Horsemeat Substitution in Europe
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead, on horsemeat substitution in Europe. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:16
I want to update Parliament on recent developments with regard to horsemeat and food fraud.
As a result of the revelation of horsemeat being found in mislabelled processed beef products in Europe, consumer confidence has been severely dented and shockwaves have been sent through the food industry. It is wholly unacceptable that consumers have been buying products labelled beef that turn out to contain horsemeat, and the mislabelling of food products through deliberate and illegal meat substitution will not be tolerated. It is the clear responsibility of those who supply and sell food to ensure that consumers are not misled, and Europe’s food industry now faces the massive challenge of rebuilding trust in its products. At least a dozen countries are now affected and, as exemplified by last night’s announcement from Nestlé, it is likely that there will be further revelations across Europe in the coming weeks and months.
That is why the Scottish Government has been calling for strong action at a European level. That is now happening, with European Governments, enforcement authorities, food industries and agencies taking the necessary action to get to the bottom of the issue. It is important to note that, in Scotland, there is no slaughtering of horses for human consumption, and no food manufacturing firm has been implicated in the horsemeat scandal and illegal substitution of meat. Indeed, all the evidence points to the affected meat originating from outwith Scotland.
It is also important to note that, to date, this is an issue of food fraud with no evidence of any implications for human health. The Food Standards Agency in Scotland and the Scottish Government are acting to prevent horsemeat from entering our food chain and to reassure consumers. As Parliament will be aware, even though it remains part of the United Kingdom FSA, the agency in Scotland answers to Scottish ministers and is responsible for food labelling. South of the border, Whitehall hived off aspects of labelling and standards to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
After being notified on 14 January by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of its survey of horse and pig DNA in frozen burgers, the FSA put in place an action plan across the UK. The Tesco product in question had been on sale throughout the UK, including Scotland. Two plants in the Republic of Ireland and one in England were implicated in the survey, and the affected retailers immediately withdrew potentially affected products from sale.
Parliament will also be aware that as part of the investigation products have been withdrawn due to trace crossover of pork, for instance, into beef products. Although that is more likely a result of poor practice rather than fraudulent behaviour, it remains an issue that the industry must take very seriously.
Three strands of horsemeat surveillance, one of which was initiated in Scotland, are now under way. The first is a robust UK-wide authenticity survey, with 28 local authorities taking samples of beef products from all parts of the food chain. Two councils in Scotland are participating in that survey, the results of which will be published in March.
Secondly, local authorities are carrying out inspection visits to all Scotland’s 229 approved meat-processing premises and 29 cold stores. I asked the FSA to instigate those inspections on 24 January. We were the first part of the UK to do that. Sixty per cent of the inspections have already started, and to date 47 per cent have been completed. No issues to cause concern have been detected. The vast majority of the remainder of the inspections are due to be completed by the end of this week, and the whole exercise will be completed by next Friday.
Thirdly, the FSA instructed the food industry to test all processed beef products for the presence of horse DNA and to share the results with it. Last Friday, across the UK, the food industry published the first set of results. Some 2,501 results were published, and 2,472 of them—almost 99 per cent—were negative for the presence of horse DNA at or above the level of 1 per cent. The FSA will publish a further update this coming Friday. No new products were affected. All the positive results related to seven products that have already been reported and, where appropriate, action has been taken to remove relevant products from sale and to notify consumers.
Of course, there have been further product withdrawals since Friday. Where products have been found to contain horse DNA, they have been tested for the presence of the veterinary drug phenylbutazone, which is known as bute. All the tests on food for that drug have come back negative so far. Since 30 January, the FSA has been testing 100 per cent of horse carcases for bute.
I repeat: there is no horsemeat processing in Scotland. Bute is not allowed to enter the food chain, but in the unlikely event that people have eaten products that contain contaminated horsemeat, the risk of damage to health is very low. The chief medical officer for Scotland, Sir Harry Burns, has said that the samples found were
“still at a level many hundred times lower than those previously used in humans on a daily basis.”
We have also taken steps to check that no horsemeat is present in the food that is provided to our schools, hospitals and prisons. Assurances have been sought from all those who supply food to the public sector in Scotland. Significant testing and tracing are going on throughout public sector providers, and that is also happening throughout those who sell or manufacture food in the UK generally.
