Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee

So, we'll get straight in, then, to item 3 on today's agenda, evidence session 8 of the Food (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to be able to welcome the Member in charge of the Bill, Peter Fox MS, to today's meeting, along with Gareth Rogers, who is the Bill manager, and Aled Evans from legal services. This is, of course, our final session in respect of this Bill and I just want to welcome you all and welcome you, Peter, back to the committee in order to take further questions from us. You'll obviously get a copy of the transcript after today's meeting as well. But, if we can, we'd like to go straight into questions, if that's okay.

Yes. Thank you.

So, we obviously saw a copy of quite a detailed letter from the Minister last week. You will know, Peter Fox, that the Minister's position appears to be that she's resistant to the Food (Wales) Bill on the basis that she thinks that pretty much everything is being done already in one way or another by the Welsh Government. What did you make of the letter that was sent?

Well, we only got to see the letter, where I know that the past Chair had asked the Minister to describe how she believed current policies were aligned to food goals—. I haven't had a real opportunity to study it in great depth, but I think what it demonstrated to me straight away was exactly what I've been saying and why there is a need for a joined-up approach across the food system and its policies in Wales at the moment. When you looked at the quite chaotic nature of how the various elements were cutting across, feeding into, the goals, I think it demonstrated very clearly to me where we did need that overarching, holistic approach that can align all of those many good pieces of work, align them into a collective that can really put in place that sustainable food system we definitely need. So, I think, actually, the letter proved exactly what—a part of what—I'm suggesting.

It was a very lengthy letter with lots of different strands, wasn't it, Peter Fox, and I know that some Members here felt that it was the first time they'd seen a document bringing everything together.

Obviously, it's not just the Minister that's taken a contrarian view on the need for a Bill; we've heard from a small number of witnesses—the overwhelming majority have expressed support, but there has been a small number of witnesses who have expressed some reservations, shall we say, about the legislation. So, Public Health Wales have warned that the Bill doesn't provide a quick fix to the issues that have been set out in your explanatory memorandum, and said that achievability of the goals that you've set out is questionable. What sort of evidence do you have that your Bill is going to make a real difference?

Well, I totally believe it will make a difference, but I absolutely agree that there are no quick fixes to the issues we set out in the EM. Many of the issues that we are grappling with have evolved over many years, hence the need to have some legislation in place to start making sense of it.

So, yes, there is a massive amount of deep-rooted issues, and they will take a long time to be addressed. And there are many things that have been emphasised through the global situation that we now have to manage. So, what I think the Bill will do is to put in place a solid foundation, through the establishment of the food commission and the national food strategy, to help address and fix some of these issues. But, this is a long-term investment, and that is one of the reasons why I believe the Bill is so essential, so that it not just ties this Government, but, for future Governments, lays a foundation for a solid food system to enable our food security, going forward.

I do honestly believe that the approach set out in the Bill can make a difference and that its goals are achievable. We know that different people have got different views on elements of it, but we absolutely believe that the goals, the strategy, the food commission can really help deliver on those goals and can make a difference. There are always lots of reasons why something can't happen. What we need to see is proactiveness: why things should happen and can happen. And that's just the way of life, isn't it, and we have to try to convince people why this is important. And I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest it is.

Well, one of the organisations that needs some convincing is the Food and Drink Federation Cymru. They have expressed some concern that the Bill might add some complexity and bureaucracy to the system, especially, obviously, for their members, and that that could actually end up stifling some innovation. How do you respond to those concerns, Peter?

Well, I would expect a food and drink federation to come with those sorts of views. It has to speak for its members as a union might speak for its members. Any concerns that it might put additional pressure on retailers, or whatever, obviously flows through the federation and they would share that position with us. So, I quite understand where they are coming from. But this is an issue that has been raised in previous scrutiny sessions, and I've been consistent in my approach on this. The current system, which has a lot of policies that are not joined up, is resource intensive and bureaucratic, because there are so many areas fighting against each other instead of pulling in the same direction. If anything, the Bill would deliver a more focused approach that every part of the food system should align to and, as a result, could actually reduce resources and burden for stakeholders. Indeed, it could create—it would create—clarity, so that people could budget and plan against what they've got to do. It could actually make life easier for Welsh Government and all public bodies, enabling that collaborative working that needs to happen and secure efficiencies right across the board. So, whilst I understand why people are fearful of the complexities of new legislation—it's unknown—I really do think that this, in the longer term, will actually be beneficial to them.

And you've already sort of suggested that the Minister's letter to the committee last week demonstrated a need to bring things together with an overarching strategy because of the complexity of all the different moving parts, in that letter. Have you had any further discussions with the Minister about that since?

