Health and Sport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

“Nutrition-Related Labelling, Composition, and Standards Common Framework”

The second item on our agenda today is an evidence session on the provisional UK common framework on nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards. This is the first provisional framework that the Scottish Government has drawn to the Parliament’s attention. The frameworks have been developed to ensure that rules and regulations in certain policy areas remain consistent across the UK following our exit from the European Union, and the committee’s role is to scrutinise those that fall within its remit. We consider that there is also a role for the committee to influence the content and monitor the application of common frameworks and for the committee to be a conduit between stakeholders and the Scottish Government.

The committee has received two letters from Joe FitzPatrick MSP, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing. The first shared the provisional UK framework on nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards, requesting that the committee provide a commentary on its content. Just yesterday, we received a further letter answering some of the questions that we put to the minister. We will take evidence from the minister next week.

In the meantime, I welcome to the committee David Thomson, who is chief executive officer of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland; Pete Ritchie, who is executive director of Nourish Scotland; Professor Paul Haggarty, who is deputy director of the Rowett institute of nutrition and health at the University of Aberdeen, which is one of the six members of the Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes—SEFARI—consortium; and Martin Keeley, who is environmental health manager with West Dunbartonshire Council and is here to represent the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland. Thank you all for joining us today.

We have a lot of interest in not only the framework but your involvement as key parties in its development. I will start by asking you about that. What involvement have you had in the development of this or other common frameworks? Have you been invited to comment by the UK Government, the Scottish Government or Food Standards Scotland? I will start with David Thomson.

Thank you for the invitation to come and speak at the committee.

The FDF is a trade association for food and drink manufacturers in Scotland and across the UK. This common framework is unusual, in that we have had reasonable sight of it over the past year and a half. It was first mooted a long time ago, but there was a level of engagement on it, and information provided about it, in 2019 by the UK Government, the Food Standards Agency, and Food Standards Scotland. In fact, there has been consultation on nutrition-related labelling using the framework as a basis. Therefore, unlike many of the other common frameworks, this is one we have had sight of. Obviously, it is still quite late in the Brexit process, given that it was published on 9 October, but it is still ahead of many of the others.

Thank you for asking me to give evidence. Nourish Scotland has not sight of any of the frameworks before being invited to give evidence by the committee. It has been frustrating—the frameworks have been invisible and under the radar. The most recent list of frameworks that we were sent said that the agricultural support framework, for example, was almost done and that there had been stakeholder consultation. However, as far as I am aware, we have not seen that framework and I am not sure that Scottish Environment LINK, of which we are a member, has seen it either. There has been a long period during which these things have been invisible to stakeholders, which I think is unhelpful.

The organics framework still has not been finalised—it has been kicked into 2021. For a lot of organic businesses, that is unacceptable. They simply do not know where they are with some of the regulatory frameworks.

I can quite understand all the pressures on the civil servants involved, but, in line with the principle of open government, it would have been helpful if more stakeholders had been brought in earlier in the conversation.

I have not been involved in the development of the document—I had not seen it before. It is well prepared, and it anticipates a lot of the challenges that will arise, although possibly not all, and we are keen to have some input into that.

I read the document in the context of advising the UK, my contributions to the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and on novel foods, and my role when representing the UK on European forums. Having previously contributed to this type of activity before, I am keen that we are involved in giving a realistic perspective on the true complexity of the food system and the implications of some of the decisions that are made—and that we anticipate some of those. That is the perspective that we bring.

The society has not had significant sight of the framework, but now that it has been provided, and having had discussion with colleagues in Food Standards Scotland—from whom you will no doubt hear next week—we can see that it touches on the local authority enforcement regime and on divergence, in terms of public health needs. It deals with complex issues, with loose definitions of “local” and “approved”. There are tricky issues, such as those that relate to food circulating in one nation and the framework being binding only on products that are approved in one nation or imported to that nation. The dispute resolution issue has been well worked out, but there is a potential kink in there, which may have been worked out already but is possibly worth raising.

I will try to answer the committee’s questions from the perspective of the Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health in Scotland. The society represents the regulator, which sits within the local authority framework.

Thank you very much. In summary, I think that the Food and Drink Federation feels well consulted and engaged from an early stage, but other partners have either not been engaged at all—which I think was Pete Ritchie’s evidence—or are only coming to it relatively late in the day. That is interesting. We are in a context in which things are being done against pretty tight timetables.

I ask the witnesses to indicate with an “R” in the chat box if they would like to comment.

The common framework and the concordat do not appear to be finished documents—they do not appear to be in their final form. Does that raise any concerns for any of the witnesses?

—[Inaudible.] some documentation to the committee that they have maybe had a chance to look at. However, there are a couple of areas that are really quite complicated and have important implications. Dietary reference values and reference intakes affect food labelling and food safety, and there are the levels at which free vitamins are offered, fortification levels and lots of other issues. There has been some ambiguity about how such issues would be dealt with.

The implication in the document is that the European Food Safety Authority values would be taken, but that is currently not the way that that is done in the UK. There is not complete harmonisation of recommendations between the EU and EFSA. Individual countries make their own recommendations, sometimes using EFSA values. The UK certainly differs in important ways, and it is important to understand that complexity. I will have a bit of a concern if that is not picked up, because it is pretty fundamental.

