OK. Good morning everyone and welcome to the 90th meeting in 2014 of the Health and Support Committee. I have received apologies this morning from our convener, Duncan MacNeill, who is unable to be here today. As usually I would ask everyone in the room to switch off mobile phones and other wireless devices as they can interfere with the sine system and disturb the meeting. Some members and officials are using tablet devices. This is instead of hard copies of their papers. Our first item on the agenda today is subordinate legislation ac we have two negative instruments before us this morning. The first instrument is the national health service free prescriptions and charges for drugs and appliances Scotland amendment regulations 2014, SSI 2014 stroke 115. There has been no motion to annul and the delegated powers and law reform committee has made no and has not made any comments on this instrument. Assuming that there are no comments from the committee, is the committee agreed to make no recommendations? That is agreed. Thank you. There is a second instrument before us also. The second instrument is the food hygiene Scotland amendment regulations 2014 SSI 2014 forward slash 118. Again, there has been no motion to annul and delegated powers and law reform committee has not made any comments on the instrument. Assuming once more that there may be no comments from the committee in relation to this matter, is the committee agreed to make no recommendations? Thank you for that. That is also agreed and we move on to agenda item 2. The committee returns to look at our themed work on health inequalities and we are taking evidence today from the minister for public health on equally well. Good morning minister. We have before us Michael Matheson minister for public health, Donald Henderson head of public health division, Aileen Keele acting chief medical officer and Dr Fer... Oh no we don't. Look up before you read your notes. We would like to have Aileen Keele acting chief medical officer. I don't know if she'll be along later. Okay so we don't have Aileen Keele but we do have Dr Fergus Milan who I'm sure is a much more suitable replacement. Dr Milan, he says no. Head of the creating health team stick to your script, Mr Doris. Public health division, Scottish Government all three of you are most welcome. Thank you for coming along this morning. Minister I believe you've got a brief opening statement. Yes thank you convener and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the second review of equally well our national policy on health inequalities with the committee. I'd like to start by recognising that Scotland's health continues to improve but I'm also acutely aware that despite the significant effort of this and previous administrations to attack wealth inequalities it remains a blight on our society. This committee has acknowledged the complexity of resolving Scotland's health inequalities. The committee has also recognised that it's not a problem to be solved by just the NHS and all parts of government and the wider public sector have a role to play. Despite the challenges we remain determined to address the social inequalities that lead to health inequalities across the whole of the country. When I re-established the task force I wanted to ensure that we built on the previous work. The task force agreed to consider changes in the way that people and communities were being engaged in decisions that affect them, the implications of the Christie commission and how place it had an impact on people's lives. The task force heard evidence that while the health of Scotland was improving it was doing so most slowly than other European countries. It heard that conventional approaches to the problem that involves attempting to modify the health-related behaviour of people have not had a significant impact. It heard that the level of deaths in 15 to 44-year-old age group was a significant contributing factor to the relatively poor position of Scotland's health in a European context. It also heard that, despite many similarities, Glasgow and the west of Scotland were experiencing more deaths than comparable cities and regions in the UK. It also heard the evidence that people's immediate environment plays an important role in their health and wellbeing. Following consideration of the evidence, the task force identified several priorities, and I would like to reflect on them briefly this morning. The most important area that we need to focus on is around issues relating to social capital. The knowledge that in our most deprived communities there are individuals, families and even at times whole communities that have become more isolated and excluded from the mainstream. They do not engage in the same way that more resilient individuals and communities do, and they do not take advantage of the services provided, and too often we engage with them on our terms rather than their terms. I am not suggesting that all hope has been lost. Committee members will all have their own personal stories about people, families and communities that, despite the odds, survive and thrive. However, what I am saying and what the task force is saying is that we have possibly forgotten how important the development of social capital is and that if we do not spend time raising it, we risk failure in the future. I think that this was also widely recognised by the Christy commission, which argued for building personal and community capacity resilience and autonomy should be a key objective of future public service reform. That links on to our next priority area, which is the support for community planning partnerships. Equally well has, from the outset, recognised the potential of CPPs to make a greater impact. Our community planning partnerships are moving closer to realising that potential, but we need our full support to achieve our shared ambition. The task force also picked up on two important elements that the evidence said was important. We heard that the 15 to 44-year-old age group was showing many more deaths than when compared across Europe. We know that we have lots of activities and strategies in place that impact on people in this age range, but we want to check that this was having a co-ordinated and joined-up approach. This work is under way, started by the former CMO, Sir Harry Burns. Harry has insisted on continuing to be involved in this work for at least the next few months, despite his new appointment. We also saw the remit of the task force. As you will see from the remit of the task force, we specifically wanted to look at the role of place and the impact that could have on people's lives. It heard evidence from good places, better health work, which we had recommended that neighbourhood quality standards should be developed. It was noted that colleagues in the architecture and design team were refreshing their policy and planning to include the development of a place standard. It was published in June last year, and the development of a place standard is now under way. Finally, it was clear to me that the regular two-yearly review by the task force is not the best way to drive forward delivery. Therefore, we tend to take forward an alternative arrangement that will bring sharper focus and more frequent focus on the problems that we face in this area, while also supporting our CPPs. I am more than happy to discuss the issue in more detail with the committee this morning. Thank you very much, minister. We move to questions from MSP's first question from Aileen McLeod. Thank you, minister, for your opening remarks. I know from the task force that it was very clear in its report that the problem with health inequalities in Scotland cannot be solved with health solutions alone and that health inequalities are caused by the entrenched problems of poverty, education, under attainment, worklessness and poor mental well-being. Minister, have you been the success of the equally well review as far as the biggest barriers so far between the least and the most affluent groups? The principle success of equally well has been providing a focus on health inequalities in a way that was not there at a strategic level in the past. It has allowed us to give a degree of focus, which I think is important in helping to try and create the change that is necessary to tackle health inequalities much more effectively. I think that the challenge with equally well has been the way in which it is largely been seen at times as being a health response to tackling health inequalities and the barriers which it has experienced has been the tendency to see it as a health-based approach to tackling these deeply ingrained social inequalities within our society. The principle barrier that I think that we have to challenge much more effectively in going forward is to make sure that all aspects of government, all aspects of the public sector see it as being a priority for them to tackle inequality within our society because it sees social inequalities that drive the health inequalities that come about as a consequence of this. The principle barrier is the problem of too often being seen as being a health response, whereas it requires a much wider response across a whole range of different agencies in a concerted way. A key part to achieving that is to secure the necessary support at a senior enough level within those organisations to see it as being part of their day-to-day business in tackling inequality in whichever form it may present itself and the work that it undertakes. I know that you said in your opening remarks that you talked about there being alternative arrangements for co-ordinating the work to tackle health inequalities. Can you give the committee a bit more detail about how you see the work of the task force going forward in terms of those alternative arrangements? When I re-established the task force, it was the first time that I chaired the health inequalities task force. I wanted to reflect after the process had been completed if I felt that there was a better way that we could try to drive forward delivery because delivery is absolutely key to moving this agenda on. I came to the view that a ministerial task force of the two years and then publishing a report from it was not necessarily the best way to achieve that. Particularly if we are to get the type of step change in the work that we want to see happening within our community planning partnerships and the support that they will need in helping to achieve that. The approach that I intend to take forward now is the health and community care delivery group, which has up until recently been responsible for the past couple of years in taking forward the integration agenda, because it brings together a whole range of different organisations from local government through to health, through to the third sector, government and other interested parties, is to use the health and community care delivery group, which meets at least four times a year as being the lead group that will now take forward the approach to tackling inequality within our society. The health and community care delivery group is supported by several subgroups that have specialities and which submit papers to the delivery group, evidence-based papers on areas that they think are priorities that need to be taken forward. In creating this new approach, we have created the inequalities action group, which will be responsible for undertaking that type of research-based work, then submitting that to the delivery group with recommendations on areas that have to be taken forward and for the delivery group to look at taking that forward on a continuous basis. The principal objective that I want is to create a process that continues to move forward and brings together all the different stakeholders. In doing that, it can help us to try to get better delivery on the ground and to make sure that we have all of the necessary stakeholders given at the level of priorities that are necessary on a continuous basis. I would just so members know that I have got Colin Kear to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Colin Kear. Thanks, convener. My question is actually in terms of the community planning partnerships, local authority engagement and all of this, which is obviously quite important. The way things are moving forward, are we getting a uniform approach from all the community partnerships, obviously with tweaks here and there for their local difficulties, if you like, or local problems? Or are we having serious problems elsewhere, or what's the position with them because they're found in different settings, as community partnerships are approaching things in a different way? I think right from the very outset, as I mentioned earlier on, equally well recognised the importance of community planning partnerships in taking forward this area of work. I think that there is a need to make sure that we see that happening in a much more systematic way in the most recent task force report that highlights that. As you'll be aware, there have been some changes made to community planning partnerships in order to embed them much more effectively in how planning takes place at a local level in the delivery of services. For example, in the early years collaborative, in the way in which community planning partnerships have helped to bring together different services much more effectively from education through to social work to health in looking at early years in a much more co-ordinated way, and also in taking that forward at a local level. Some of the feedback that we have had from community planning partnerships from the task force work is that there is a greater recognition of the role that they can play, and there is a growing understanding of that, but just saying that they should do it, I don't think, is enough. Part of the work that we've also taken forward is through Health Scotland, who will be giving the role to help to support and advise community planning partnerships on that particular agenda and to provide them with materials and support in the work that they are taking forward within their own individual community planning partnerships. Alongside that, the work that we are going to do with the health and community care delivery group in order to help to support community planning partnerships to take that work forward much more effectively within their own local area as well. I think that I'm optimistic that community planning partnerships recognise the role in this area much more effectively, and I think that some of the measures that we're going to take forward of the back of the most recent task force report will help to support community planning partnerships to do that much more effectively. That's not to say that there's a one-size-fits-all, it's to allow community planning partnerships to take an approach that best reflects the needs of their local community, but to make sure that it's been given a level of priority and that they're getting the support that can assist them in delivering on any calls to agenda much more effectively in going forward. It's actually to ask you to expand, and you were saying, on the issue of architecture and planning. It's a thing in many local authorities where regeneration of areas is coming about, and obviously one of the problems that we have with the equalities and stuff like this is where people live in the environment. Some of the planning applications that go in, I've never, it's someone who used to be on the City of Edinburgh Council planning committee, is very little would come in and say, this actually would help people's health. This is just a building that they are doing a planning application on. How much, and I do understand it's an ongoing piece of work, but it's the first time I've heard about it. If we're talking in terms of sending in the tasks or getting a report done about the