No, I've had no further discussions. I'm still hopeful that, through this process, which has been going on a long time, the Minister—and I thank her for her engagement, not only with me to date, but also through the committee structures—. I'm grateful to the Government for being so involved, even though it is a rather negative, perhaps, input in many regards. I would have welcomed an opportunity to sit down and talk some of these concerns out and find a way forward. But, I haven't had any further conversations with the Minister since we moved into the end of Stage 1, really.

And just with all those different moving parts that we saw in the letter—if we can call them 'moving parts'—obviously, it seems to me that it might be quite difficult to measure progress against all of those because there are so many different things. Is that your assessment, too?

Well, no—. Absolutely what we're trying to do here, and what I wanted to do, is to bring some clarity across the whole policy framework here in Wales at the moment, because it's disjointed. Many policy areas don't talk to each other. They're very well meaning and do a lot of good things, and their aspiration is worthy, but there is not a lot of clarity or direction. So, if you were a new producer, or a retailer or whatever, and you were faced with this plethora of ideas, strategies and different things, which you could interpret in different ways, it is very difficult, I think, for individuals to plot their way through whatever they might do, but, for those of us who are responsible for overseeing the wider societal issues, it's very difficult for us to measure what has been achieved and how we're delivering against that wider expectation, which has become extremely heightened because of the global issues I've raised. However, even if those global issues hadn't have happened, there is still a shortcoming here, which has been acknowledged by many stakeholders through the consultation, that we need to do something to actually join it up so we can measure it, and we can help drive it forward and deliver that food security we need.

Thank you, Peter. I'm going to bring Luke Fletcher in now.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. If I could touch on the issue of resourcing, we've had evidence on both sides. We've had Simon Wright and the Nature Friendly Farming Network say that the Bill will save money in the long term, but we've also had local authorities raise concerns, in particular Swansea Council, around the cost being underestimated when it comes to the Bill and that that might have a knock-on effect on council budgets. They cited in particular free school meals as a potential unintended consequence. How would you respond to that?

As a past council leader, I would respond in similar ways to many things, when I was approached initially with them, but the costs I've estimated for the Bill were informed by discussions with representatives from Welsh local authorities and health boards involved in developing and delivering local food plans and strategies. That early engagement with local authorities was really important for us. I completely understand the concerns local authorities might have around budget constraints, however I do believe that the Bill could result in longer term benefits, as I said earlier, and savings, especially where authorities are able to work together. We have to remember that this isn't a new agenda for many councils. Many councils are working already on various projects to create sustainable food and community food. There are a lot of people who have been aspiring to this and have welcomed the direction we're trying to give here, and, to date, haven't had that overarching message that they can align to. There are a lot of inconsistent approaches across Wales in trying to address some of this. If we could create clarity and put in place the right sorts of frameworks and support and guidance and everything, we could actually make better use of the resources and have a collective outcome that is beneficial to the Welsh population. At the moment, when you have many people doing many things in many different ways, that's resource intensive, and it's not always getting the best out of things. There's nothing stopping local authorities working collectively together, you know, and using innovation to think about how they can develop their food plans. There is huge opportunity again. Many times, people can find why things shouldn't happen, where we ought to try and find ways to make things happen.

I can fully appreciate that, but, of course, I think the crux of the concern here is that we might see a deprioritisation of other work that's already going on in this area. So, for example, the Minister cited the community food strategy and Blas Cymru as potentially being deprioritised as a result of this Bill. When putting the Bill together, had you considered any potential deprioritisation?

I was quite surprised to hear that, because this is so fundamentally important for society, for Wales, for food production, food sustainability, the food system in Wales. To suggest that these things shouldn't go ahead because you might not be able to hold an event, or you might not be able to develop a community strategy, which is, apparently, in the making, just demonstrates again to me why there is a lack of policy and joined up thinking here, and the need for something to be put in place, because those sorts of reasons are very lightweight. To stop something so fundamental happening—.

I acknowledge that there are immediate concerns for many people who might have to suddenly implement or start implementing this. The trouble is, with Bills and things like this, everybody talks as if it's going to happen today—the Bill gets Royal Assent and it happens the next day. It doesn't. It could take three and a half years, or more, before things are implemented. There is a lot of time for transition to make way and pave the way for these things to happen. And we shouldn't be lulled into this thing of, 'Well, councils are really struggling at the moment. They can't afford anything else at the moment.' Well, we're not asking anybody to fund anything at the moment. This Bill will take some while to get there. It gives opportunity for foresight, forward planning, and to be able to lay the foundations to where you need to go. So, I'm afraid those sorts of concerns, I think, are struggling to be convincing for me, I'm afraid.

On that particular point with local authorities, two local authorities approached us saying that the Bill itself—the implementation of the Bill—should be staggered as a result of the strain on resources. Had you appreciated these concerns when putting the Bill together, or, ultimately, are we looking to potentially stagger the Bill's commencement date to help facilitate the ability of local authorities, then, to complete what the Bill sets out to do?