To date, there is no evidence of horsemeat in public sector catering in Scotland. Sustainably produced food and drink is a high priority for Scotland, and food and drink contracts are awarded in a way that balances price and quality before they are awarded. It is not necessarily the lowest price that wins; quality is vital in the public sector. We should all take that on board.
As well as taking those immediate actions, we are, of course, turning our attention to the future. Others must do that as well. Rules on the composition and labelling of foods are, in the main, set at a European level. Due to that strong European component, I have asked for a meeting with the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, Commissioner Borg, to stress the need for safe and effective controls being available to us at a national level. In the meantime, at last week’s meeting—which happened at last—of EU ministers, ministers finally set out plans to accelerate further labelling measures.
The enforcement of European legislation is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, but a strong and strategic voice in Europe is, of course, needed to co-ordinate action across the whole of Europe. I have long argued for a stronger UK line on labelling in European negotiations, and over the years I have written to the secretaries of state Hilary Benn and Caroline Spelman to press for quicker action and stronger legislation. I will continue to raise those issues with current DEFRA ministers. Indeed, I have been in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in England, Wales and Northern Ireland over the past few weeks, and I have also discussed the issue numerous times with retailers and the food industry and, of course, with Scotland’s farmers and primary producers.
Yesterday, I was in London with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, and met the chief executives of most of the major retailers and the food service sector in the UK. Tomorrow, I will host another industry stakeholder meeting in Edinburgh with the Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, with whom I have been working very closely in recent weeks. The minister is also taking forward our proposal for a stand-alone food standards body in Scotland. The consultation on the new body is imminent, and ministers are currently considering the implications for that process of the horsemeat scandal. The minister is seeking the opportunity to make a statement in Parliament next week to update members. I can also inform members that the minister will establish an expert group to advise on any changes that are required to the FSA in Scotland ahead of the creation of the new body.
No matter how far we go, legislation and enforcement are only a small part of the picture. Responsibility lies with those who produce, manufacture and sell food. There is a clear need for the food sector to restore consumer confidence. Given the greater awareness that exists of the complexity of food supply chains, which is causing much concern, it is clear that the people of Scotland are now taking an even closer interest in where the food on their plate comes from.
There is clear evidence that people are looking for provenance and the Scotch brand, which is associated with traceability and quality. Some butchers report that sales have gone up by more than a fifth since the crisis started, and meat-processing companies in Scotland are reporting an increase in orders for Scotch beef. I urge consumers to seek out the Scotch label.
Although we cannot be complacent on enforcement and strong standards in this country, we must do all that we can to promote and protect our world-renowned Scotch brands, particularly beef. Fortunately, we do not have the complex and sometimes murky web of supply chains that stretches across Europe. We have farmers with traceability systems for their meat through the Scotch label. That is why many customers are realising that they can trust the Scotch label when they buy meat.
I urge our retailers to shorten supply chains and to source closer to home. We must be ready to do that. I will announce another expert group to advise on how we can take forward the Scottish food industry’s work on traceability and provenance. In addition, I am asking Quality Meat Scotland to explore how we can extend the principles behind the Scotch label and assurance schemes to the processing sector in Scotland. To strengthen the Scotch label and boost consumer confidence, last week I announced £1 million for developing new markets for beef, lamb and pork, and the marketing of the Scotch brands.
Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. When the issue first came to light in Ireland, the Scottish Government and the FSA in Scotland took urgent action and swiftly implemented additional inspections in meat-processing plants. Scotland was the first part of the UK to order those tests, which complement the new EU-wide testing regime that was agreed following a meeting in Brussels last week.
The horsemeat scandal has undermined consumer trust in some parts of the food industry, but it might be a watershed moment in how people think about food, which could end up being a good thing. There is an absolute need for every step of the food chain to take responsibility for the food that it produces and to ensure that Scottish consumers can have total confidence that what they buy is what it says on the label.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I can allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement, although it is fair to say that the Scottish Government’s reaction has been slow. We fully support efforts to promote the Scottish meat sector and its produce, but Scottish consumers are as likely to have eaten contaminated products as consumers elsewhere in the UK.