effectiveness of local authority regeneration and health and the knock-on effects. Where are we going with this? What's the line of action that is being looked at just now in terms of getting this right when local authorities are looking at regeneration areas? In evidence that we received in the task force, the issue of place was a significant factor that was highlighted to us in the local environment that we create for individuals and families and communities, which led to the task force's recommendation of the need for a place standard that reflected this area of policy thinking. The concept behind it is that if we design and plan these areas in a much more effective way, then they can have a positive impact on someone's health, but also about the type of community that it creates. For example, I saw in my constituency developments take place, but the developments that have taken place at times offer very little in terms of creating that type of community place as necessary that can bring people together and facilitate that type of connectedness within communities. There was already some work done by the architecture and design section in the Scottish Government in reviewing the existing place standard guidance that existed. We have taken the opportunity to work with them off the back of the task force's report to look at how they can take this area of work forward based on evidence that we received. They have now engaged with a range of stakeholders and have held several meetings with stakeholders, which are from the health side, from the building industry side, from the local government side as well, planning all to look at how they can develop this concept much more effectively and the guidance in this area much more effectively. Those meetings have taken place and that consultation is on what they are now doing, trying to work up some of the draft details of that. Although we do not have a specific date for when we expect it to be completed, we are hopeful that there will be a new place standard agreed by the end of this year, which would allow us to then roll that out to local authority colleagues. It is based on the evidence that the task force received about the need to make sure that we plan and deal with those issues much more effectively in taking forward regeneration or housing developments, because there is a body of evidence that demonstrates that it can have a significant impact in helping to tackle issues around health inequalities within communities and a new place standard should help us to achieve that here in Scotland. I thank for that, because it is something that I think has been not worked on terribly in a very large way through local authorities over the years. I know that it is in an awful lot of reports that they bring up, but I am not 100% sure of what they produce is actually working, but I really look forward to the work being completed in that. Minister, you are next on the list in relation to community planning partnerships and place standards. I was quite taken by the idea of social capital and community planning planning in the role of place in community empowerment, if you like, in relation to that. I am just wondering how local community planning partnerships really are. There could be a danger, and I do not want to overstate it, that community planning partnerships bring stakeholders from the NHS, from the local authority, from police, from fire, who are senior officials and managers, and they come up with strategies for local communities. The proper real engagement with local communities might not be meaningful, and it might be a tick box exercise, and we are keen to see some assurance around how that is taken forward. I can just give you one example, minister. In the area that I represent, I declare an interest, because I stay in this area, so in Somerson, in Glasgow, there was a community immunity, which was a centre for adults with learning difficulties, and now that centre is closed. I do not want to dig into the reasons behind that. That has happened now, but it is a significant community immunity, which could have been used for the benefit of the wider community, and the local authority has taken a decision to declare a surplus, which is entitled to do, of course, minister, and to market that property, which, of course, is entitled to do. I do not want to dig into the rights and wrongs of that, however, in terms of a community being engaged with a bit of significant local community immunity, they may not have felt it was part of that process. I suspect that that is not a Glasgow thing incidentally, I suspect that that is a local authority thing across the country, so it is about how you make sure that communities feel empowered at a local level and consulted with at a local level in a meaningful way, where they are co-producers of what will happen in their local community, rather than observers who are consulted on a statutory basis, rather than meaningful and deep. If community planning partnerships are the model to make that happen, how local does that community planning get, and where will the power sit in relation to that? The key aspect to this is to make sure that our community planning partnerships are much more focused on delivering social capital that I mentioned earlier on, and that is about doing things with communities, rather than to communities and to use the assets that are within that community and to use them for the benefit of the wider community. That is the area of work that we need to take forward with our community planning partnerships to make sure that they are doing that effectively. I can give you an example, again in my constituency, where we had a very good community-based initiative taking place. What happened was that the local authorities officials came in to cover management of it, and many of the very positive projects that were developed by local members of local community very quickly whithered on the vine. Because there was no longer that community buying to it, it was their project, the approach that they were taking to meet the needs of their local community, rather than the council coming in or some other statutory agency health coming in and saying, this is what you need, this is what we are going to do. A key part of the work that we need to take forward with our community planning partnerships is to make sure that they see the role of the different statutory agencies is not to go in and do things to the communities but to look at how they can work with the local communities to realise their potential and to use the assets within their local community. There are aspects of that already taking place in different parts of the country. I visited several projects where you can see that happening, so it is trying to change that cultural approach to doing things to communities rather than with them. The work that we are looking to do, for example, from the health and community care delivery group, is how we can support community planning partnerships to achieve that. The work that we are also doing through the national community planning group is well of, which I am one of the ministers that is on that, to help to support our community planning partnerships to ensure that that is the approach that they are taking. I think that we have made a very important point and the key, I think, to achieving the type of change towards much more in the way of social capital within local communities to make sure that our community planning partnerships are working in a way that is to help to engender and to support that rather than to go in and just do things or to do things over the head of local communities that they think are the right things to do for them. That is helpful. I will not ask any more question, but it would be helpful if you could perhaps write to the committee and give more information on what best practice would be in relation to how local decision making can be assured within community planning partnerships. I know that that is a cross-portfolio concern, because Derek Mackay, I think, is the relevant minister in relation to that as well, and even particularly with the reference, because the Harry Burns is very strong on an asset-based approach to community development in relation to disposal of community assets from local authorities as well and what best practice in that would be. It does seem as if we are drifting off the health agenda, but right at the start of your opening statement, it was about the importance of place, the importance of social capital and the importance of empowerment. So, if there is anything that you can give to the committee in writing in relation to that, I would be very grateful. I am more than happy to do that. It is worth keeping in mind that this approach is based on the evidence that the task force received when it looked at the comparative evidence between areas in West Central Scotland that I have gone through similar periods of deindustrialisation, similar demographic profiles, etc. to other parts of the UK and Europe. One of the stand-out issues is the issue around social capital that is different from those particular areas. That is why it has been emphasised to the task force. It has been an area that we have to give much greater focus to in going forward if we are to close down some of those inequalities. Thank you for your patience, Rhoda Grant. It seems that we are all disappointed that we have not made any inroads into the health inequalities that we suffer in Scotland. I suppose that it is even more disappointing when we see that other countries have. Can we learn what other countries have been doing? Can we learn from their successes? What are they doing that we may have not achieved? That goes back to the point. For example, some of the work that the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has been looking at and the comparative data work that they have been doing with areas that are similar to West Central Scotland's Glasgow area that have gone through similar periods of deindustrialisation, similar backgrounds, etc. However, the health outcomes or the inequalities have been different going forward. They have also been doing some of that in comparative work with other European areas that have gone through similar periods of deindustrialisation. Some of the work that is being taken forward by Professor Carol Tannerhowell and her team have identified areas where there are differences. If I recall correctly, in the UK, two areas that they identified, and we have done some of that comparative work with the areas in Glasgow and other areas in the UK, where there was a marked difference in the number of people who volunteered within the local community and were also engaged in their local churches. It is not a case of saying, go to a church that will help your health or close down inequalities or volunteer and resolve this, but the key issue was that they had a value within their local community, that they had a contribution to make to their local community and they valued that role as well. That was about that sense of place and that issue of social capital that they actually have. That is the marked difference that they have been able to identify between areas in West Central Scotland and other parts of the UK and other parts of Europe that have gone through similar levels of deindustrialisation. There has also been speculation about whether there is a particular Scottish gene that creates this, but it is worth keeping in mind that, up until around the 1950s, Scotland, in terms of its health compared to other European countries, was that we were pretty much middle of the road. We were pretty much in amongst the pack being raised about it since the 1950s through into the 1980s that that difference has started to become much more exacerbated. I think that there is no quick fix to this. There is no single agency solution. It is not simply about providing more health interventions. It is about changing that issue within some of our communities that will help to deliver that type of sustained change in the future. Based on the evidence that the task force received, the issue of social capital and the issue of place are key factors that stand out as differences with other parts of the UK and Europe that have gone through similar periods of deindustrialisation. I suppose that surprises me, because some of the communities that we have, where health inequalities are at their greatest, are poor communities, but they are also quite strong communities. They are recognisable with strong senses of community. I am just wondering what we have done or what we are not doing to empower those communities, because I think that it would be quite easy to get people actively working within their communities if we were to allow them to do that and trust them with some decision making. I know that in Norway they have a programme of community empowerment, and I am wondering if we should be looking at that to see if we can learn lessons about how to put those levers back to communities. I think that community empowerment is a key part of it. Community empowerment is about not just saying that communities are empowered to do it, but giving them the scope to be able to do that. I visited a project in Fife last year, if I recall correctly, and it was a project that was supported by Inspire Scotland. It was nothing sophisticated or fancy, but it was an area that was a traditional mining area that there was a very significant level of inequality within the local community. There were the standard assets within the local community in the form of a community centre, a school etc. Prior to the project starting, there was very little that was actually run by the local community itself. There was stuff that was done by the health service community community community community education, where they came in and they ran some stuff for some of the local kids. It was very little being done that was run by the local community. Inspire Scotland set up a project to support the local community to identify what they wanted to do within their local community and to then look at providing them with the resource to allow them to go and develop that and to take that forward in a way that had not been there before. Over the course of that project, they then developed into what the local community did, where they organised different groups themselves, from cooking groups to bike repair groups to an allotment programme for older people within the local community. They then started at Galladay. Galladay had not been organised for years. No one was interested in doing so. All of those things may not sound as though they are that silver bullet, but it was all about helping to connect to local community, to allow them to identify the issues that they saw as important to them, to then take them forward and to allow them to manage that and to do that in a way that best reflected their needs. I think that there has been a tendency in the past. At times done for the right reasons, where there has been this view that agencies are meant to go in and do things, rather than being seen as being enablers and helping to support communities to use the assets that they have to take forward things that are a priority to them that they see as being important. If there is something that we have lost, it is the value of that social capital and how we can re-engender that in communities where that has been lost. Based on evidence that we received during the course of the task forces work, that was seen as a area that we had to give priority to because it stood out as a difference to those other areas that parts of Scotland could be directly compared with. The issue that you have mentioned in Norway around community empowerment is a good example of that type of social capital happening within communities where people can take control of things and