It's been really helpful, this whole consultation process, and what we're already learning and hearing from stakeholders. And I've always been clear throughout that, where things absolutely make sense, we'll look to amend things. So, I recognise the pressures that some people might feel or authorities might feel they have on them to comply, and it's constrained. So, one amendment I would look to bring forward, Chair, at Stage 2, is the need to change, perhaps, the timescales for the local food plan perhaps from two years to three years, to offset some of that anxiety. This would allow those public bodies further time to make their local food plans, and if the Bill was passed by the Senedd and received Royal Assent, we're looking, then, at some three and half years, as I just said, before public bodies needed to make and publish their plans. I would hope that that would allow sufficient time for public bodies to undertake all of that work required, all that forward planning, to make sure that they can be ready to integrate with the free school meals roll-out, and their duties under the Bill in regard to the local food plan. The commission element is going to be important in that, to provide that strong leadership, consistency and support to help direct those bodies to create those plans. I know there are some hurdles to get over, but what I think I'm trying to say is that we are listening, and, where it's appropriate, we would make some amendments at Stage 2, if possible.

And, finally, looking at the costs of the Bill, is it fair to say that it's been largely based on the Scottish experience, with the Good Food Nation Act (Scotland) 2022? Is that true to say?

The team worked really hard in trying to pull the finance together, and the Scottish model was very helpful in putting together those costings. Now, costings, by their very nature, at this stage are always going to be quite extreme and not exact. They're always going to be quite challenging, perhaps. I haven't taken any detailed analysis of the Scottish Government's costs at the moment and how they might be, moving forward, because, obviously, they haven't implemented things as yet. But we've got to recognise the size of Scotland, the amount of authorities and public bodies their plans are looking to align to, which are a lot more than ours, and we based our figures around those, so we believe they're relatively generous in where they are. But, as I've said, we can't be exact at this stage. No Bill can be exact in its costings. Is there anything you want to add, perhaps?

Yes, if I could, just to highlight, really, that we looked at the Bill in Scotland as a base for what was happening. Obviously, they have a similar piece of legislation going through there, but we didn't only look to Scotland. Take the food commission as an example. We looked at the estimates they provided in Scotland, and we looked at budgets we have for commissioners in Wales—the four key commissioners that we have. So, in our explanatory memorandum, there's a range of costs for the commission, starting at the low end, which was what was based in Scotland, of £750,000 a year, to the high end, which was double that—the average cost of a commission. So, we did look at Scotland, but we put a range in to try and account for if costs were higher than expected. And also, as Peter said earlier, we discussed with local authorities and health boards in advance, talking to the people who produce community food strategies and plans there, and looked at how much work was involved. So, it wasn't just based on Scotland; it was across Wales as well.

So, has there been a revisit of the Scottish experience? The Minister specifically referenced the Scottish Act, saying that the implementation costs have been substantially higher than they were expecting. In fairness, find me a policy that costs exactly what any Minister ever outlines in the first instance, but has there been a revisit of the Scottish experience at all?

It's been difficult, on two counts, really. First off, the Minister hasn't been specific, saying that she's had discussions with Scottish Government but not saying where those costs are higher. The other thing is that the Scottish Act has received Royal Assent but none of the provisions have actually commenced yet. It's only the more technical provisions that have commenced. So, there's been no work. The commission hasn't been established, and we don't know when that work is going to happen. There's nothing from Scottish Government to say when that commencement is going to happen, because it's through regulations of Scottish Ministers. So, we don't know when any of that work is going to happen. When we know the work is happening in Scotland, we have every intention to speak to the officials in the Scottish Government to try and learn lessons and, if that's done during a point where the Bill can be amended, look for ways that we can strengthen the Bill at that point.

We've got to also remember that this is a framework Bill. It leaves a lot of the further work in the hands of the Government, and the Government can decide, as long as it achieves the expectations of the goal, how it wants to resource areas and how much they want to put into areas. So, much of the final costs of this is going to be in the Government's hands. This is a framework Bill. It's not tying the hands of the Government. The Government have got the discretion to shape those key planks once it comes about.

So, I suppose, just to sum up the answers to the questions that I've put to you, what we're talking about here is a sort of short-term pain for long-term gain. Maybe that's the wrong wording, but an investment, essentially, is what we're looking at here.

That is so right, Luke. It's very difficult to assess—and I've said this in other committees—in monetary terms the cost of this, because how do you factor in the positive benefits, the social benefits, the societal benefits, that social currency that this achieves, and the reduction in people entering the health system with diet-related issues, the benefit to our young people from addressing obesity, from addressing diabetes? It's millions and millions of pounds, if you want to measure that in money, but the benefit to our communities and future generations, which this place talks a lot about—future generations—well, this is exactly that: putting in frameworks to help future generations. So, how do you quantify those costs? Sometimes you have to forward invest. You put money in upfront to turn out a longer term gain, and that's the same with any legislation. Any legislation starts off aspiring to do something. There will be initial, front-end expectations that the benefits that are delivered at the end are expected to be far better, either financially or societally.