Greater local sourcing and shorter supply chains are part of the solution, but such food is often outwith the budgets of hard-pressed families. Regardless of income, consumers deserve to have confidence in the products that they buy and to know where those products have come from. In his statement, the cabinet secretary recognised potential weaknesses in the processing sector. What assurances can he give that those will be addressed?
Given what we now know about the regulatory regime in Scotland—a third fewer food safety inspections are carried out than in 2008 and there has been a 50 per cent fall in the number of meat inspectors, as well as a drop in the number of local authority environmental health officers and specialist food safety officers—we must ask whether the cabinet secretary believes that the regulatory system is robust enough. Does he agree that light-touch regulation has failed the sector and the consumer?
It has taken a crisis to kick the Government into action on a stand-alone food standards body. This has been a missed opportunity. The Government promised a consultation by the end of the year, and now we are to get a statement next week. Will it now fast-track the establishment of such a body?
I welcome some of Claire Baker’s comments, but I cannot take lessons on being slow to respond from someone who has not lodged an oral question, a First Minister’s question time question or a topical question on the issue over the past few weeks. We all recognise that the issue is an extremely serious one, which we should treat very seriously.
Claire Baker makes a good point about processed meat, but we must bear it in mind that the finding of horsemeat in products relates to imported processed beef products and that there is no evidence that any company in Scotland is implicated in deliberate meat substitution. Therefore, the quality of imported processed beef products is an important issue.
We have a processing sector in this country. We should take advantage of that and try to persuade retailers and the food service sector to source more locally, so that our meat processors can secure those contracts. Consumers want to see shorter supply chains, and I have mentioned some measures to take that forward.
Claire Baker referred to the proposal to establish a stand-alone food standards body in Scotland, and I will explain to her why that has come about. In 2010, the UK Government decided to dismantle the FSA in the UK by transferring responsibility for nutrition and labelling to ministers in the UK Government and away from the FSA. Given that the FSA is a body that is at arm’s length from Government, so that it can give independent advice, we took a decision that would leave those responsibilities with the FSA. That is why the UK Government is being criticised for its decision south of the border, while our decision north of the border has been welcomed, and it is the reason for the consultation on the stand-alone food standards body.
I am sure that Claire Baker will agree that it makes sense that the consultation should take into account some of the issues that the horsemeat scandal has thrown up. As I said, Michael Matheson will make a statement to Parliament next week about that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the copy of his statement. Understandably, he highlighted in the statement the fine qualities of Scotch beef. However, the problem is surely not whether the beef is Scottish, English, Irish, Welsh or from anywhere else or whether it is 100 per cent beef when it leaves the farm; the problems come later in the chain. Obviously, the considerable reduction in food safety testing and in the number of environmental health officers is a major cause of concern that must be addressed, but the real issue is, as the cabinet secretary said, the consumer’s loss of trust in what was supposed to be a robust food chain.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the supermarkets’ relentless grinding down of the prices that they pay their suppliers inevitably leads to those suppliers trying almost anything to make a profit? Given that food labelling and food safety are already within the remit of the FSA in Scotland, what difference does the cabinet secretary think that a stand-alone Scottish FSA could make in situations like the current one? What assurances can he give that the regulatory changes that will inevitably be introduced on the back of this fiasco will be of a sufficiently permanent nature to restore the trust that has been lost, and will not be allowed just to fall into disuse, as has happened too often in the past?
Alex Fergusson asked a number of questions. I will address first the issue of staff numbers and the number of food tests in Scotland decreasing. To put the testing issue into context, in 2009-10, Scotland’s local authorities carried out 11.6 per cent of the UK total of food tests; the figure is now 13.3 per cent. Yes, there have been similar reductions in the number of meat and hygiene staff across the UK both north and south of the border. That is due to European legislation changing and the fact that in Scotland—unfortunately, some may say—some meat plants have closed down in recent years, so meat inspectors are no longer based in those plants. The staff numbers therefore fluctuate, but of course we must keep them under review in light of the horsemeat scandal as we move forward to a stand-alone food standards body in Scotland.
