Amendment 2 is the main amendment in the group. It will make a minor change that is a common provision that is used when establishing public bodies. It will clarify that anything that is done by food standards Scotland or any of its committees will not be invalid because of a defect in membership, including having had a membership ended because section 7 applies. That will ensure that decisions and actions that are taken by food standards Scotland and its committees are not open to challenge on the basis of a defect in membership.
I move amendment 1.
As was touched on in an earlier debate on section 16, the amendments will insert “Food Standards Scotland” into several further acts that apply to public bodies in Scotland. Amendment 7 will give FSS obligations under the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 to produce, implement and review its records management plan.
Amendment 8 will include FSS as a regulator for the purpose of part 1 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. That will enable Scottish ministers to make provision to improve regulatory consistency further, to require regulatory functions to be exercised in a way that contributes to sustainable economic growth, and to encourage regulators to adopt practices that are consistent with regulatory principles.
Amendment 9 will include FSS in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which places general duties on contracting authorities’ procurement activities, and provides specific measures that are aimed at promoting good, transparent and consistent practice in procurement.
I move amendment 7.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendments 8 and 9 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19 agreed to.
Section 20—Powers for persons carrying out observations
I welcome the minister’s comments that the Government supports the intention of the amendment and seeks to go further by considering what can be done using existing legislation and the best timing for that. I am fully reassured that something will be done in the area to deal with the concerns that have been raised, and I look forward to seeing what the minister does, whether that involves other legislation or bringing back the issue at stage 3.
I am content not to press amendment 63 at this stage.
Amendment 63, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 28 agreed to.
Section 29—Power to issue guidance on control of food-borne diseases
On amendment 22, the committee will recall that in July the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2014 was passed.
The order amended schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to reserved matters with regard to food and animal feeding stuffs and, in doing so, better aligned the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence with the Scottish ministers’ executive competence. Amendments 23, 26 and 35 make related changes to other sections to ensure that the new definitions can take full effect throughout the bill.
I move amendment 22.
Amendment 12 is a minor technical change to section 34, on the regulation of animal feeding stuffs. It allows orders that regulate animal feeding stuffs to be made that are reasonably similar but not necessarily exactly equivalent to provisions in the Food Safety Act 1990. That will keep the powers in section 34 in line with the powers in section 30 of the Food Standards Act 1999, which the provisions replace.
Amendment 13 inserts a cap on the maximum penalty that could be applied by regulations that are made under section 34 of the bill, which relates to animal feeding stuffs. The amendment responds to another of the helpful recommendations that were made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to restrict the width of powers appropriately.
I move amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 35 to 47 agreed to.
Section 48—Power to make supplementary etc provision
The majority of the amendments that I have lodged for the committee’s consideration at stage 2 are based on concerns that were raised with me by a number of groups, not least those with a particular interest in consumer protection and consumer interests. They are keen for the role of food standards Scotland in relation to consumers to be strengthened. Some of the concerns are worth exploring further with the minister and, on others, I am keen to seek some reassurance from him.
The groups concerned broadly support the bill’s provisions and see it as affording an opportunity for a new food Scotland body to build on the strengths of the Food Standards Agency Scotland. Many of the amendments in the group primarily seek to ensure that the new food body delivers for consumers by protecting the public from risks to health and improving the public’s diet; they also seek to ensure that consumers’ interests are protected and are central to everything that the new body does in relation to food.
Amendment 49 would amend section 3, “General functions”, by removing the word “significantly” from subsection (1)(c). The thinking behind the amendment is that, by requiring the new body to act only when matters significantly affect consumers’
“capacity to make informed decisions about food matters”,
the threshold to inform consumers is perhaps being set too low. Amendment 49 would widen the range of food matters about which FSS will keep the public informed and advised.
Amendment 51 would insert a new provision in section 4(1), which concerns governance and accountability. It would require FSS to operate in a way that
“treats the interests of consumers as its primary consideration”.
Amendment 52 would amend the definition of good decision-making practice in section 4(2) by providing that it includes
“consulting consumers and representatives of consumers”.
Amendments 56 and 58 would amend section 6 in relation to the membership of FSS and the appointment of its members by ministers. The concern behind amendment 56 is to ensure that there is an open process that secures a balance of expertise on the board between those who have industry experience and those who have, as the amendment states,
“experience or knowledge of consumer affairs”.
Amendment 58 relates to amendment 56 but goes a little further, because it would require that, when ministers appoint members of FSS, they
“have regard to the balance of expertise, skills and experience required by members to ensure that Food Standards Scotland operates in a way which treats the interests of consumers as its primary consideration.”