My next point is about novel foods—this is very important for innovation within the food system. To protect the health of the public and consumer rights, there is a very tight and detailed regulatory and evidence process that people have to go through in looking at novel foods. I could not see anything on novel foods in the document. Maybe they are in there somewhere, but the link is not obvious and I could not see any reference to them.

Those are a couple of things that are certainly worth thinking about.

I want to correct what I said earlier. We do not necessarily feel well consulted on the framework. We feel that we have been better consulted on it than on anything else because we had some introductory material on it last year, but we certainly do not feel that we have been as well consulted on the framework as we should have been .

I agree with the concerns that Professor Haggarty outlined. The legislation around the food industry is incredibly complex, as I am sure we are all about to find out over the next few years in terms of the implications for domestic legislation.

Our concerns are a little bit more political in nature. The framework is incomplete because we do not have the final terms of our trade deal and we do not have a real understanding of the interaction with the Northern Ireland protocol or the impact—or otherwise—of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is going through Westminster at the moment. All those things could have a fundamental effect, particularly on the making of claims and getting accreditation, and on dispute resolution.

Thank you very much. Pete Ritchie wants to come in on that question before we move on.

11:00  

Our main concern is that, although we have seen this framework now, we have not seen the food composition and labelling framework—I do not know where that is and whether it is available for comment—nor have we seen the pesticides common framework. The genetic modification framework has been kicked into touch, and we do not know the implications of there being no further action on that. It just feels as if, to some extent, some things might fall between the cracks and are not being addressed. It is quite hard to look at one of the common frameworks to do with food without seeing the others and understanding where things might fall within one jurisdiction or another.

To be clear, your view is that, in order to properly scrutinise or comment on this framework, having more understanding of how the frameworks relate to one another is a missing but essential requirement?

Yes. As everybody has said, this is a hugely complex area and just seeing one bit of the jigsaw does not really give us enough sense of the overall direction. As David Thomson says, the implications of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill add another layer of complexity. Certainly, we would expect to be able to look at the food composition and standards framework, the pesticides framework and this framework as a whole, because, in a sense, they all impact on how far policy can diverge across the UK in terms of the information that consumers can expect to get.

Because they are mentioned in passing, I will touch on enforcement and divergence. It is extremely complex for the enforcement authorities to deal with any kind of divergence. If food is imported in one part of what is currently the UK, it may be intended for circulation only in one nation, or it may be intended for circulation across all four nations. That is a concern. People have already touched on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and how that may change the regulatory landscape.

I raise the issue because, particularly in Scotland, with its unitary authorities, the regulator—environmental health—deals with all aspects of labelling, including information about nutrition and so on, and it is extremely challenged at the moment by the impacts of EU exit and providing for export certification and import controls. We could make reference to unfettered access and how that will impact the landscape. There is already a workforce capacity issue. Anything that exacerbates that without bringing a solution to the table just makes the matter worse. However, we note the attempts in relation to dispute resolution and those to limit divergence and to have co-operation and consistency across the four nations. Obviously, those things help the regulator in applying the standards.

In addition to the regulatory role of applying the standards in practice, what role should local authorities have in the development of the common framework? Are you looking to have an active, hands-on role for local government in the process?

It is maybe worth noting that the environmental health profession is a public health profession that sits within the local authority framework. Possibly a benefit of having 32 single-tier local authorities delivering environmental health services across those local authority areas in Scotland is that the approach is fairly well integrated with Food Standards Scotland. There is representation on the Scottish food enforcement liaison committee. I sit on the executive of that committee, and we have excellent dialogue with colleagues in Food Standards Scotland. With the existing frameworks, we have close working arrangements. We look for common ways of delivering and ensuring consistency, and we always look to keep the public health angle in what we do and deliver.

Does that answer the question?

I think that it does. The committee wants to understand how clear the implications of the framework are to the regulators and the other interested parties.

It is difficult to say exactly how clear aspects are or how they will play out in the future. As far as we can see, the thrust is to create consistency. I have read all the submissions. There are ambiguities about things such as daily reference values and intakes, and there is potential for divergence.

At the start of the discussion, I touched on the idea of food circulating in one nation and any divergent policy that affects food that is produced in one nation applying only to that food in circulation in that one nation or imported food. As I said, imports typically happen at very limited points around the UK. The food is then transferred to some or all of the four nations. Any issue with that inevitably involves the regulator in the checks that are done at the point of import or the point of production, how the products are marked, and their distribution. Any regulatory decisions would need to go back to the point of import or the point of production. Divergence is therefore an issue.

I am looking at the flowchart for resolution in joint decision making, dispute avoidance, and the dispute-resolution process. What might the impact be on the regulator if there were significant changes? That is almost an intangible. It very much depends on whether those changes were made across the four nations. If they were, everybody could work to the same standard. If there was divergence, we would need to look at what that meant for an individual nation. That would be very manageable in Scotland with the right resources, because the regulator is already very integrated with the intelligence and information that come from Food Standards Scotland and other sources.

As we are talking about regulatory divergence and convergence, it is really important to state that, from an industry point of view, the avoidance of any unnecessary technical barriers to trade—unnecessary differences in regulations—is important. Seventy per cent of all the food that we produce in Scotland goes to the rest of the UK, and we want to make sure that any differences in regulations are absolutely justified, because minimising them is critical to the success of food and drink businesses in Scotland. The regulations and the framework, as set out, suggest ways to deal with that from the point of view that, in general, there is a move-across of European legislation into the UK as a whole. At the moment, that is helpful from an industry perspective.

