Contents
- Attendance
- Scrutiny of NHS Boards (NHS Highland)
- Provisional Common Framework on Food and Feed Safety and Hygiene
Provisional Common Framework on Food and Feed Safety and Hygiene
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a provisional United Kingdom common framework on food and feed safety and hygiene. Common frameworks are being developed to ensure that rules and regulations in certain policy areas remain consistent across the UK following exit from the European Union. Our role is to scrutinise the common frameworks that fall within the committee’s remit. We have a role to influence the content of such frameworks and to monitor their application, and to act as a conduit between stakeholders and the Scottish Government.
The committee has received a letter from the Scottish Government sharing the provisional UK common framework on food and feed safety and hygiene, and requesting that we provide our commentary on it. In order to do so, we are today taking evidence from stakeholders, and next week we will hear directly from the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing.
For today, I once again welcome to the committee Professor Paul Haggarty, the deputy director of the Rowett institute of nutrition and health at the University of Aberdeen, who is representing SEFARI, the Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes; and David Thomson, chief executive officer of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland. Thank you for joining us. We very much appreciated your input to our previous consideration of another common framework, and we value your evidence in relation to this one.
I will start with the written evidence that Paul Haggarty provided on the framework. If David Thomson wishes to come in, he should simply indicate by typing R in the chat box. Likewise, if Paul Haggarty would like to answer a question that is put to David Thomson, he should draw my attention to that with an R in the chat box.
Paul Haggarty mentioned a range of organisations that should be involved in developing the framework. Have either of our witnesses been asked directly to contribute directly to the development of this particular framework, following your evidence on the other one?
I can confirm that I have not been involved in the consultation.
I first apologise for not providing a written contribution on the framework. Unfortunately, we have been a little pressed over the past few weeks, as you will imagine.
We were involved in the framework in some way, as we were with the framework that we talked about previously. We were invited to a stakeholder day on 9 October and had some additional information provided to us. That was a UK-wide stakeholder day that was run by Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency. Prior to that, as I think was set out in the minister’s letter, the framework has been discussed in the Food Standards Scotland board meetings over the course of the past few years. Our ability to contribute has obviously been limited because, even on 9 October, we were talking about a previous version of the common framework.
When we were at the committee previously, we discussed at length our concerns about the interaction of the common framework and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Obviously, we have not had much opportunity to discuss the issue with our members. Even at the stakeholder day, there was limited time to provide contributions.
We have been involved and we were part of a stakeholder day, but we have not been heavily involved.
In that respect, we seem to be in a similar place to the one that we are in with the other framework that we discussed: some people are engaged and others are not.
Paul Haggarty’s written evidence states:
“mechanisms in relation to food and feed safety regulation, enforcement, etc, have developed organically over decades. They work well but they are enormously complicated. It is possible that the UK may fail to maintain those standards inadvertently by failing to appreciate the full complexity of the process.”
Will you comment on that and suggest how such an inadvertent failure may be avoided?
The whole regulatory framework is extremely complicated. It covers dietary requirements, novel foods, food safety, toxicology and so on. All of those fields have an input into the decisions about foods. It is a case of multiple jeopardy, if you like, because a particular feed or foodstuff has to meet all the requirements.
The current set-up is very complicated; the information flows cover different countries and committees within them. The framework provides a pretty good summary of the situation. Having worked within the system to some extent through scientific advisory committees on nutrition, novel foods and toxicology, I can see from that perspective how complicated it is. With a document such as the one that is before us, which is not able to fully summarise all the linkages, it is not possible to say whether the situation is fully covered.
I have one suggestion regarding consultation. A large number of groups have been consulted, but it might be worth involving the EU, through the European Food Safety Authority, in the consultation to see whether it considers that anything has been missed. That would be extremely helpful. Some of the committee members on those panels are—even now—from the UK.
That is an interesting suggestion.
Before I bring in David Thomson on the same question, I want to check something with Professor Haggarty regarding his answer to the first question about not being involved in the framework. I know that today, as well as speaking in your capacity at the Rowett, you are speaking in relation to food and agriculture research institutes across Scotland. Would it be true to say that neither you nor your colleagues in those institutes have been consulted on the food and feed safety and hygiene framework?
We at the Rowett institute have not. As far as I am aware, institutes within the SEFARI network have not been directly consulted on it either. They may have had invitations to the open sessions that FSS helpfully arranged, but I am not aware of any formal requests.
I would underscore what Professor Haggarty has just said. This is a very complicated area of regulation and it covers a lot of different types of issues. It underpins the production, distribution and sale of food and drink and feed across the UK. It is important, therefore, that we have a common framework that allows for processes to be as smooth as possible for businesses. However, as Professor Haggarty said, it is currently difficult to judge whether the framework covers everything. I agree with his suggestion on consulting the European Union institutions and those who are involved in the area, not least to learn where elements of the framework could be better.