The last amendment in the group is amendment 64, which would amend the meaning of
“other interests of consumers in relation to food”
in section 54 by widening the definition to include
“wider social and ethical considerations relevant to food.”
The concern is that the definition in section 54 is perhaps too narrow and focuses largely on labelling issues and food descriptions. However, perhaps what is required is just some assurance that FSS will have sufficient scope to represent the public on all food issues that matter to them and that that is made a bit clearer.
I welcome comments from the minister on the amendments in group 1.
I move amendment 49.
Thank you.
Amendments 42 to 46 not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15—General powers
Amendment 50 is important, because it is clear that best practice has to be sought across the country. We know that there are variations—not everything is the same in every authority. I am happy to support the amendment.
This might be a good point to suspend the meeting to wait for the two minutes’ silence, which will be in about three minutes, rather than be caught in the middle of something. Do members agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
10:52 Meeting suspended.Section 6—Number and appointment of members
I will speak to amendments 36 to 39. I want to explore with the minister the reasons for
“a councillor”
and
“an employee of any local authority”
being excluded from the board. I fully understand paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in section 6(2), which exclude people who are usually excluded, and I understand that councillors and employees of local authorities are usually excluded. However, because of the nature of this board and its relationship with the local authorities that will act as the enforcement authorities, I believe that it should be possible, although not a requirement, for councillors and local authority employees who have great expertise in enforcement to be members of the board. That is critical to the provisions that we have already agreed to, which require the promotion of best practice and monitoring of the performance of the enforcement authorities.
I would like to explore with the minister whether, in this instance, it would be more appropriate to remove the exclusion of councillors and local authority employees. Doing so would not require the minister to appoint such people, but the bill precludes the minister from having the discretion to do that if he or she wishes.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. I believe that amendment 55 is entirely appropriate. Let us suppose that only three members are appointed, although that is unlikely. If one of them becomes the chair, one is a consumer member and one is from industry, we would have a significant problem. The board would also have a problem with being quorate, because if one of them did not turn up—let us say that the consumer member was unable to attend—we could end up with only the chair and the industry member on the board. The board will be independent so, as was alluded to in the committee’s report, it is critical that it has a minimum of five members. That would be a more appropriate number.
On the term of service, eight years is a reasonable time. After that, we should refresh the board with new members. There may require to be further consideration of whether that should apply to the chairman, or to a chairman who is appointed in a successive period. Again, I will be interested to hear the minister’s view, but there may be more detailed work to be done on that. I am thinking of a situation in which, for example, someone is appointed as chairman six years in. We would not want them to drop off after another two years.
I turn to amendment 40. I have been thinking about the rule in section 7 on page 4 whereby, if someone does not attend for six months, they may be required to come off the board. It is possible that a member could be having treatment over six months and we would not necessarily want them to come off the board, so I am not sure about that, although I have not lodged an amendment to suggest that the provision be removed.
I believe that, if a member does not attend at least a third of the meetings that are held in any 12-month period, they should automatically be removed. Section 7(2) deals with a situation in which the minister wishes to end someone’s membership. I note again that the board will be independent and it may be that the board, as opposed to the minister, will want to remove someone who does not attend regularly for no good reason, so it might not be appropriate to leave that to the minister. For the moment, however, I have lodged amendment 40 to insert the provision in section 7(2)(b).
As members are aware, the Health and Sport Committee has already considered the number of members and has accepted that the number that is set out in the bill is the minimum only. I have given the committee my assurance that the intention is to run food standards Scotland with a full complement of eight members—seven members of the board and the chair—at most times. The number in the bill—three members plus the chair—has to be low enough to allow a level of flexibility during reappointment rounds or in case of emergencies. The same number is set for other bodies of similar size, as discussed at stage 1.
Richard Simpson referred to the possibility of the consumer person not being available for a particular board meeting. As I have advised the committee, those who are appointed to the board of food standards Scotland will all be required to have a consumer focus, given the body’s responsibility to consumers. Therefore, we do not believe that we should reconsider the numbers at this stage.
On amendments 36 and 37, removing councillors or any employees of councils from the list of persons who cannot be appointed to food standards Scotland could be problematic and impracticable. Under the ethical standards code of conduct for board members, councillors or council employees, if they were also members of food standards Scotland, would have to declare an interest and take no part in discussions or decision making about matters concerning local authorities. That would diminish their ability to be fully active members and would affect quite significantly the body’s ability to perform its duties. Almost half of the work that will be undertaken by food standards Scotland will be around enforcement matters, the vast majority of which are undertaken by local authorities. I therefore invite the committee to agree that it would be impracticable to change that provision in the bill, and therefore not to support the amendments.
