for those discussions to take place so it's not about trying to impose our views it's about setting a basis for that discussion to take place and a basis for that consultation to happen because i would probably reflect on the the responses that i've given to previous questions as well that we don't we wouldn't be forming this in isolation and we are in constant in dialogue with our different stakeholders as well so and we wouldn't be writing this in isolation and then unleashing it on the on the public but we would very much because we want to hear the views and we want to take that on board and as i say be as inclusive as possible in that process but it is more about trying to provide the the basis that would enable that discussion to take place but of course if there are other recommendations there or i'm happy to look at that if the committee feels that's an area that could be improved thank you we'll now move on to supplementary from Mercedes Villalaba villages thank you yeah it's actually back on the right to food just very briefly just reflecting on what James Hamilton and yourself have said about the the rationale behind your belief that it would be more effective to have the right to food in a human rights bill rather than the good food nation bill but then at the same time you're unable at this stage to confirm that a right to food in the human rights bill will be able to explicit the link back to the good food nation plans i understand that's just the way the legislative process works so my question is why have you chosen to bring forward the good food nation bill prior to the human rights bill it's because of all the work the groundwork that had been done prior to this unfortunately the bill had had to be delayed in the last session of the parliament so it was really a case of trying to bring forward the bill at the earliest possible opportunity and like i say it's about giving effect to to that right as well so while the while the right to food will be incorporated into scots law through the human rights bill it's still vitally important i feel that we brought forward this legislation that we have that underpinning framework for the work that we're doing into delivering our good food nation ambitions and that we don't delay that process i suppose a cynic might worry that the scotish government is looking to capitalise on the sort of warm words around a good food nation bill without actually delivering the practical the right itself so what would you say to reassure them that that there is a very serious and real commitment to a right to food in scots law oh there absolutely is we've made that commitment already that it will be brought forward as part of the human rights legislation but again it just comes back to that all the work that we've outlined today is what effectively gives gives effect to that right and we do also have section three in the bill which makes specific reference that we must have regard to it as well so we just want to provide that assurance okay thank you um questions from Rachel Hamilton thank you cabinet secretary um George Burgess in previous evidence said that there was no need for a new bespoke oversight board and in the s&p manifesto commitment it does say that you commit to a single independent scotish food agency through um the lens as part of the good food nation bill what's your opinion on that well it's a commitment that we'd set out and as you rightly said it's in our manifesto as well but i think we need to take the time to undertake a detailed review in relation to the existing bodies that we have and that will of course consider looking at international comparators as well because i think that's the thing and what also came through in evidence and it's been really interesting to to look through the discussion on that in relation to whether there should be an oversight body but there was also a reference to the to the number of bodies that exist in that space at the moment so i think that's where it's important we take the time to get that right we'd also committed as part of the house agreement to give the to give that further consideration to so that works on going and is that a separate consultation that you will do through the scotish government from the good food nation bill or will you allow this committee to make recommendations i mean this is a commitment that we're taking forward in it again that that work is an early stage in relation to that and we need to because it will be a detailed piece of work but i'll of course be be keeping the committee updated as that work progresses and so how do you feel that the relationship will work between the good food nation bill which is obviously progressing perhaps quicker than an independent look at whether we need an oversight body that is independent to the current the current offering that we have perhaps through food standard scotland well sorry i'm missing the first part of that so jeff ogle of food standard scotland had said that there was no need for a new oversight board but of course other witnesses such as mary brennan had said that there was and some people suggested that perhaps we could do something through public health scotland so do you feel i'm just slightly confused as as how we're discussing this within the lens of the good food nation bill but now we're hearing that this is a separate piece of work so how will this committee have the opportunity to understand what you're doing in parallel to the good food nation bill when we're taking evidence and hearing and asking these questions because again what's being taken forward at the moment is the overall framework for the good food nation plans that we're looking to deliver that will set out more of the detail of how we're going to deliver on that policy in relation to an oversight board again i mean views on that have been very mixed from the evidence that the committee has taken in relation to the the scottish food agency i mean what we'd set out in the manifesto was quite a wide remit for that it was about promoting food, drink and horticulture attracting investment increasing processing capacity and improving supply chains and infrastructure that in itself is again there's a lot of detail in that and with other bodies that we have in this space too it's only right that we take the time to to fully analyse that and to see what the potential impact of that would be and to make sure that we fully understand the implications of that or in that space. Well thank you for that insight because it sounds as though this committee will have a role in scrutinising some of that work possibly. Just moving on in the same vein as looking at minister accountability and oversight we took evidence from Seafood Scotland who said that they've been trying for over 20 years to encourage increased consumption of locally produced seafood with little assistance from policy to deliver this despite initiatives such as