Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Official Report 746KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Horsemeat

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on addressing concerns regarding horsemeat in the food chain. (S4T-00260)

We are making very good progress. As of Monday, 96 per cent of the additional inspections of meat processing plants in Scotland that were requested on 24 January have been completed. Meanwhile, across the United Kingdom, over 99 per cent of the 3,634 industry tests that have been completed have been negative, with the Food Standards Agency reporting that the 35 positive tests relate to 13 products, all of which have been withdrawn. A further 428 industry tests have to be completed and are expected to be reported on on Friday.

The third strand of testing, which is being carried out by 28 local authorities across the UK, is due to provide a progress report early in March and, on Thursday, I will provide further details to Parliament about the consultation on a new food safety body for Scotland and the expert groups that Mr Lochhead outlined in last Tuesday’s statement.

Despite the fact that the cabinet secretary said in his statement last week,

“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”,—[Official Report, 19 February 2013; c 16658.]

horsemeat has in the past week been identified in school burgers and frozen beef products have been withdrawn from schools across Scotland. In preparing the statement, did the Scottish Government know that school contracts are awarded on a weighting of 65 per cent price and 20 per cent quality, meaning that, in the national contract, cost is weighted three times more than quality? Why was that not made clear to Parliament and Scotland’s parents in last week’s statement?

Mr Lochhead’s statement was very clear. Additional advice has also been provided to local authorities through “Catering for Change: Buying food sustainably in the public sector”, which was published in 2011 and advises, for example, that seasonal and fresh produce be specified in procurement by public bodies. It is important that public bodies consider the range of options available to them in the contracts that they take forward through public procurement bodies such as Scotland Excel.

The positive DNA test in Lanarkshire gives us an opportunity to look at how we might further improve the standard of food provided to children in schools. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs have invited local authorities to meet them to discuss the matter further.

We should also bear in mind that, since 2007 and with the introduction in 2008 of the statutory food and nutrition standards for schools, the quality of food provided in schools has significantly improved. Those standards are regulated in part through Education Scotland’s use of nutritionists to evaluate the quality of that food to ensure that it complies with those higher standards. However, I, like everyone else, want even better standards where we can get them, which is why the cabinet secretaries have invited local authorities to discuss opportunities for improving them further.

Of course, the people who check food safety in local authorities are the environmental health officers. Today, Unison has published a damning survey of environmental health officers, 56 per cent of whom say that their team has seen “major” cuts, with a further 10 per cent describing the cuts as “severe”. One member has even said:

“We have not submitted any samples for food for ten months!”

Was the minister’s department aware of those cuts? Was the minister also aware of FSA Scotland’s underspend, which amounted to 10 per cent of its budget? Were any questions asked about why the organisation was returning such a significant underspend?

I am sure that the member will recognise that local authorities are responsible for resourcing environmental health departments and ensuring that they maintain food testing standards in their areas. However, in recent years and as a result of changes at European level, there has been a move towards more of a risk-based assessment in the undertaking of these tests.

As for the member’s reference to FSA Scotland’s budget, I point out that, unlike the UK Government, we have maintained the agency’s budget in Scotland. Its underspend has arisen by and large as a result of a number of initiatives that did not materialise in the timeframe that was set for them. Those were largely research projects, some of which took longer than intended to come through the system. However, that money will be retained by the agency, whose budget next year is being maintained yet again to allow it to continue its important work in Scotland.

I should add that, over the past couple of weeks, our staff in the Food Standards Agency in Scotland have worked tremendously hard to do everything they can to address the issue. I am sure that all members recognise that the issue has not just affected us, here in the UK. Some 14 countries in Europe have been affected by this food fraud, which is completely unacceptable. Staff in the Food Standards Agency in Scotland have worked extremely hard and I thank them for the tremendous amount of work that they have put in over recent weeks.

The minister will be aware that Cumbernauld high school, in my constituency, is the school in which frozen meat was found to be contaminated with horsemeat. Although parents should be reassured by the higher standards that are set for school meals, will the minister say what steps will be taken to work with North Lanarkshire Council to ensure that it is meeting the standards?

It is entirely unacceptable that a company provided one of our local authorities with a product that contained horse DNA in the first place. Scotland Excel has taken the right approach by asking all local authorities in Scotland to withhold all frozen meat products until further checks have been undertaken. Of course, we also expect suppliers to undertake further checks on their processes for procuring the ingredients for their products.