Amendment 57 is unnecessary, as ministers are already under the duty to make appointments based on merit through open appointment procedures in respect of appointments to public bodies. The amendment duplicates existing practice from the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. The Parliament has appointed the Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to oversee compliance with that duty. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 57.
With regard to amendment 59, applications for public appointments are made in confidence. The main effect of ministers publishing the details of all applicants would be likely to be a reduction in the number of people who would be willing to apply. I am sure that a reduction in applications is not something that the committee would wish to see. Scottish ministers already have good account of the breadth of society from which applications come when considering further and future recruitment rounds. The requirement to publish applications is therefore not necessary, so I ask the committee not to support the amendment.
Amendments 60 and 61, on the period of appointment and on reappointment limits for members of food standards Scotland, touch on another aspect of public appointments that is already covered. The Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland oversees ministers’ compliance with the commissioner’s code on appointments, which recommends an eight-year limit for appointments. The amendments are therefore unnecessary and are contrary to the existing code, so I invite the committee not to support them.
Amendments 38 and 39 are impracticable for the same reasons that I gave for amendments 36 and 37. If a member becomes a councillor of any local authority, or a council employee, it would be impractical for the person to continue as a member of food standards Scotland. Under the code of conduct for members, that person would have to take no part in a significant portion of food standards Scotland’s business. Expertise from local authorities can be provided to the FSS board through the secondment of staff to the body as and when required, but there would be a potential conflict of interest if they were a formal member of the board. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendments 38 and 39.
11:15We believe that amendment 40 is unnecessary, because the bill already provides sufficient grounds for the removal of a person by reason of absence, and there is a level of flexibility that allows that to be extended where, for example, in the situation to which Richard Simpson referred, a member might be undergoing treatment. There would be flexibility to allow the period of absence to be extended. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 40.
I will speak in support of this group of amendments. My original notes talk about the deletion of the provision in question. I understand that delegation might have been necessary for the transitional arrangements, but it seemed to me to be inappropriate to have that provision in the primary legislation. I therefore welcome the fact that the minister is seeking to delete that element from the bill.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendments 4 to 6 moved—[Michael Matheson].
Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 18 to 21.
11:45
I will respond to each of Aileen McLeod’s amendments. We understand the intention of the proposal in amendment 49 to remove the word “significantly”. It is important that food standards Scotland acts on a wide range of interests that are important to consumers, and that is what its intended objective is. However, the practical effect of the seemingly small change that amendment 49 proposes would be that FSS could have to turn its attention to a wide range of concerns, significant or not. That could risk FSS losing focus on the most important matters that it must consider.
The word “significantly” is important in section 3 because it makes it clear that, although FSS will be concerned with all matters of interest to consumers, it cannot lose focus on matters that have the most impact on consumers. For that reason, I invite the committee not to support amendment 49.
I appreciate the intention behind amendment 51, as it will be important that the message is clear from FSS that it must be consumer focused. However, I argue that the amendment is unnecessary, because it is clear from section 2, which sets out the objectives of food standards Scotland, that the consumers’ interests have to be FSS’s primary concern. Setting that out in different language in section 4 would be unnecessary and could be confusing. Food standards Scotland’s objectives are set out clearly in the bill. Therefore, I invite the committee not to support amendment 51.
Amendment 52 would require food standards Scotland to consult consumers and their representatives. Consultation will be a key issue for the new body. Under European legislation, we have to consult publicly on all food law. The bill goes further—it requires food standards Scotland to consult all those affected by its decisions. It will be a consumer-focused body, which means that consumers and their representatives will be consulted, so it is not necessary to state that again in the bill. Furthermore, the wording of amendment 52 is problematic, as it does not require consultation before any decision or action, so it might not fully deliver its intention. The existing provisions require consultation before any action. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 52.
10:30On amendment 56, I send the strongest signal possible that it is hard to imagine any circumstance in which anyone without experience or knowledge of consumers could be suitable for appointment to the food standards Scotland board. Given that the body’s objectives are entirely focused on the public and the consumer, that experience or knowledge will be a requirement for any member who is appointed to the board. I realise that the amendment does not intend to limit the influence of the consumer focus but, by introducing the notion that only two members must have such experience or skill, it might dilute the need for all members to have such experience. Therefore, I hope that the committee will agree that the amendment is unnecessary. I invite it not to support that change.
Amendment 58 covers the same ground as amendment 56. The desire to make such experience or skill a requirement by amending the bill is understandable. However, as I said, ministers do not intend to appoint members without experience of consumers or consumer affairs. The skills required of members must be linked to food standards Scotland’s objectives, which are all about a consumer focus. As with amendment 57, amendment 58 is unnecessary. I invite the committee not to support it.