health eating in Scotland 2008 and industry funded short-term programmes of support. So they were very disappointed that you know there was no accountability over policy initiatives. What will improve with the Good Food Nation Bill and how will Parliament have oversight and how will ministers be accountable to the delivery objectives of the Good Food Nation Bill? I mean the detail of what we'll be looking to set out to achieve and the outcomes that we'll be looking to that we hope to achieve throughout that will be set out in the Good Food Nation plan and again in terms of the oversight and the monitoring of that well first of all we've got the within the bill itself it talks about how that progress will be monitored but there are also the periodic reports and reviews of the plans that are set out in the legislation too so for example we have to report on that on our plans within every two years we then have to review the plan after five so there will be those different stages where the that will provide the opportunity for that scrutiny to take place but again if the committee feels that that's an area where that isn't necessarily set out or strong enough or where there's a great role for parliamentary scrutiny within that again I'll be keen to see what's presented in the stage 1 report and what would happen I mean would local authorities have the confidence that the minister apologies to interrupt you could you keep it a brief supplementary word we're fast running out of time thank you don't worry I can leave it it's fine thank you okay appreciate that Jim Fairlie thank you convener there is no fixed view you've already said there is no fixed view all the evidence that we've taken there is no fixed view across all of the vast amounts of evidence that we've taken that there should or there shouldn't be there's very much a mixed view George Burgess did it on the third of November session did say that we could possibly relook at that and and you've committed that that's what you're actually doing and like the Beat House agreement and all the rest of it but would the preference not be for parliament to be the scrutinising body rather than there I say an unelected quango who are then established at huge cost to the public purse to have oversight of something that is so fundamental to Scotland's good food needs plans for the future I mean the costs that you've talked about there I think were part of the initial concerns and why when the bill was initially brought forward a food commissioner on over a site body wasn't considered as part of that because there can be substantial costs associated with that I think that the cost well I know Food Standards Scotland obviously has quite a detailed remit but there was you know 50 million pounds to initially set that up but again that that was part of the concern but I do think that of course parliament has a really important role in scrutinising this as well and I think that's critically important yeah but given the the breadth and scope of good food nation bill setting up any new body is going to be a substantial body I would have thought but we've already got mechanisms in place that could do that function surely that's the thing and that's part of the work that we'll be undertaking to to make sure that we thoroughly go through all the the potential because the issues that you've talked about there are exactly the issues that I am that we've experienced in considering this before and I think that's why we need to make sure that we undertake the detailed work and to see whether that's something that that should be considered or not because like you've said there are a number of bodies I know that some have suggested I think in other evidence sessions that it could be something for Public Health Scotland or for Food Standards Scotland as well but again that's why we're undertaking that work and you committed to do that so that's the important bit thank you briefly Alasdair Allan yeah briefly just on a similar theme one of the the questions that's been put to us by witnesses a number of people is that the food industry or the landscape around public bodies around food in Scotland is rather a crowded or even cluttered landscape so that was one of the arguments that certainly put to us against creating a new body I just wondered if you could say anything about what you make of those comments that have been put to us that this is already quite a quite a crowded landscape oh absolutely no and that's what was interesting going through the evidence and hearing some of the comments in relation to that because obviously we have a number of different bodies who have a number of different roles and responsibilities specifically and you've heard from from some of those bodies yourselves in taking evidence but I think that's where the work that we're undertaking and that we've committed to undertake and properly scrutinising that I think will help us fully assess what that landscape looks like and yeah how we can how we can develop the work in relation to that thank you I'm a very short brief supplementary from Mercedes thank you very much just on the on the issue of a statutory body so it's been said already the Scottish Food Coalition believe that there should be an independent Scottish Food Commission to undertake work such as monitoring progress towards achieving good food nation plans facilitating citizen engagement and providing research on food system issues so I know as Jim said that there hasn't been an agreement across all the stakeholders about who which body should should have this role but I wanted to get the cabinet secretary's view on whether you believe or the Scottish government believes that it should be an independent body whichever body it is but that it should be independent from the Scottish Government well that's the thing I mean as it came out in evidence there are a number of different bodies that they're being proposals for that could potentially undertake that role but that is exactly why we're undertaking that that careful consideration to to fully examine that so in terms of the independence of the body you don't currently have a view on that I know again that's why that we're undertaking that work and to establish that because I think we need to make sure that the role and the remit of that would would justify establishing a new body but that's where the work that will be undertaken is is important in that regard and do you think the principle of independence is important the independence monitoring again that that is important the scrutiny of parliament is important within that as well but again is that something we need an entirely new body established to do I think that's the question that we've got to get to grips with just on that you know we are focusing on who should do it but the big question is and it's something that given the bills in front of us what's really clear is we need to understand