The next item of business is stage 3 of the Food (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is document SP bill 48A; the marshalled list of amendments, which is SP bill 48A-ML; and the groupings, which is SP bill 48A-G.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 2—Objectives
Group 1 is on improving the extent to which the public have diets that are conducive to good health. Amendment 4, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendment 10.
Amendment 4 aims to clarify the objectives for improvement in diet for public health purposes, in respect of specification of content, including calories. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease and stroke remain among the greatest challenges that we face, and if we are serious about improving the health of the public, our independent food agency will need to play a vigorous leading role.
The elements that must be addressed by our new independent agency include salt, saturated fats, trans fats, sugar and calories. The Food Standards Agency has done excellent work on content in some respects—for example, in setting maximum values for trans fats, saturated fats, sodium and sugar as well as minimum protein specifications. Those were all put into regulations as part of the school meals programme in 2004. On 19 June 2013, the Food Standards Agency in Scotland launched a new front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme, which was very welcome, and I am delighted that we now have a traffic-light system. Over the years, the Food Standards Agency has done an excellent job in many areas, including in reducing the amount of salt in our diet. Nevertheless, salt consumption remains high at 8.1g to 8.8g per day; it is important that we achieve a level of 6g per day across the adult population.
There has been good progress on trans fats, but the restriction on all trans fats that are not naturally occurring would have been achieved had my member’s bill received support in the previous session of Parliament. Too many fast foods still have those dangerous fats present in them. There has also been progress on saturated fats and sugars.
However, one thing that has yet to be tackled so vigorously is calories. Amendment 10 specifies that the agency will have the power to introduce a national scheme on calorie values. At present, the bill refers to a “hygiene information scheme”, which is welcome. Progress has also recently been made on voluntary action, with Sainsbury’s, for instance, including calorie values on its wine labelling. More than 20 years ago, I visited the Mayo clinic in the United States, and calorie and saturated fat levels were being shown on menus then, so we need to make a step change in this area. It is welcome that Parliament has been putting calorie values on its menus—I hope that some members have paid attention to that.
Section 2(2) makes clear the risks that are referred to in section 2(1)(a), which relate to
“the way in which food is produced or supplied.”
However, amendment 10 would make it clearer, in respect of the new objective in section 2(1)(b), that beyond the safety and integrity of food, its calorie content, its advertising and its promotion would be defined objectives. We currently have warning signs on tobacco and we have traffic lights for labelling on food, but we need to ensure that in advertising and promotion of food throughout the industry, there are strict conditions to ensure that obesity and public health issues are made clear and that the public are fully informed.
I move amendment 4.
We all agree that the content of food and its calorific value are important in a healthy diet. I am therefore grateful to Dr Simpson for raising those issues. I know how passionately he promotes them.
Nevertheless, although the amendments are well intentioned, I do not believe that they are necessary or that they would improve the bill. Amendment 4 could cause confusion by inserting into the objectives of food standards Scotland what is, in essence, a function such as those that are contained in section 3. That could be confusing in that it would give the particular function undue emphasis, to the detriment of all the other important functions that FSS must perform. The functions in section 3 already include giving advice and information and informing the public about matters that affect their capacity to make informed decisions about food. If content and calories are matters of concern to consumers, giving information about those will already be part of what the FSS will do, so there is no need for amendment 4. More important is that calorific values and food content are not the only factors that bear on a healthy diet, so referring to them expressly in the bill would create a risk of focusing unduly on those factors at the expense of considering issues of food health in the round.
Further, amendment 4 suggests that FSS would have a role in setting standards in respect of calories, content, advertising and promotion. That will not be the case. Food information and, to some extent, nutrition are matters that are regulated at European Union level. Setting the standards for industry on the basis of evidence and advice from bodies such as FSS is a role for the EU and the Scottish Government, not for FSS.
Amendment 10 is similarly well intentioned, but I consider that it would not be right to have it amend the bill at this time. It would add a relatively significant new enabling power without the Health and Sport Committee or the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee having had an opportunity to offer input on it. Subject to advice from FSS and others, the Scottish ministers may well, in due course, support a public consultation on a mandatory scheme that would require food businesses to display nutritional values. That is what we did for the prospective mandatory scheme on displaying hygiene information, for which the bill provides. However, before we could go ahead with the idea, more work would be required on whether displaying calorie values or wider nutritional information is effective in helping consumers to have healthy diets. For instance, I would first like to hear from consumers about whether they would prefer such a scheme to focus on sugar or salt.
