Hansard

I am pleased to contribute to the stage 3 debate on the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill.

As the convener of the committee that considered the bill, I put on record my thanks to the committee clerks and committee members for their hard work and my thanks to the hundreds of stakeholders who waited patiently—and not so patiently—for this much anticipated bill. Many stakeholders expressed frustration at the level of ambition articulated in the bill. As Professor Mary Brennan from the Scottish Food Coalition highlighted in her oral evidence to the committee:

“Our food system offers huge potential to be unlocked. The governance of the system must be organised to reflect not only the gravity of the challenges but the scale of the positive outcomes that we can achieve.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 19 January 2022; c 2.]

From the outset, the committee questioned the framework nature of the bill and was disappointed that the bill as introduced provided little detail relating to the purpose and direction of travel for Scotland’s food system or a coherent cross-governmental framework of food-related policies and legislation. Indeed, the committee was unequivocal that the national good food nation plan should articulate and reflect those wider ambitions when laid before the Parliament.

At stage 1, the committee concluded that effective oversight of the good food nation policy and accountability for the statutory good food nation plans would be essential to achieving the good food nation ambitions. It recommended that the bill be amended at stage 2 to strengthen the oversight function by giving the Parliament a greater role in relation to the good food nation plans and requiring parliamentary approval after the national good food nation plan has been laid.

The Scottish Government confirmed that any oversight role identified would be dealt with in the bill. However, the formal response to our stage 1 report included no further information other than to say that the Scottish Government was carefully considering the points that the committee had made.

I remind the chamber that the Scottish Government’s response to our stage 1 report was not received until weeks after the stage 1 debate—weeks after the Parliament had to decide whether to agree to the general principles of the bill. That is simply not acceptable.

At stage 2, the committee welcomed amendments to make the regulation-making powers under section 4 of the bill subject to the affirmative procedure, providing additional parliamentary oversight.

A number of members proposed amendments to the bill that would have introduced a new Scottish food commission. At that time, as at stage 1, the cabinet secretary said that she was not in a position to support the amendments but that the intention was that the oversight would be addressed conclusively by the Government by the end of the bill process. There was, after all, time for any proposal to come to the committee before stage 2.

At the time, I expressed my disappointment at the way in which the process had been handled. The Scottish Government had ample time when drafting the legislation to consider the inclusion of a food commission, but it opted not to do so. If the inclusion of a food commission was integral to the governance of the good food nation plan, why not include the commission in the bill so that the committee and stakeholders could properly scrutinise proposals?

That sets a worrying precedent whereby we are presented with framework legislation containing limited detail and using plans that are defined in secondary legislation to drive policy development. A major addition to the bill was then announced only days before the stage 3 debate, which provided limited scope for scrutiny. The cabinet secretary wrote to the committee and confirmed her intention to support a food commission; however, the letter included no information to assist the parliamentary scrutiny of those legislative proposals.

The RAINE Committee believed that an oversight function was essential to the effectiveness of the good food nation plans and that it was vital that the Parliament had the information and time to consider the proposals. However, it was only after being asked for further information and only hours before the stage 3 debate that the cabinet secretary confirmed that the new food commission will be a non-departmental public body with an anticipated running cost of less than £1 million a year.

Although I was grateful for the response, I maintain that it would have been helpful if the committee had been able to properly scrutinise proposals for a food commission when it considered the bill at stages 1 and 2. Stakeholders and members had minimal input to the scrutiny of the amendments that were passed yesterday, and I would recommend that the Scottish Government give due consideration to how proposals for a new commission can be developed collaboratively.

Secondary legislation to make the more detailed provisions relating to the commission will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and the committee will, I am sure, want to scrutinise that in detail. Ultimately, we all want to see Scotland become a good food nation. We all want to see the legislation work in support of that aim.

I want to assure stakeholders, particularly those who have expressed concerns about a lack of oversight, that the committee will continue to monitor the progress of the plans for the new food commission, to ensure that we develop a food system that is resilient and that supports those people who are most in need.