Yes, standards have improved over recent years, and yes, there will always be room to make improvements. The Government is more than happy to consider what further action could be taken to do that. However, it is important that we are not distracted from the fact that, every day, children get good-quality, nutritious meals from our schools.

North Lanarkshire Council’s results give us an opportunity to reflect on what further action could be taken, and the meeting to which local authorities have been invited, which is being taken forward by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, will allow councils such as North Lanarkshire Council to explore with them what measures could be taken to continue to improve the standard of food in the meals that are provided in our schools.

Can the minister tell us from where Brakes, which is a £2.5 billion, Kent-based company, buys the mince that ends up in Scottish school dinners, given that 28 out of 32 Scottish local authorities are compelled to use the company, through the Scottish Government’s centralised procurement system, instead of supporting local butchers and allowing local food to be served in local schools, hospitals and care homes?

Local authorities are not compelled to use Scotland Excel. Four local authorities do not use Scotland Excel and procure in a different way, so that they have a choice about how to procure goods locally. A key aspect of the regulations on improving nutritional standards in school meals is traceability of products. A company cannot bid for a contract if it cannot provide traceability. The contract process makes the quality and traceability of the product a requirement, and that is a key part of the ability to get on to the Scotland Excel programme to take forward contracts that come through it.

Last week in the Parliament I highlighted the benefits of the Soil Association’s food for life catering mark, which currently offers peace of mind for one in 10 Scottish schools. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment said that he would consider how the Government could support such schemes—indeed, at the weekend he was quoted praising their work and impact. What target and timescale for roll-out will the Government commit to, to reassure parents, staff and pupils?

The member will be aware that, since 2009, the Scottish Government has been funding work with the Soil Association on its food for life catering mark. The three-year programme promotes unprocessed food, local sourcing and provenance and food education. We have renewed the programme and we are looking to enhance the work and consider how we take the programme forward over a further three years.

Something that we can do as a result of the horsemeat scandal is consider whether there is a greater opportunity to expand the programme and accelerate the process. The meeting on school meals that the two cabinet secretaries will have will give us an opportunity to explore the issue with local authorities and see whether we can accelerate the programme, given the good progress that has been made since 2009.

---

Care of Older People (Healthcare Improvement Scotland Inspection Reports)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what role it has in the production of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspection reports into the care of older people.(S4T-00263)

Healthcare Improvement Scotland reports its inspection findings independently. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to interfere with its processes.

We asked for the programme of inspections to be carried out in order to drive up standards of care for older people in acute hospitals. Of the 23 acute hospitals in the inspection programme, 12 hospitals across seven national health service boards have been inspected and reported on to date. The last published report was on the inspection at Ninewells hospital in NHS Tayside. The inspection programme continues.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the recent press coverage relating specifically to the Ninewells hospital report. Will he confirm whether that was the first time that Healthcare Improvement Scotland has produced a single combined report from an announced inspection and its unannounced follow-up?

As the First Minister advised Parliament on 31 January, Healthcare Improvement Scotland had previously produced a combined report for Wishaw general hospital. That report was published on 19 July 2012. It included the announced inspection that was carried out at Wishaw general hospital on 28 to 30 May, and the unannounced follow-up inspection on 19 June.

The report at the weekend pointed to changes that had been made prior to the draft report being finalised following feedback received from NHS Tayside. Is it normal practice for Healthcare Improvement Scotland to consult health boards with draft reports?

It is part of the usual procedure for chief executives of NHS boards, following an inspection, to receive a copy of the draft report and have the opportunity to comment on matters of factual accuracy. Healthcare Improvement Scotland looks into the comments and either accepts the inaccuracy and amends the text, or concludes that the original text is an accurate reflection of its findings on the day—or days—of the inspection and retains the original content.

Alex Neil was told by fellow minister Roseanna Cunningham—during the procedure of checking factual accuracy to which he has just referred—that allegations at Healthcare Improvement Scotland were grave.

Alex Neil can try to distance himself from the issue, but the Public Services Reform Act (Scotland) 2010 clearly states that Healthcare Improvement Scotland

“is to act subject to and in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Scottish Ministers.”

Given the grave allegations that the cabinet secretary was told about by a fellow member of the Government and that he had called for full transparency when the report on chronic pain was also buried, did he not think that it was appropriate to exercise that power to sort out the mess and cover-up at Healthcare Improvement Scotland?

First, my powers are of a general nature. I make it absolutely clear to the member that I cannot direct how an individual inquiry is carried out.