take forward issues that are of a priority to them. We need to look at how we can engender that much more effectively in our own communities in Scotland. Richard Simpson, I think that you share the disappointment that we all have that really since the Parliament started we have not narrowed that gap. Health has improved in every sector but the gap has not improved. It is interesting that the latest report focuses on social capital and it is not an area that I disagree with at all. It is a very important area. If we look at the history here, just to take two examples of social capital that was being developed and has not really been followed through, one was healthy living centres, which was one of the concepts in the first Parliament and yet the number of healthy living centres has gone down quite considerably. Some of course will fail and that is entirely appropriate but it would have been interesting to read in the report some of the evidence from the earlier part of the Parliament to see what has succeeded and what failed. Healthy living centres is one of them because that was undoubtedly an area where with some professional support individuals were coming together to try and tackle their problems. The second one is the retired and senior volunteer programme RSVP, which again had a number of professional staff but they were supporting a lot of volunteers who were then developing programmes. The only one that survived actually is in Forth Valley, in our respective constituencies, where they still have, because they raised money externally and they still have the national organisers coming in, but it is the only one that has really survived and yet that was creating, as you said, quite simple things like walking groups, there was a knitting group. These things do not strike you as being big things but they are social capital. There are about what I think in your report is described as bridging social capital or linking social capital. Those are things that are absolutely fundamental to the structures in our society. I am disappointed that the report has not looked at the things that have not succeeded. Then the other thing is to see where we actually have had successes. For example, the Salsa's reports are indicating that the levels of drinking and smoking in young people has gone down, although there are a group who are drinking very heavily. Something is happening in terms of what sure start, home start and all the early years stuff followed up by the collaborative is following through. My question to you is great that we are now talking about social capital as being important. Where is the detail in terms of the analysis of reports as part of the single outcome agreements? What reports are there in local authorities? I can find very little. What reports are there that health is putting money into the development of social capital through the third sector? Again, I do not see that. I see excellent high-level stuff here but not the detail that I would have expected at this stage after 15 years of the Parliament to be saying that this has not succeeded from the labour years or from the early SMP years. This is succeeding and looks like it is coming through. There was some work done by Health Scotland in looking at some of the aspects of what has been achieved around tackling health inequalities. There has also been the work around keep well to evaluate its effectiveness. You will be aware of the Government's position on keep well in going forward because of the challenges that have been able to evaluate the benefits that can achieve from that approach. I do not know whether Donald might want to say a bit more about what Health Scotland looked at in the report that it commissioned in looking at some of the aspects around tackling health inequalities in Scotland, which might address some of the issues that you have mentioned, Richard, in relation to the areas where progress has been made and what has made a difference and what has not made a difference as well. A key part is when you mentioned the single outcome agreements, we have aspects in the single outcome agreements that we agreed last year about community planning partnerships and making sure that inequalities are seen as being a key part of that whole process. The challenge is to turn that into real action. That is why I think that we need to take, from my perspective, a different approach in looking at how we can deliver this and how we can drive that forward much more effectively, which is why I have set up under the health and community care delivery group a process that can help to support that, but also by getting Health Scotland to look at the work and the support that it can provide to our community planning partnerships to support them in driving that work forward in their day to day processes as well. If we can get some of those factors right, we can then make sure that the decisions that have been made at a community planning level are looking at aspects. For example, if the healthy living centre is the most effective way in which to take forward delivery of some of that approach, that might be the approach that is appropriate in that community planning partnership area, and that community planning partnership should be looking to take an approach that helps to support and achieve that. However, what we need to do is make sure that community planning partnerships clearly understand, get the support that is necessary in what they should be doing to encourage social capital and to look at how they can then deliver that on the ground. To be perfectly blunt with you, that has not happened. It simply has not happened. My clear view is that the reason that it has not happened in the past is because health inequalities have been seen as being the NHS's responsibility. Health inequalities are the consequence of social inequality. If we do not tackle that social inequality, we are not going to deal with those health inequalities effectively. There are aspects, and I think that you make a good point about our health service, seen as also being a health promoting health service, rather than just being a health service that treats ill health. A key part of that is the role that the health service can play in working with its strategic partners and local authorities and in the third sector in order to help to support and build social capital. For example, some of the work that has been taken forward under the change fund for reshaping care for older people has generated social capital. I know that, in my constituency, the partnership between NHS Four Valley and the Falkirk Council has enabled a number of projects to be taken forward, which are of benefit to both the health service and the local authority. However, they generate social capital because a key part of it is volunteering in being engaged in delivering something within your own individual community. The challenge is to sustain that going forward, so rather than looking at it from a perspective of, it is better if the council will do that or if the health service will do that, it is better to work with a third sector organisation because we can engender social capital by doing that, by bringing volunteers and others into delivering some of those issues that we need to address going forward. That has the byproduct of creating social capital, which is of benefit to the local community, so changing our mindset around how we take some of those things forward. I do not underestimate the challenge in changing that cultural perspective that we too often have from our statutory bodies is that we have to go in and do things. That approach, I believe, will deliver change in the future. You mentioned some of the targets that will be set around this issue. We have set, for example, around the early years collaboratives, some early targets to measure progress that is being made, and we can already see some of the progress that is being made there. All of the committee, I am sure, will appreciate, is absolutely crucial to changing things and going forward. Some of the early year collaborative work, I think, will be tremendously beneficial in future years, but we need to make sure that that is happening in a systematic way, and the initial indication is that that is starting to happen in a fashion that was not there before. Some of those early targets are about trying to achieve that. The other thing that I would say, finally, for being Donald in here on the Health Scotland report, is that a lot of the work that we are doing around trying to close down health inequalities, around smoking cessation, alcohol misuse, etc. That work will all continue. That is all key to trying to rebalance our relationship with some of those issues within our society. You are right that the Salsis report shows some very encouraging signs around our young people's attitude towards alcohol and tobacco. What we need to do is to capitalise on that, not reinvent another strategy but to capitalise on the things that are working. We know that there are some aspects of policy that are working around children. Some of the work that we are taking forward around the new tobacco control strategy is about capitalising on some of the good practice that has been identified that we know is influencing young people and their behaviour around smoking as well. It is about trying to share the good practice, the best practice, encourage that where we can, but also to make sure that we change the mindset of those within our statutory sector, in particular, that working with the third sector can have a significant benefit in creating that social capital within our communities. They have all got a part to play in helping to deliver that. Maybe, if Donald can maybe mention a bit more about the Health Scotland report, which may address some of the other specific points that Richard Wraith has raised. What Health Scotland were looking at—Fergus may be able to come in on some of the detail, but what Health Scotland were keen to look at, worked by Dr Jeremy McCartney, was looking at understanding what sorts of health improvement work, health inequalities work, what actually does drive the change that we want, what both improves health and reduces health inequalities. We know that there have been initiatives that have improved health for certain parts of the population, but, ironically, have increased health inequalities because they have not always been accessible or effective with the bottom 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent—it might be the people who are at 30, 40, 50 per cent—who have been gaining most. Health Scotland were able to produce a report to analyse things that have happened here and elsewhere in the UK and worldwide to look at the types of intervention that both improve health and reduce health inequalities and what might well reduce health but, ironically, increase health inequalities. What it was able to do was offer the background for the work of the group and it was quite clear that, looking at price and fiscal matters, the Parliament has some powers over, but more limited than in some areas. Aspects of regulation are good when they are appropriate, and they are good in terms of reducing health inequalities and improving health. However, some of the things that often can feel right to us in terms of the approach, in terms of citizen education, for instance, the people in the population who are best able to take advantage of that often are not the people who we are trying to target in relation to health inequalities. That can widen the inequalities gap and it may be that a bit of what has been happening, or at least the fact that we have not been making improvement, has been that one factor in a very noisy environment out there, a very complex environment, is that some of the work that we have been doing has been helping the people at 30, 40 and 50 per cent rather than the people at 10, 15 and 20 per cent. That provided a backdrop. I am not aware, I have to say, but Fergus may be able to correct me of how Scotland is looking specifically at the two examples that you mentioned. If they did so, it was in the undergrowth, as it were. It was very much in the backdrop of the research. We can certainly ask them about that, though, and write to the committee and let you know. I do not think that they covered that in their report at all. There is nothing more to add that Donald MacDonald has covered than the minister has covered what Health Scotland said. In terms of the inequality action group and how we are actually planning to progress that, it is meeting for the first time on Monday properly, so I do not want to really second-guest what they will conclude in terms of their role and remit and how they will work. However, how we imagine that working is a paper that is produced that will cover what is currently happening in the local authorities and what is already good, because we know that it is on the fall of activity out there that will contribute towards what we are trying to achieve. We will also look at what are the political, economic, social and technical costs. What is holding us back doing this? What is in the way? Do we understand what is in the way? I am trying to present that to the group so that they can look at the evidence of what is currently happening. They can reassure in many cases that, often, they will be doing some of those things already, but it is maybe just how they approach and scale it up or fit it in and co-ordinate it with their activity. I think that mapping is absolutely critical. Of course, some local authorities have produced directories of things that are out there, and that is absolutely vital. We have a comprehensive mapping in relation to the CPP. If they do not understand what is going on in their communities, they are not going to be able to deliver any of those. Just to take Bob Doris's point and give two examples from my constituency, an old bing in near Fylin, the RSPB has been in and supported SNH as well, supporting them. Volunteers from Fylin coming up, and actually that bin has now been carpeted. It has butterflies and birds and all sorts of things. They are keeping the birch back. It is all being done by the volunteers in the community, so it is exactly the sort of thing that you are talking about. On the other hand, I go across the fourth to Allawa, and we have a centre at Hawkes Hill, which is a physical building. I agree with Bob entirely that the local authority has to manage its estate in the best way that it can, but they are proposing to close a Hawkes Hill community centre, which has 22 groups operating out of it, without saying where those 22 groups are going to operate. Bob's point was that if the adult learning people are not going to use that centre, what is happening to the other groups who may have also used that centre? So, there needs to be a sort of integrated planning, but I certainly would welcome the fact if we could get some report after the meeting on Monday as to whether they are going to aim up and be also look at some of the historic things that have been tried and see community schools as another one. It is supposed to integrate psychology and schools. Look at what happened in that first Parliament and the early part of the second and third parliaments to see what was being tried and what did not work. Richard, thank you. If you could do that minister, that would be helpful. It is difficult to justise my colleagues for bringing up several local examples when I endows for the chair and did likewise. It is good that we are getting that on the record. I should also perhaps add before I bring the net in that some of the healthy living centres have actually went on to be developed into mainstream provision within local authority areas. I can think so. They have not disappeared. In some cases, they have been embedded into the fabric of local community provision. I