Future arrangements to secure food standards and safety in Scotland

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

No change from status quo - established reputation, clear requirements in the Food Standards Act and mechanisms for demonstrating that acting independently e.g. open board meetings, open scientific committees.

As long as a new Scottish FSA was established as an NMD and given the same objective and principles as UK FSA, there should be no difference between options, although a stand alone agency will need to establish and embed these principles.

There may be slightly more risk of change to current ways of working by setting up a new organisation, partly because of the closer positive working relationship in Scotland between the Government, Industry and the FSA in Scotland. There is no reason to assume that the objectives and principles on which it was established would not be met.

i) Stakeholders overwhelmingly in favour of retaining these principles.

ii) Enhancing the existing FSA structure is the simplest solution in terms of mechanics as a stand-alone option would require primary legislation and the enhanced UK FSA some form of MOU between Scottish Ministers and the UK FSA.

No change from status quo, as the FSA is required to be evidence-based and put the consumer first under the Food Standards Act.

However, there could be some loss of evidence gathering and analytical capacity and therefore support for Scottish Ministers in helping deliver their obesity strategy as such work on nutrition and labelling previously delivered by the UK FSA in England is now delivered by DH and Defra. This will depend on the additional resources made available for FSA Scotland to allow such work to continue in support of Scottish Ministers aspirations. Some of those resources may be sourced from the UK FSA.

This option would have the advantage of ensuring that the Agency remained linked into the breadth of FSA expertise and scientific committees across food safety issues, as well as other programmes of work that were retained after the Machinery of Government changes. In addition it would be able to retain links to existing EU and international networks e.g. European Food Safety Authority where the UK FSA still has a direct role.

If established on the same principles then a stand-alone FSA in Scotland would require to be evidence-based and put the consumer first.

Greater potential to be more focused on Scottish, rather than UK consumers, so would be able to take a more tailored approach to benefit Scottish consumers.

Stand-alone option would still require development of close working relationships with the remainder of the UK FSA and to a certain extent DH and Defra to enable access to all relevant evidence gathering and analytical work.

Opportunity for Stand-alone FSA in Scotland to develop good working relationship with EFSA which is responsible for EU-wide risk assessments, but this would have to be on an informal basis. Sufficient resources would be needed to ensure that there is adequate capacity for programme of consumer research to inform the agency's approach.

i) Stakeholders overwhelmingly in favour of retaining these principles.

ii) Enhancing the existing FSA structure is the simplest solution in terms of mechanics as a stand-alone option would require primary legislation and the enhanced UK FSA some form of MOU between Scottish Ministers and the UK FSA.

Under both options adequate resources would need to be made available to ensure evidence and analysis was sufficient to meet needs of Scotland.

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

No change from status quo - clear mechanisms and ways of working already established.

As long as a new Scottish FSA was established as an NMD and given the same objective, values and budget (e.g. for open meetings) as UK FSA, it should be able to operate to the same principles of openness.

If what is best for Scottish consumers varies from what is best for UK consumers, the analysis of that difference may be more accessible.

Provided decision making would be made by a Scottish Board in open meetings as occurs with the current UK FSA Board and that other approaches (e.g. openness around how scientific advice is provided) are maintained, there would be limited change

There may be slightly more risk of change to current ways of working by setting up a new organisation, but assuming most staff transfer from FSAS the risk should be minimal.

i) Stakeholders overwhelmingly in favour of retaining these principles.

ii) As long as principles and procedures of openness and transparency are the same then the Stand-Alone option should mirror the enhanced FSA which already has the benefit of operating openly and transparently.

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

No change from status quo. FSA has experience of dealing with food incidents, particularly as it has to establish ways of working in the aftermath of BSE and subsequently over-saw the largest ever product recall as a result of Sudan I contamination. It also has the benefit of being linked into international co-ordination arrangements through the European Commission, EFSA and WHO and has invested in better ways of identifying emerging risks.

There was a suggestion that handling of communications could be improved by allowing a greater degree of local input. This was felt to be a significant issue by the FSA Scotland in relation to a recent contamination incident at the time we interviewed them.

But as food risks don't respect national boundaries and will require adequate resources to rapidly assess the risk and respond, the existing structure has the benefit of ensuring a UK-wide approach and ready access to a wide range of expertise.

Any change introduces risk to a system which works well at present.

An additional tier of communication would be needed which could mean a risk of delaying a rapid response.

New systems of communications between FSA and Scottish FSA would be needed.

For example HPS / HPA arrangement works well and disease / infections just as disrespectful of boundaries.

With a separate stand alone Scottish FSA clear arrangements would need to be developed to handle emergencies as this would be to the benefit of the whole of the UK. This would be based on contingency planning and cooperation accepting that in these situations it is in the interests of all countries to have effective mechanisms in place.

