Future arrangements to secure food standards and safety in Scotland

Executive Summary

Scottish Ministers asked Professor Jim Scudamore to lead an independent review to assess the feasibility of establishing a stand-alone Scottish Food Standards Agency including a Scottish meat inspection delivery body, maintaining the Food Standard Agency (FSA)'s existing statutory objective to protect consumers. The Panel took written and oral evidence from 40 stakeholders and met seven times.

The Panel recognised the importance of food for Scotland, both for its impact on public health through diet-related disease and foodborne illnesses, and for its contribution to the Scottish economy - over £10 billion per year. The FSA had built a strong reputation for evidence based, consumer-focused, independent, transparent advice on food safety, standards, nutrition and labelling, and any change to how those functions were delivered in Scotland would need to maintain those standards.

The review follows the UK Government's decision in 2010 to move responsibility for nutrition and food labelling and standards in England from the FSA to the Department of Health and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Panel, and many stakeholders, felt that FSA UK had functioned well prior to the UK Government's Machinery of Government changes in 2010.

One of the FSA's responsibilities is delivering official controls for the meat industry. Red meat abattoirs and processing plants have permanent inspections which follow prescriptive European regulations. Currently these are delivered at a UK level and total costs in Scotland are around £7.7m per year. Currently these costs are shared between Government and industry but in the future it is proposed that these costs will be fully recovered from food business operators. The Scottish red meat industry has a different structure to the rest of the UK and the Panel were asked to consider whether alternative delivery options for Scotland could be more efficient. The Panel found there was a very difficult relationship between industry and FSA, complaints over the pricing structure and concern over the calibre of official veterinarians and training. Changes in EU requirements due in 2013 could allow significant changes in meat inspection through the adoption of a more risk-based approach.

Food Standards Agency

The Panel established that two basic principles, which were endorsed by stakeholders, should guide the evaluation and conclusions. Firstly as Scotland has unique and complex problems in relation to diet, obesity and certain food borne diseases the Panel considered that food safety should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling and standards. Secondly there was general agreement that such advice on food safety, nutrition and labelling should be independent and transparent and should be provided by an organisation which should remain at arms length from Central Government.

The Panel agreed a suite of 11 key issues by which it would base its analysis and conclusions. Following a detailed analysis of these issues the Panel considered a number of separate options but concluded that only two options were feasible. These were an administratively enhanced Scottish FSA or a stand-alone Scottish FSA.

The enhanced model would clarify reporting arrangements, resource transfer, access to scientific advisory committees and other requirements, probably through memoranda of understanding. This option would extend FSA Scotland's autonomy, but to a limited extent.

The stand-alone option would create a new public body to fulfil the FSA's functions for Scotland. This would require primary legislation, agreements on competent authority for EU matters, as well as memoranda of understanding and service level agreements for issues on which it made sense to work at a UK level.

The Panel members agreed that these two options were finely balanced on three of the issues: independence from government and industry; evidence-based and consumer focus; and transparency and openness.

On handling food incidents and emergencies; expertise; consistency of policy across the UK; and influence within Europe, the Panel agreed that the enhanced model was preferable but that the stand-alone model would be viable, as long as the necessary relationships with the FSA UK, DH and Defra were put in place.

On flexibility, response time and fit with other Scottish Government policies, the Panel agreed that the stand-alone option was preferable. The enhanced model would be viable only if the necessary resources and organisational culture were put in place.

On cost, the Panel agreed that the enhanced option was cheaper. As further work was needed to develop more robust estimates, the Panel did not take a view as to whether the additional cost of the stand-alone option was in line with its potential benefits.

The Panel recommends that:

• Food safety should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling. Advice on food safety, nutrition and labelling should be independent, evidence-based, consumer focused and transparent.
• Advice on food safety, nutrition and labelling should be provided by an organisation which should remain at arms length from Central Government.
• Both an administratively enhanced Scottish FSA and stand-alone Scottish FSA are viable options and both options could serve Scottish long-term interests.

After considering all the issues, the Panel could only reach a majority view in favour of the stand-alone option. With the exception of one member, the Panel felt that the stand-alone option would offer the best outcome for Scotland's long term interests. The majority felt that the stand-alone model would allow more flexibility to respond quickly to Scottish needs. It would enable the new body to take the most relevant and necessary decisions for Scotland without being subsidiary to UK priorities.

The consumer representative on the Panel felt strongly that the best option was to enhance the status quo, building on the established expertise, practices and reputation of the FSA. She was concerned that the lack of direct access to the greater resources of the FSA could undermine public protection. To negate this as an issue would require adequate resourcing of the FSA's Aberdeen office to ensure that it was able to respond efficiently and effectively to specific Scottish issues and lead its policy on nutrition and labelling and standards.

Meat Inspection

The panel also reviewed the situation regarding the provision of the meat inspection service in Scotland. It was surprising that a poor relationship existed between the Scottish industry and the FSA in London regarding the provision of that service. This appeared to be due to poor communication between all parties. In examining the potential for a separate meat inspection service for Scotland the Panel came to the view that any future arrangement could not involve an entirely separate meat inspection service as this would be too small and therefore not viable. The future of a meat inspection service for Scotland was closely related to the decisions on the future of the FSA.

The Panel identified 4 potential options for the future and undertook an analysis based on 9 key issues which are described in the report. Each of the options was then considered in detail.

Option 1 - create a stand-alone delivery body

Whilst feasible, the Panel concluded that such a body would be relatively small in nature and probably more costly to administer than the current system. Also consumers and industry felt it was important to retain consumer credibility and assurance by using an FSA led delivery model.

Option 2 - brigade official controls with another delivery body in Scotland

The Panel's view that the delivery of officials controls in the meat sector was substantially different to other delivery bodies and concluded that this option was not feasible.

Option 3 - create a Scottish operations group either within a new Scottish FSA or as part of an enhanced FSA/S

The Panel concluded that this option would ensure the red meat supply chain in Scotland could adapt to forthcoming changes to the official controls being developed at EU level and help to address the concerns of all stakeholders. It would also ensure a joined up approach with other official control policy issues.

Option 4 - remain with FSA UK

The Panel concluded that this was also feasible but that it was important that the delivery of meat controls was linked to the wider decision about the future of the FSA.

The Panel recommends that:

• the decision about Meat Inspection Services must be linked to the decision about the future arrangements for the FSA in Scotland
• the responsibility for the policy oversight and the operational delivery of official controls should remain independent from the Scottish Government, as well as the food industry
• the responsibility for the policy oversight and the operational delivery of official controls should remain part of the wider food safety portfolio governance arrangements that are put in place in Scotland.

The elements of the Meat Inspection Service that are relevant to Scotland should be transferred to the FSA in Scotland (whether an enhanced FSA or a new stand-alone Scottish FSA), to be under the operational control of the Director of the FSA in Scotland.