The position on amendment 62 is similar. Any committees established by food standards Scotland would be bound by its consumer interest focus. Under the bill, it should not be possible for committees to operate outwith the scope of protecting the interests of the public and consumers. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary and I invite the committee not to support it.
Amendment 64 would introduce a specific meaning for the phrase “other interests of consumers”. I recognise that social and ethical considerations will naturally form part of consumers’ interests. However, those interests would be covered by existing provisions. The amendment might lead consumers to question why only those interests were listed as examples, which could lead to misunderstanding about food standards Scotland’s wider consumer objectives. Therefore, the amendment would not be as helpful as is intended. I invite the committee not to support it.
I still have concerns, because of the amendment on membership that we did not vote on. If food standards Scotland had only three members, and a membership had been ended under section 7 and another member could not attend, perhaps through illness, the body would be down to one member. Obviously, we cannot go back to the amendment to which I referred, but I will raise the issue again. I think that we could end up in a situation in which only one or two people take action, on our behalf, as an independent food standards body, and I just do not think that that is wholly acceptable.
I will not oppose amendment 1, but I give notice of the fact that I intend to raise the matter for Parliament to decide on at stage 3, subject to the Presiding Officer’s agreement.
Amendment 63, in the name of Aileen McLeod, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 14, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 15, 16, 17, 33 and 34.
Can someone explain to me whether the definition of food in regulation EC 178/2002, as of 7 December 2004, includes any other substances that might be consumed by human beings? In other words, does it include drink or other liquid elements besides other things that might be classified in the public’s mind as food? I could not find an answer to that.
No other members wish to speak. I call the minister.
I wish to move the amendment. I understand that, if a member seeks leave to withdraw an amendment, another member may move it if they wish to do so.
In light of the minister’s comments, the matters of openness and transparency can be dealt with administratively. Obviously, they are important issues if we are to give reassurance to the public and consumers. I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 53 and not move amendment 54, although I reserve the right to revisit the issue. I will speak to the groups that are concerned to get feedback from them before stage 3.
Many of the amendments in the group are intended to ensure that food standards Scotland provides reports either in electronic form or online. That is good practice; I would expect a public body such as food standards Scotland to be doing that as a matter of course. However, amendments 41 and 42 would mean that food standards Scotland would publish its reports only online—Richard Simpson has stated that that is the intention behind the group—and I believe that such a move could have adverse consequences. For a start, such an approach to reporting could, as Bob Doris has pointed out, easily deny access to a significant number of consumers and interested parties. I do not believe that anyone would want that, so I ask the committee not to support amendments 41 and 42.
11:30I am more than happy to explore the matter further with Richard Simpson and to work with him to see whether what he seeks could be achieved more manageably at stage 3. It is important that people who do not have access to online or electronic versions are able otherwise to access food standards Scotland’s reports.
Amendments 43 and 44 would have an unfortunate and unintended effect, as amendments 41 and 42 would. Amendment 43 could lead to criticism that the Parliament was micromanaging the relationship between food standards Scotland and Scottish ministers by prescribing how reports should be sent to ministers. On amendment 44, how documents are to be laid in Parliament is well regulated by the Parliament’s standing orders. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendments 43 and 44. I suggest that Richard Simpson may want to consider pursuing the matter through the Parliament’s standing orders.
Amendment 45 would require food standards Scotland to lay before Parliament all reports that it prepares, including those that are—quite properly—not intended for publication. That is unworkable in practice; it may even be unlawful to lay certain internal reports. The new body will be under duties on transparency and on providing the public with information and advice, which will ensure its transparency more effectively than any overarching requirement on it to lay in Parliament all reports that it prepares. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 45.
Amendment 46 would have an unfortunate unintended effect, as would amendments 41 to 44. The amendment would restrict to electronic publication the methods by which reports could be published. It is commonly used as one type of publication, but we cannot make it the only method. I ask the committee not to support amendment 46.
Amendment 48 is unnecessary. The word “document” needs no definition in the bill to include “an electronic communication”. The word “document” is legally defined in the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 as
“anything in which information is recorded in any form”.
That definition applies to all acts, so I invite the committee not to support amendment 48.
Amendment 47, in the name of Richard Simpson, is in a group on its own.
We need to get committee members’ agreement to withdraw the amendment, rather than have it moved again. [Interruption.] I am being told that, in this case, the amendment has been moved and withdrawn and no other member can move it.
The creation of food standards Scotland provides an opportunity to look at the links between enforcement nationally and locally. We should not rush into that, and it is already part of our vision for how we provide even better protection for the public and consumers. However, we must first ensure that we bed in FSS.