The most significant reason for not accepting amendment 10 is the impact that it would have on small businesses and local authorities. Every time mandatory schemes on calorie values, sugar and salt content and so on are considered, the impact on small producers is highlighted. We cannot ignore that; we must be proportionate in our approach and we must balance the benefits and the impacts. It is arguable that larger food producers and retailers will have more resource to dedicate to researching and preparing the display of calorie values. Indeed, as Dr Simpson highlighted, many larger organisations already have policies on that. However, smaller businesses such as caterers or restaurants would find the proposed provision extremely expensive to comply with. Furthermore, the additional burden on local authority officers, who would have to check all the additional displays, would be significant.
We need to take a proportionate and partnership-based approach to any scheme that might put undue pressure on our businesses and on our local authority colleagues. For the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that amendment 10 is premature and that more work and consultation need to be done in order to work up proposals for a scheme before legislation could be considered.
Amendments 4 and 10 are well intended, but existing legislation can be used to deliver the same outcomes. The effect of amendments 4 and 10, as they stand, would be disproportionate, and the measures that they seek to implement have not been consulted on. I therefore invite Parliament not to accept amendments 4 and 10.
I ask Dr Simpson to wind up and to say whether he intends to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 4.
I thank the minister for her words. I understand the reasons that the Government has given for saying that what I propose is not, at present, necessary.
However, it is possible for a Government to introduce provisions and not to activate them until it is ready to do so. I give the example of the social responsibility levy on alcohol, which has still not been regulated on even though it was introduced in an act that was passed five years ago. It would be for the Government to decide on the appropriate timing.
I welcome the fact that the minister agrees that information on calories, as well as on all the other things that I listed, is important. Amendments 4 and 10 would have sent a message to the industry that we intended to tackle such matters vigorously and that it ought to prepare for that, but, in the light of what the minister has said, I am prepared to seek to withdraw amendment 4 and not to move amendment 10.
Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 3—General functions
Group 2 is on matters in relation to which food standards Scotland must keep the public informed. Amendment 5, in the name of Richard Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.
I lodged amendment 5 because I feel strongly that the inclusion in section 3(1)(c) of the word “significantly” will unnecessarily restrict the new agency in protecting the public. Section 2, which is on the objectives of food standards Scotland, talks about the agency acting proportionately and in a manner that enables it to fulfil its objectives—in other words, it will be up to the agency how it deals with such matters—but section 3 says that it must define “significantly”, which will be difficult.
I do not fully understand the legal definition of what constitutes “significant”. For example, if something affects a very small minority, is that effect significant? It is for that minority, but in global terms—for the population of Scotland as a whole—it is not and might in that context be regarded as quite insubstantial. When added to other small effects, those small effects can collectively become substantial. To be quite frank, the word “significantly” therefore sticks in my craw. We tried to have it removed from the bill at stage 2, but at the time there was some debate about whether I was allowed to intervene.
In moving amendment 5, I am seeking to make a point and to find out how the minister defines the word “significantly”. Depending on how she does so, I will decide whether to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 5.
I move amendment 5.
14:30
As Dr Simpson said, an amendment that was the same as amendment 5 was lodged at stage 2. It was debated, and it was withdrawn following a division. As my predecessor said at stage 2,
“We understand the intention of the proposal ... 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”
would be disproportionate, meaning that the new body
“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”.
The word “significantly” is vital to make 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.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 11 November 2014; c 10-11.]
For that reason, I invite Parliament not to accept amendment 5.
I accept the definition of ‘significantly’ that the minister has now put on the record, which is that, if something affects people in the way that I have described, then it affects a small minority of people, but they are affected substantially. Action would be taken, because that would be a priority for them.
Generally, of course, food standards Scotland should be considering matters of greater importance. It will be up to the agency to prioritise them.
On the basis of the minister’s words, I seek to amendment 5.
Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6—Number and appointment of members
We move on to group 3, on membership of food standards Scotland. Amendment 6, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendment 7.
