Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2014
It is always a difficult job to follow Mr Stevenson. It is particularly difficult today, but he has expanded my knowledge by mentioning a piece of legislation of which I hitherto had no knowledge at all—the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act 1915—which I shall remember for some time.
As someone who is not a member of the committee, I thank it for its sterling work on the bill. As has already been said, Scotland has a worldwide reputation for being the home of good food. Our food suppliers proudly trade in Scotland’s name in produce as diverse as meat and potatoes, desserts and other forms of confectionary. Like Stewart Stevenson, I represent a part of Scotland in which the food industry is vital. I assure Richard Simpson that the porridge oats industry is alive and kicking in North East Fife. The food industry is vital to the local economy and, indeed, to the Scottish national economy.
It is therefore imperative that the standard and safety of the produce is second to none. Scotland’s reputation in international food markets has suffered in the past due to events such as the BSE crisis, foot-and-mouth disease and the recent horsemeat scandal. It should of course be remembered that, in the products sampled by the Food Standards Agency on a UK-wide basis, no traces of horsemeat were found in any produce manufactured in Scotland. All 47 products found to contain horsemeat were from other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent when it comes to food standards in Scotland and we must learn from past mistakes. I therefore applaud the Scottish Government’s decision to accept the recommendations from the reporting groups led by Professor Jim Scudamore and Ray Jones, which were referred to earlier.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the Health and Sport Committee in its stage 1 report that the changes made in the UK have made it necessary for there to be a new food body in Scotland. The machinery of government changes made by the UK Government in 2010 that affected the FSA were criticised by Professor Scudamore in his earlier work. As far as I am aware, there is continuing disagreement down south between the FSA, which is continuing to demand that control be given back to it over authenticity and labelling policy, and other agencies of the UK Government.
The policy here is already a devolved matter, but, as Professor Scudamore warned, the consequences of the machinery of government changes were detrimental. I am sure that the Scottish approach that we have adopted is the correct one. Notwithstanding that, I hope that a suitable way forward is found in England following the publication of the Elliott review or, to give it its full title, the “Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks—Final Report: A National Food Crime Prevention Framework”. One of the things that I am concerned about is that there should be no negative knock-on impact in Scotland as a result of continuing wrangling between DEFRA and the FSA.
I noted with interest that the majority of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation on a new food body in Scotland were in favour of extending the remit of the new body at some stage and that those included all local authorities that responded. There appears to be a broad agreement that any extension of the remit should be done on the basis that it provides
“improved strategic leadership and better co-ordination of multi-agency service delivery.”
That is an admirable aim.
Issues relating to food contamination, safety and standards have been well rehearsed in the debate. Many of the respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation on creating the new food body recommended that the new food authority should have scope all over aspects of food “from farm to fork”. Localising that work as far as possible would be very helpful. To that end, I share the sentiment expressed in Fife Council’s response, which stated that it believes:
“the existing partnership between local authorities and FSA works well and this successful partnership approach in Scotland is the building block for a new body.”
I agree with that aim.
I welcome the enforcement provisions set out in the bill, particularly the power to seize and detain food that does not comply with food information law, as is currently the position in relation to unsafe food. It is quite clear that we all take it for granted that the food that we eat is safe. We assume that the food, in its packaging and on our plates, has come from reputable, reliable sources and will cause us no harm. However, as the minister said in his opening speech, for 50 people a year in Scotland food-borne disease proves fatal and 2,000 people each year need hospital treatment for it. Richard Simpson referred to the E coli outbreak in Wishaw, and we obviously do not want to go down that route again.
It is not only safety that the new body will be charged with overseeing. It will be charged with improving diet and nutrition and the extent to which members of the public have diets that are conducive to good health.
As many members will recall, we have previously discussed the Fife diet, and I make no apology for drawing members’ attention to it once again. Since October 2007, the Fife diet campaign has challenged people in Fife to eat locally sourced produce. The initiative has continued to grow and has encouraged people from further afield to try a locally sourced diet. One benefit is knowing exactly where the food we are eating has come from, tying in with the “from farm to fork” ethos that I have mentioned. That means that people know that the food that they are eating, which will generally be seasonal, will be of good quality and, most important of all, safe to consume.
The long-term effect of the diet will, I hope, be significant. I am aware that some stakeholders believe that the new body that is being created could go further in supporting the growth of the food and drink industry, but in my view the agency will have achieved a lot if it helps to improve Scotland’s diet, with the undoubted benefits to the health service and to the individuals concerned. Section 2(1)(c) mentions the objective:
“to protect the other interests of consumers in relation to food.”
That is quite a wide-ranging objective and it gives every opportunity for the new agency to expand its role in the time to come.
This is an important bill and, when it is established, I wish the new agency well.
16:16