Amendment 50 will help to provide a strategic link between enforcement authorities and FSS, which is why I support it. I invite the committee to support the amendment for the reasons that Aileen McLeod outlined.
Amendments 53 and 54 relate to a need to strengthen the provisions on governance and accountability in section 4 to deal with concerns that were raised around ensuring that there are sufficient protections for how the new body will ensure that there is openness and transparency. [Interruption.]
As no one objects, this time, to the amendment being withdrawn, I will—
I ask Aileen McLeod to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 55, in the name of Aileen McLeod, is grouped with amendments 36, 37, 57, 59 to 61 and 38 to 40.
Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 4 to 6?
Members: No.
The purpose of the group of amendments was partly to make it clear on the public record that we need to take a far more directive approach in moving towards more online information. I welcome the minister’s offer to have further discussions about how that might reasonably be achieved, while accepting Bob Doris’s valid point that some people are not information-technology literate—or are perhaps not keen to become so, although I do not want to cast aspersions on his council. The fact that people can access the information online through libraries may not be sufficient. I accept those valid points, but I hope that we may have the opportunity to pursue the issue and to ensure that we make this an exemplar bill in terms of shifting more information online.
If it helps you, convener, it is my intention to seek to withdraw all the amendments in the group.
Amendments 14 and 15 will make minor changes to make it clear that any regulations in subsections (2) and (3) of section 48 would be made specifically under the powers set out in section 48(1) and not under any other power in section 48. That change will provide certainty.
Amendment 16 will make a minor change of language to remove the duplication of the word “under” in section 48(3) and replace it with the words “referred to in”, which will not change the effect of section 48(3).
Amendment 17 will provide additional detail regarding the exercise of the power to make supplementary provision for fixed penalty notices and compliance notices. The Scottish Government is grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for supporting the delegated powers in section 48. The committee recommended that the Scottish Government
“gives consideration to amending the Bill so as to restrict the exercising of the power in these circumstances so that it does not permit the wholesale removal of the discharge of criminal liability which section 37 and 44 provide in circumstances where an administrative sanction has been issued and complied with.”
Amendment 17 will provide that protection.
Amendments 33 and 34 will make further changes that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended. The changes are that regulations made under a specific subsection of section 48 would be introduced through the negative procedure.
I move amendment 14.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments 15 to 17 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
Section 50—Lord Advocate’s guidance
Amendments 18 to 21 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
Section 52—Meanings of “food” and “animal feeding stuffs”
The definition does include drink.
I found what Richard Simpson said about councillors interesting. I remind him that there are more than 1,200 councillors in Scotland. At a previous meeting I pushed the cabinet secretary with regard to councillors’ membership of a particular board, but on this occasion I cannot agree with Richard Simpson’s amendments and I will not support them.
You are entitled to do that.
Amendment 47 is an attempt to be helpful to the minister in the sense that it might be that the minister would have the power to say that any charges that would be made for facilities at the request of any person under section 15(2)(b) would not be levied in certain circumstances that the minister himself or herself would define.
I move amendment 47.
Amendment 63 seeks to strengthen the powers in section 20 so that FSS would be able to require food business operators that conduct food testing to disclose the results of that testing. Currently, there is no provision to give FSS the access that it needs to industry testing data and analysis. By requiring food company tests to be shared with FSS, the amendment is intended to ensure that early action can be taken whenever and wherever food fraud or food adulteration is detected, to protect consumers and other businesses that rely on the same supply chain.
This is another amendment that I thought might be worth exploring further with the minister, as it could have a positive impact. I will certainly listen carefully to what the minister has to say on it.
I move amendment 63.
Convener, I put on record my dissatisfaction with the way in which the procedure is being handled. I did not hear the request for speakers; I would have come in immediately if I had. I feel that I have been denied the opportunity of making a number of important points about the amendment that the committee should take into consideration.
I also express my dissatisfaction with the fact that the member who moved the amendment can withdraw it without the committee having the opportunity to say whether it agrees to it being withdrawn. That is not my understanding of procedure.
Amendment 10 is a minor drafting change to bring clarity to the provisions that will give food standards Scotland the power to issue revised guidance as well as guidance.
Amendment 19 follows a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee both to have the Lord Advocate publish guidance to enforcement authorities and to allow specified exemptions from publishing guidance for the Lord Advocate where it could be prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Amendments 18, 20 and 21 revise section 50 of the bill to put the Lord Advocate’s powers to revise guidance and publish revised guidance into the same style as similar powers in amendment 10. That will achieve consistency across the bill.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
Section 31—Certain functions of Food Standards Agency ceasing to be exercisable
Agenda item 7 is stage 2 consideration of the Food (Scotland) Bill. Members should have a copy of the groupings and the marshalled list. I welcome the Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, and his officials.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Section 3—General functions
Oh! Are we not having a debate?