On David Thomson’s point about imports and exports and the complexity of the whole situation, important decisions on food and nutrition are made every day across Europe in advisory committees and so on. If there is not active attention to that and an attempt to keep things together, there will be quite serious divergence, even in the area that I mentioned. Guar gum or a modified starch can be added to yoghurts, for example, to give them bulk and fibre characteristics. Those things can be used very widely in products. If that product is authorised in Europe and we have not caught up with an approval in the UK, there could be major implications. There has to be constant looking across at where those things are going between the UK and the EU if there is not to be quite serious divergence.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, Mr Ritchie, but we have not quite got your sound yet. Please start again, if you do not mind.

I completely understand David Thomson’s desire for consistency across the nations and minimising divergence, and Martin Keeley’s concern about the ability to enforce things. However, we need to keep going back to the point of the frameworks. The point is to agree a common approach while recognising the capacity for policy divergence.

Scotland still has the worst diet and the worst obesity record in western Europe. We have an issue. To the extent that the labelling and control of food substances is relevant to that issue, we have to be able to diverge, if that is seen as valuable and helpful, and there is a scientific basis for it.

I emphasise that the point of the common frameworks is to allow the devolved Administrations to diverge and set their own policies in those areas. If doing so is to prevent chlorinated chicken or GM maize from being sold in Scotland, it is within the rights of the Scottish Parliament to decide that. Similarly, if we want to take additional measures to protect the health of our populations by changing the way that certain foods are labelled, we should be able to do that. That is a fundamental part of a democracy.

I noticed from reading the papers that, apparently, margarine does not need to be fortified with vitamins A and D in England, but it does in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That has not led to a total failure of the margarine market. We have managed. Food manufacturers and food retailers cope with significant divergence across Europe and internationally in the way that they market and label foods.

We should always look for consistency wherever that is possible and sensible, but we should keep recognising the right of the different nations in the UK to diverge.

Thank you very much. I have questions from Emma Harper, first on divergence and then on the concordat.

Good morning, everybody. I have a supplementary question about the conversation around divergence. In Scotland we produce about 70 per cent of the UK’s seed potatoes that go abroad. We use fewer pesticides in Scotland because our weather is cooler and our tatties do not get diseases as others’ tatties do, so does that potentially mean that we are able to market our crops better? If we have to look at how the policy divergence needs to be tweaked or sorted, would that affect Scottish seed-potato growers?

Thank you for the question. This is, as I hope I said, about unnecessary and unwanted divergence. Professor Haggarty has shown the complexity of the issues and how it is easy to diverge when there is no conscious thought behind it. The seed potatoes example that Emma Harper has given is one in which there is an advantage in divergence. Using that opportunity and devolved powers would be appropriate, as Pete Ritchie rightly said. What I am trying to get at is that this gives us a way to manage things in a way that is coherent, and in which any divergence is conscious.

11:15  

Those are very good points. Divergence is necessary and is provided for in the framework. It is recognised that divergence for public health reasons might be necessary. It has been pointed out that people who live in places where they are exposed to less sunlight obviously get less vitamin D and might need a supplement in their diet. Certainly, tackling Scotland’s significant challenges around diet and obesity and the effect that they have on health needs to be weighed in.

There was a question about who keeps an eye on the lists following risk assessment and introduction in the EU. That needs to be bottomed out; Food Standards Scotland colleagues will no doubt have something to say about that. Who holds the list? Who does the review? What is the mechanism for bringing it inside the regulatory framework of the UK, and how will that impact on the regulatory landscape?

Emma Harper’s question is helpful. It is quite a challenging question and probably applies to other frameworks. The general principle that we should be able to make the most of differences in how we label and market food from Scotland is important.

One of the things that will be coming soon—Denmark is looking at this, at the moment—is greenhouse-gas labelling of all food products. That will be brought in in different ways in different countries. Again, there is a big question: do we wait for an EU-wide labelling scheme, do we go ahead with a UK-wide scheme or do individual countries in the UK want to move further and faster? Certainly, as the connections between food and climate change increase, the question about environmental labelling will become quite a hot potato.

Thanks, everybody. I will move on.

The concordat states that

“The parties shall inform one another of meetings with industry within their territories which potentially affect the policy areas covered by this Concordat, or ... other frameworks”

Is that something that you are aware of, and does it raise any particular issues? Pete Ritchie said that he had not had sight of any of the frameworks. Should only Food Standards Scotland have sight of the frameworks or does the Food and Drink Administration, too, need to feed in because it also has expert knowledge for picking apart what is required in the frameworks?

Part of the context here is that we hugely welcome Parliament’s scrutiny of the frameworks; it is an important part of the policy-making process. Parliament looking at detailed intergovernmental decision-making processes is probably setting a precedent. Most frameworks are very technical, and many are obviously about dispute resolution.

It feels to me as though it is important. Leaving the EU is a big moment, so looking at how we will do things going forward, and involving a variety of stakeholders in the conversation, seems to me to be a very important step forward. The framework should not be seen merely as a technical matter for industry; it is a matter of values as well as a matter of the technicalities of food marketing and labelling.