Alex Fergusson asked what the benefit of such a body in Scotland would be. We would argue that it would be independent and more focused. As part of the consultation process and to take the debate forward, we very much look forward to Parliament’s input on the scope of the body’s area of responsibility. A stand-alone food standards body in Scotland could achieve lots of exciting things for the wider food sector and food safety in this country.
On how long regulatory changes will last for, the horsemeat scandal is a wake-up call for the processing sector throughout Europe, with more than a dozen countries involved—the next few days’ headlines will undoubtedly show that even more countries are involved. It is therefore vital that European authorities sort out the situation, get to the heart of the matter and understand what caused the food fraud and how we can ensure that it does not happen again. I am pleased that effort is now going to be made to accelerate country-of-origin labelling for processed meat produce in Europe, which could help Scotland greatly.
Many members wish to ask a question, but I am confident that we can get through everybody. I call Angus MacDonald, to be followed by Hanzala Malik.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s swift actions when the matter first came to light. In light of the horsemeat scandal, what measures is the cabinet secretary taking to guarantee the acclaimed quality and reputation of Scotch beef, lamb and pork? What work has been undertaken to promote the Scotch brand?
Angus MacDonald makes a very good point, which I know all members take seriously: we are lucky in Scotland because we have a fantastic reputation for provenance and quality. The last thing that anyone in this chamber wants to see is the Scotch brand and our primary producers—those who produce the raw materials that go into local factories in Scotland and produce first-class products—suffering any collateral damage because of criminal activity in Europe.
We have to make every effort to promote and protect the Scotch brand, which is why last week at the NFU Scotland conference in St Andrews I announced £1 million to help Quality Meat Scotland and the wider industry take forward the Scotch label. As I said, there is also an opportunity to extend the principles behind the Scotch label into meat processing in Scotland. There is huge consumer demand from retailers and food service companies to shorten the supply chain and source closer to home.
Although the bulk of the statement and press reports have focused on horsemeat, the cabinet secretary may be aware that there has been at least one case of pork being found in food that was labelled “halal”. That is obviously of high concern to those who adhere to religious dietary requirements. Although I am very pleased that Scottish meat is trusted over meat from other countries, can the cabinet secretary assure Parliament that, along with checks for horsemeat, he will ensure that meat in Scotland is not wrongly labelled “halal” or “kosher”?
Hanzala Malik raises a very important point that we are looking at seriously. Indeed, Michael Matheson, the Minister for Public Health, spoke to faith groups yesterday to gauge their views on the issue.
Clearly, the labelling system applies to halal and kosher foods in exactly the same way as it does to other foods, and we expect manufacturers of such foods to adhere to it. As Hanzala Malik mentioned, there has been an element of crossover of pork in beef products. It should be said that, through due diligence, the food manufacturing service and retailers routinely carry out tests to ensure that what is on the label is what is in the product. That includes testing for pork. Clearly, the issue of the past few weeks has been horsemeat, which is why extra testing has been taking place. Routine testing is very important to identify crossover. The lesson for all meat processors in all countries is that what is on the label must be what is in the product.
I welcome the prospect of an expert group looking at the FSA in Scotland. It was right that the FSA’s role in Scotland was protected when the UK Government took the decision to dismantle it south of the border. However, I am disappointed that the Westminster Government recently refused to devolve full powers over consumer protection to this Parliament.
Will the cabinet secretary ask the Minister for Public Health to broaden the expert group’s remit to include all consumer protection functions so that we can take a holistic approach to this very important matter?
We will look closely at consumer protection and I am sure that Michael Matheson will take on board Dave Thompson’s comments on the membership of the expert group that will be set up in the near future to look at any changes to the FSA and how those will be guided.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I have campaigned for local food procurement for a long time. In fact, nearly six years ago today I held a members’ business debate on the issue, in which I called on the Government to work in conjunction with the public sector on procuring food for our public services. The then minister, Michael Russell MSP—some members may remember him—said:
“We have to have confidence in the way that our food is produced”.—[Official Report, 21 June 2007; c 1119.]
To date—nearly six years on—we are still no further forward regarding local food procurement.
Mr Hume, can we get a bit further with the question, please?