am thinking about the healthy and happy centre in Cambuslang, in particular, who is currently flourishing. I have done that again. Richard, you have put another local thing on the record. Again, the patience of our colleagues, Nanette Millan, to be followed by Richard Lyle. I would not be raising any local issues, if you can be assured of that. What actually does concern me is that there is an acceptable mortality rates in the 15 to 44 age group. We all know the outstanding importance of the early years and prevention at that stage. I noticed in the last year's report that the task force thinks that maybe they will need to consider a framework approach building on the early years collaborative but focusing on the people as they progress through life at pinch points or transition from primary school to secondary school, transition from secondary school to work. I know, in other contexts, in disease groups, how important transitional years are. Do you have any thoughts on how to progress with that? The task force spent a lot of time considering that. We know that there are a range of factors that contribute to the excess mortality between the 15 to 44-year-olds—alcohol, drugs, violence, all of which contribute to the suicide agenda and are all significant contributors to that area. All of those issues are complex matters that have to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Some of the work around how we can, because it is not a demographic group that we have a strategy for, as such. Some of the work that we were keen to explore is whether there is something that we could do in a more systematic way around that particular age group, but to look at the other areas of work that are already taking place that would have an impact on this age group itself, such as the violence reduction stuff that has been done around drugs and alcohol as well and the suicide prevention strategy, to look at whether there is something that we need to do in order to draw some of that work more closely together. That is some of the work that the former chief medic officer had already started looking at and is continuing to look at for us and should report to us in due course around what measures, if anything, we could take to try to draw some of this work more collectively together. I would say to you that once we have Sahari Burns' report on this matter, that will give us a clearer understanding as to whether there is something that we could do that is more specific around this demographic group. Given that we already have a range of policy areas in this area to tackle some of those matters but to give a particular focus on the 15 to 44-year-olds, which, if we made significant inroads, would have a very significant impact on life expectancy in Scotland because of the excessive nature of it. Once we have that body of work in a position to be taken in informed position, I would expect that to be something that would then go to the delivery group to consider how that can be taken forward. Any idea of the timescale of that? I think that the group met about a week or so ago and they are just beginning to formulate because they are gathering a lot of colleagues together to discuss what is actually currently happening. I think that they are looking to try and pull some work together after the summer. I am sure that you will update the committee. I am happy to keep the committee updated on that as well. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Richard Lyle to follow by Gil Paterson. Thank you, convener. I have listened to many of the points that the convener has made this morning and I also agree that what works locally, local groups etc, should be supported rather than the council or the big brother coming in and saying, oh, let's change it to do something else. I agree with many of the points that the minister has made earlier. The task force has made changes to the areas of priority and action as the strategy has progressed. Given that this strategy has only been in place for six years, is it a danger that there is not enough time, that not enough time has been given to allow actions from the original strategy time to bed in before moving on to, as I would call it, new flavour of the month priorities? The objective for the task forces is not to say, let's forget what has happened in the last six years, it is about building on the bits that we know are making a difference. We are also considering areas that are not making a difference and to recognise that and to acknowledge that as well. The approach that we are going to be taking forward is not a case of creating a new strategy, it is about building on the bits that we know that can make a difference based on the evidence that we have received and to take that forward. I think that you are right, there is a danger that we get into projectitis that we support something for a period of time and then all of a sudden decide that that is it, the project run its course, yes it worked but that is it coming to an end and we need to try, if we are going to tackle this area I think in a way that can make a difference in years to come we need to be into it for the long term and everybody who has got a part to play needs to be into it for the long term as well and that is why community planning is absolutely key to delivering that. I can reassure you that it is not about a new strategy, it is about building on the bits that we know work and using the evidence that we have received in order to give particular focus to the areas that we think that we can get better gain from with a much more strategic approach and supporting that at a national level through inter-community planning partnerships. I welcome the point that it is building on what previously, what does work and all to offer from a previous experience. We had a project and then suddenly the funding ran out five years later or whatever and then all that was great but we will move on to something else so I totally support the point to make and thank you for that. I think that it has got to be sustainable the approach that we take for example the approach that Richard Offord about in Flynn in the Bing is a sustainable approach to creating social capital within your local community and that doesn't mean that you have to have lots of resources going into it for the long term but what it does mean is that you can create the type of connectedness and the type of social capital that can make a difference in the long term by giving the right type of support and the place for that to happen and sometimes it's small practical things that can make all the difference. Sometimes it can be just simply getting permission from local authority to be able to use a particular piece of land or a particular building for a particular purpose that the local community feel can make a difference and powering the local community to be able to do that that can make a difference. So it's about making sure that it's not about just saying there will still be projects that will happen and if they don't work then we should disinvest from them if they've not got the outcomes that we're looking for them to achieve but if they are going to be sustainable in the future because they make a difference then all of the stakeholders have to recognise the value of that and to look at how they can support and enable that to happen. That also has been my experience over the year that basically you don't need a lot of money you just need people to buy in and basically things that have been worked locally by local people. When the council comes along for the council to listen rather than direct or channel them down another route, basically the points that Bob Doris and Richard Simpson made this morning are what works locally is when you get local people to buy into it rather than the council coming in and saying well this is what you do. So thanks for looking. Can I just say just as an example a very small example given that the others have given examples as well in my own constituency a new housing area in my constituency a new community school built in the local community. The biggest battle was to get the padlock taken off the gate of the area for the kids to be able to use it when the school wasn't in use. That took months to eventually get that padlock lifted from the gate that was a community school that was built but what happened was it then became something took ownership of it and saw it as being their school and it was a community asset and the community wanted to use it and they organised themselves in order to use it. The biggest battle was getting the padlock taken off the gate. That's the type of small thing that can make a difference in terms of generating that type of connectedness and that involvement within your local community. No that's fine thank you. I'll move to a final question from Gil Paterson. Feel free to mention a local constituency initiative if you wish Mr Paterson. I might actually do something more than that. Maybe it's two questions I've got. First I think maybe it's an observation. I mean I take the view that although this Parliament's been working extremely well in these areas and doing all it can in all administrations I don't think this administration's doing more than the last administration but I see it just as a holding operation with health inequalities that there's we're making a difference and I wouldn't for any minute say that we shouldn't put the work in that we're doing because I think it would be terribly worse if we didn't but I think we need to tackle the real problem here and that's poverty. Without us taking on poverty we'll continue to be here discussing this forever. If we look at the causes and the impacts and how poverty works it just touches everything, it touches schools, employment, lack of employment so to make the change I think what we've got to do is provide or break the cycle of poverty and I think that'll make the step change and that's an observation I don't if you want to comment on that minister feel free because what I really want to talk about is social capital with my own experience but feel free if you want to talk about put it on the record about what your feelings are about maybe the lack of powers at this place has to make the changes. I completely agree poverty is a key part of tackling this whole challenge. I can remember back in the last session of Parliament and Richard Simpson was on the committee at the time as well when we had a presentation from the chief medical officer in Stirling just prior to the just after the 2007 elections when the committee was coming together and his annual report that year its principal recommendation was about creating hope in communities. The picture of the mother with the buggy and the end of attainment building in Glasgow and I'm quite struck by that at the time and that was all about it wasn't about trying to find a health solution to these issues it was about creating hope and aspiration in these local communities and was an absolute key factor to tackling some of the health inequalities and the social inequality in our society and poverty is a major contributor towards that and that's why we need to take a systematic approach to it that's why we need to make sure that all aspects of government are pulling in the same direction in order to achieve that and where one bit of government goes off an angle that undermines the work of another then we are effectively running to stand still because if you if you don't tackle poverty effectively then you know if you if you've increasing child poverty despite a lot of the work that we're doing through the early years collaborative in order to reduce or to improve the opportunities for for children in their early years well if you've increasing child poverty you're undermining that work we need to be able to coordinate all of these aspects so that they're all pulling in the same direction whether it be welfare anything else in order to achieve that much more effectively. I mean what you've done there minister is the determination that this administration is currently engaged in and I do agree with that and I pay the same compliment to the former administrations with the determination that they've been showing to tackle that very thing I just believe we don't have the powers to do the to finish a job that's my my firm belief from what I see happening than what's happened in the past but what I want to talk about is Harry Burns raised it when we had him along and you raised it yourself and it's the social capital and social cohesion and you know I've I was born in Springburn and left Springburn at the early age of nine years of age and I can tell you Springburn had work there employment was available there was cafes, sweety shops, chip shops, snooker halls, cinemas, departments, doors, dance halls, swinging baths, laundries, granaries and uncles and relatives and I was moved to the Milton scheme that's where my headquarter still is and my doctor is still in Eglesey Street in the Milton scheme and all I've just mentioned there doesn't exist in the Milton scheme it's not there and so therefore you've had this scheme rougher the size of Perth and people used to having these facilities and having their neighbours in Springburn if there was a death people would put around a sheet and you would collect to help the family in the Milton done finished didn't happen so therefore if we look at the west of scotland's problems I'm betting that the west of scotland's problems just like the Milton scheme are in the schemes where where it's curled because right now in the Milton scheme is just what I've described there's a few churches there there's a couple of rows of shops and virtually nothing else there's I think the swimming pools in the schools so that if we are trying to compare the proposition in the west of scotland compared to somewhere else where the community spirit has been really ripped apart then I don't think you can compare that way it's how you can how you can get social cohesion and engagement and hope in these areas you need to provide some of these things I'm not saying you because that would be ridiculous but I see that as the missing evidence that we are kind of making assumption that the west of scotland is somehow unique when really social cohesion was destroyed and how you put that together again I find very difficult to understand how that works. In that say a lot of the type of evidence that the task force heard is that it's it's not simply about providing more on the way of health interventions in terms of smoking cessation programmes alcohol brief interventions it was about creating that type that form of social connectedness connecting this within local communities that clearly has it's not there to the degree that it should be and the benefit that can come from social capital and as I said in my opening comments I think we have forgotten the value of social capital and if you look historically about where Scotland was at over the last couple of generations is that it's not a genetic thing as such but our societies changed quite a bit and some of our communities have changed quite significantly over that period of time and there are certain factors that do stand out and the challenge going forward I think is it's not just about whether there's a community centre there or not it's about how is a community centre utilised how does the local community manage the local community centre is it run for their benefit is it running in terms of what the council thinks should be providing the local community centre does the health service in the local area operate in a way that's there purely for the benefit of how the gps want to operate or to to do so in a way that can better reflect needs of local community these types of issues and I think if we can empower local communities much more effectively over a