On whether different Governments should talk to each other when they have had meetings with industry, I think that that is perfectly reasonable. It is one of the key areas in which the Administrations develop trust among themselves and are more likely to find common ground on the specifics. I do not see a particular issue—especially as most of the areas are, as Pete Ritchie said, very technical areas to do with composition and standards. That does not mean there will not be differences between Governments, but there should not be concern about Governments sharing information.

I will try not to repeat myself. There is the Scottish food enforcement liaison committee, for which Food Standards Scotland provides the secretariat. It includes all local authorities, environmental health officers, and industry representation by invite. It is an excellent forum for sharing information. While Food Standards Scotland keeps a detailed eye on the frameworks and the technical matters, issues and detail are brought to the SFELC forum. It has already been touched on that Governments across the four nations sharing data, scientific information and intelligence is generally regarded as a good thing. There is a framework for that, as well.

Thank you very much. We will hear one more question from Emma Harper before we go to Sandra White.

Thank you. Everyone is now involved in a massive amount of ongoing work. We have existing EU legislation and we are about to exit the EU—the transition will be complete in 30 days—so it seems that the big jigsaw that Pete Ritchie talked about will need to continue. Do you see it continuing long into the next parliamentary session? Will we need much more time to scrutinise all the frameworks, as we head into the next session of Parliament?

What is coming across here—it comes across partially in the document—is the complexity of the system. It involves multiple advisory groups and multiple systems. The framework is a great aspiration, but underneath it there is immense potential for things to go wrong and for unforeseen consequences.

I recommend not kicking off from any current working arrangements until we absolutely understand how the new arrangements operate, and we can put something else in place. That can be done partially and incrementally, but the first thing to do is understand how the system currently operates and how it interconnects with everything else. Then, if it is thought that we can deal with it, we should push away by all means, but I think that that understanding is important.

It will be ongoing work. As Professor Haggarty said, it is also complex work, so we expect the work to continue for a long time and for it to be scrutinised significantly along the way—especially when things do not happen in the way that was expected. This, and all the other frameworks, will be a long-term piece of work.

I will be brief. I completely agree that it is vital that Parliament continues scrutiny. As Professor Haggarty said, the matter is complicated, but that is perhaps why it is important that Parliament oversees it and pokes into it to ask what it means for people and for Scotland.

Good morning, gentlemen. As has been said, this is ongoing work and it is important that we scrutinise legislation, even though it is complicated. We need to remind ourselves that we are only 30 days to Brexit day and we still do not really know what is going on.

My questions are primarily about how the countries will work together under the framework, particularly in relation to how the Northern Ireland protocol and the UK Internal Market Bill fit in. Do you have concerns about how the countries will work together and operate in conjunction with each other through the framework? What effect will the Northern Ireland protocol have on such working?

As I said at the start, the short answer is that we do not know. The slightly longer answer is that we already know that the Northern Ireland protocol seems to dictate that there will be joint labelling and a joint approach between European and UK legislation.

We have just done a UK survey: 40 per cent of respondents suggested that they will not supply to Northern Ireland for the first few months of next year because they do not know how the system will work. There is a specific issue in relation to Northern Ireland.

There is still no reference to the common frameworks in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill as it is currently constructed. We have no idea how the principles that are in the UK Internal Market Bill interact with the decision and dispute avoidance frameworks that are set out. There are lots of unanswered questions.

Do we need those questions to be answered by 31 December? Not really. We need them to be answered, as Professor Haggarty said, when the issues come to the fore. However, we do not know when that will be; it will happen when something comes along to test the framework.

We have huge concerns about how it will all work and how the various legislation and international agreements will interact.

Thank you. Do any other witnesses want to comment on that?

The common frameworks documents show just how complicated this is, and how many processes must be worked on together effectively over time. We have seen civil servants in the four nations working together very constructively on the process over the past three years. They have put in a lot of time and a lot of hours to work out common frameworks and dispute-resolution procedures.

The UK Internal Market Bill goes against the whole spirit of the common frameworks, which say that countries should drop no surprises on one another. The bill takes a wrecking ball to the very careful and respectful joint work between the four nations on reaching agreement wherever possible and banning divergence wherever necessary. The crudity of the Internal Market Bill in terms of its procedures for dealing with divergence is in stark contrast to the sophistication of the frameworks. We need the bill to be amended to give primacy to common frameworks, because they are how the Governments of the four nations will work together, going forward. The UK Internal Market Bill mechanisms will not work.

From reading through the document, it looks as though there is very little scope for divergence within the UK, or that not much attention has been paid to it. In reality, divergence will be quite difficult. Pete Ritchie gave examples of things that could be done differently—he mentioned vitamin D and some other things. Divergence is certainly possible at the edges. Emma Harper gave the example of pesticides and seed potatoes. That is a good example because you could probably make a soft claim on that.

Governments are interested in regulation and jumping regulatory hurdles, whereas consumers and individuals in a country are more interested in the soft things that might change uptake of something. The regulatory framework, as it is set out in the document, will make real divergence quite difficult.

11:30  

I think that all the witnesses have touched on the internal market and the Northern Ireland protocol. I am interested in the reply from the Food and Drink Federation about a survey in which people said that they would not be sending products to Northern Ireland in the first few months. What do the Food and Drink Federation and other witnesses think about that and whether it would have a knock-on effect on the economy in Scotland? We talked about seed potatoes earlier—would be sending those to Northern Ireland? What types of food and drink would we not export to Northern Ireland in those months?