Professor Haggarty, you state in written evidence that you do not feel that the common framework is fit for purpose, and that it
“describes the overall system well but there are fundamental logical inconsistencies at the heart of the proposed arrangements that will undermine the implementation”.
Can you expand on those concerns and say why you believe that the framework is not fit for purpose and what may need to change?
11:30
First, I have to say that the FSA and the FSS were in an unenviable position. This is a really complicated area, and they have done as much as they can to address concerns and produce something that is as simple as possible.
My concern is around the Northern Ireland question. It is pretty clear in the framework that Northern Ireland has to stick with the current EU framework, which is not static but changes almost daily. A big volume of regulatory considerations go through Europe, so it is a constantly moving situation. Currently, there is alignment between the rest of the UK and Northern Ireland, but if Northern Ireland has to continue with the European position, we are basically going to have the four nations at the table with Northern Ireland essentially representing the EU in discussions about how to deal with regulation. It is very difficult to see how that could operate in practice and be consistent with the aspiration to maintain consistency across the UK.
I am sure that there will be some minor changes that it will be possible to accommodate, but I imagine that issues will come up within a reasonably short time. There may be disagreements between the UK and the EU in relation to how they want to proceed, which would put Northern Ireland in a very difficult position.
On the Northern Ireland issue, we agree with Professor Haggarty. Although the framework sets out how it will work, it is unclear how it will work in the context of the EU’s risk analysis procedures for food and feed.
Another issue is that when people seek licences to put new and novel foods on the market, they will need to go through two processes: one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland. That might make the UK market less attractive to businesses that want to innovate.
I am interested in the framework’s impact on internal trade and exports. My question is perhaps for David Thomson, but have either of you had an opportunity to consider how the UK and EU trade arrangement might influence the operability of the framework with regard to exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and markets in the European Union?
Professor Haggarty talked about Northern Ireland, but the paper that we have in front of us mentions risk management decisions that are currently taken at a national level in areas where EU legislation permits different approaches, such as raw drinking milk. I will give an example from my local area. There is a factory near Newton Stewart that processes milk and yoghurt, including protein-based yoghurt, and its products go back and forward to Northern Ireland, and then from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Are you concerned that there might be conflicts in such cases with regard to the operability of the framework?
It is a very complicated picture, as you have set out, and its interaction with the current terms of the EU and UK trade deal is probably still to be seen. We know that some issues have already been caused with trade between the UK and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland because of the current set of legislation and the terms of the trade deal. Trying to divorce those is quite difficult at the moment.
The UK needs to be able to prove that its food is safe and that it matches the level that is required for export into Europe, so we need to have a strong and robust system that allows us to do that. I hope that the common framework facility is that system. If someone is exporting into Europe, they will need to match the European legislation in any case, and that will quite often need to be validated in the UK by the UK’s health system and food safety system. It is highly likely, in particular as legislation develops and there are differences between UK legislation and European legislation, that the EU will require more stringent assurances.
There is not necessarily any initial impact that we can divorce here from the current ructions about the trade deal, but as legislation begins to differentiate itself in Great Britain, it may become an issue. However, the bottom line for any company exporting to Europe is that it needs to match the European legislation; the key issue is how that is validated country to country.
As you highlighted, it is a complex issue. I have concerns about food and feed safety, as we begin trade deals and as other produce comes into the country. How are we going to monitor all the regulatory processes? It is an issue that I have raised previously. We will have to look at what is happening in the EU, and look in detail at all the regulatory mechanisms in the framework. Professor Haggarty, do we have the ability to monitor the framework? How can we do that in a timely and realistic way? Who should be monitoring the process as it moves forward?
The UK definitely has the scientific expertise to do that kind of work. The UK already makes a major contribution to EU considerations in that area, so such an approach is definitely possible. However, it is extremely difficult to do, and I would imagine that a team of people—I do not know how big—would have to operate at an administrative level and monitor all the regulation in real time as it changes in Europe. Such a team would either have to put in place a dissemination mechanism to let producers and consumers know about those changes and how to cope with them, or introduce them into UK law reasonably quickly. Because of the sheer volume of regulation and the rate of change in Europe, I imagine that there would have to be constant monitoring.
Looking at the intensive processes and complexity involved in constant monitoring, do you have concerns about the interoperability of the framework? You mentioned Northern Ireland. Will there be continued challenges in how the UK makes the common framework work with Northern Ireland?
The Northern Ireland situation is very complicated, for the reasons that I set out. Basically, Northern Ireland will be following the European situation. Actually, there may be an opportunity there. As regulations come out of Europe and are taken up in Northern Ireland, there could be a communication link to the rest of the UK to say, “This regulation is changing. You’re aware of it now and you can decide whether to go with it or disengage from it.”