German beansprouts example of potential problems due to a failure to communicate a consistent message possibly because of federal system and/or national agencies deflecting problem rather than working together to solve it needs to be reflected on. There are better examples of co-operation on animal health issues between Member States effectively e.g. handling of handled the Bluetongue disease outbreak demonstrated potential of collaborative working that could easily be transferable to this situation.

i) Consumer groups in favour of retaining current system.

ii) Enhanced best option as Stand-Alone automatically introduces potential risks when system is changed. Further layer of communication could delay/confuse response and would need to be mitigated against.

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

FSA has an extensive breadth of expertise on a wide range of issues, including many aspects of food safety. It also continues to have responsibility for nutrition policy in Northern Ireland (and labelling for NI and Wales). Working on a UK level can be more efficient though it can also be less responsive to local needs.

It also enables the FSA in Scotland to have access to supporting expertise in areas such as communications, economics and social research.

Usually only minor differences between UK analysis and Scottish analysis that you might expect between different interpretations of the science or understanding of the implementation of action in context.

FSA UK Board considers that Scotland gets far more value than 10% of budget, as advice to one country on any issue is shared with all countries.

Currently there seems genuine desire from FSA Board and Executive to continue nutrition work in order to lead Europe and world.

FSA Board and Executive indicate that they consider the current arrangement for nutrition to be effective, and that in future resources will be moved as necessary though arguably they have been slow to state this.

FSA has no central staff to service Scotland and Northern Ireland 's nutrition and labelling needs after machinery of government changes. Any additional work would have to be sourced from existing FSA budgets or elsewhere provided the funds were available. This would have to be established in an MOU or equivalent between Scottish Ministers and the UK FSA.

Being part of the UK FSA gives the agency in Scotland easier access to those scientific committees that the FSA still run and expertise in those areas in which they have a role. However, UK FSA no longer provides secretariat for key committees such as SACN as these are now serviced by DH.

This option would require additional staff and other resource. It would be for the new Board to identify what was required by way of resource in discussion with Scottish Minsters to ensure that they could deliver the primary objective of putting consumers first and support Scottish Ministers fulfil their aspirations on supporting sustainable economic growth and a healthier Scotland.

Given the breadth and depth of expertise needed it is unlikely that all the work can be delivered by staff in-house. Therefore it will require agreements with other bodies in UK across Europe and globally as well as have sufficient resource to undertake this activity as well as commission evidence gathering and analysis. Where possible they may be able to liaise with UK FSA, DH and Defra but this may prove difficult if policy continues to diverge or move at different rates.

Co-operation with FSA / DH will therefore be important- FSAS staff have indicated problems gaining access to the material they need on some occasions.

SG has seat (observer status) on SACN which has been delegated to FSA Scotland. SACN remit still undergoing machinery of government change.

Small risk that may not get much influence over agenda / topics on UK scientific committees tackle. Little sense establishing new committees to duplicate UK committees. Small pool of experts in some fields so likely to be getting advice from the same group of experts as before

Potential to redesign current research activity to meet FSA/Government needs (for example through the Rowett - already underway).

i) no specific comments

ii) Some aspects of enhanced potentially better as would enable resources in key areas to be enhanced without having to duplicate or re-establish other aspects that work well.

Stand-alone would have ability to directly reflect Scottish aspirations in a timely way due to small scale.

The stand-alone option would need increased staffing levels and resources to allow commissioning of key work. It would also expect to draw on current expertise within FSA (UK) for food safety and standards, and in the short term easier to benefit from goodwill/existing relationships.

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

A high volume of routine, technical work (e.g. food additives and flavouring). A separate Scottish approach is necessary but piggy backs on UK FSA approach which is tartanised.

Legislation mainly EU based so little scope for differences when implementing EU legislation.

EU legislation moving from directives towards regulations, so even less scope to vary in future.

UK-wide food market, so consistency often desirable (especially in labelling) to allow foods to be sold cross border.

Consistency often needed in order to facilitate exports of food

The problem arises where consistency is not required by law or by practice and where taking a UK-wide approach could delay action in Scotland.

Could vary considerably, but will be limited if both organisations are evidence based and implementing EU legislation.

However interpretation of evidence can vary and nutrition policy in DH may not be as evidence-based as it was. The FSA has stated that it can respond to requests from Ministers and show leadership on nutrition and labelling issues, but this may be easier in a stand alone agency given different approaches of Westminster and Scottish Government around intervention on nutrition policy.

Other bodies manage cross border regulatory & consistency issues, but food travels far more.

A stand-alone option may allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish FSA to act faster and where appropriate develop procedures to benefit the Scottish consumer which might not be acceptable in the other administrations for political, financial or administrative reasons - although the FSA has stated that it will ensure that it does not move at the slowest pace.

i) Whilst some Scottish stakeholders were concerned about consistency it was a more major issue for the overall GB industry and UK stakeholders.

ii) Either option is viable. The Enhanced option is important where consistency often desirable or required by EU and stakeholders but the stand-alone option has the advantage that Scotland can develop procedures where consistency is not a requirement,

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

Constrained by resources FSA allocates to issues specific to Scotland, or by decisions taken by Board which have adverse impact on Scotland.

In the case of nutrition and labelling it depends on understanding of Scottish issues and willingness for potential conflict with Westminster on policy given current political differences.

