Hansard

If Mr Fairlie thinks that the current scheme is so perfect, I do not understand why the Government has promised to bring forward legislation to change it, when it is failing to deliver—[Interruption.] I think that Mr Fairlie wants to keep having a debate. I am happy to do so. I think that changes are needed; so does his Government.

The members of the food coalition recognise that our food policies are not perfect and that we need to find a better and fairer way to feed ourselves that does not damage our people or our environment. The Parliament has an opportunity to recognise that as well, but only if we get the bill right.

I recognise that we have come a long way—somewhat slowly—since the publication in 2014 of the national food and drink policy. I recall being told by ministers when I was first elected that we did not really need legislation to become a good food nation and, time and again, I have had voted down motion after motion calling for the right to food to be enshrined in law. However, thanks to the tenacity and unity of purpose of members of the food coalition and many others, we now have a bill and, at least, the promise of the right to food.

However, it is clear that the bill does not go far enough. What should be an historic opportunity to transform Scotland’s food system, and to reduce food insecurity by ensuring that everyone has access to healthy and sustainable food, is in danger of being a missed opportunity. It is the political equivalent of standing in front of an open goal and belting the ball over the bar from six yards. The Government says that it is a framework bill, but it is an empty frame without a vision. Labour is clear: that vision, the purpose of the bill, should ultimately be to enable the right to food—and the bill should say that. As the United Nations special rapporteur, Professor Michael Fakhri, told the committee, when giving evidence on 28 February,

“If the good food bill is strengthened and infused with human rights commitments, Scotland will stand out as one of the leading nations that seek to promote and realise the right to food for its people”.

That view is shared by the overwhelming majority who gave evidence to the committee. In its written submission, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland said that it was

“disappointed that the Bill did not take this opportunity to embed the right to food into Scots Law.”

Although it acknowledged that the Government has said that it wants to embed that right within wider human rights legislation, it went on to say:

“that is no reason not to start now”

and indicate

“how seriously Scotland takes both the right to food and human rights.”

Scottish Labour believes that the bill should be unambiguous in its purpose to ultimately enable the right to food. We will work with the Government on how best to achieve that. We support the widespread calls to amend the bill in five key areas: to define its purpose; to have clear and measurable objectives; to establish an independent food commission; to strengthen the parliamentary scrutiny process; and to ensure that ministers have a duty to act in accordance with a national good food nation plan, rather than simply having regard to it. I hope that the Government will work with all parties to enable those amendments, because I believe that we can show unity behind a strong bill.

One challenge is the fact that the Government has not published a response to the committee’s stage 1 report, so we are not yet clear what amendments it will bring forward in the very short time between stage 1 and stage 2. If the Government does not bring forward amendments in those five areas, Labour will do so.

I will take each of those areas in turn. Like the overwhelming majority of respondents to the committee, we believe that the bill should have a purpose clause, which should include giving practical effect to the right to food. As WWF said in its written submission, the bill

“should establish high-level policy principles and objectives for ... Scotland’s food system, providing the overarching framework for what a Good Food Nation means in practice.”

It is encouraging that the committee has urged the Scottish Government to include high-level objectives at stage 2, but we believe that it should go further—they should not only be in the bill, but be measurable.

In evidence to the committee on 26 January, the Trussell Trust highlighted that child poverty targets were put in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, which focused the sector on a unified goal and maintained momentum. Does anybody seriously think that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 should not have had a measurable commitment to net zero by 2045? Why should we not show the same ambition and have clear legally binding targets when it comes to tackling food poverty or childhood obesity?

The bill needs to set a clear direction for future policy. Voluntary Health Scotland said in its written submission that the bill

“should establish high-level policy principles and objectives for fixing Scotland’s food system”,

and that that should

“inform and underpin all future food-related legislation and policy—including but not limited to the ... Agriculture Bill, the Circular Economy Bill, the Environment Bill and future public health measures on food.”

That important point was also made by RSPB and OneKind, which rightly highlighted that animal welfare should be prioritised in the bill and future policy.

Labour shares the view that the bill should provide a more comprehensive oversight function. As Scottish Environment LINK argued in its written submission, the lack of an oversight function

“means that a vital piece of the jigsaw is missing”.

We support the call from the Scottish Food Coalition for an independent Scottish food commission. In its evidence to the committee on 19 January, it highlighted the example of the Scottish Land Commission. The view that the role should be undertaken by a new body was also backed by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which made the valid point in its written evidence that allocating the role to an existing body

“is likely to underestimate the scale of work involved and the specialisms required to deliver it.”

The way in which the bill is scrutinised by Parliament needs to be clear. We believe that the national good food nation plan should ultimately require the approval of Parliament.

We share the view that the well-worn legislative phrase requiring ministers to “have regard to” their own national good food nation plan should be replaced with “act in accordance with”.

For far too long, too many people in Scotland have lacked adequate access to food, exposing the gross inequalities that we face today. In a nation that provides so much outstanding food and drink, it really is to our shame that many children in Scotland still go to bed hungry.