sustained period of time give people that sense of hope and purpose within their community as well and the value of the local community then in bringing these types of issues together we will create that level of social capital that's necessary that will take time and everybody has to play their part you know I hear continually challenges about Scotland closing down its health inequalities we will continue to fail to close down our health inequalities if we don't effectively tackle the social inequality that affects our community poverty and all of the other factors those health inequalities will continue to blight our society and that's why I believe that we need to take an approach that is about building that social capital within local communities that will help to engender that change in future generations and years to come I mean I don't want to make this political but I just can't help it I mean I've got a vision and you know a way that we can you know put some of these things in place but you need lots of power and lots of money and determination to do it and my challenge isn't to you to be quite honest I mean we're coming up to a big time in Scotland's history somebody's got to sit somewhere else and explain to me without having power how you how you get these things into the milking scheme because I think without real power to make a determined change it will be like that in 30 years time that would be my prediction I'll be dead and gone by that time but I've been hoping for changes to the milking scheme almost my whole life and it's never materialised through different administrations Westminster, Holyrood, SMP, Labour you need the powers to change or it will never change it's been a it's been a morning for me mentioning local matters but you mentioned Milton it actually ties in quite nice with idea of a mapping exercise that you were referring to previously because it's an area that I know very well was part of the area that I represent and within that area you've got a church led organisation called Love Milton you've got an active trade union unite community branch doing work in the community you've got a youth club called North United communities you've got Glasgow community and safety services running something called Ashkel recreation centre taken back from gangsters quite frankly because of a brave councillor called Billy McAllister but the point I'm making minister is there's lots going on but there's still lots needing to be done but there's lots going on from various stakeholders not always working in a joined up fashion so I think that brings us back nicely to the idea of the mapping exercise in getting it right but I think that probably came full circle in terms of mentioning local local initiatives can I can I ask if you want to comment any further in Mr Patterson's comments there no I think Gilmicks a Gil Patterson makes a very valid point about the challenges and as I say if you're trying to close down health inequalities but policy elsewhere is exacerbating child poverty you are under your under mining aspects of your work that you're trying to take forward I think committee members won't mind me saying that the passion that Gil Patterson spoke with it's evident that there's a united support in this committee irrespective of our views on powers to tackle these to tackle these issues do you have any final comments minister before we close this part of the meeting no other than to welcome the committee's particular interest in this matter and there's several points that we will come back to the committee on you ask for us and also areas where we can keep you up to date and some of the work that we're also taking forward as well to help to inform your ongoing interest in this area okay thank you very much thank you all three witnesses for coming along to the committee this morning and we'll suspend briefly for five minutes or so okay welcome back to the health and sport committee meeting we now move to agenda item three which is consideration of the food scotland bill so we're going to continue taking evidence in stage one of the food scotland bill so with another round table this morning and it says in the interest of time we won't do introductions but I think we will do some introductions so we'll go round the table and we'll do we'll maybe say briefly who you are which organisation you're from so I'm bob doris deputy convener of the committee and I remember the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Laura. Laura Stewart director for soil association Scotland which is part of the UK's membership charity campaigning for sustainable food farming and land use. Rytill oil MSP central region Charles Milne director scotland FSA Nanette Milne MSP for north east scotland. I'm Doug Watson I'm the head of bargaining campaigns for unison scotland. Gil Paterson member for the Scottish Parliament for Clydebank in Mulgyi. I'm John Lee I'm public affairs manager with the Scottish grossest federation with the national trade association for the convenience store sector in scotland. Colin Kear MSP for Edinburgh western Richard Simpson MSP mid scotland in Fife Collette Backwell director of the food and drink federation in scotland we represent food manufacturers large and small in scotland and the rest of the UK. Rhoda Grant Highlands and Ireland's MSP Tim Smith group quality director Tesco Eileen McLeod MSP for the south of scotland okay thank you everyone for that and you're most welcome here of the still this morning not after and yet. When we go to questions with answers I will give priority to guests here this morning over members of the Scottish Parliament so come and have your say this your opportunity to put your thoughts on the on the public record but I'll go for the first question to Gil Paterson MSP general question with the onset of the food stand of scotland and it's just to find out on your own with regards to your own views what the ups and downs are with the prospect of this coming into being. Yeah thank you very much clearly the ups are that the new food body will be able to be much more cognisant of the Scottish landscape but that doesn't come without risks that need to be managed. What has caused concern for people across the UK I think is the management of incidents which by their very nature the nature of the food business need to be managed on a UK basis but it's been very clear right from the start that the the chair and chief executive of the FSA and ministers in Scotland have recognised this and have given the commitment that we need to work very closely together and SLAs and MOUs will be drawn up to ensure that that happens and of course there's parallels in animal health where animal diseases are managed on exactly that basis so we we have no reason to believe that that shouldn't work. I think the other area that's recognised that there is risk but again is very manageable is the access to expertise both in terms of scientific committees but also expertise within the organisation and again that cuts both ways because we have expertise in Scotland and areas like shellfish which are of use to the rest of the UK FSA and there are areas of expertise held in London, Cardiff and Belfast that we need access to so again that can be managed through appropriate MOUs. Yeah and would we support the creation of them? We understand that there are that there is a potential risk but frankly the arguments against having a standalone body in Scotland could apply for a whole range of devolved areas particularly regulatory functions already devolved so I think it's particularly important that we have it devolved because of the time with the other matters that have already devolved to Scotland as well so we support that. We also support it I have to say because we don't feel that the UK FSA has always got the balance right in terms of the balance between consumer protection and brand protection and the safety of the consumer. We think sometimes that's drifted too much in the way of the of meat producers and less emphasis on on safety for consumers so we hope that having a Scottish body will put a proper focus and get the balance right. Okay thank you I'll work this one to come in in relation to that Mr Lee. Thanks Kim Booner. I guess our main concerns were about ensuring consistency of advice and guidance and enforcement action particularly around potential food incidents. We also had a concern about how the European dimension would be managed. We had a question about whether or not the FSA UK would continue to be the lead body at a European level and how that would negotiate on behalf of Scottish businesses particularly in light of the potential result in the referendum so we thought that the European dimension was a potential overarching issue and one that could do with some further exploration. We also support the creation of this new food body for Scotland. I think there's some potential benefits in how policy is looked at from a food perspective in Scotland because it can be quite confusing and I think that this gives it a real chance to air where that policy is being set and to make sure that we're being properly linked up so it's not just about food and health but it's also about food and sustainability because actually health individuals and health of our planet are linked at the end of the day and so this gives us a good chance to look at what we can do better and perhaps look at how other systems around the world work. For example in Sweden it's normal to talk about healthy and sustainable food and to give advice around both of those things at the same time. Thank you very much Tim Smith. We have shared the successive Scottish Government's vision of ensuring customers have got food that they can trust and more broadly Scotland food and drink I think has been a tremendous boost to the industry and to consumers including our customers and nothing matters more to us than them so if we're thinking about how we ensure that we sell the best quality products that are safe, taste good and a great value then what's proposed is pretty much in that direction at the strategic policy level. The things I would tick off as being achieved largely in the design are those that the architects of the FSA in London contemplated to so transparency the fact that science and evidence will play a huge part in what the organisation does it appears on the face of it to be proportional and risk based and there's some question marks about whether that will then apply to some of the enforcement regimes but that's the second order problem and the independence that allows the body to stand away from the the government itself and effectively I think to be able to be trusted more by consumers and therefore our customers is all good news. As regards the FSA committees there I think there are currently 11 or 12 advisory committees and it will be important as I think it's contained within the the bill that the access should be as good as it currently is for policy makers north of the border as it is south of the border to work on both those committees and then as others have mentioned the more acute problems of incident handling will be very good to know that if there's going to be an incident and let's hope there isn't one that consumers will be able to trust whichever body it is that's given them advice because they'll be using the same evidence taking the same proportional risk based approach. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr Smith to collect Blackville. I just like to start by saying that we've had a very positive relationship with the FSA Scotland across all of its activities and we'd really very keen to see that continue but in considering the scope and remit of the new body it's important to take into account the nature of the food and drink manufacturing industry companies that sell food products in Scotland are not all based in Scotland and indeed food manufacturing companies that are based in Scotland export the majority of their products elsewhere not least of which is south of the border in the rest of the UK. Sales to the rest of the UK are a vital part of the Scottish Government's food and drink policy and it's important to be aware of the breadth and size of the companies that operate in Scotland in particular the SME nature of the companies that tend to exist in Scotland. So with all of this in mind there are a number of issues that that we would like to be considered the first and possibly the most important is the consistency of the approach to enforcement a proportionate approach that is consistent across the UK wherever wherever possible and that the new food body should try to ensure as Charles Milne has set out that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to continue to liaise with other bodies and committees across the UK. Someone else raised the issue of the voice for the industry in Europe and there are some questions about how that will be achieved once the new food body has been established. Access to scientific advice I think Tim alluded to that it's important that the new food body has robust peer reviewed evidence on which to base its decisions. It currently draws heavily on other committees and groups as part of the FSA UK and the point about ensuring that those mechanisms still exist is very important. With a very broad remit a new food body could represent many diverse stakeholder groups so there's something about ensuring that potential conflicts of interest are managed and last but certainly not least is it must be adequately resourced to ensure that it continue to fulfil the functions that it was established to fulfil. Thank you. I have to say that opening question seemed to tease out all the issues within the bill there one fell swoop. Gil it was your initial question a lot of potential risks but opportunities as well to come back in. It's only opportunities I just wondered if you if the panel thought since Scotland's got an enormously high reputation for safe food and quality food would this hinder it or do you think this would add to the brand? Is it a way or is it just in terms of is it cost neutral in terms of does it add or subtract to the image of good quality products from Scotland? I did see Mr Millan but I'm actually going to if it's okay to ask Mr Smith first of all because during your answer I did scribble down something in relation to opportunities over the the quality of Scottish food there and I think that links in quite closely with the Gil Paterson's questions to Mr Smith and then maybe Charles Millan after if that's okay. We have 170 producers in Scotland and they're producing for us 1600 products we sell £2.1 billion worth of Scottish produce across our UK markets and there's nothing I think contained within the way that the bill is shaping and the way the bodies I imagine going to work that would do anything to slow that progress down. I can't imagine why that would happen. What manufacturers and collect will speak better for manufacturers than I could will want is a very clear line of sight to any new policies they want plenty of time to think about any changes but ultimately our producers I think and I would hesitate to speak for them but I will they will want a level playing field they want clarity of purpose and evidence based to back up what's what's happening but since I first wrote my little note here we've added another 10 producers to our list of Scottish producers and I can only imagine our business growing with Scottish food and drink producers I can't imagine why it would not. Thank you very much. One of the things that has not been mentioned yet is that the new food body will be charged with putting the consumers first in everything it does and that's really important but to deliver for consumers we have to work closely with industry because at the end of the day we can have all the policies we like but it's industry