FSA has recently been showing greater willingness to move forward with devolved issues even if action has to be delayed in England because of the Red Tape Challenge e.g. Remedial Action Notices (RANs).

Flexibility only relevant for Scottish only issues but this could be important in the light of current Scottish problems of obesity and food borne disease outbreaks.

Limited scope for flexibility in specific areas because of EU regulation, export requirements and UK-wide food marketing

A stand-alone Scottish FSA would be constrained by resources available to new body. However, in the event of an important issue for Scottish consumers the Scottish Government could provide additional funds to ensure that where permissible flexible measures could be introduced in Scotland even if they were not introduced in the remainder of the UK. - although this could also be the case for the enhanced model.

i) stakeholders stressed the need for consistency, but also to ensure the flexibility to respond to specific Scottish issues that impact on consumers.

ii) Stand-alone may give greater flexibility (e.g. for action on nutrition), although enhanced options could also achieve the flexibility necessary.

However, EU regulations, export requirements and UK-wide food markets can limit the scope for action.

Minimal - extra cost of more formal role for SFAC and potential establishment of groups on nutrition and labelling to support SFAC. Also changes to internal FSA structures to allow more resources for the nutrition and labelling work in Scotland.

Could be between 50% more and double current costs, depending on how much collaboration there is with FSA.

Transition costs of transferring pension (£15m) legislation and organisational change if the meat inspection service is included within the stand-alone agency.

Back office functions including IT, Human Resources, finance etc would need to be covered by the stand-alone agency with a need to negotiate with new provider.

If FSA and DH share science and research, scientific committees etc then these would not be required in Scotland otherwise there could be considerable cost in replicating them

Extra cost of duplicating analysis and implementation should be lower if FSA, DH and Defra are willing to collaborate e.g. joint marketing campaigns (depends on shared priorities e.g. nutrition which would bring it more in line with an enhanced model)

Additional costs will result from the need to establish and maintain a separate Scottish Board with board members and the backup secretariat and administration

An additional issue would be the costs of including the meat inspection service in Scotland within the stand-alone Scottish FSA.

i) no comments although stakeholders would not expect an increase in costs falling on to themselves.

ii) Enhanced option will be less expensive unless UK FSA unable to meet requirements of FSA Scotland to deliver Scottish Minsters aspirations in which case Scottish Government may be required to increase allocation to FSA Aberdeen.

It is difficult to assess the overall costs of the stand-alone option. This would depend on the extent to which the current workload was increased and whether the stand-alone option would continue to rely on output from the FSA.

Enhanced UK FSA

New stand-alone Scottish FSA

i) Stakeholder views

ii) Conclusion

No new public body needed

May face resource and permission constraints in supporting Scottish Government food and health policy. FSA Board indicated they are willing to provide necessary resource.

Strong reputation for safe, healthy food helps the public and food industry.

Public bodies officials content to create a one Scottish body to replace UK wide FSA, but would resist creating 2 (an FSA and a separate MHS)

Easier to take radical action to support food & health policies in Scotland. It would need to be ensured that there was not undue influence from key industry sectors in Scotland who may expect to have a closer relationship than under the UK FSA, compromising the agency's independence.

i) FSA Scotland important in supporting Scottish Government developing policy on Food and Drink and Obesity.

ii) Stand-alone would undoubtedly be freer to fit directly in with Government policy in Scotland.

For the enhanced

This option would require an MOU between Scottish Ministers and the UK FSA but only for the additional support from the FSA to fulfil the nutrition and labelling functions by the Aberdeen office. Further agreement would be required between FSA, DH and Defra.

Legislation would not be an option in helping shape this option.

Against the enhanced

But the FSA could argue that the present system meets the needs of the whole of the UK and that no change is needed. Any MOU is not binding legally.

It is almost certain that Scottish Ministers would also have to rely on the existing concordats between Scottish Ministers and Westminster Departments for continued cooperation on nutrition and labelling, but this would be the case for a stand alone option too.

For the Stand-alone Scottish FSA

FSA staff maintained relationship with staff that moved to DH and Defra so likely to maintain relationship.

People move on but it is still possible to form relationships with their replacements although this would take effort form the staff of a Scottish FSA.

It would be in the interests of the Departments to cooperate with a Scottish FSA. Staff from the Scottish FSA would need to be very proactive and should not rely on the UK departments contacting them.

Already good - and strikes the right balance.

Against the Stand-alone Scottish FSA

No guarantees. FSA may be unhelpful due to resource constraints or unwillingness to change even if formal arrangements put in place. Its priorities would also change if no longer required to specifically take account of Scottish issues.

Similarly DH and Defra could be unhelpful but it is difficult to assess the response of the UK departments to any change although they are all under serious resource constraints which may influence their ability or willingness to work together.

We were told that UK Departments can unintentionally forget to include Scotland in discussions.

Big UK based producers could forget about Scotland (e.g. lack of focus on this review) .Any policy / regulation differences across UK could lead to antagonism