I appreciate that we had a good debate on this matter at stage 2 in the Health and Sport Committee, when an amendment was moved by Aileen McLeod to change the minimum number of members to five. The minister at the time did not accept the amendment, although the increase was supported in evidence by such disparate groups as Quality Meat Scotland and Which?
Let us consider the minimum number of members proposed under the bill, which is three plus the chair. If two members are absent, that could reduce the board to two. I am not speaking entirely theoretically. I have looked at a number of non-governmental organisations, where the absence of two members is not unusual. I do not believe that a board could or should function without at least three members present. I have therefore proposed a modest increase to four plus the chair, in the hope that at least three will be present on every occasion.
Looking at other evidence suggesting that there should be an employee director, gender balance and a strong consumer interest, I think that my proposed modest increase is appropriate.
In his response at stage 2, the then Minister for Public Health said that it would be attempted to keep the board at a higher level than three. If that is the case, food standards Scotland should have a higher minimum, too, not least because that would ensure that matters are dealt with in an appropriate way.
The minister also said that the board would be smaller because the functions of the new agency were smaller. The board’s powers and the things that it must do are expanding significantly. Matters of public safety in relation to food have come to the fore in the past year, since preparation of the bill began. I suggest that we need a board that is strong enough to be effective. It is on that basis that I will move amendment 6.
Amendment 7 has a similar intent to that of amendment 6. It is intended to be helpful to the Government. If amendment 6 were to be rejected by the Government, amendment 7 would become more important. It would ensure that, when members are disqualified in connection with any office listed in section 7(1), ministers have the power to grant an extension in order to ensure that the board is functional.
I move amendment 6.
A number of significant witnesses sought a larger minimum number of people on the board. Richard Simpson has given a number of very good reasons why his amendment 6 should be approved, and I am happy to support it.
As Dr Richard Simpson said, an amendment that was similar to amendment 6 was moved and withdrawn without objection at stage 2. The Health and Sport Committee also considered the number of members at stage 1 and accepted that the number that is set out in the bill is only a minimum. Ministers have given the committee an assurance on that.
I will shortly announce the appointment of seven further members to add to the appointment of Ross Finnie as chair designate, which was announced last month. I hope that that is clear evidence of the Government’s commitment to run food standards Scotland with its full complement of eight—seven members and the chair—as the norm.
The minimum number in the bill—three members plus the chair—has to be low enough to allow flexibility during reappointment rounds or in case of emergencies. That number and lower numbers already work for other bodies of a similar size. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator has a minimum of four members including the chair and the Scottish Housing Regulator has a minimum of three members including the chair, and that has not caused difficulty for them. The Government sees no reason to reconsider the minimum number.
Amendment 7 is unnecessary and impractical. It is unnecessary in that it is extremely unlikely that a member would take up any of the public offices or employment listed in section 7(1) of the bill without being in a position to give ministers some notice. That would usually allow ministers sufficient time to make arrangements to protect FSS’s ability to carry out its functions. For someone to remain a member of FSS while taking up many of the listed posts would lead to immediate conflicts of interest. In any case, taking up many of the posts—particularly the parliamentary and council posts—would mean having to declare an interest and then taking no part in FSS decisions. There is nothing that ministers can do to set that aside. That makes the arrangement suggested in amendment 7 wholly redundant.
I therefore invite the Parliament not to support amendments 6 and 7.
In summing up, I will deal with the amendments in reverse order.
I do not agree with what the minister said on amendment 7. If someone is elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament or the House of Commons, they go straight into business and will not be able to give a lot of notice. That is problematic. If there is an immediate disqualification, the member of food standards Scotland would have to leave the board immediately, so no notice would be given.
However, amendment 7 was intended to be helpful to the minister and future Governments, including—one hopes—a Labour Government. If the minister chooses to reject that—I see her smiling—I am happy not to move amendment 7.
That is not the case with amendment 6, however. The arguments that the minister has put forward are not sufficient. The other NGOs or agencies that the minister mentioned have quite different functions. The new body will deal with the FSA in England, the Board of Trade in England and the European Food Safety Authority. It will deal with all our public safety matters on nutrition and meat inspection—the list of functions is huge—and massive experience will be required across those areas.