whether the government thinks there needs to be someone to oversee this you believe someone needs to oversee it because who does it that's an argument we could have another day but can you just let us know whether you think there needs to be a an external body well that's the thing I mean that's what I think it's Jim Fairley raised a really important point in that regard about the role of of parliament and ultimately holding a government to account in relation to the to the plans that will produce and I think that cabinet secretary this is a government bill what are your views you keep telling us that you're going to listen to our views but you've got the draft bill in front of us what is your views do you think we need an independent body to oversee the plans I suppose that's the question I mean I turn it back to the committee and say that I'm willing to listen because I obviously want to listen as we go through this process and what I've tried to do today is explain the rationale of why we've reached the position that we have and why we we've brought forward what we have in the bill that's before the committee so that's where I am open to hearing the recommendations in that regard given that there have been very mixed views I mean as I say when it came to considering this initially it wasn't considered that a food commission or an oversight body should be established you know for a variety of different factors some of them I've already outlined but I you know I don't think you would appreciate if I came here and said that hard and fast I'm not going to listen to anything you're going to say or make any any changes because that's why the stage one consideration of this is so important and for me to hear all the evidence that the committee has taken because I want to make sure that when we introduce this bill we get it right and as I say we have already undertaken that commitment to look at the potential for a statutory body so of course I'm not going to commit further on it at this stage given that that work will be undertaken yeah I think that's the important point initially you didn't think there was need for another body but now you're reconsidering that I think that's yes we'll be analysing that okay arianna Burgess thanks convener I'm going to move on to another theme which is the private sector would you have touched on a little bit already while it's important for the public sector to lead by example we have heard evidence from Pete Ritchie from nourish who reminded us that public food is a maximum of 1.5 to 2 percent of the food supply the private sector delivers the vast majority of our food and to quote Pete it is operating on rules that generate ill health and environmental degradation a first step in changing those rules could be mandatory reporting for the private sector to increase accountability and I'd like to ask if the minister has an update on whether Westminster will proceed with the recommendations from the national their national food strategy and if so whether the data for Scotland could be separated out to inform policy development here I'm specifically in relation to that discussions are on going between officials of the four nations to see what that recommendation might look like so I don't know if officials want to come in on that point I don't know if that would be George yes thank you convener as the minister has said there is work on going between the administrations looking at the the recommendation and the Henry Dimpleby review ministers agreed last autumn to that I actually have further discussions with death for a DHS the Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues on this tomorrow thank you and so as you have heard from our evidence witnesses have been clear that we need to take private sector with us on the journey towards a good food nation but the bill as currently drafted doesn't set out a clear mechanism for this to happen and I could understand from previous evidence why but I wondered what your thoughts are on amending the bill to require the government and relevant authorities to engage with the private sector when drafting and implementing their plans and what form would you see this engagement taking I mean I think that's something that I would hope would be taking place throughout this anyway I mean we've talked about the importance of collaboration and that's with all aspects of society and industry throughout this as well I mean we have really strong links with with Scotland food and drink for example and I think we have relationships that are quite unique and compared to other countries and we work very closely together and that's the thing I mean it was really interesting to hear in Pete Ritchie's evidence that was exactly a point that I picked out as well about the percentage as he talked about there but even though that looks relatively small there's obviously a massive knock-on impact to private sector and industry as well through the policies that we decide to implement so for example I mean private industry and the private sector will have and it will be impacted by you know how we take forward our local food strategy for example so it's not to say that there won't be various impacts there but you know the collaboration that you've talked about is a really important point and again areas or any suggestions where you think that that could potentially be strengthened be happy to consider thank you and we've got a supplement from Karen it was for an earlier question I must have gotten skipped over it's okay thank you okay and Rachel Hamilton I've asked you this question before but how will the good food nation bill have regard to the future farm policy and the work that the area will be doing and also the national environment bill and the climate change targets today unfortunately we've not had time much to talk about you know sustainable goals and net zero yes all of that will be critically important of course as we look to develop our good food our good food nation plans because you know it's as we've talked about previously just how cross cutting food policy is and we want to make sure obviously that our food produce is produced in a sustainable and environmentally sustainable way so all of that will of course feature in fact and as we're looking to develop our good food nation plans will we be able to look at what the area will be doing in terms of its work to acknowledge what's happening within the good food nation bill I mean that's a separate point to the discussion that we're having on the bill today so if there are specific questions that you have in relation to that I'm happy to follow up with that afterwards okay thank you very much cabinet secretary as always for your your evidence and and your officials who have accompanied you today that's very much appreciated that concludes our business in public we will now take a break until 1045 where we'll reconvene in private session thank you