Future arrangements to secure food standards and safety in Scotland

Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Feasibility Review

1. Introduction

1.1 The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was established in 2000 as a UK-wide non-Ministerial Government Department with a wide remit which included the provision of transparent and independent advice in the fields of food safety, nutrition, labelling and standards. This role continued to the satisfaction of all government departments including the Scottish Government until 2010.

1.2 In July 2010 the UK Government transferred nutrition policy and nutrition labelling for England from the FSA to the UK Department of Health (DH). At the same time the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) became responsible for Country of Origin Labelling, and other non-safety-related food labelling, standards and food composition policies in England.

1.3 This left the devolved Administrations in a more difficult position with respect to their future arrangements for handling nutrition and labelling and standards. The FSA in Scotland and Northern Ireland has retained responsibility for nutrition and food labelling. The FSA in Wales has responsibility for labelling and standards policy, but nutrition has moved to the Welsh Government. A significant number of staff, formerly based in the FSA headquarters in London transferred from the FSA to Defra and DH. Staff working on nutrition and labelling/standards issues in the FSA's Aberdeen office, as well as colleagues in Northern Ireland and to a lesser extent Wales, therefore now lead the FSA's work on nutrition and labelling issues. The changes have meant that the FSA carries out some devolved functions for Scotland which it no longer has responsibility for in England.

1.4 In July 2011 an Expert Panel (Panel)^[1] was appointed to conduct a feasibility study to assess the benefits and cost implications of establishing an independent Scottish Food Standards Agency including a Scottish meat inspection delivery body. In doing this the Panel were asked to ensure that the existing statutory objective of the FSA to "protect public health from risk which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food" was maintained.

1.5 Although the terms of reference were comprehensive the key overall objective was to make recommendations on the best outcome for Scotland's long-term interests both in relation to the FSA and also the Meat Inspection Service.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 The final terms of reference were agreed by the Panel at the first meeting^[2] the main points are summarised in the paragraphs below.

2.2 The Panel was asked to report on the merits of creating a discrete body in Scotland to perform the functions carried out at present by the Food Standards Agency in Scotland, including Meat Inspection functions. In particular the report should:

• describe the relevance and implications on Scotland of the recent changes to the UK-wide FSA;
• consider the implications of establishing a new public body and the nature of that body, having regard to the Government's continuing commitment to streamline the public bodies landscape in Scotland;
• include a financial appraisal of options; and
• make a recommendation on the best outcome for Scotland's long-term interests, taking into account the main statutory objective to "protect public health from risk which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food" also taking into account the Government's purpose of sustainable economic growth.

2.3 In addition the review group were specifically asked to explore the delivery of the Meat Inspection Services in Scotland in relation to the following:

• identify and evaluate alternative delivery options which would allow the meat inspection function to be undertaken in Scottish meat plants in a more efficient and cost effective manner than the current GB wide model, and maintains the current levels of compliance with public and animal health statutory controls, whilst being risk based and proportionate
• consider the case for merging meat inspection delivery in Scotland with other food inspection services (e.g. egg production/processing and hygiene controls in retail premises)
• determine whether there are any legal, practical or contractual issues that have to be considered, should Scottish Ministers decide to introduce an alternative delivery system within Scotland, and make recommendations on how such issues could be successfully managed.

3. Methodology

3.1 The feasibility study was independent of both the FSA and the Scottish Government. The Panel determined its own work programme including the process to be followed, documents to be commissioned, stakeholders to be contacted and the questions to be asked. The Scottish Government provided the secretariat for the study, organising meetings, interviews, telephone conferences and acquisition of material to aid the process but this was all under the direction of the Panel. Advice was sought from the secretariat and other Scottish Government officials from time to time on certain aspects of the study.

3.2 In order to explore specific issues in depth background papers and reviews were commissioned or provided from a number of different sources. These gave detailed information and reports on a range of topics. The FSA both in Aberdeen and in London were extremely helpful and provided a considerable amount of detailed briefing about the Food Standards Agency and its role both in the UK and in Scotland. The Panel was also given detailed and comprehensive information about the Food Standards Agency Scotland (FSA Scotland) during a visit to Aberdeen. A list of the material taken into account during the review is set out in the Annexes.

3.3 The Panel considered that stakeholders from all spectrums of interest including industry, consumers, research and enforcement should be involved. Lists of internal and external stakeholders for Scotland and the UK were developed, based on information provided by the FSA. Stakeholders were contacted with the details of the feasibility study, and invited to comment. In addition they were asked if they wished to meet the panel to discuss their views. The Panel also identified a number of stakeholders that they wished to interview. A total of 40 written submissions were received by the Panel^[3].

3.4 Every effort was made to meet with all the organisations representing different sectors in Scotland as well as UK wide bodies, recognising that any changes had the potential to impact on many different sectors. The panel conducted 25 interviews^[4] either face to face or by telephone.

3.5 The nature of the feasibility study meant that the Panel had to seek views both on future options for the FSA in Scotland and the delivery options for meat inspection functions. When interviewing stakeholders it was usually clear which aspect of the feasibility study they had greatest interest in but the Panel still invited them to comment on both. Therefore whilst every interviewee was asked a set of core questions, they were also asked questions on their specific areas of expertise. In addition the Panel often identified issues where further clarity was sought, and in the main the secretariat sought answers from the FSA or the Scottish Government on such issues. Whilst these may have helped influence the understanding by the Panel not all of these issues are covered in this report.

3.6 The Panel met seven times between the summer of 2011 and early 2012. The minutes of these meetings have been published online and can be found here^[5].

4. Evaluation of options

4.1 The Panel identified a number of options which would need to be evaluated in order to meet the terms of reference of the feasibility study in relation to both the FSA and the meat inspection delivery service. To do this the Panel identified a number of issues against which each of the options could be assessed and which would be key to informing the decisions by the Panel on which options to recommend.

4.2 The issues by which the Expert Panel judged the feasibility of the options for the future of the FSA were:

• Independence from government and industry
• Evidence-based and consumer focus
• Transparency and openness
• Handling incidents and emergencies
• Expertise
• Flexibility
• Response Time
• Cost
• Consistency of policy across the UK
• Influence within Europe
• Fit with other Scottish Government Policies

4.3 In the case of the Meat Inspection Services the issues by which the Expert Panel judged the options for delivering meat inspection functions were:

• Ensure consumer safety, compliance and effective audit function
• Relationship with industry
• Independence
• Cost
• Exports
• Future proofing for likely EU developments.
• Operational guidance and advice to industry
• Public Bodies Policy
• Food Policy

5. Structure of the Report

5.1 This is a comprehensive report which covers a very wide field of work as determined by the terms of reference. The prime aim of the report is to consider the options for the future and to determine which most fit the needs of Scotland in the longer term. In order to achieve this we structured the report around 8 chapters. The first 4 chapters attempt to set the scene with an introduction, identification of the health challenges facing Scotland, description of the Scottish food industry and the current and future changes in Scotland or UK which have or may have an impact on Scotland.

5.2 In preparing the report the Panel agreed that it was important to have a general scene setting introduction to the chapters on FSA and Meat Inspection which described the current situation. It was also agreed that for ease of discussion the two key elements of the feasibility study would be kept separate. Consequently chapters 5 and 6 consider the FSA and the options for the future. Chapters 7 and 8 look at the meat inspection activities and the options for the future delivery of that service.

6. Acknowledgements

6.1 We are grateful to officials in Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Government for their positive input and openness in providing details of the way in which the FSA operated and the issues of concern to both organisations. We would like to take this opportunity to thank those organisations and individuals who made time to discuss their role and who provided considerable input to explain their positions and concerns.