Meeting of the Parliament 09 December 2014
I look forward to hearing about that in due course.
I would also welcome a progress report on the Scottish Government’s monitoring of the food hygiene information schemes in Northern Ireland and Wales, and an indication of when such a scheme might be set up in Scotland.
Some concerns were expressed at stage 1, following which the consumer organisation Which? has welcomed the plans agreed at stage 2 to enhance enforcement powers through FSS working proactively with local authorities to drive up standards. Which? also welcomes the decision to allow the new agency to have improved access to food testing from retailers and manufacturers, which will allow action to be taken swiftly when and where food adulteration is detected, to protect consumers and other businesses that rely on the same supply chain. It is concerning that, just a few months ago, Which?, in its mystery shopping activity, found evidence of food adulteration and misrepresentation in a number of takeaways and fish and chip shops across the UK. It goes without saying that constant vigilance is required in relation to the contamination of chickens with the campylobacter organism, which Professor Hugh Pennington described in evidence as the commonest cause of food poisoning today.
A number of witnesses commented on the board size, which, at three plus the chairman, they believed to be too small. I am disappointed that Richard Simpson’s amendment to increase the minimum number to four was defeated. I hope that the Government’s faith that the board will always operate with enough expertise and will be consumer focused in all its work is justified, and I hope that the Government will monitor that, to be assured that the fears are unwarranted. I am pleased that the first board will have seven members plus the chairman, if I heard the minister correctly.
One important, as yet unresolved concern for the retail sector is the absence of robust appeals mechanisms for both fixed-penalty notices and compliance notices. The sector very much regrets that the Government would not agree to set out details of the appeals process or to provide safeguards for retailers in the bill, and it would like assurances from the Government that it will work with retailers on any secondary legislation to ensure robust appeal systems for FPNs and compliance notices. Both the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Scotch Whisky Association have offered to comment on, or assist with, the drafting of regulations and guidance that will accompany the bill, and I hope that that offer will be taken up.
I will not go into detail on why retailers believe that the burden of proof for FPNs must be set beyond reasonable doubt and that a robust appeal system is important to ensure that decisions are based on the same level of evidence that is required for a criminal, rather than civil penalty, because I know that officials have been in talks with the retail sector about that as the bill has progressed through Parliament. Likewise for compliance notices, the lack of a strong appeal process could have very serious implications for the livelihoods of smaller producers.
I ask the minister to assure us that those concerns will be considered when any secondary legislation is under discussion and that the Government will explicitly consult organisations such as the SRC and the SWA, which have consistently stressed the importance of a clear and robust appeals process being available.
If those residual concerns are addressed, taking into account the pledges that the minister has made today, I think that the Food (Scotland) Bill can be a very effective piece of legislation in meeting the interests of food health protection and nutritional support in Scotland. I look forward to its implementation, assuming that it is approved at decision time today, and to hearing about the activities as food standards Scotland develops in the months and years ahead.