Thanks for that. I am heavily involved in preparation for Brexit in relation to exports. The Northern Ireland protocol deeply affects that work. Setting aside nutrition and labelling aspects, people might opt not to send to Northern Ireland products of animal origin or other high-risk products that need certification. The certification process is very detailed, because food moving across to Northern Ireland needs then to be able to go to the EU. That is a process that involves cost and administration—direct costs and indirect costs—so businesses might choose not to do it. We have for quite some time been working pretty much flat out to develop a system that creates fewest barriers to trade for Scottish products that go to the EU; now, that means Scottish products that go to Northern Ireland.

That matter is quite apart from the unfettered-access commitment and what that means for products that come from Ireland and Northern Ireland, and through Northern Ireland to Scotland, and end up in domestic products. We import from Ireland and Northern Ireland quite a lot of foods that are incorporated in products that are sold in Scotland.

There is a huge body of work to do on that. At the start, I touched on the impact on the regulators’ and environmental health departments’ capacity. We do not have enough people coming through to meet existing need, and the additional burdens of Brexit are placing enormous demand on environmental health officers in Scotland and—no doubt—in the other UK nations, as well.

It might also be that people will not export for other entirely legitimate and completely understandable reasons of cost and the time that is involved in getting over the export humps.

Martin Keeley has given a fantastic answer. There will be significant additional costs and complexities in potentially needing a European address in order to be able to export to Northern Ireland.

Also, some businesses are making the commercial decision not to export because—as well as there being legislative barriers—it is not worth having different packaging for the Northern Ireland market, or they do not know whether their product will be legal. That is why businesses are making such decisions at this time. That might change as the situation clarifies for Northern Ireland, but 40 per cent of our members have responded clearly that at the moment they are not intending to move goods to Northern Ireland in the first few months.

Good morning to everyone. I would like to carry on the discussion about parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate that several of you have touched on this already, but would you reflect on what further role it would be helpful to both the wider industry and consumers for the Scottish Parliament to perform in relation to the framework?

That is a big question and a very good one. For me, Parliament’s key role here is, as I was trying to say earlier, to pull out of the technical complexity what the implications are for policy making in Scotland—if there are any; for some of the frameworks there will be almost none because the effect will be the status quo. There will be same frameworks that are relatively uncontroversial. We have joint arrangements between the UK and Scottish Administrations on cross-border animal movements, animal health, veterinary services and vet testing. All those things have been operating with different competences between England and Scotland and have been doing absolutely fine with that for many years, so a lot of the frameworks will be uncontroversial.

The key thing is that, where there are policy implications for what we want to do in Scotland and where there is value in divergence, whether that is with our agriculture, fisheries or food labelling, or our consumer messaging, Parliament has an important role in trying to tease out how the common frameworks can be used to everybody’s advantage. The point of the common frameworks—and we have to keep coming back to this—is to provide consistency where possible and divergence where necessary. That is where Parliament can do a very useful job in both understanding what the implications are and communicating those implications to the wider public, because they otherwise will remain very much within Government and within technical committees that most members of the public do not know exist.

There are two key areas. One of them is set out in the decision-making framework itself, which is around making the regulations that flow from this. There is obviously a clear role for the Parliament in making the regulations that flow from this, which might be at UK or devolved Parliament level. When they are doing that, our ask would be for the parliamentarians to consider the need for divergence very strictly indeed and to make sure that there is a clear case for it.

The second area is how this all works when it comes to disputes. There is not necessarily a role set out for Parliament in the dispute resolution process and, when we read across from that to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, we see that there is a dispute resolution mechanism for disagreements but it is at a UK level. We have been very clear, throughout all the consultations on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—and we want to be clear about this when the common frameworks start—that any dispute resolution process has to have a reference to the four Parliaments, because that is the only way to have credibility in the four Parliaments.

Thanks again for indulging me. I want to make a general point on resourcing the regulator, because official controls relating to food are delivered by environmental health in Scotland, and environmental health is underresourced and does not have a sustainable stream of professionals coming through. Whether we have divergence or convergence, and whether we are regulating for the domestic market or for producers and manufacturers who are pitching to Europe or third countries, we need a sustainable and reliable regulatory resource in order to deliver those national controls. Those are the controls that underpin the reputation of Scotland’s food industry, which has an immense reputation domestically and worldwide.

Touching on what was said a moment ago, I echo the point that under the framework dispute resolution involves the four nations, but that does not appear to be the case in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is a serious concern. My main point is that, if you want to have your reputation as a food nation, domestically and for export, you need a sustainable regulator, but that is not currently provided for. We would like to see that change.

Thank you for all those answers. I particularly note what was said about regulation and dispute resolution. Are there any other specific events that should trigger parliamentary engagement with the operation of the frameworks? For instance, I think that the House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee has suggested that the annual report on the activities of the nutrition labelling, composition, and standards policy group might be one such event that would trigger scrutiny. Are there any other events that would trigger scrutiny?

Are there any thoughts on that or, indeed, on the policy group report being a trigger?