Diolch.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Sam Kurtz.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, panel. When taking evidence from RSPCA Cymru, they called for the inclusion of animal welfare in the Bill. The health boards that we've taken evidence from have explicitly mentioned the tackling of health inequalities, and others have called for changes to improve the planning system. Are there any amendments that you would consider, relating to the food goals, having listened to Stage 1?

As I said earlier, I've always been—. It's important to listen, and if there are appropriate amendments that we need to make, I'm not against that. I'd be happy to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 if the evidence from this stage supported it, and that goes across the whole of the Bill.

In relation to the food goals, even during my own consultation on the draft Bill, there'd been calls for different approaches. We've had it many times, and it's only right that individual organisations are going to want to be very specific around their area. What's very difficult is accommodating everybody's expectations and wishes on the face of the Bill. How do you do that? You've got to try and plot a way that creates the opportunities for everybody to input at those later stages in contributing to the targets to achieve the goals and things like that. So, I don't think it would have been possible to take on board all of the suggestions made in consultation, my consultation, or at this stage. But I certainly will be considering all of the evidence we've received to see where those food goals may need to be amended, and I will do that in consultation with stakeholders, and with the Government if they're willing.

Okay. So, it seems that you're quite amenable to potential amendments there, as and when they come on specific points. Some stakeholders highlighted the possible opposing nature of the goals, and you've previously said that they should all be taken equally. I know the Soil Association suggested the wording 'taken together' to ensure that they're all equal. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on that, and the Soil Association's assessment.

I've always made it clear that none has any more weighting than any other, but, I have to acknowledge, if people perceive that is the case, that is an issue, and we've got to, perhaps, then try and find amendments in the Bill. If there are wording amendments needed to help clarify things or strengthen what we're trying to say, well, I'm obviously very happy to make those. Whilst I might think I've got all the ideas, I haven't, so stakeholders will have some good points and they've made many good points, and, if there is a perception, we need to help people get over that.

So, with one evidence session, I explained to them that, as you're a backbencher, you wouldn't be the Minister taking this Bill forward if it were to be successful; it wouldn't be your policy in Government. Given that, in terms of the aspirational targets, the WLGA said the targets could require a better minimum standard. Is there a reason why you weren't more ambitious in the drafting? Is it because you're giving that framework to the Government, which you're not sitting in? Or is it that, actually, you're thinking of what's deliverable?

Well, we haven't set targets; we've set the goals. There's an expectation for the Government, with stakeholders and others, to set the nature of the targets, and the WLGA would be a fundamental, I would have thought, stakeholder who would be looking to contribute. So, there is some work to do for the targets to be set. That's work to be done later on.

But if targets aren't achievable and they are only aspirational, how are they quantifiable? And that's really quite important. We want to see quantifiable targets so that progress can be objectively measured against them and then can be reported on for effective scrutiny. If we had purely aspirational targets, it would be much more difficult and probably impossible, many times, for any worthwhile reporting to be done on them, and that would mean our role in the Senedd, in scrutiny, would be diminished. One person's aspirational is not necessarily somebody else's. We need real targets that are achievable. There's no point putting targets in that aren't going to do anything. They need to be able to deliver against those food goals, or whatever—if there are slightly amended food goals, or whatever.

So, had you been the Minister bringing this forward, would you have put stronger targets within it, or would you have left it as more of a specific framework, with the targets coming secondary?

If I had been the Minister and this was a Government Bill coming forward, it wouldn't have been shaped, perhaps, like this. I'll ask colleagues, perhaps, to come in in a second. What we are creating is the framework and we're giving the discretion to Government. We didn't want to be over prescriptive on this and tie the hands of Government. We wanted to give the Government as much opportunity as it wants to work with stakeholders, work with the commission, work with us as a Senedd to get the right targets that are going to achieve the outcomes. If I had been a Minister, I may have prescribed what those were. But, as you said, I can't enact this Bill. Once this is over, I'm just a backbench Member and have very little influence, as we saw yesterday. Can I perhaps bring Aled in?

Just to add to that as well, in terms of the drafting, the provisions are very similar to what you have in the Environment Act 2021, which sets targets. So, in a similar way, it sets targets that must be capable of being objectively measured, and then there must be a date by which that can be achieved. So, it's very clear in terms of what it sets out and, as the Member mentioned, the food Bill's goals themselves are very aspirational, but, following the example of other legislation, we felt that the targets needed to be measurable and—

So, it's not novel, what's in the food Bill; there is a precedent.

It follows precedent and convention, yes.

Gareth.