Brian Whittle has a supplementary to his earlier question.
My question concerns what needs to change. The committee will be developing recommendations. From your perspective, what changes are needed around the operability of the framework to make it more palatable?
The Northern Ireland situation is just a logical problem. There are two aspirations that are to some extent incompatible—the desire to hold to Northern Ireland within a UK context and the fact that Northern Ireland also has to work with the European legislation. To be honest, I do not know how to fix that problem. David Thomson will know more about this than me, but there could be many advantages to maintaining a similar regulatory framework to Europe’s, certainly in terms of export and import. The extent to which the two regulatory systems track each other is the extent to which the framework will be successful.
How will what is now the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 impact on how the framework operates?
I was anticipating that question. The 2020 act now sets out a way for common frameworks to be incorporated. That is new since the previous time we spoke, when the act was just a bill. It is an interesting development, and it means that this common framework could potentially be exempt from the terms of the 2020 act, although there is no agreement on that.
As we have already discussed at length, this is a very complex set of regulations that covers a vast range of issues in food and feed. It may be that the common framework will be exempt from the 2020 act’s principles, or you may end up with a set of issues in relation to which each Government is looking at the situation and coming up with different solutions. However, that is not the point of the common framework or the 2020 act, so I hope that the act’s new provision makes it much clearer how the common frameworks integrate and, therefore, how this particular common framework will work.
I have a question about pre-market approvals and re-authorisations, on which I have looked at the answer from the minister on 30 November. Are you reassured that the processes for businesses to apply for pre-market approvals and re-authorisations for both the GB market—for novel foods, for example—and the Northern Ireland market are clear enough and in place right now?
As I mentioned earlier, we are concerned, but it is an inevitability of the Northern Ireland protocol that there is a different set of pre-market access issues and procedures for Northern Ireland from those for the rest of the UK. Other than that, as far as we understand it, they mirror the European processes. From our perspective, that seems to be okay at the moment. However, the danger of separating off the Northern Ireland market from the GB market and making the UK system more complicated is that people might not apply for that kind of thing within the UK, and, therefore, we might lose some of the food innovation that we are rightly known for.
11:45
This question is for Professor Haggarty. In your written evidence, you state that the framework generally demonstrates
“an understanding of the overall competencies that will have to be taken on by the UK”
but that
“these are mostly presented as lists and it is”
unclear
“whether the complex nature of the linkages between these processes has been fully appreciated.”
Will you expand on the risks that that approach may present, please?
The information that is in the framework is as good as it can be. The problem is that representing the system fully would require a fairly substantial document with diagrams showing the interactions between various processes. For example, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition—SACN—is represented on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. SACN has also access to the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and so on. When SACN is dealing with particular issues, it can call on—dynamically, if you like—lots of different processes and expertise. It may be that the FSA and FSS have fully appreciated that in how they have looked at things, but the documentation is not detailed enough for us to be able to say whether that is fully the case.
I want to ask a particular question, and possibly a follow-up question, on the dispute resolution mechanism. Some interesting comments have come out of the House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. I was struck by a written response to that committee from the FSA, which stated:
“The Framework dispute resolution process is not triggered automatically: it can only be triggered where either officials or Ministers (in any nation of the UK) wish to object to the approaches recommended in one or more of the Great Britain nations.”
The UK Government is undertaking a consultation on the use of gene editing to modify livestock and food crops in England, and it has authorised the use on sugar beet of a pesticide that kills bees and is banned in the European Union. How would the framework dispute resolution process work in such cases, including in relation to genetically modified crops, which are banned in Scotland?
You mentioned EFSA. The EU has the most stringent regulations in the world. Everything is subject to extensive evidence-based science, case by case. How would the dispute resolution process work in Scotland or Wales, or even in Northern Ireland, which is still under EU regulation?
That is a very good question, so I guess that it deserves a very good answer. If there are changes to the regulations on genetically modified organisms, nicotinamide pesticides and so on, the UK committees, which have already largely agreed—or have agreed—with the European position, would have to look again at those areas.
On the concept of triggering an issue, I do not know what the monitoring arrangements are. Obviously, ministers or officials can trigger the process. I guess that it would be up to them to monitor the decisions that come out of the committees.
The kind of things that you have talked about are probably related to risk management rather than risk assessment, because they are about the interpretation of evidence and societal choices. One of the difficulties with the dispute resolution process is that the framework emphasises the consideration of objective evidence but it is hard to base societal issues and value judgments on that kind of evidence. In reading through the documentation, I was less relaxed about whether the resolution mechanism would work in all cases. I do not know whether that answers your question.
It gives me more questions. You answered the particular part about the interpretation of evidence and risk management, but there is no answer about the risks that such a decision going ahead would present. You commented that the committee might raise those questions with the EU and EFSA. Would that clarify the point?