It is correct that Ms Cunningham wrote to me in her capacity as a local MSP on behalf of a constituent. That was after the Scottish Government was informed by Healthcare Improvement Scotland that it was working through quality assurance issues raised following the initial inspection. I sought assurances at that time from Healthcare Improvement Scotland that it was following the appropriate due process in its then current inspections and reporting. I got such an assurance.

The cabinet secretary is aware that when matters of investigation for Healthcare Improvement Scotland are considered in relation to, for example, the elderly in NHS Tayside or critical incidents in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Healthcare Improvement Scotland panel members can be—and are—drawn from the board areas under investigation. Is there a mechanism for members of such panels to step down from investigations when their own boards are being investigated, given that conflicts of interest will surely exist? If such a mechanism does not exist, will the cabinet secretary consider introducing a safeguard to avoid what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest?

I have made it absolutely clear to HIS that there must never be a situation in which there is even a perceived conflict of interest, let alone a real conflict of interest.

Last November, I instructed my officials to abide by a new rule about future appointments to the boards of Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. In future, a serving member of staff or a serving director of a board that could be the subject of investigation would not be appointed to avoid any perceived conflict of interest between their role on the board of Healthcare Improvement Scotland and their role working as a director or a member of staff of a board under investigation.

Moving forward, how will the Scottish Government seek to ensure that action is taken to address areas for improvement that are identified in any HIS inspection report?

It is primarily the responsibility of HIS to ensure that its recommendations are fully implemented. I am advised by HIS that, in the case of the Ninewells inspection, more than 70 per cent of the recommendations have already been fully implemented or are in the process of being implemented. As the relevant Government minister, I take a general overview of the performance of HIS. By definition, I want to ensure—and do ensure—that the work that it recommends be implemented by individual boards is carried out. I do that through a number of means, including the annual review of HIS, as well as the annual review that we undertake of every one of the 22 health boards in Scotland.

The process by which these inspections are being undertaken is relatively new. We understand from HIS that it is updating its methodology.

The concern about the Ninewells case—which I would like the cabinet secretary to address—relates to the fact that the original report was not simply published alongside the follow-up report. That might have been acceptable. The concern is not about the fact that the original report was amended to make factual corrections, which is entirely appropriate. The original report was not published alongside the follow-up report—does the cabinet secretary agree that that is what destroys public confidence?

In his discussions with HIS, will the cabinet secretary ensure that the process is such that the original report is published, alongside any final caveats from the board, the implementation plan and, if appropriate, a follow-up report, because otherwise public confidence will be undermined?

Richard Simpson raises a very fair point, which is one that I have made to the chair and the board of HIS.

In the case of Ninewells, the original report was not published because, once it had reviewed the comments from the clinicians at Tayside and the error report from Tayside NHS Board, the view of HIS’s senior management team at the time was that its procedures had been shown not to be sufficiently robust and, therefore, it did not have full confidence in the draft report.

However, it would appear—according to the Sunday Herald story—that the draft report is now in the public domain. My view, as I have made clear to HIS, is that if that report is in the public domain, for the sake of balance it would be only fair for the letter from the clinicians at Tayside NHS Board and the error report to be in the public domain as well, so that people can get a balanced view of why that report was not published when, normally, it would have been.

Why does the cabinet secretary, along with the First Minister, keep saying that there is a parallel with the Wishaw situation, in which there was a few days’ gap between the first and second inspections? Surely it is totally unprecedented for there to be a gap of four months between inspections. Why did the minister and his colleagues not listen to the whistleblowers who approached him to tell him the truth about the matter, rather than the version from HIS, which, unfortunately, he is still giving to the Parliament today?

With all due respect to Malcolm Chisholm, he has got his facts slightly wrong. First, other than Roseanna Cunningham, only one person contacted me to express concern about what was happening with the Ninewells inspection. On receiving that call, I took immediate action with my officials and asked a series of questions about the procedure, the processes and the robustness of the report. I made it absolutely clear that, in my view, people on all sides should be frank, open and honest. There was clearly a dispute between the inspectors’ view of matters and Tayside NHS Board’s view of matters. Normally, that would have been resolved by the senior management of HIS accepting or rejecting the errors and publishing the report. It did not do so in this case, and I have made it abundantly clear to the chair of HIS that I am not impressed by the way in which the matter has been handled, and that I expect it to ensure that any issues that arise from the way in which the Ninewells report has been handled are rectified timeously.