Yes
Wales needs a development of food and drink that creates a sustainable process that creates a circular economy reducing the carbon footprint of production manufacturing and logistics
Yes
Through legislation a direction of travel can be discuussed argued and agreed without legislation it is at the politcal whim of one or two individuals
Food goals provide a point to aim at it makes the understanding within all directly or indirectly involved a purpose
Yes Wales cannot be self sustaining with regard to food and drink as a consequence not all food and drink production can be primary. The addition of secondary food goals i hope would remove some of the silo mentality that presently exists
The removal of the silo culture is vital. There needs to be much more understanding and cooperation between agriculture and horticulture with food and drink producers maximising value added products. At the same time there needs to be understanding and cooperation betwen the producers and hospitality and retail
If the food goals are put together well in consultation with all the industries concerned then the resource implications will automatically be minmised as the goals should create profit and wealth within the industries meaning that more can be done for all in Welsh society
Targets are vital within the bill but need to be set in realism and not box ticking. They need to be considered and revised on a regular basis
Yes and no. The targets need industry input from stage one they need to be realistic and be able to be altered. There needs to be the ability of a target to fail without repercussions but to be recognised early and altered - this is how business is done
It appears the reporting mechanism seems to go back to the government. I understand that this is in some ways logical BUT governments and their civil service departments never admiot to getting things wrong. This cannot become a party politcal football. Accountability has to be transparent and movable
Targets in the past i feel have come from the likes of Kantor who if the results do not appear within an epos system don't get recorded. The recording of the figures needs to be industry led but there needs to be trust between the industries involved and the government and their depoartments which i fear is not in place at present
Vital
yes in principle but is a lot more comp[licated in practice. The present food board is made up of businesses that have all had major grants from the government and the toadyism needs tyo be removed for the benfit of the industries as a whole
The Food Commision needs to be far more synodical than is proposed. Government appointees will do as the government wants and disregards those at the coal face those that make Welsh Food and drink the wonderful product that it is
Agreed on the 5 year term but not sure about the re appointment. With syodical process this would include far more people but not necessaily far more cost.
This needs to be industry led and not civil service led and as said if the food bill works with and for the industry then profits will flow and then government resources can be minimised. Look at FDF in say the East Midlands
Yes
No no no
No it does not. There needs to be involvement from the ground upwards across agriculture horticulture food and drink producers hospitality retail and tourism
The timescale is wrong. Yes the food bill needs to lay out a strategy for 12 months 2 years and five years and possibly ten years BUT this needs to be reported every quarter not every 2 years. This should be concise and not floury Big institutions report every quarter days after the end of the quarter and that must be the aim here
No As per 28 Reveiwing needs to be continuous every quarter whats working whats not working. That that is working great but still needs to be kept under review the areas that are not working need to be QUICKLY examined altered and revised
When you look at the Young Farmers movement each club is run by a committee with possible sub committees for specifics. Senior members are elected to the county level and senior members here are elected to regional level and then to national level. How does it work because decisions are madfe locally and the unpaid benefits are for the members. So resource implications are minimised The same needs to be set up within the food and drink industries with little or no civil service input apart from possible secretariate.
Vital
Which is first the chicken or the egg? If from the syodical system there is trust built up betyween local food groups and local public bodies then consultation will be regular and ongoing. This trust will take time to build and needs transparency from the public bodies
The reporting on local food plans will work seemlessly if all those in the locality have the same aims. If this is not working then some sort of mediation needs to be brought in quickly to get all back on the same rope
No as said previously reviews need to be continuous officially reporting every quarter not every two years
Local food plans can be easy with a syodical process covering all aspects of production but also supply and all social aspects
Yes but it may be useful in some areas to include such as the Trussel Trust
The regulations have to work in practice and that needs input from those at the coal face
The sooner this starts the better but big decisions need to be made a few months in quick legislation tends to be bad legislation