Does the cabinet secretary agree that this is an opportune moment to push local food procurement up the political agenda and deliver more local food procurement in Scotland?
I have spoken about the food service sector and retailers; in the context of Mr Hume’s question, it is the food service sector that supplies the public sector and other organisations in Scotland. The food service sector must play a role in sourcing closer to home. It has a fantastic opportunity to do that, which is why I am keen to expand the principles behind the Scotch label into the meat-processing sector, as well as the fresh meat sector. That is a big opportunity.
There has been enormous progress in public procurement over the past few years. The standards in our schools, hospitals and prisons are much higher than they have ever been—there is plenty of evidence that that is the case. Of course, the procurement guidelines that have been issued by this Government have had an effect by persuading all procurement exercises to take into account quality and not just price.
I alert members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that Scottish food safety has been compromised by the drop over a number of years in the number of environmental health officers and food safety officers employed by local authorities? What pressure can the Scottish Government bring to bear on local authorities to halt and even reverse the decline in the number of EHOs and food safety officers that they employ?
Stewart Maxwell’s question largely relates to food safety as opposed to meat substitution and labelling, which is what my statement was about. Of course, those officers play a very important role because the majority of tests that are carried out by local government officers—including environmental health officers—relate to food issues, particularly food safety, so their role is essential in giving the public reassurance.
Audit Scotland has just produced a report that covers food safety services. There has to be a plan for the years ahead as regards how such services are funded and how we work together with the FSA and environmental health officers, but the report contains some positive comments. Local authorities need to take food safety seriously, and I am sure that they are taking it seriously. There is no evidence that food safety has been compromised.
Does the cabinet secretary share the concern of some in the farming industry that the scandal will deter some consumers from eating any meat, even though Scottish pork, lamb and beef are world class, safe, healthy and 100 per cent traceable? Will he consider what extra support he might give to Quality Meat Scotland if meat sales in Scotland show any decline?
The good news for the Scotch label is that Scottish meat is not showing a decline; it is showing an increase in sales. Many butchers whom I have spoken to have said that they have had a 20 to 25 per cent increase in sales over the past couple of weeks; indeed, some meat companies in Scotland are getting more orders from outside Scotland for Scottish meat. That is good news. However, the member is quite right to raise the fact that primary producers—farmers in particular—are angry about the scandal because it has had an impact on consumers and their view of meat.
In Scotland we do not supply the world with commodity meat; we supply high-value, good-quality meat. We have a distinctive message, and I will support our primary producers in the agricultural sector and in the wider food sector to promote that message as much as possible.
I declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on animal welfare and as a member of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The unregulated placing of horsemeat on the European market raises serious concerns not only about public health but about animal welfare. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland and the rest of the UK must take every possible step to ensure that we never again provide a market for this heartless trade? If he does, will he ask the European Commission to act now to ensure that all existing animal welfare legislation is enforced in every EU member state and that any meat or live animals imported from third countries meet the same animal welfare standards?
Yes, the spotlight will be on the horse trade in Europe as never before and on the associated welfare issues. I am happy to raise the issues that Christine Grahame has mentioned.
The minister mentioned law enforcement efforts across the EU. In light of media reports indicating that those involved in the horse trade have used Scottish ports to deliver a substantial number of horses into the food chain, does the Government have a means to monitor such trade going through our ports? Was the minister aware of the development of such a supply route and has he taken any steps to initiate a high-level strategy in preparation for any criminal investigations should fraud, money laundering or the involvement of organised crime be identified?
We are keen to discuss with the UK authorities trade through Scotland of horses. It is not a huge issue for Scotland in terms of trade routes but I am happy to investigate Graeme Pearson’s point to find out exactly the extent of the issue.
I know that intensive investigations into the horse trade are going on at the moment, which will involve all of the UK and, indeed, other European countries. I am happy to look at those investigations.
I should also mention that all member states have been asked to give any information that they have about that horse trade to Europol, which is co-ordinating efforts across Europe to make sure that we are on top of those issues.