If I could just add something to that, one of the important elements of the Bill is the establishment of the food commission, and one of the important parts of the target-setting process is that we are requiring the Government to consult with the food commission as well. So, even if this had been a Government Bill, before a commission was established, there may still not have been specific targets on the face because of the importance of building in the food commission element and the independent consultation and advice element that would help shape those targets, because the food commission should have expertise across the board to help feed into that. So, that's part of why the Bill is shaped as it is, as well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, all. Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

I'm glad you mentioned that. I'd overlooked that bit.

Yes, that's a good point.

Okay, we'll move on. Vikki Howells.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Peter. I've got some questions on the Welsh food commission that you propose. You'll be aware that the Minister told us she didn't support a new food commission, but she would consider setting up a board within Welsh Government to join up food policy across departments. To what extent do you feel that that would provide a solution?

Good morning, Vikki. Well, that would be a step forward, I suppose, but I think the Minister is missing the point a little here if she said that. It is having an overarching national food strategy that should join up policy, not an internal board. Any internal board set up could help establish the strategy, but should not be itself the tool used to join up the policy. I suppose, in some ways, the Minister acknowledging that she needs the board to join up policy again makes my case why there is a need for a strategy to join up policy. But what we want to do is to actually have that legislative requirement to make all of those happen. I think a Government board trying to do everything is not going to be objective, it's not going to be able to be focused in quite the same way. What an internal Government board doesn't provide is that independent element that would be delivered via a food commission. It is interesting that the Minister believes that that board is needed to join up food policy, as she's now said in a couple of evidence sessions herself. But I don't believe that's the right way forward; I've always believed in the need for a commission, a group, a body that is focused very much on the food system and how it needs to evolve.

Sorry, my phone is going off in my ears; I've got hearing aids connected to my phone, and it's—

It's a good reminder to get these things turned off, isn't it, or muted.

Yes. You forget sometimes that they come through to your hearing aid.

So, basically, no, Vikki, I don't think an internal board is the right idea; I think the commission is the right idea, to work with the Government to set strategy, and, if the Minister wanted to bring forward an internal board, that internal board could surely take part on behalf of the Government to help create that strategy.

Okay, thank you. And having heard stakeholders' support for a dedicated food commissioner to provide a figurehead and to elevate food policy matters, do you still advocate a board-and-chair model?

I absolutely appreciate that some stakeholders have said what they've said about a commissioner providing that figurehead, but there have been a range of views on this, and I'm still convinced that having a chair-and-board model would ensure that wide range of expertise, all working together with the commission to push policies forward.

As set out in the Bill, in appointing the members to the commission, Welsh Ministers must have regard to the desirability of members having a range of appropriate skills and experiences. Now, I can see the argument, perhaps, for a commissioner, but I just have this feeling—I've had it all along—that, because of the breadth of the food system in Wales and the expertise that is needed from all angles, from food production, from health, from education, from the Government, from any other key stakeholder that needs to feed into this, you need to have people with equal standing coming together as an advisory group, if you like, with the mouthpiece of the chairman, to create this whole, holistic view. I've got some anxieties about a commissioner, as one individual, having certain people reporting to her. I believe that a chair-and-committee structure creates this, you know—. There's an accountability on everybody in that body, and it would attract the key people. So, I still think that is the right model going forward, and the one I'm still advocating for in this process.

Okay, thank you. And a final question: in Scotland, they are in the process of establishing their Scottish food commission. Although it's in its infancy, are there any lessons that you've learnt already from that?

As Gareth was saying earlier, it's premature to learn from the Scottish commission, because it hasn't yet been established. So, they're going to put it in place, and they've had Royal Assent, but we're not clear when they're going to commence using their commission. So, I'm not sure what the timing is on that, but perhaps I could bring Aled in on that, Chair.

Thanks. Yes, just to add as well it's too early, as Gareth mentioned earlier; a lot of the commencement orders haven't been made yet. But, just in terms of learning, we know from that Act—. And they used a similar chair-and-board model, and I know timescales are something stakeholders have been quite keen to learn more about. Well, we know that the well-being of future generations commissioner took around three years to be appointed, whereas a similar chair to what's being created here, under the Environment Act 2021, only took around four months between appointment and all that hearing process. So, lessons I think have been learned in the way this has been designed.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Peter—. Thanks, Vikki. Can I just turn to the national food strategy, if I may? It appears to me that even those stakeholders who opposed the Bill expressed some support for the need for a national food strategy to bring everything together. Even the Minister, in some respects, recognised that a national strategy might be a useful thing to publish as well. If this Bill didn't move forward after Stage 1, would you support the development of a national food strategy in the absence of other elements of the Bill, if it didn't move forward at Stage 1, in its current form?