I very much welcome the appointment of Ross Finnie as the prospective chair of food standards Scotland, provided the bill is passed. He is a man of great experience. However, it is not unreasonable to ask the Government for a minimum of four members and I am disappointed that it proposes to reject that. I press amendment 6.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division this afternoon, the Parliament will be suspended for five minutes.
14:38 Meeting suspended.
We will proceed with the division on amendment 6.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 7—Early ending of membership
Amendment 7 not moved.
Section 14—Annual and other reports
We move to group 4, on annual and other reports. Amendment 8, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, is grouped with amendment 9.
14:45
We had a debate on this area of concern at stage 2, about online publishing of reports. The view of the minister was that the time was not right to exclusively publish all reports online because that would exclude some people who did not have access to digital applications. Although I dispute that, in so far as those members of the public who do not have personal access to the internet do have access through their public libraries, I accept that my original amendment was probably ahead of its time.
I hope that the minister may be more willing to accept this revised set of amendments. Amendment 8 requires the costs of printing reports to be published as an incentive to FSS to reduce its costs over time. Amendment 9 requires that reports laid before Parliament should only be online reports, as MSPs should all be reasonably digital-savvy by now. Of course, those online reports can also be in formats that are suitable for those with a visual disability or other disabilities.
I hope that the minister will accept these revised amendments as representing a more timely approach to the matter of trying to reduce the amount of paper that floats around the system, costs a fortune and destroys trees.
I move amendment 8.
If the intention of amendment 8 is to help keep a handle on the costs that are associated with printing reports and the environmental impact of printing them, I am happy to offer my assurance that that is something that ministers are always keen to encourage. However, the specific amendment is unclear and unnecessary. It is not clear whether the option for FSS to lay a statement of costs would concern the costs that were associated with printing copies of reports to be laid in Parliament or the costs of all copies that were printed. That is confusing.
I believe that amendment 8 is also unnecessary. It is not something that any other public body is being asked to do. The statutory duties of best value require public bodies to demonstrate and be audited on how they operate efficiently and economically. In any case, for the avoidance of any doubt over our commitments, I will be happy to emphasise the need to consider printing costs and impacts in the FSS statement of performance of functions.
Amendment 9 is also unnecessary. Ministers have already pointed out at stage 2, when a very similar amendment was lodged, that how documents are laid in Parliament is already well regulated. The amendment is also vague, in that it is not clear whether “normally” would mean that FSS would have to have good reason in a given case to lodge a physical document or that it could choose in any case to lodge a physical document, provided that it followed a general practice of lodging documents electronically. I therefore ask Parliament not to accept amendments 8 or 9.
I thank the minister for her response. I accept, from what she is saying, that the Government will seek to reduce the number of paper reports that come in as far as possible, and I hope that the Parliament may look at the regulations regarding the submission of reports.
The one thing that I do not accept in what the minister is saying is in relation to whether all reports or some reports need to be submitted electronically. The amendment left it to FSS to make a decision on that. There may be occasions on which a paper report is appropriate, and the wording of the amendment was designed to give FSS some wriggle room.
With the permission of the Parliament, I will not press the amendments.
Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 9 not moved.
Section 32—Food information
We move to group 5, on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
The amendments in the group are minor ones that either update the draft bill or provide more clarity. They will improve the clarity and consistency of the bill’s provisions.
Amendment 1 corrects a minor oversight in the bill, as introduced. The word “subsection” is required for consistency with neighbouring subsections and to give full effect to section 32.
Amendment 2 provides clarity on the circumstances in which regulations that are made in connection with administrative sanctions can allow for discharging criminal liability where someone has been served with both a fixed-penalty notice and a compliance notice. The section, which was added at stage 2, was intended to cover that situation. However, last Wednesday, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee published its report on the bill, as amended at stage 2, and its report recommended that we make the further change that the amendment makes.
Amendment 3 updates the list of acts that would be modified by the enactment of the bill. It is now clear that the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 does not extend to Scotland and so requires no modification. The amendment removes it from the schedule accordingly.
I move amendment 1.
I rise as the convener of the aforementioned Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.
I thank the Government for taking seriously what we said. There was an entirely unintended consequence of some drafting, and I am grateful that the Government has tidied it up.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
After section 33
Amendment 10 not moved.
Section 48—Power to make supplementary etc. provision
Amendment 2 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
Schedule
Amendment 3 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Food (Scotland) Bill