I will press amendment 50. I thank the minister for supporting it.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4—Governance and accountability
Following that announcement, I should say that the committee, the minister and members of the public will, of course, observe the period of silence for remembrance in the committee room. I invite Aileen McLeod to continue.
I object.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about the composition of food standards Scotland. He referred to practice in other public bodies, with which the approach in the bill seems to be consistent. On amendment 1, would the Government’s position achieve consistency with other public bodies? I just want to ensure that a consistent approach is being taken.
Thankfully, no member has objected.
Amendments 4 to 6 agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14—Annual and other reports
The amendment is important. When the committee visited the unit in Aberdeen, we heard that testing is done by three groups—the food standards people, the health and safety people, and individual factories that are seeking to maintain quality control. It should be possible for FSS to say that it is comfortable with the testing that is being done by a company using an external tester, but for that to happen it is essential that FSS should have access to such data, as well as information on how it was arrived at and the nature of the testing laboratory and its methodology.
As Aileen McLeod says, the purpose of the amendment is partly to give FSS some control over something that a firm might be promoting as its quality control but which may or may not be adequate. The purpose is also to simplify the system so that the agency can just accept a company’s testing and will not need to do further testing. In fact, I hope that the Health and Safety Executive would also take that approach. By streamlining some activities, we can reduce the burden on industry and promote the Government’s desire to strengthen our economy.
If I may, I will speak to amendments 55, 57, 60 and 61.
Amendment 55 seeks to take on board the concerns that a number of groups raised with me regarding the minimum size of the FSS board of three members and a chair. The concerns were that that could be insufficient to ensure an appropriate balance of expertise among the members, and the preference was for increasing the minimum to five members and a chair.
I am conscious that, at stage 1, the minister told the committee that the new body will have a minimum of four board members including the chair and a maximum of eight members. I am also aware that the committee in its stage 1 report indicated that it was not convinced that the number of members of the board needs to be increased. The key point is to get reassurance from the minister that there will be an appropriate balance of expertise between industry and consumer representatives.
Amendment 57, which relates to amendments 56 and 58, again seeks greater transparency and openness in the procedure by which ministers will make appointments to FSS, which should be based on merit and should ensure a balance of expertise.
Amendments 60 and 61 concern the membership of the board. They seek to explore what might be possible in relation to limiting appointments to a four-year period that is renewable only once, so that there can be fresh thinking from different people with experience of new food technology. The intention is to ensure that FSS remains at the forefront of new developments in food science and technology.
I move amendment 55.
Amendment 47 would, if Scottish ministers were to give their approval, allow food standards Scotland to make, for facilities or services that it provides at the request of any person, a charge that exceeds the reasonable costs of providing the facility or service concerned. It is not clear why that would be considered to be appropriate, given that food standards Scotland’s purpose will not be to profit from providing assistance. I therefore do not think that that is something that we should implement, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 47.
Amendment 47, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16—Application of legislation relating to public bodies
We need to go through the amendments in order, as an amendment must first be moved before it can be withdrawn.
I had better ask whether anyone objects to amendment 41 being withdrawn. [Laughter.] Does anyone object?
Amendment 41, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 22, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 23, 26 and 35.
Thank you.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
Section 54—Meaning of “other interests of consumers in relation to food”
Amendment 64 not moved.
Section 54 agreed to.
Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.
Section 57—General interpretation
Amendment 48 not moved.
Amendment 23 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
Section 58 agreed to.
Schedule—Modification of enactments
Amendments 24 to 32 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 59—Subordinate legislation
Amendments 33 to 35 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 59, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 60 to 63 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
I ask Aileen McLeod to move or not move amendment 51.
Thank you, convener.
The ultimate aim of amendments 53 and 54 is for the new body—FSS—to hold its meetings in public, except when the matter that is under discussion relates to personnel matters or it is considered that other exceptional circumstances apply. When meetings are held in private, the reason for doing so must be made publicly available.
Amendment 53 would insert into section 4(2) the words
“unless subsection (2A) applies, holding all meetings of Food Standards Scotland, and all meetings of any committee established by it, in public”.
Amendment 54 seeks to insert two new subsections—subsections 2A and 2B—into section 4. Those proposed new subsections set out the circumstances under which food standards Scotland or any of its committees may decide to hold meetings or parts of meetings in private.
I move amendment 53.
I welcome the intention behind amendment 63, which is to address one of the recommendations of Professor Jim Scudamore’s expert advisory group following the horsemeat food fraud incident.