Obviously, Chair, I'm here wanting my Bill in its entirety to go through. That's what I've been asked by the Commission—by the Senedd—to do. And I've been asked at several occasions in committees, 'So, what if it doesn't happen, Peter? What are you going to do then?' There's almost this assumption it won't happen, and that worries me in this place that, because it's, perhaps, a backbench Member's Bill that's coming forward, it's destined not to get there. Now, I'm not naïve: I know that. So, the acknowledgement by the Minister that a food strategy might be something she wants again recognises what I've said right from the start: we need a food strategy. And the other elements of the framework that go with it aren't over onerous, are they? There's a strategy, there's a commission, there are food plans linked to food goals. We're not too far away from that. We know we haven't got a community food strategy yet, because the Minister's said she's used all her time interrogating my Bill. So, there isn't a community food strategy, so we can fill that gap as well with all of this. So, it's a positive message that there is an acknowledgement by the Minister, and obviously the Government, that there is a lack of joined-upness here, hence the recognition that a strategy might be useful. But, from my position, I would like to see the Bill in its entirety, because I think it does address the many gaps in the food system here in Wales, albeit there are areas that we need to amend and move forward. So, I don't want to defeat my own Bill before it has an opportunity to be discussed in full.

Okay. Sarah Murphy is going to come in in a few moments, but, Hefin David, you have a question. A supplementary question.

Yes. I think the question I was interested in—later, if the Bill falls—has been asked. With that in mind, first of all I'd say I don't want to be cynical; I don't think that legislation should be brought about for the sake of legislation, and just because it's a backbencher's Bill doesn't mean it has to automatically fail. That said, there are certain things that could be done outside of legislation, where legislation may not be necessary, and I don't think we should legislate for the sake of it, but, at the same time, keeping an open mind, it is wise to think about what might happen, should the Bill fall, as Darren has already explored. But aren't there opportunities within the—? As you said, the Bill is a template for the future generations Bill—the future generations Bill was a template for this Bill. Is there not an opportunity within the future generations office to provide some significant and quick wins with regard to the framework, and having that opportunity there would be faster than introducing and going through the legislative process and the subsequent actions that would be required after that?

Yes. Well, thanks, Hefin. You know, there's a lot of—. The Minister, the first thing she ever said to me was something you just said to me: 'You don't need legislation; you don't need unnecessary legislation.' And I've raised a couple of conversations with the past future generations commissioner about the ability to absorb, perhaps, all I'm suggesting within that remit. And at that time, the commissioner felt that that wasn't the right way forward. However, we've a new commissioner, and there's nothing stopping people thinking of strengthening the future generations Bill, perhaps, to do some of this. But I don't think that it's right that I should be planning for my own Bill to fall, as I've said already. If this falls—. I'm not a Minister. I would love to be a Minister, to be able to go forward and create the alternative to this, if it falls, but I won't. So, my job is to defend and to put forward what I was asked to bring forward. If my Bill was to fall, I would have absolutely no mechanisms to be able to make any future changes. So, it's—

I think that's an absolutely fair and legitimate answer to say from the perspective of a backbencher.

Yes, it is really difficult.

I suppose the further question is: very few of us are chosen to bring forward these Bills, but it does give you an opportunity to have the kind of dialogue with Ministers that few of us have the opportunity to have. So, I suppose the question would be: would you use the opportunity, not assuming the Bill will fail, but would you use the opportunity to push those things that could happen outside the Bill?

Hefin, the opportunity has been open all the way, from the day this Bill started, for us—. I offered this Bill to the Minister right at the beginning; I would have given it her: 'Have this; I'll work with you to help shape it.' The opportunity has been in place for 15, 16 months for us to sit around and shape this into something meaningful, all the way through. I'm afraid I haven't had that productive engagement, which I would have dearly liked, so that we could have found a way through some of the concerns or anxieties that the Minister might have had.

I suppose I need to perhaps link back to something that one of the consultees said. Katie Palmer, from Food Sense Wales, on 19 January, said that there was a need to strengthen the future generations Act around the role of food, because there were no indicators for food. Katie went on to say that the evidence for that was obvious when you go through the well-being assessments, which she had done—all of those— and all of what she'd done with public services boards. So, there are a group of many people out there who believe that we need to be doing what we're doing and taking things forward as we should. There is a general feeling that we can't just bolt on to existing legislation and existing strategies and things like that—there is a need for something quite bespoke here. So, I would dearly love to work with the Minister, and I hope that we will have a deeper dialogue, going forward, to say, 'Well, what in all of this package is achievable, what can we work together and get through?' I would hope it is all achievable. I am more than happy to sit and talk with the Minister and the Government—whoever—to say, 'Well, look, how can we make this more acceptable when it comes through Stage 2? What can we do?' And that offer is open. And I've said earlier on I'm happy to amend things throughout and listen to the various consultations.

Just to say, not to prolong it, but just to say that the committee has a role here as well, in reporting on Stage 1, and you have the opportunity to say to us what you would want to say to the Minister. So, there is an opportunity for you here to say these things too, which we could include in our report.