I note that some flexibility could exist in EU law with regard to quality and standards of labelling. Will the Government look at the potential of labelling the source of all ingredients, whether in processed food or on restaurant menus, and remind the Scottish Retail Consortium that the costs of such labelling should be borne by the processors, supermarkets and restaurants and not by the consumer?
As I said, I am keen to set up an expert working group to look at issues of provenance and traceability in Scotland, so I will certainly taken on board Rob Gibson’s comments.
One small note of caution is that, in a context where illegal meat substitution—food fraud—has been taking place in Europe, with some products being imported into the UK, we need to be careful about introducing knee-jerk regulation that could have a detrimental impact on small food businesses in Scotland. We do not want those businesses to suffer because of the illegal activity that has happened on the European continent. However, the member raises an important issue that requires further investigation.
We have a food industry with a long and complex supply chain dominated by huge profit-focused companies, and we have cuts in local authority inspections that mean that some plants are visited only once every three months, or less frequently, on a pre-announced basis. Re-establishing trust in that failed system requires fundamental change. The Soil Association’s food for life catering mark—an initiative that the cabinet secretary has supported—means that one in 10 schools in Scotland now know where their food comes from. What action will the cabinet secretary take to help to deliver the commonsense short supply chain that would ensure that a similar level of transparency, control and peace of mind becomes the norm and applies to all food bought and served in Scotland?
I do not think that we will ever be in the position of stopping food imports into Scotland—I do not think that consumers necessarily want that—but I certainly agree that all of us in this country want to support the principle and vision that the member has outlined. Over the past few years, we have put a huge amount of effort into that vision, since we started off Scotland’s first ever national food policy a few years ago. Over that time, among UK retailers the sourcing of Scottish brands has increased by a third. I want to continue down that road because I think that sourcing closer to home is the right way to go where we can supply the products. Clearly, there will appear on our shelves products that consumers want to buy that come from overseas. As long as those products meet the same standards as those that producers in this country are required to meet, I think that that is acceptable. I agree with the good work that the Soil Association has done in our schools. As the member said, we funded that through our food policy, and we will look for opportunities to support such initiatives in the future.
As the cabinet secretary has outlined, local authorities are carrying out inspection visits to all 229 approved meat-processing premises and 29 cold stores in Scotland. At present, the industry is indeed under great scrutiny. However, in view of the cuts to inspection resources that other members have highlighted and given the need to develop new protocols, can the cabinet secretary reassure the Parliament that there will be a suitably robust framework for future inspections, not just in the light of the present concerns about horsemeat but in a broader context to deal with any further potential meat contamination? What will the review process be?
As I said, the consultation on the stand-alone food standards body for Scotland will take those issues into account. We are about to launch a consultation on an independent food standards body for Scotland against the backdrop of a European scandal relating to horsemeat, so it is important that we take on board any lessons that can be learned on the issue from across Europe. However, I reiterate that there needs to be a European response.
The FSA in Scotland does a lot of good work and is working extremely hard at the moment. I pay tribute to the FSA staff and to our environmental health officers, who are carrying out the meat premises inspections at the local level. There is a lot of good work going on, so I do not want us to start disparaging our agencies here in Scotland because of international criminal activity elsewhere in Europe. Of course, there will be lessons to be learned, so the member is quite right that we need to review matters to ensure that we have a robust belt-and-braces approach to food standards and food safety in this country. We will ensure that that happens, and we look forward to the input on that from the other parties in the Parliament.
The cabinet secretary has highlighted the steps that are being taken to check that no horsemeat is present in the food that is provided to our schools, hospitals and prisons. Given that a number of vital services in our communities are outsourced, what steps are being taken to check on the supply chain of services to the elderly or vulnerable that are delivered by non-public sector bodies such as care homes?
Jayne Baxter raises an important issue. I assure her that the product testing that is being undertaken by local authorities will be not just in relation to schools but in relation to care homes as well. As regards the food service sector, which may supply private care homes, a huge amount of testing is going on. I understand that, a week or two ago, one food service company even sent 400 samples to the United States to be tested because the laboratories in the UK were at full capacity. That just shows how seriously the testing is being taken, and such testing applies not only right across the public sector but in care homes. As yet, thankfully, no issues of concern have been highlighted, but the testing is on-going and we cannot be complacent.