The Government supports the intention behind the amendment, but we would like to go further. The Government believes that the amendment as it stands is not sufficient to achieve the desired effect and to enable officers to act quickly in circumstances of food fraud or adulteration. The powers of observation that the amendment seeks to alter cannot in themselves be used to investigate whether a crime has been committed. We are considering what can be done using existing legislation and the best timing for introducing a scheme to deliver the intentions behind the amendment.
If that cannot be achieved using existing legislation, we will consider whether a further amendment should be lodged at stage 3 to achieve the desired outcome of ensuring that FSS can compel access to the results of testing that is undertaken by private operators and companies. I am more than happy to work with Aileen McLeod on that at stage 3 if that is the appropriate way in which to proceed and if we cannot accommodate the measures within existing legislation.
You can speak if you make a bid.
You need to—
The board will operate with seven members and a chair, which is eight members. The minimum size that it would go down to would be three members and a chair, or four members in all. The position is exactly the same for the boards of a number of other organisations of similar size and composition, including the Scottish Housing Regulator and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. I am not aware of any problems or concerns that they have had about the size of their boards.
As I have set out, we intend the board of FSS to have seven members and a chair. The minimum number of members that it would ever have would be three members and a chair, which I believe provides the level of certainty that is required in relation to decision making for a public body of this nature.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12—Committees
Amendment 62 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
After section 12
Amendment 2 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 13—Delegation of functions
Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 8 and 9.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the Food (Scotland) Bill. I thank the minister and his team for attending, and everyone for their participation and patience.
I suspend the meeting so that we can set up for a panel of witnesses.
11:59 Meeting suspended.
Amendment 49, in the name of Aileen McLeod, is grouped with amendments 51, 52, 56, 58, 62 and 64.
That is the difference with what I said and the advice that I was given. You can object to the amendment being withdrawn, but you cannot move it.
Amendment 41, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendments 42 to 46 and 48.
Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 24, 25 and 27 to 32.
I will do that.
I speak in support of the amendments. Most public bodies in Scotland now hold their meetings in public, which is a welcome development, but there has been a tendency to hold sections of meetings in private and those sections have tended to extend beyond the issues that are listed. The proposals give a fairly broad remit to FSS, or a committee that has been established by FSS, to hold meetings in private where it is thought that there are circumstances that should apply, but reasons for that will need to be given. That means that the public can have confidence that matters are not being discussed in private that should more appropriately be discussed in public. The approach will allow public scrutiny and, indeed, scrutiny by MSPs of the process as it goes forward.
I therefore very much welcome Aileen McLeod’s having moved amendment 53.
I thought that I was not allowed to, because it has been moved.
Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 4, 5 and 6.
Amendment 11 makes a minor change in terminology.
Amendments 24, 25 and 27 to 32 each make changes to a range of legislation and change references to “the Food Standards Agency” into references to “Food Standards Scotland”. All those changes are consequential to the creation of food standards Scotland and the removal of certain functions that are exercised in respect of Scotland from the Food Standards Agency.
I move amendment 11.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
Section 34—Regulation of animal feeding stuffs
In that case, I object to it being withdrawn.
Not moved.
The main purpose of most of the amendments in the group is to allow consideration of the question whether, as a whole, but in respect of this bill in particular, reports should be produced only online. I have received comments about that being an unintended consequence of the amendments: I point out that it is, in fact, the intended consequence. The provision could be modified by saying that an agency such as food standards Scotland should produce an executive summary but, to be frank, I think that the days of publication of expensive 36, 45 and 50-page annual reports are over, so I have lodged this group of probing amendments to find out whether the Government is moving in the same direction.
Amendment 45, which relates to section 14 and would amend line 5 of page 7, seeks to require food standards Scotland to provide an electronic copy of its report to the Scottish Parliament. That should be an absolute requirement instead of something that it “may” do. I see no reason for its not being required to submit a report—after all, Parliament has to scrutinise those things—but that report should be provided to Parliament, with a link to the Parliament’s information site.
I move amendment 41.
The clerk has reminded me that I offered members the opportunity to participate in the debate before I called the minister to respond. Therefore, we cannot have a debate. I am sorry about that.
I call Aileen McLeod.
I object.
I, too, speak in support of amendments 53 and 54. It is very important that the new board is transparent so that people know what is going on and can have confidence in it. It is in the public interest that there is transparency as decisions are made. I therefore welcome and support the amendments.
I was not going to speak on this group of amendments and I have to say that I had not paid very close attention to them—for which I apologise to Dr Simpson—but when I was listening to his comments, I looked at my notes and decided to tell the committee a slightly tangential story about online publications. I know of a community council that shall remain nameless but which has not—let us say—entered the information technology age, and provisions have to be made for it to get hard copies of various publications. I will listen to what the minister has to say and, obviously, to Dr Simpson’s summing up, but I am concerned that a requirement that such reports be published exclusively online will raise access issues for some groups in society.