A situation that might trigger the operation of the framework is where there is a referral back from Europe for the food that we put either through Northern Ireland or directly to Europe that complies with domestic legislation but that is being challenged by the EU. That would cause us to look at our list and reference values or some other aspect of a food, or an ingredient, including whether that is manufactured in one nation or all four nations, and that could trigger the use of the framework and a review for that product, ingredient or novel food.

In your view, that would be something that Parliament should take an interest in.

Given that it would be a national concern, it would be something that Parliament might want to take an interest in.

Thank you.

Again, good morning to the panel. I want to look at the issues that will not be covered in the framework. We know about nutritional claims and health claims about the additional vitamins and groups of food supplements and so on, but for me the crux of this is how the framework may impact on the health of individuals in Scotland. It has already been mentioned that we do not have a very good report card when it comes to health in Scotland. Do the witnesses think that the arrangements in the framework present issues or opportunities to deliver on the health of individuals in Scotland?

I think that the frameworks are an enabling mechanism. They allow policy proposals to come forward from the Scottish ministers and Scottish civil servants to be discussed and debated across the four nations. My expectation and hope would be that, because our health profiles are not that dissimilar, measures such as changing the labelling or composition of foods that are good for the people of Scotland are also good for the people of the rest of the UK, and those measures could be seen to be relevant across the whole of the UK.

As we have seen in recent years, sometimes Wales has gone first with measures and sometimes Scotland, England and Northern Ireland have gone first. It is a helpful process to have individual nations try something out and move forward on it—with all due respect to the needs of manufacturers and retailers and so on. It is very helpful to have that policy marketplace where people can try things out. If they are allowed to carry on with the dispute resolution mechanisms and the consensus building mechanisms that are in place, the common frameworks can provide a valuable way for Scotland to bring things forward, to try things out, with consent, to monitor those things and, hopefully, to get the best ones adopted across the UK.

11:45  

The important thing for us from an industry perspective is to ensure that the evidence base for any changes that are brought under the framework is clear and understood. We already have in Europe a very strict set of rules for nutrition and health claims that are made on foods. There is an opportunity there, I am sure, but on the other hand we need to make sure that the science and the evidence behind any health claims or health opportunities are fully understood and recognised, because we need to make sure that we are protecting people. From our perspective, any changes would need to have that science and evidence base behind it in order for it to pass the very high standards that we want for food and drink in the UK.

Mr Thomson has led me into my final question here, which is to ask what the particular issues may be for the food and drink sector in Scotland as a result of the proposed arrangements.

I think that there are opportunities. As things move forward and we begin to diverge more from European legislation, it may be that there are opportunities for a different type of health claim than is currently allowed in Europe. It would still be science and evidence based, but there would be a different way of looking at the health claims. There are potential opportunities in all the different areas—composition, labelling, and nutrition declarations—for businesses to take advantage of a different way of looking at these things but still to be led by the science. I am not making the case that we need to be lax; I am making the case that, looking at it from a UK perspective, there may well be opportunities for Scottish businesses to develop and flourish in ways that are different from those currently allowed under the European legislation.

Can I go back to the earlier question? There is an opportunity here with this document for the Scottish Parliament and Government to focus on nutrition and health more generally. This is a very important issue and it can be done. As for what Scotland can do differently, it is important to realise that the science will not be different across the UK. The dietary reference values are the same and will not differ; your vitamin D requirement will be the same, but the implementation of it might differ.

On David Thomson’s point about health claims, I note that a committee is being set up in the UK to look at health claims and it is taking the European route almost exactly, because that is the gold standard in terms of an evidence base. I worry slightly about David Thomson’s point about divergence—I do not think that there is a lot of flexibility to move away from the scientific evaluation that is set out there—but I can reassure you that the UK will have a good system in place for health claims.

It is important to have a very tightly regulated system for health claims. However, there is also the issue of what is not on food packaging that might influence consumer choice, particularly in relation to health, diet, and obesity. Having done some work on price promotions and how we nudge population behaviour in a healthier direction, I think that there is something to be said for having different displays and information about food that is not currently included, as well as looking at what the regulated health claims are. We should look at things that are on food as well are things that are not, and how that affects a population’s health and whether those items are necessary and need to be different for the different populations in the four nations.

Touching again on Scotland’s significant health challenges relating to diet and alcohol, I think that the messaging is important, and it may be that divergence is necessary in order to adjust the population health and get a national benefit.

Good morning. My questions are for Professor Haggarty. You described the text on dietary reference values as ambiguous. Can you expand on that point?

Yes. It seemed to imply that there was a system in place, created by EFSA, that we could take, so there would be a list of nutrients and a reference value associated with each. That was how I read the documentation. However, that is not currently how the thing works in the UK or, in fact, in any other EU country. There is not complete harmonisation between the countries and EFSA. We have a recommendation for n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids that is different from EFSA’s, and we currently use that for recommendations that we make within the UK. We have to have clarity on precisely which values will be used and how that might change going forward.

Thank you for that answer. This is my final question. How important is access to scientific expertise in making measured assessments of the categories of foods and additives that are contained in the framework?

It is absolutely vital. In the future, FSS might think about consulting the current advisory committees. There are UK advisory committees on nutrition, on toxicity, on novel foods and on microbiology. It would be useful to send the framework to those committees, asking for their comments. It is absolutely critical that those committees are all plugged into the current process and that there is a requirement to consult them. As I said earlier, it is important to understand the complexity of the system so that it can be replicated or so that the UK or its nations can make a decision on what they do not want to replicate. The important thing is not to lose sight of the reality of the situation.