that produces the food that we work and actually consumers interest in industry interests align so industry wants to produce safe food it wants to produce food that it says what it is it is on the label and that is really important in developing consumer confidence and thereby allowing industry to grow and underpinning Scotland's land of food and drink and I'll give you two examples of where in the past that hasn't worked so in 2009 we had the instance where the export of white fish from the UK was bound as a consequence to Russia as a consequence of a visit of their inspectors and more recently we've seen exports of cheese from the UK bound by China again as a consequence of visits by their inspectors and it seems to me talking to industry that they want a proportionate fair enforcement system they want the reputation of Scotland underpinned by good regulation and effective regulation and I believe that the new food body gives us the opportunity to deliver that. Thank you Rajda, any other witnesses want to come in on this point and collect it back with us? I really just add to Charles's point I think the key to what Charles was saying he actually made my case very well for me and I won't reiterate that but the key to this is effective and proportionate regulation and Tim's point about engaging often and early with industry stakeholders is well made. I think certainly having proper regulation does add to the brand sometimes it's argued that the brand is all but the brand is only as good as you know they're not being a scandal and as something goes wrong as Charles rightly said then that damaged 80 years to put by so our view is that that brand is best protected by having rigorous regulation and our concern in recent years in fact your committee's had a proposal put in front of it on pigs for example whereby the proposal is showing to be a visual inspection of pigs so that tumours and absences are minced into into the pigs without meat inspectors being able to to cut those open inspect them properly our view is that that's a move to light touch regulation and we know from the banking and other scandals that light touch regulation is not the right way forward. No, I'm in danger of dropping a tangent about how we deal with the pig issue which I thought would see out the health and support committee and Mr Millan wants to come in on that point I suspect. Yeah I really would I mean I think it's worth mentioning that the current post mortem system that we have in Abattoirs is based on a system that's over 100 years old and science has moved on since then and I totally agree that we need appropriate regulation I think that the staff on the ground in Abattoirs are doing a fantastic job under difficult and trying circumstances but it is about delivering what's right for consumers so I think that a lot of the conditions that we currently look for look at are quality issues not public safety issues and the purpose of the change in the regulation is to move away from quality inspection to safety inspection. So what are the modern challenges? Samonella, compiler, Bacta, E. coli, they're invisible organisms on carcasses so we will not pick them up by cutting into lymph nodes we need to change a system to suit the challenge of the times and work we've been doing in Scotland just in the last six months in September we had carcass contamination levels across Scotland about four percent we've introduced an initiative that by March it delivered a reduction of 50% to 2% that's the difference that will make a difference to public safety and it's being delivered by inspectors on the ground but it has to be driven by science. There is a difference of review on this one our inspectors are very clear they say there are many many examples of without vision without actually being able to cut in that's what simply happens is the things and I agree it's not hugely a health issue it's a quality issue but you know we're talking about the brand then quality has to be important as well there are things which are now going into the meat process which um which the consumer if they saw them would not want to see in their sausages and that's that's the reality of where we're going. I'm going to bring in Mr Smith and I might move to another question unless Mr Parsley wants to come in for supplementary Tim Smith. I'll broaden this out a little bit and suggest that um the trust that our customers have in our brand and therefore in the the brand of Scotland food and drink is only enhanced by having competent audit checks safety analysis to hold all the way through the supply chain and Dave Watson's organisation provide many of their members are doing that work. My encouragement to them and to others is to continue to press to have their role because the consumer the customer the customer that matters so much to us has trust in a government body acting as a regulator almost as much as they do in the individual retailers some of whom represented around the table and manufacturers who also do a good job it's a complementary system and Charles is right about the science and the proportionality of course but what matters to customers is to be able to trust the food they're eating and that they'll know that what's on the label is actually what's in the pack. That's quite an aspect to end that section but the emphasis is not just in safety but also in quality because that's where the brand opportunities come in. Gil, do you want to come back on any of that? Okay a new question from Richard Lyle MSP. Thank you convener. Can I identify prior to just after leaving school actually went into the grocery trade I was actually a grocery manager for 10 years so this is the question that I want to ask. This bill introduces new administrative sanctions for food law offences and evidence due to a question posed by me last week. Wogam Hamilton, EHO from Glasgow City Council stated, prosecution is not a great option so administrative fines are fixed penalty notices. Call them what you will would be a boon to us. However I know that some witnesses today before the committee are not in favour of new sanctions in particular the Scottish Food and Drink Federation and also the Scottish Grocer's Federation. Do you do the witnesses other witnesses agree with previous witnesses that the new sanctions set out in the bill for food law offences are a positive addition to existing sanctions and if not why not? Okay I suspect we'll get some definite replies to that who'd want to go first on that one. I see that and then no one puts up their hand yes. Mr Watson thank you. You're not be surprised that we're actually in favour and not surprisingly as the UN, the representative environmental health officers that are members are very clear that they welcome the new powers but particularly if you only have to look at how few prosecutions there actually are to know that the issue to be honest is not largely about regulations we've got lots of regulations the issue is about enforcing those regulations and that's particularly in the local authority end of the business is that there's been a 17% cut in the number of staff working for in environmental health departments a 13% cut of professionally qualified EHOs the reality is that that we are not inspecting food premises at the rate that we used to do so and an MSP I know once said to me well couldn't we have the european system will put the inspection report on the door of every restaurant and I said well we could but there'd be two years out of date for most restaurants so therefore it's fairly pointless so is it about resourcing at the end of the day if we don't we have all the regulation you like but if we don't provide the resources to have the inspector to do their job then it's not going to be very effective. Thank you and that is of course contained within the bill putting the inspection report on on on the on the publicly displayed in every every minister known. There are a number of legal measures proposed in the bill and the first one is about the food hygiene information scheme which is the one you're referring to where the local authorities inspections are converted into a score on the door if you like either a pass or an improvement required and businesses can display if they choose at the moment. I'm pleased to say that 31 local authorities in Scotland administer the scheme and by the end of this month all 32 including South Lanarkshire will be in the scheme. The argument is a better regulation one is that by making it mandatory to display certificates you actually provide the ability for consumers to make choices and put pressure on businesses which are improvement required to up their standards. Wales are introducing a bill to make the display of such notices mandatory as our Northern Ireland and we will have the opportunity to look at that in the future. I have to say that the power in the bill is an enabling one if we chose to go down that route it would need further consultation that the second area of legislation within the bill as I was sorry in summary I would say I would support the the the measure in the bill in that respect. The second area in the bill that's covered is around food authenticity and this came to light of course with the horse meat incident and it became apparent that we have a number of measures for food safety that are not replicated for food identity and again the idea of that is to bring it into a line to give us powers to seize and destroy if necessary food that is not what it says on the tin. In terms of the notices themselves again I would support I think it's quite right that a number of many local authorities don't take prosecutions it's another tool in our armory it's a bait in my view having the appropriate tools for the bright circumstances and ensuring that the businesses that are not playing the game are not abiding by the rules we can take action against effectively thereby reducing the burden on the very large number of businesses that do trade in a responsible way and finally there is another bit in the bill with regard to feed legislation and and that I would support as well. I think specifically in relation to the food hygiene information scheme taking all the points in mind the purpose of that is to provide accessible information for consumers to make informed decisions so I think some thought has to go into what is the best way of doing that and at the moment I think we believe that the current scheme does it in a way that consumers can relate to. On the issue of food authenticity I mean we've had a number of reviews since the original incident which sparked the discussions around all of this we've had a Scudamore review here in Scotland and we've had the Elliott review in the UK the recognition from all of those is that the food industry works hard to deliver safe competitively priced products but we have to recognise that every supply chain is at risk regardless of its complexity or risk and we need to work collaboratively to address some of the issues what we recommend is a whole supply chain focus on prevention of fraud and as part of that we've produced a five-step guide to protecting businesses from from food fraud which informs companies about the questions they should ask and the steps that they should be taking to ensure that they're not victims of fraud themselves and companies want to do that it's important to remember that. We have also a number of incident prevention and technical committees which assess sort of what's happening elsewhere and what we're very supportive of is something that's come out of the Elliott review which is the concept of a government intelligence sharing hub which would be facilitated by government because government is often the most effective repository of information across all of the issues that can lead to food fraud and similar incidents working with trade associations who can then feed into and off such a hub to ensure that we have the best access to horizon scanning data which might identify where such fraud might come from in the future. I'm privileged to know that successive governments in Scotland have led their local authorities in this work in an exemplary manner. The 32 local authorities in Scotland do a very good job and on the ground that's the result of all the hard work of the various enforcement officers. Our view is that we want proportionate and evidence based enforcement. That's pretty much as I suspect for all of us what we've got now and nothing matters more to us as you'd expect me to say than that we're able to say that what is on the labels, what's actually in the pack. Internally as an organisation we and our manufacturers I think would be able to point to very robust testing regimes and we know from the outcomes of those testing regimes just how stringent that work is but how important it is to our customers. My sense is that the food hygiene information system as it's been pretty much applied in Wales already is helping customers make choices in areas where they might not otherwise have thought too carefully about hygiene standards and I don't mean in retail outlets it's more in catering establishments. Authenticity I think collects cover the ground very nicely. Our sense is that only when you understand the whole supply chain and you've made it shorter and more transparent do you get a clear sense of where the risks might lie and it's the outcomes for our customers that we would be contemplating when we are hoping to work with Scottish Government and others the new food body here in in formulating how this will actually work in practice and we're keen to help where we can. Thank you. On the food authenticity point, testing regimes are very important in a very important tool in the toolbox but at the same time they're not the whole answer so we need to make sure that we strengthen our supply chain assurance schemes which might be independent of the new body and for that new body to acknowledge and support schemes such as organic but there are many others as well to help with that element. Thank you Mr Lee. I must allow us quite right to mention that we were not particularly in favour of civil penalties in doing that we are very much smaller independent retailers in mind idealistic perhaps but we hope that the new food standards agency would be an opportunity to really develop and spread a partnership between retailers and enforcement authorities and in our response we had mentioned the development of something called primary authority partnerships I might say a bit more about that later but I think it would be helpful for the committee to to be aware of them and perhaps do some read across with different committees and different Scottish Government departments that are taking primary authority forwards. I think they do have the potential to offer retailers and businesses who are operating in more than one local authority area to develop new and very constructive partnerships based on guidance and information advice rather than on potentially the new imposition of new civil penalties. Is there a couple of things for myself but Richard it was your question is anything you want to follow? Basically I welcome the comments by Mr Lee I know that as I said previously being a grocer I know that there are many excellent grocers in Scotland and by the way I'm not looking for a job from Tesco but basically the situation is that working as previously also being a councillor working with EHOs I found that the environmental health officer wanted to work with you came in and gave you advice yes could be hard if he so whispered or he or she so whispered most of the time they worked with you in order and I would like hope that the grocer's federation would encompass this new law thank you convener. Before I move to another question just on your theme Richard actually contained within that of course within the bill there will now