Yes. And I think that I've made it clear through all of the—. It's a very difficult position, a very difficult position. I'm being asked to find ways that might substitute my own Bill. I just can't see the logic to why I'd bring a Bill forward to find a way for it to fall because there's a perception that it might fall. Now, it may fall, but what I'm offering is an opportunity for amendments at Stage 2 to be able to shape this into something very much more acceptable to everybody. That offer's there. I was challenged in the same way at the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee meeting: 'What happens, Peter, when this falls? What are you going to put in place?' I'm thinking, 'Why am I asked these questions?' I am tasked, as a result of the debate in Plenary, to bring this forward and develop it as it was presented. That's what I'm doing.

Some positive steps have come out of this. There are some positive messages; the Minister's acceptance that a strategy may be needed and that there are good parts within the Bill is really positive. And the positive nature of many of the stakeholders, saying how much they need this and how much it's wanted—there are great things coming out of this. And, if nothing else, it's raised the profile of the food system in Wales, and a real need for us to do something about it. But, as the lead Member for this Bill, it is my job, on behalf of the Parliament, to actually take it forward to its next stage in its entirety.

Okay, Hefin? Sarah Murphy.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Peter, for being here today. I believe that this is the last time that we will be asking questions at this stage, so I just wanted to say congratulations, really, on putting this Bill together. It has raised some very interesting questions, and it has been very good, I think, to hear the evidence as well from others, pointing out maybe, possibly, some of the gaps that we currently have. So, thank you.

So, I'm going to ask some questions on the local food plans. Several stakeholders wanted to see local food plans integrated with community-based organisations and projects, such as local food partnerships, and it was commonly thought that the Bill doesn't do enough to tap into the grass-roots community movements. So, would you strengthen the Bill in this regard, and, if so, how?

Thanks, Sarah, and thank you for those kind words. I'm enjoying this process.

I've heard some of those concerns, and I can see that a huge amount of work has been put into local projects and community-based projects, and they, I think, have a fundamental part to feed into the eventual food plans. Many, many councils and organisations are already supporting these community projects; they are already integral to the food thinking in local authorities. And although it's not set out as a requirement, the Bill does suggest that, before making a local food plan, a public body may consult the food commission, the future generations commissioner and such other persons that the public body considers appropriate. Well, especially as a past council leader, I know what I'd be doing; I would be wanting to embrace the expertise and the work that's already gone on, and use those good people and their thinking to help shape my food plan, going forward.

So, I would really hope that any public body who is shaping the food plan in line with the food strategy would engage those good people who have already worked really hard on this agenda. What I have heard from some of those groups is that they love the idea of being able to have something more national, something that they can work towards, instead of trying to work in isolation, in small pockets. That's one of the—. I know that the community food strategy that the Minister is looking to bring forward has quite an emphasis on that area. So, it is a fundamental part, I agree, that local projects play in that bigger picture. However, that's not enough on its own. For the scale of the security of our food and the food system, we need something scaleable as well. So, I think there are lots of people who can play a part in this, and I don't think community groups should feel that they will be marginalised in this.

Thank you, Peter. You touched a little bit on this, but I’ll drill down into it. But this does really go to my colleague, Hefin David’s comments as well about the duplication, really. So, the Minister said that the local food plans duplicate local well-being plans, which are the focus of local authority-led public services boards under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and she said that public services boards were revising their initial plans and that there is an opportunity to increase their focus on food matters. So, does this address your proposal for local food plans? I do understand what you mean about being able to work more nationally, but again, I suppose to Hefin David’s comments here, does this need a Bill, though, because there could be other ways of doing this?

Well, public services boards do a great job in delivering their well-being plans, which we know are in line with the future generations Act aspirations. But I don’t really understand why individuals believe that local food plans would duplicate well-being plans. The national indicators required under the well-being of future generations Act currently contain no indicators at all on food, so there’s a big gap there. So you would need to alter the whole nature of the well-being of future generations Act and its requirements for public services boards to be able to embrace it. That’s a big role.

I know that this committee has heard evidence around this, and I’d just like to refer Members, once again, actually, to 19 January, when Katie Palmer from Food Sense Wales came and addressed the committee, where she said that there was,

‘a need to strengthen the future generations Act around the role of food, because…there are no indicators for food’.

Katie went on to say that,

‘the evidence of that is obvious when you go through the well-being assessments’,

which she has done—that’s her role for all of the public services boards. Another thing raised during the evidence session, I recall, was that the outgoing future generations commissioner has also recognised—and I referenced this earlier—that the body wouldn’t be able to deliver on this in the way that some might expect. And I’ve also got some anxiety—not anxiety, but recognising what some public bodies have already said about resources and different things like this: who makes up a public services board? Local public bodies who would be expected to put plans in place that align to an overarching food strategy under regulations, and things like that. Now again, is that the right way to take things forward? I would argue that they’re not compatible.