The EU and EFSA have already made decisions in those areas and will continue to do so. I guess that the UK would have the choice whether to stick with their interpretation of the scientific evidence or whether to change it.
To some extent, this is where we come across the risk assessment and risk management problem. Many of the differences between countries with regard to what they do in areas such as genetically modified organisms are to do with their interpretation of the quality of the available evidence. For example, the US considers the same evidence base as the EU and has come to the conclusion that GMOs are adequately safe for it to proceed with. Europe has currently not concluded that. The UK would be in a position to choose where to go on the matter.
I am really glad that Paul Haggarty answered that question first. He raised the point that the issue is really one of risk management and the decisions that politicians, Governments and civil servants make on the basis of the evidence. As Paul has said, the evidence tends to be community-accepted, scientific evidence from around the world; the question is what one does with it.
In the area of risk management, it is much harder to see an easy way out of the difficulties that the different responses to the risks create, which society, stakeholders—both in the industry and in the broader third sector—and public opinion inform. That is really the point at which risk management and dispute resolution processes will come into conflict. It is easy to see things written down and say that they make sense, but we are talking about emotive and difficult issues. We all have to see how that approach will work in any of the common frameworks.
I have a small question—maybe it is more of a comment—and it might be for the Scottish Government. The House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee’s response from the FSA mentions the dispute resolution process but goes on to say that
“it can only be triggered where either officials and ministers in any nation of the UK wish to object”.
It mentions “any nation”, not just England, which has already said that the pesticides you mentioned, for example, can be used in England.
The question that I am asking is this: what would the Scottish Parliament be able to do, or what could the Scottish Government do, to stop that type of thing coming into our country? Wales and Northern Ireland might do the same. I find it difficult to get my head around that. I do not know whether we will get any answers.
No, but we can ask the question. Paul Haggarty wants to come in.
These are all scientifically based questions, so we must go back to the scientific evidence. If one country wanted to proceed with that, we would have to deal with it on two levels. First, you would have to go back to the scientific evidence, and we would say, “Let’s look at this. Does everybody agree on this?” The devolved nations could take it as read because they do not have their own sub-committees to look at what central committees are doing. They have the opportunity to take it as read, and the quality of the scientific advice in the UK is very high, so it would be reasonable to accept that, although the real decision will, again, be made at the level of risk management and societal choices. However, just to add another complication, there is a particular area that you have to keep in mind with GMO in that, if one sector or one food wants to go with that, it could have an effect on other sectors and their ability to sell their products. These things can be very complicated, and I guess that there are actually three levels on which the complication operates.
David Thomson might want to add something on that.
Yes, I can do that. The interesting thing from our perspective is, I am afraid to say again, how that interacts with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the common frameworks. This common framework covers some elements of GMO, and if that act was in place and this common framework was not exempted from it on GMO, that would mean that, although Scotland’s production methods, for example, could ban GMO, the sale of GMO goods could not be banned in Scotland. However, if the common framework and the GMO element were included in the exemptions from the act, it would really depend on what was decided. You could argue that there is a position in which both the sale of GMO goods and their production could be banned. It is not really an issue of the common framework; it is how the common framework interacts with that regulation.
That is very helpful for the committee’s understanding. Finally, I call George Adam.
Thank you, convener. The Health and Sport Committee obviously believes that it has a role in the common frameworks and how things move forward. What further role would it be helpful to the industry and to consumers for the Parliament to perform during all this? In particular, what should the Parliament track as the framework evolves?
We agree that the Scottish Parliament and this committee have a fundamental role in tracking this complex area of regulation. We agree that many of these issues need more rather than less debate as we move forward, and we would welcome the opportunity to continue to contribute in this manner to support our members. The other element is the proposed creation of the office of the internal market, which will look at the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and its operation. I imagine that that must look at where there are restrictions between common frameworks and the operation of the act. That is another area where we would welcome consideration of how well the office of the internal market delivers for businesses in Scotland by this or another committee of the Scottish Parliament.
12:00
Thank you for what is another very complicated question. I would argue that the scientific arena is pretty well covered by the FSA and FSS—they can oversee it very well. However, as we have discussed, most of the difficulties will come with risk management and societal decisions, which obviously is an area where the Parliament and your committee will perform an important role. In watching over all those things and decisions, I am absolutely sure that, within a short period, you will have some issues to consider.
I suspect that you are right about that. No doubt, there will be further food for thought for the committee and its successor committee in dealing with all those areas.
I thank Paul Haggarty and David Thomson once again for their valuable and insightful contributions and evidence to assist the committee. No doubt, many of the questions that we have addressed to them will be addressed to the minister when we hear from her in a week’s time.
12:01 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.