be a duty to report breaches elsewhere so I'm just keen to get a flavour on whether just now your view is that that happens anyway without a statutory duty to report or not. I'll kind of collect back what I said about how companies and producers and retailers can spot food fraud because they could be the victims of it as well but when you do discover it it's about that duty to report which is contained within the bill I think fits in nicely to Richard Lyle's comments and also in terms Richard did ask about the proportionate nature of of finding I think that came up at last week's evidence session as well and I'm only mentioning Tesco Mr Smith because you're sitting round the table but if there's a breach and it's in a it's discovered not within the food chain but within a local Tesco store any fine that would befall Tesco could be minuscule compared to a fine that may befall a small grocer for something similar so it's a bit how we make sure that the fine system is proportionate and as Mr Lyle said how we make sure that the local authority enforcement agency are actually still working in partnership with with their local businesses rather than just being there to find so proportionate and duty to report just just because they were quite specific that you asked Richard I didn't quite feel we got that teased out from the answers yet Mr Lee quite have the answer to to the question but the issue for our members is very much one of consistency across across local authorities for example a lot of our members now very encouragingly are are developing relationships with genuinely local suppliers whether that's the butcher's the baker's or whatever we have members who may have an arrangement with a local baker and some local authorities allow them an open display of bakery products bread and rolls whatever this is very popular with customers goes down incredibly well but I'm getting information from some of our members that in other local authority areas they're being told that that's an infringement of health and safety that all the bread products have to be packaged and this for our members who operate across Scotland this is causes them a lot of a lot of hassle a lot of a lot of anxiety so it's just this thing about consistency whatever we have it would be hugely helpful if it's consistency across Scotland whether it's in terms of the several penalties that are being introduced or enforcement activity or whatever we have a big big issue about different approaches to foods and health and safety across different local areas which hopefully the new bill could help to address we support the government's Scottish government's approach to primary authority and we do that with enthusiasm because it just seems to work more effectively that's on the enforcement side I mean I would just say um before moving off enforcement that the vast majority of activity by food officers enforcement people going on to manufacturer sites and retailers is actually advisory they are doing a great job helping people do the right thing and that obviously helps our customers and everybody else's the requirement to notify I think almost slipped me by because it's just such an obvious thing that should be a requirement and it's usually a Friday afternoon as Charles will tell you but it means that there is a clear sense of direction in any handling of any potential concern whether it be fraudulent or food safety and in my experience our suppliers do what our customers want them to do and they act in a timely manner in a proportionate manner and anything that changed that would be concerning but I don't really see anything in the spirit of what's being written here as being a potential risk to that if we follow that track of having a very clear primary authority type approach it's very helpful because we're scrutinising a specific bill so we keep trying to bring it back to the the details of the bill for our own scrutiny so that's very helpful collect back well thank you convener I think this whole issue about the duty to report to report on food standards issue relates primarily to the very broad range of issues that can be covered by that duty to report so at the one end you've got the extreme case of has someone adulterated the food with something they shouldn't have done through to the other end of the scale which is perhaps mislabelling of a label through a printing issue or some other issue that's arisen during the production line and so the question then is how will that be managed by those who are enforcing it will there be a light touch approach to those which are genuine mistakes genuine issues that have arisen through no fault of of the individual's own right through to what happens where it's cases of reckless mislabelling and repeated failures to comply so I think what one of the issues that we want to see examined in more detail is the extent to which there will be guidelines and guidance for local authorities for environmental health officers for whoever's going out to actually to implement and to enforce these regulations as to what stance they should take and if I could just finish this with an example we ran a workshop last week for SMEs in Scotland on the new food information to the consumer regulations and we did that in partnership with the FSA and two things that really struck me about that were first of all that small companies quite often don't really understand what's coming over the hill at them and so they really do need a lot of support in any of this however it turns out to understand what's happening and how to implement it and what the penalties will be but secondly those who were ahead of the game and had started to explore some of the issues arising from that piece of legislation were saying things like well we've asked our local authority representatives and within one local authority we've had three different pieces of conflicting advice so the key to all of this is to ensuring that there is some kind of consistency of approach and that we don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. All the duty report I think inspectors and regulators need all the help they can get in this area so I think the responsibility of everyone in the in the chain is important. We're not opposed to primary authorities in evidence to the to the Regulatory Reform Act. We pointed out some of the challenges that primary authorities give particularly to smaller local authorities if they if they hold that particularly in areas like environmental health and training standards some of the departments can be very small indeed with very small numbers of professionally qualified staff so it's got to be the right authority and it's got to be properly properly resourced. In terms of consistency our view is that that's probably not best done by some top-down regulation from government that's better done by local authorities coming together with the industry in producing national frameworks and that's in our view the way forward and on the point of partnership I mean our members are very keen on that approach. We did a survey last year of environmental health officers and one of the things that they were particularly concerned about was that because of the pressure on their time and reduction in resources that what they were having to give up was the education and the and the preventative work and in order to be focused more on being the the policing of the function and and that's the worry here is that essentially if you haven't got the time to do the the education and the preventative work you've focused on simply being a policeman. I'm surprised here that we strongly support the duty of reporting. I hear what Collette says about proportionality and my reassurance if I could provide it to her would be that you know for the instance we're aware of at the moment they're dealt with very much on a risk assessed basis and I would envisage that any duty to report would be treated in exactly the same way so we wouldn't take the same action for a serious health concern as you would for a labelling issue. That would be how I would envisage it but I think it's important for a number of reasons. Firstly the obvious companies or individuals may not report an incident to begin with and that could then result in quite significant potential public health issues but there are other reasons as well. We regularly receive reports where we're told that a company in Fife or a company in Highland is doing something but the individual won't tell us which company it is or provide any details that allow us to take any action so again that that duty would would enable us to to to get that information and then the third area I think which would address is we have had examples recently of companies where they have reported but they have delayed the reporting until the economic impact is minimised so delaying a report until after the best before or used by date allows the product to go through the market to the consumer whereas an earlier report would have actually prevented that hitting the consumer. My fellow committee members are not horribly so bashful but no one's intimated the wish to ask the next question. I wanted to ask about resources in the bill and the financial resources available. Is the resourcing adequate for the new authority and if not what can we do to I mean a lot of people are talking about the new authority taking on some of the health prevention work is it sufficiently resource to do that as well as look after the standards of produce we now have and the safety aspects that are already carried out by the Food Standards Agency. Okay so resourcing issues. Mr Miller. I mean the objective of the bill set out in the policy memorandum are extremely challenging not only to make sure that food in Scotland is safe but also that the diet and nutrition enables people to live longer and healthier lives that in itself could require a huge amount of work and you're absolutely right to flag up that if considerable work is required the resources have to be provided to do so. As currently laid out in the financial memorandum the financial provision is probably adequate for the functions that the FSA currently undertakes but there is a discussion on the future scope of the organisation and the potential to take on further work and I think that if further work and further responsibility is allocated to the new food body then suitable financial provision needs to be made. Thank you very much Mr Watson. I wouldn't largely disagree with that I think that our concern in terms of resources is obviously not just in the FSA but also in local authorities because FSA only has one part of the role here but in terms of the FSA I think our concern is that resources are tight then inevitably you start to look to cost cutting there's been a track record now over a number of years with the UK FSA where there has been pressure to cut costs one of those methods has been to essentially deregulate by transferring the responsibility for meat inspection from the independent meat inspection by FSA staff either to contractors or directly to the meat producers and we think that's been a cost cutting I think welcome the points that Tim made about you know Tesco's concern about the regulation must be seen to be independent if you are a meat inspector employed by a meat producer your approach to inspection is going to be different than if you're employed by the FSA as a government meat inspector where you have that degree of independence there is inevitably pressure on people employed by a company and not just by the company but by other staff working in the plant and if you're an independent inspector then you have that degree of pressure so I think our concern would be that if it's not properly resourced then we'll carry on down the road of cost cutting and effectively deregulation losing the independent nature of inspection which I think is so important for the Scottish brand two points really the first is to build on Charles's earlier point about extending the scope of the agency if we cast our minds back to May 2013 when the establishment of new food body was first mooted there was a lot of discussion with stakeholders at that time about a large number of fairly meaty additional responsibilities we pardon the pun which could come into the new food body from the bill as it stands the decisions obviously have been taken for that not to happen but it's really not clear where the additional resources for such functions would come from should they be incorporated into the new food body in the future so that's something we're very keen to have some clarity on the second relates to hidden costs the FSA Scotland is currently part of FSA UK and it benefits from the synergies that that brings in relation to the committee structures the research that's commissioned access to other bodies all of all of that happening within a structure at the moment which comes at no cost once the new food body is established how will it access those same sources of expert advice research evidence all of the things that are fundamental to delivery of a strong and effective food standards agency and will those come at a cost and have those costs being considered it's not clear to me from the bill as it currently stands that those have actually been actively considered we've submitted our comments on the funding issues around a new food body separately to the finance committee unfortunately it came after your call for evidence but we'd be happy to share that with you if that would be useful. Okay yep that would be helpful. Rhoda, do you want to follow up on any of that? I suppose just to say what additional funding would be required if any work has gone into looking at the new parts of the organisation that need to be set up that won't benefit from the UK wide organisation, HR, finance all those types of things I think it would be useful to get some idea of those costs because those will happen regardless of whether new functions are taken on by the authority. In terms of the corporate support that's been costed as part of the financial memorandum in terms of the committees across the UK they are UK committees and the the new food body in Scotland would continue to have access after a new body was set up and I'll give you an example of where that's actually occurred when nutrition transferred from the FSA to the Department of Health the FSA and the UK basis took his advice from second the scientific advisory committee on nutrition after that responsibility transferred to DH Scotland continued to have access to the committee to its expertise and still is able to ask appropriate questions for the committee to look under and that model will certainly be the case going forward. In terms of research Scotland has its own research budget it plays a part of the UK research programme and I would see that continuing after the new food body comes into being so very much parallel to what goes on with DEFRA in animal health that there's a get together on an annual basis to coordinate the programmes to make sure they're complementary there aren't gaps and to make sure you get as many synergies as possible but actually with research there are increased opportunities when Scotland has its own ability to manage its research budget in terms of leveraging additional funding so my main concern that I flagged up was if we brought in additional functions some of which are set out in the papers that we have from local authorities or wherever relating to nutrition or whatever if those additional responsibilities come in then we need to identify what those responsibilities are what they will need to you know what resources you'll need to administer and deliver them and then we'll need to cost it out and ensure those resources are provided. To add to that that colleagues have already made the first is inevitably the fixed costs that are now