Meeting of the Parliament 02 October 2014
I, like my committee convener Duncan McNeil, thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee as well as the clerking team and SPICe for all their support—it is only fair that I put that on the record.
I will say a bit about access to research, evidence, science and advice, which other members have also discussed. We have heard much about the need to ensure that we still have access to the relevant UK experts. It is worth noting that sometimes those UK experts happened to be in Scotland—indeed, they are sometimes based not in the UK but elsewhere in Europe.
It became clear to me fairly quickly that food standards Scotland would not have a narrow horizon with regard to research, evidence, science and advice. The scientific and research community is global, and borders are increasingly irrelevant.
In sections 69 to 74 of our stage 1 report, the Health and Sport Committee supported that view, and it was endorsed by the minister, who made it clear that there had been
“a very good working relationship with the FSA at a UK level from the outset”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 24 June 2014; c 5744.]
and that a memorandum of understanding with the FSA is being developed. I would almost have taken that for granted, but it is good to have had that firmed up for the avoidance of doubt. That is good progress.
It is worth stressing that such a memorandum will involve the rest of the UK seeking advice from Scotland-based experts, as I have said before. That is important. The traffic is not one way: there is self-interest for the rest of the UK in having that memorandum of understanding.
Sections 78 to 84 of our stage 1 report outline broad support for that approach, but I think that the report goes a step further. It leads us to consider the huge opportunities to develop research and expertise in Scotland. Section 81 of the report quotes Professor Peter Morgan of the Rowett institute of nutrition and health, who said:
“great opportunities for Scotland”
are
“coming through the horizon 2020 funding.”
I understand that billions of pounds of research money are available in that. He also remarked that food standards Scotland
“should have a definite role in trying to influence what research is done.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 3 June 2014; c 5577.]
Therefore, there is a key role for the new organisation. There is a key economic role as well as a food standards role with our higher education institutions in accessing funding across Europe and beyond. I know that the minister agreed with that.
Support to go even further than that came from another source. Tim Smith of Tesco is quoted in section 84 of our report. He said:
“I encourage more boldness and suggest that the new body will want not just access but influence. Some issues will be more important in Scotland than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom. The new body will need to ensure that those priorities are met with the same enthusiasm as applies now.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 10 June 2014; c 5653.]
One of the key things that I would like to know is how the new body can be proactive about being a specialist in certain food standards issues and in research and development across Europe and the world. There are massive opportunities to direct that.
On a more local level, I want to look at section 32 of the bill, which creates new provisions relating to the contravention of food information laws. In many cases, we are talking about food fraud, to put that into plain English.
The issue may seem trivial to some, but if a person goes down to the local chip shop, pays £5 for a fish supper and thinks that they are getting haddock, they should get that. If they are not given haddock, that is an offence. As we heard earlier, if a person goes for a meal with their family and orders a lamb curry, they will want to ensure that what is in it is what they think is in it. I am not talking about food safety; I am talking about food fraud and misinformation.