It is absolutely vital to have a very strong science base on this, but we would also point out that the science changes and orthodoxies change over time. We used to be quite focused on cholesterol. That was a huge thing that we all spent a lot of time worrying about, but we spend less time worrying about it now. Over the past few years, interest in the microbiome has exploded. We did not talk about it 10 years ago, but we talk about it a lot now. The impact of different foods on the microbiome is the subject of lots of research, discussion and conversation, and it may well be that, over time, we will look at labelling foods in terms of their impact on the microbiome. The degree of processing is a big issue in Brazil, but not so much here.

All that I am saying is that these things will change over time and that, in our science, we should always be open to looking at new evidence that is coming in and not always be reliant on what we used to think was best for our health.

Good morning. Are you reassured that the role of scientific evaluation is adequately catered for in the proposed process for assessing nutrition and health claims and for requests related to the other categories of vitamins, minerals, food supplements and foods for specific groups?

That goes back to the points that we have been discussing. This is quite a short document to cover a very complicated system, and it is not surprising that it is quite high level. There may be information underneath this that would give reassurance about the quality of the advice that is being taken, but it is not there yet—it is not made explicit. When we are talking about regulation, it is very important to make explicit which committees are involved and what kind of advice they are being asked for. A piece of work needs to be done on that.

This is my last question. Does the proposed process for assessing additives and food groups align with that which is in place under EU membership and the associated transition period?

Could I ask David Thomson, first, to answer that question on alignment? I will come to Martin Keeley afterwards.

You could ask me, convener, but I am afraid I that I would not know the answer 100 per cent. It is probably best to go to Martin Keeley.

Sorry—Martin Keeley was not asking to be called, so I will come back to Paul Haggarty. It follows on from the previous question.

Convener, could you remind me what the question was?

David Torrance is asking whether the proposed process for assessing additives and food groups aligns with what is in place already under EU membership and the transition arrangements.

The way that it is set out in the document implies that the current EFSA agreements and arrangements will be superimposed on the future arrangement. With regard to the dietary reference values and some other things, I tried to point out that that had perhaps not been completely bottomed out. I wonder whether the document postpones the decision on that a little bit. As I said in answer to David Torrance’s previous question, it is important to be much clearer about what will happen in this area.

Good morning, everyone. This has all been very interesting. One of the proposals is the creation of an NLCS policy group. We have talked about that quite a bit today with regard to finding common recommendations for ministers for decisions in all four nations and the most suitable approach. Does an NLCS policy group seem like a sensible mechanism, and will the current proposals deliver?

Pete Ritchie, would you like to kick off on the proposal for an NLCS policy group?

I will try. My understanding is that it would be a very sensible step forward. Having opportunities for people across the four nations to talk about these policies seems entirely sensible to me, because it will provide a foundation of trust, working together and sharing information on which we can then decide whether we need to diverge or whether we can have a consistent approach. It seems a very sensible starting point, absolutely.

I agree with Pete Ritchie. He is right about the need for dialogue across the four nations. I would be surprised if that dialogue was not happening already anyway—we know that it has been, so this is just a formalisation.

I suppose that, with that formalisation, come two concerns—one at each end. First, as Professor Haggarty asked, what evidence and advice is the policy group getting in order to form policy and develop new proposals? Secondly, at the other end, once it has agreed to agree or disagree, how does that fall into the political decision-making arena, dispute resolution and parliamentary scrutiny?

It will be a useful middle part and hopefully the glue that will hold all this together.

12:00  

On the back of that, does David Thomson have views on the skills and expertise that any designated lead official should have in being part of that group?

A designated lead official for a particular area would need scientific and technical understanding. We would expect them to be a technical professional within the organisations, with the support, I think, of a senior official in case there were issues, disputes or differences. First and most important is that they would need to be able to understand the advice they were getting and translate it into policy action.

I have one final question, and anyone can answer this. Do you believe that the type of expertise that is needed will be available to the policy group?

Yes. The UK punches above its weight in providing that kind of expertise in Europe, and its advisory bodies are very highly regarded within Europe. I see no reason why it could not create the appropriate structures.

I have found the discussion this morning interesting. The process seems, indeed, very complex.

We will be looking at other frameworks, one of which is the nutrition labelling, composition and standards framework. I am interested in whether we are ready. We have 30 days until 1 January. Do we know how products will be labelled? For example, how is Scottish organic produce to be labelled if it is to be shipped? It seems to me that we are not ready. I know that we have issues with inspectors in Northern Ireland, at Larne and Belfast, and that local authority environmental health personnel are required as well. The bottom line is: are we ready for 1 January?

I do enjoy a leading question.

The resource has not been there for some time. No national system has been provided for national delivery of an environmental health resource, and there has been no investment in the local authority provision of those professionals. That needs to be addressed, and, as the chair of the workforce strategy group on behalf of the society, I am engaging with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government on the issue in order to provide, in a strategic way, the resource that is necessary for the public health system in Scotland through environmental health, which sits within local authorities. That is a given—as a nation, we need to work to provide that national resource.