going to be for Scotland alone are going to be significant to the point of needing to be identified and protected so the new body will need its own systems and some of those systems will be shared for a while and some of them will not what I would suggest would work best for us and for our customers and our producers is to be able to know with certainty that the most important priorities which the FSA and FSA Scotland now lay out very clearly are going to be protected and I go to Dave Watson's point that if what we're about here is protecting consumers and ensuring that they can trust the food that they're buying which derives from Scotland then protection almost enshrined in the bill would be very helpful there are never going to be nice to do things there are always going to be things that are important and priorities but nothing will be more important than food safety and finding some way of protecting the regimes that others might be more worried about than I might be in respect of what happens in other supply chains I think it's really important that that should happen. One final observation on access Charles makes a very sensible point which is that the government bodies can share access to committees I would just encourage you to be bolder and to suggest that you don't want access you want real influence because some of those issues will be more important in Scotland than they might be in other parts of the United Kingdom and you need to make sure as a body that those those priorities are being met with the same enthusiasm as as they might be being met now. There's a supplementary throw-up that I would like to ask but Rhoda it's your question is anything else you'd like to say. Okay so again I'm going to refer to Tesco Mr Smith simply because you're sitting here one of the things that's come up through evidence sessions is that the suggestion that large retailers may test what they know is safe rather than what might be risky I'm not saying that is the case but there can be an affirming testing process so yeah we think there's a food chain there we think it's done very well let's test that and it almost validates what you think you already know rather than a risk-based approach to testing I'm not saying that is the case but those are suggestions that that have been made and also the idea of full disclosure and I know there can be commercial issues around that this full disclosure of because the more a large supermarket or you know a large manufacturer testing the more breaches by definition the more breaches you'll find because that's the world we live in and the reputational damage that could exist by then reporting on that but that would be very very important information to inform Food Standards Scotland or the FSA as it currently is for that partnership working so I don't know any information you have about whether how comfortable you would feel if there was a duty to share the testing process and what the balance is so I really you're gonna hear for Tesco a bit more than in more than general terms and what whether your view is that tests validate what people already think is safe or how much of it is a kind of risk-based system to testing I'm happy to clarify what others might have thought we do but I think certainly from a customer perspective let's go back to the events of of horse meat and what we're already doing and what we strengthened was that we were taking a very much risk-based approach to our auditing regime our testing our sampling our surveillance on a very simple two-dimensional grid likelihood and impact so if that if a product had the potential to cause harmed human health it might badly handle so a ready to eat sandwich for example or if there was a high likelihood because we had intelligence that suggested that there would be more work going into that area and today I think we've got 5300 DNA tests up on our website which display what we've tested why we've tested it and what we found and we took that view which is to your transparency point because we thought if there's one thing that would make consumers our customers feel more comfortable it would be a knowing that we were doing that and bringing that testing result to them and secondly that if there were that sampling surveillance testing regime it would act as a deterrent to those who might possibly be tempted to do the things that that happened during the horse meat situation last year so I think we were already doing it I think we're already taking a risk-based and proportionate approach our investment has gone up substantially since because it's proved easier to identify the risks as we've shortened and made our our supply chains simpler but the important part of that is that if we weren't disclosing that information before to our customers we are now and that obviously then preempts any need really to do that with the regulator but we did that anyway so that would be a normal part of our daily weekly monthly regimes and we're happy to share any of that kind of information with the proper bodies actually helpful I know Mr Millan is that you've experienced the sector as a whole is doing that thing or has Tesco being a bit more progressive than say some others in relation to this I mean I think it I would find it hard to believe that industry would deliberately look at samples they knew would be clear because that's an awful lot of money that you're wasting at the end of the day you'd want to industry would certainly want to underpin its knowledge and confidence in the food that it buys and the ingredient it buys I'm in terms of overall surveillance I think having access to industry sampling and an open transparent sampling system is a tremendous benefit but it's one layer I think we need industry to sample and then local authorities across Scotland we have a coordinated sampling program as well to underpin that for verification if you like currently the food standards agency is developing advice for ministers on what a world-leading surveillance food surveillance system would look like and obviously the lessons from that particular exercise will be very pertinent to the new food body now no other MSP who hasn't already asked a question has caught my eye to ask one so if there isn't any Richard Lyle you get another question yes I thank you convener before I go on to my question I previously served in the rural affairs and climate change committee and I actually Scotland's food and drink is I would suggest is the best in the world and most companies Tesco, Asda, Morrison's check the food daily you know the dates etc and most grocers and I just put a plea to the eight shows I get into my little local store shop and love to select my rolls in the morning so I hope you don't have a situation where you're going to have the rolls covered because it's going to be that when we go into the grocery shop you'll need to cover the apples and the pears and the bananas and everything else but can I come on to the serious question the FSS should have a structure that enables it to provide a service for all food and drink manufacturers who do you think should be on the board and how what should the board be made up by people from the industry or people who take a great interest in the industry okay so what should the board of the FSS look like and how do you feel about the frisions within the bill in relation to that any takers on that mr smith the critical piece is that anybody observing the new body would be able to detect the single purity of its independence and that means that whilst the voices around the table would need to be drawn from within industry within consumer bodies within a whole range of academic and scientific backgrounds it wouldn't matter if they were sitting round the table debating a specific issue where they were coming from what they're adding is an independent clarity of question and purpose that holds the executive to account it would be important I think to understand that it makes policy making a lot easier it makes implementation more straightforward if there is expertise around the table where that expertise adds value so if a huge amount of the work that goes on in Europe in the next few years might be about changes in meat regulation and how that might be applied in the UK it would be strange wouldn't it if if there were no bodies around the table or individuals who were able to bring the expertise to the table as long as with transparency and openness it was clear to anybody looking in that they were acting in that independent manner. Anyone else yet? I support what what Tim said I mean the important issue is that as a consumer facing body that consumers have confidence in the agency and in its board and the independence point is well made and is very important point there needs to be bread on the board to cover all the bases if you like and in some way a knowledge of industry who provide food to consumers must be captured in some way on that board and indeed within the organisation. Thank you very much Laura Stewart. Yeah all very sensible of course the independence point is really really key to this and the bread I would also add that food is such a cross sectional issue that we need to make sure that to reflect the work of the FSS we're going to need people that understand about health as well as environment as well about the social implications of food in our food system. Okay thank you very much Dave Watson. Just to reassure Richard that it's unlikely given cuts in environmental health anyone's going to visit his corner shop I suspect Tesco's probably get more time focused on them in a risk and proportionate basis and certainly not to worry about whether his roles are covered but the more serious point is actually there's also been a big cut in the amount of food sampling that's done by environmental health officers so you know that that is another area where there's a problem. In terms of the board one of the points we made in our evidence convener was that yes of course it has to have a balance of expertise but there's no mention in the bill about staff governance and this is something that we developed in Scotland in other public bodies particularly NHS and elsewhere where staff governance framework has been introduced and that's involved obviously staff representation on the board. Frankly the bill is almost it is virtually entirely silent on the subject of people you would have thought that food inspection is done by robots not by people but it is actually done by people so we'd like to see a little bit more about staff governance in the bill including issues around staff transfer and others which which seem to be missed out. Can I just ask you on that a little bit Mr Lee on that second could some of that be picked up in guidance do you think? Well it could normally in these arrangements there is a statutory requirement it says there shall be a staff governance framework then you have the secondary guidance that picks that up so all we're looking for in the bill is that is a general statement of staff governance and leave the detail to central legislation. That's very helpful Mr Lee. Thanks Kevin, a very good question by Mr Lyle and just to say briefly at the risk of making it a very crowded table it would be useful if retailers could be represented on it in some way and bring their expertise and their knowledge to bear. Any other of our witnesses want to come in on in relation to that? Okay can I just sneak in a small supplement that I did last time Richard in relation to that also within the bill is not just the appointment of the chief executive and that kind of top tier committee but also a permissive power for various committees as they see fit does everyone have to be represented if you like I hate the language at that top table or could there be roles for other committees so you know stakeholder groups and industry reference group food producers reference group that kind of thing does everyone have to be sitting and this comes up in everything we ever discussed at this committee you know you would you would have to build a table the size of the Scottish Parliament to get everyone round that table that wants to be on that board so could the committee's system be a way of making sure if you're not at that top table so to speak to reinforce the language that I don't particularly like that the committees can be used to make sure everyone has some form of representation see nodding heads around the comments collects just very briefly on that point I mean committees work very well there's no doubt about that but at the end of the day they are primarily advisory committees and the decisions are taken at the top table so what's really important is that that top table has the breadth and balance to properly represent all of the stakeholders involved and actually to ensure that there's an appropriate challenge at the top table so that where things are being proposed to be implemented that there are people there who can say hang on that's not going to work because and that applies across all aspects of the of the agency's work not just in relation to industry okay now I just wanted to ask the question because there is a and it's nothing it's not actually about this bill per se it's everything we've ever scrutinised around this committee there's a clamour to be at that that that particular table um I don't have any other questions from committee members is there anyone nene of course if they would do the ideal size of the board in numerical terms very good question because you might say six and then 20 groups want it or not so yeah to me to make it fleet of foot but still be appropriately representative how big should the board be any takers silence I think the only thing to say is that there are so many different areas of expertise that you cannot realistically expect a representative of all so it's it's about the type of people that are on the board they've got to be questioning they've got to you know have the attitude to put in the consumer first but also they have to have access to information from the executive and more broadly to inform their decisions I would agree you don't want to make the committee too big you need you need a reasonable mix of expertise on on the committee but if you make it too big it'll become very unwieldy okay that's more of a politician's answer than a politician that's that's excellent Mr Lyle sorry Richard sorry sorry I apologize Richard so mr smith has got Richard I'm going to say I can mr smith wants to come in there sorry I was going to say that independence and putting the consumer first have been mentioned a number of times including by me and if in doubt go for that because science and evidence gathering people who understand the science people understand the industry retailers obviously manufacturers the whole supply chain will need to be represented but if customers are to trust consumers are to trust this body it has to be seen to be independent I keep saying that but more importantly I think that it needs to feel like the people who are who work is being done on behalf of are represented around the table that's Richard apologies for cutting off your words no it's okay convener I've been cut off by better people than you basically I agree with mr smith the end of the day it's got to be within me but I think the chance has to be I understand mr millner a very politician's answer I understand prior to starting mr millner's leaving and going to Australia and I wish I assure everyone around the table wishes you well and thanks you for the job you've previously done with the food standards agency Scotland and with your expertise could you not just tell us before you go how many people should be on the board mr millner feel free to answer that or not is the case maybe an appropriate number well um I suppose one of the most important things of course is that Richard Lyl