Thank you very much. Also, I just wanted to reference, in the previous session with the Minister, I did ask about the possibility of exploring having a part in the current well-being of future generations commissioner’s office, maybe a deputy role, for example, just to look at food and a lot of the things that we’ve identified here in the Bill. What are your thoughts on that? Because I suppose the way I was coming at this is that a new commissioner would take a lot of time, as you said, and additionally, a lot of money, and with the future generations commissioner’s office, all of those statutory guidelines and everything, all those mechanisms, are already in place. It could be something that could be strengthened and incorporated. I kind of got the impression from people we heard evidence from that they also want a sort of figurehead. I suppose it was what you said about scaling it up, and having somebody who’s at the head of that.

Yes. I know that people have made that case, and very strongly. I think the resources you’d need to put in to bolster and strengthen and create whatever you needed to create to achieve this in the future generations commissioner’s organisation would be not much different to what you would need to do, and the resources you’d need to sink in, to create the commission, which would actually have that bespoke and specific role to do exactly that. So, what you're almost saying, Sarah, is to create exactly what I'm saying—a commission—but slotting it under the future generations commissioner and using the future generations commissioner as the figurehead for this. But, you know, I've got no criticism of the—. There's a huge amount of work that that future generations commissioner has to do, as we've just talked about, with the well-being plans and all of that. To suddenly expect that role to take on this other huge expectation—. I think that's too much for a commissioner to actually hold, one commissioner, on top of everything else, to carry. So, I still believe that a separate entity, be that, in the end, a commissioner—I would hope a commission, with a chair-and-board model—would be the right model, going forward. So, there would be some set-up resource costs and things like that, which seem to be taxing some people.

However, in the longer term, developing that overarching food system and all of those things—. Because, don't forget that this is such a wide brief. Lots of people still keep thinking a lot that this is just about food production, but it's not; it's how we're going to use the food for the future and how we're going to alter society with all of this. It needs so much thought and so much expertise in it. We shouldn't just think, 'Well, let's save a few quid and a bit of organisational trouble by slotting it in somewhere'. Sometimes, as we've seen with the Government creating its own Bills for various things—the agriculture Bill, environment Bill—there is a need for Bills. This might have come at an inconvenient time for the Government, but it's absolutely needed. I think it should be supported in its entirety with its own mechanisms.

Thank you, Peter. My final question, then, is on the UK/international markets. To ensure appropriate food policy development in Wales for UK/international markets, the Soil Association saw a role for the food commission to assess the impacts of UK trade policy, the UK internal market Act and common frameworks when shaping the national food strategy. Do you agree, and should the Bill be amended to add this function?

Thank you, Sarah. No, I don't believe that the Bill needs to be amended here, as the commission's functions are drafted in a way that would allow them to advise and inform the Welsh Ministers on these important matters—all of the things you've just said. When it comes to drafting the national food strategy, the Welsh Ministers must consult the commission before making the national food strategy. Section 10 of the Bill gives the commission powers to advise, inform and assist the Welsh Ministers in relation to food matters. So, if there are issues arising from UK trade policy, the internal markets Act or common frameworks that relate to food matters, then the commission could advise the Welsh Ministers accordingly and this can help to shape the national food strategy.

Okay, thank you very much, Peter, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Sarah. Are there any further questions from Members? Hefin David.

Thank you. Just to ask, is there any evidence that has been gathered through the process of Stage 1 that has surprised you or changed the way you think about the Bill?

I was, perhaps, surprised by the huge level of support that there was for the need for something. We've had that in the results of the consultation; you know, 100 per cent of people said that there was a need for something. I never thought at the beginning that what I was setting in motion was going to actually bring so many disparate parts of Wales and the food system—people who use food—together in one unified voice, you know, from health, from academia, from producers to everywhere. Okay, there are some people who haven't wanted it; I'm not saying that that's not the case. But, overwhelmingly, the majority of people we've brought together—. So, I suppose I've been surprised by what we've set in motion.

I haven't heard anything that says, 'Oh, Peter, you really shouldn't have started this'. I suppose what I've learnt is that I didn't realise that, in our country, we would have such a disjointed approach to something so fundamental for our future generations, when we talk so much about future generations. Yet something so fundamental to future generations hadn't been considered, or considered appropriately, or in a holistic and strategic way. I think that's what we can do now; we can put that right.

Okay, Hefin? So, if there are no further questions, that brings us to the end of the evidence session. I want to thank you, Peter Fox, the Member in charge of the Bill, for your attendance today, and Gareth Rogers and Aled Evans too. As I said earlier, you'll get a copy of the transcript, Peter, so that you can correct anything that's inaccurate in there. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you very much.

We will move on, then, to item 4 on our agenda, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill LCM. There's a copy of a legal advice note that has been circulated to Members. I will take it that that has been noted, and there are no comments from anybody.

We will now move a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are all Members content? I can see that Members are content, so we'll go into private session. Thank you.