I will take the criticism that I went to the minister too quickly, but I had no bids from any member to participate in the debate.
The advice is that the question can be put. You cannot move the amendment again. If you object to its being withdrawn, the question can be put.
Amendment 4, which goes with amendment 3, is the main amendment in the group. Together, they seek to remove the ability of food standards Scotland to delegate any of its functions to any other person. When the bill was drafted, it was thought that there might be circumstances in which FSS would need to delegate functions, especially in its first few months. Good progress has been made in preparing for the new body to take on its functions fully in April 2015, and we are now assured that any support that is needed thereafter could be contracted rather than delegated. Contracting is preferable to giving the body a wide-ranging ability to delegate functions.
Amendments 5 and 6 are minor consequential amendments that will ensure that the provisions in section 13 cross-refer to one another.
I move amendment 3.
Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 13.
I object.
Richard Simpson can move the amendment, because it has not been moved previously.
Amendment 51 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
We live in an era in which it is becoming more important to have transparency in all public bodies. The amendments simply indicate that the new agency would follow that pattern.
I listened carefully to what the minister said on the amendments and the representation of consumer interests. I am reassured by what he said, so I will not press amendment 49.
My dispute arises because you did not ask the minister to wind up. You asked him to speak, and I understood that he was making his introductory remarks about the amendment rather than being at the winding-up stage.
We consider that amendments 53 and 54 are unnecessary. Nothing in the bill prevents food standards Scotland from holding meetings in public and nothing prevents it from publishing papers. The bill as drafted provides for sufficient accountability and transparency, and food standards Scotland has a duty to keep the public informed and to publish reports.
The amendments’ actual effects are not wholly clear, because they do not place direct duties on food standards Scotland to hold meetings in public. Instead, the amendments are placed in the context of wider duties of food standards Scotland to operate as far as is reasonably practicable in particular circumstances. We believe that those matters can be dealt with administratively and that, as food standards Scotland is an advisory body that is required in its general functions to keep the public informed and advised, the approach that has been set out in amendments 53 and 54 is disproportionate. I therefore invite the committee not to support the amendments.
The amendment is withdrawn.
I am sorry for that misunderstanding.
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
I want to object to amendment 49 being withdrawn, if that is permitted.
There will be a division.
For
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
There will be a division.
For
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Does the committee agree to the withdrawal of amendment 49?
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 51 disagreed to.
I ask Aileen McLeod to move or not move amendment 52.
No.
Amendment 54, in the name of Aileen McLeod, was debated with amendment 53. I call Aileen McLeod to move or not move the amendment.
Not moved.
Amendment 52 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
The committee does not agree.
Not moved.
Amendment 54 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
Is there a vote on that?
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Against
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Abstentions
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
There will be a division.
For
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
There will be a division.
For
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 54 disagreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 49, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 50, in the name of Aileen McLeod, is in a group of its own. Aileen McLeod will speak to and move the amendment, and then of course I will ask whether any other members wish to participate in the debate, before I go to the minister.
Amendment 50 is to section 3, page 2, line 12. Section 3 provides that the new FSS body will have the function of monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities in enforcing food legislation. Amendment 50 would add the words
“and promote best practice by”,
the purpose of which is to expand FSS’s function in relation to the enforcement authorities so that, in addition to monitoring their performance, the new body must also promote best practice by enforcement authorities. The bill does not require FSS to promote best practice between local authorities and other agencies, although it will be in a key position to do so. That would help to put the relationship between FSS and the local authorities on to a more proactive basis that, it is generally felt, will lead to better outcomes on food safety and enforcement issues.
I move amendment 50.
I support the amendment. It is critical that the new food standards body should be in a position to promote best practice. It is essential for the new body to look at the variation between local authorities, select those that are not doing well and report to us on what is happening for whatever reason. It should also be able to pick up and promote best practice in local authorities, which are the main enforcement bodies. I welcome the amendment.
Does any other member wish to speak?
Having listened to the minister’s comments, I feel more reassured. The issues that I raised through my amendments 55, 57, 60 and 61 have clearly been considered. I accept the minister’s reassurance that members of FSS will have a consumer focus and I will not press my amendments.
Amendment 55, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 56, 36, 37 and 57 to 61 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7—Early ending of membership
Amendments 38 to 40 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10 agreed to.
Section 11—Proceedings
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 2.
Amendment 53, in the name of Aileen McLeod, is grouped with amendment 54.
10:45