Your question was whether we will be ready on day 1. Although it is a simple question, it is very complex in all its component parts. Theoretically, nothing should change with labelling and content on day 1, because businesses have been working to European standards right up until this point. However, we have this export issue whereby, because the UK will become a third country that sits outside the EU, any food that it would previously have circulated in the common market will be regarded as coming from a third country and will need export certification.

Businesses may choose not to export, for financial or other reasons, but we, as the public health regulator and the provider of export certification for fresh food products, have created a system that, as far as we can tell, has been accepted and that will allow those products to be export certificated to go either through Northern Ireland or directly to Europe. That is as much as we can reasonably do, as we are stretched.

Will it affect businesses? Maybe it will not affect them on day 1, because the labelling is currently compliant with EU regs. Will it comply in the future? We do not know, because there may be changes. Is the regulatory system inside the nation set up to deliver for the future? No, it is underfinanced and it is not provided for in a strategic way in order to meet the national need. That needs to be addressed.

I am not sure that I have covered all the aspects of your question. I am happy to take a further question.

Thank you very much. I will go to David Thomson and Pete Ritchie and then come back to Emma Harper for any follow-up on Martin Keeley’s evidence.

I would add a couple of points on this particular piece of work and the frameworks in general, the Internal Market Bill and how all that works. Obviously, these things will not be in place by 1 January, but how critical that is, as Martin Keeley said, I am not entirely sure, because the regulation remains, in essence, the same. It is when we get to the point of divergence or some of the day-to-day decision-making issues that others have talked about that there may be an issue.

I agree with Martin Keeley that we need to ensure that Food Standards Scotland and our environmental health system are properly regulated in order to maintain high standards, avoid fraud and so on. There is a huge amount of work there and, in fact, a lot of work in educating the food industry about how to be healthier, more effective and safer. It is important that that advice is in place.

In terms of Brexit, the FDF asked 171 questions of the UK Government in July this year. So far, we have had 87 of them answered, with 75 requiring further information and nine remaining unanswered. It is no surprise that businesses do not appear to be ready, because they do not have the full information. The survey I have talked about that has just been done—again at UK level, and we got the results just last night—shows that around 42 per cent of businesses think that they will not be ready for Brexit.

Specifically on the organic sector, the organics common framework will not even be considered until next year, and I know that there are real glitches with importing organic produce from third countries outside the EU at the moment. How far those will affect manufacturers of organic products here and how far the EU and UK authorities will co-operate to not look too closely at what is going on, I am not sure. Some businesses are certainly not ready and do not know how they will be able to do certain things on 1 January.

Having listened to the discussion, I am reassured by what Martin Keeley, in particular, has said about what has been prepared. Certainly, I would encourage a conservative approach that tries to stick with what we have until we are sure that we can change. Even in doing that, there will be challenges. On day 1, the situation can change. If the EU authorises as lawful an ingredient or process—for example, the matter that we are looking at just now and some other processes—we will have to respond immediately or we will immediately have divergence and issues. Therefore, be conservative at the start, but you cannot be relaxed about the timetable.

One of my concerns is that our organic producers in Scotland might feel a bit pressured if we are not going have a common framework for them until next year. I am sure that that will affect their perception of how to take their businesses forward.

The novel foods issue is interesting. I am thinking about phytosterols and phytostanols being used in cholesterol-reducing spread. We would need to consider how those would be brought in and moved around the country. There might be divergence issues and I am envisaging that there will be challenges. Will there be a constant effort to try to address the challenges, whether they relate to products coming from Europe or the UK trying to get products out to Europe?

I ask witnesses to hold that question. I will add another one, then ask you to respond to both Emma’s question and mine.

My question is on the dispute resolution mechanisms and the joint decision-making mechanisms. Do witnesses have any thoughts on those and the ways in which they might be improved, as well as on Emma’s question on novel foods and so on?

I commend the individuals who put the common framework together. I am specifically looking at appendix IV, which is the

“Joint Decision-making, Dispute Avoidance, and Dispute Resolution Processes”.

When you run through all of the logic gate sequences and get to gate 1.6, you then get taken to:

“No Decision: Decision put on hold for further evidence to be submitted.”

My concern is whether one nation could use that as veto to stop something being done, which would mean that it would not move a UK-wide decision in which it was either accepted or rejected, or divergence was agreed. “No Decision” would be a holding box, in effect—a veto mechanism. I am sure that thought has gone into it and I am reading it just as a first take, but that would be a concern.

It remains unclear how decisions will actually be decided. If there is interaction between decision making and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as soon ministers are involved, evidence will be one part of the story and political considerations will be another part. Our biggest concern is about what the reality of boxes 1.4 and 1.6 will be.

On Emma Harper’s question, yes, the framework will be constantly tested, in two ways. The first will be the ongoing march of European legislation. For labelling, compositional standards and everything else, Europe has a constant programme of risk management and other approaches. Every time that Europe makes a decision, we in the UK will have to consider that decision and then make it or not make it for ourselves. From reading one of the annexes, it seems that there will be a potential delay of four years for decisions on some substances.

The framework will be tested from day 1, because Europe is making legislation that will impact next year and so on. Every time that that happens, the framework will be tested.

There are no further questions, so I thank all of our witnesses. It has been an extremely informative session that has covered a wide range of aspects of the common framework. It has been the committee’s first opportunity to consider a common framework, so it has been extremely helpful indeed. We will hear from the Government next week.

We now move into private session.

12:14 Meeting continued in private until 12:44.