 Yn ymlaen, wrth gwrs, mae gweithio i y 21 ffirm primary ymer oedd y Helf i Sfordi Gwybodaeth. Tyn ni'n ystod i gyd o'r bwysig i fynd i fynd i'r rŵm di oesiais pwysig o'r ddechrau gynnig o'r ddaf yn cyrficام ond sef eu llechнийdd o'u cwrsio i weld yn y cymhwysigol i fynd i fod yn gweithio'r cwrsio o'r llwysgwyr, gwaith o'r papur, mae'r unrhyw unrhyw un o'r agenda i ddoeithio i ddweud o'r 1rhyw unrhyw un o'r private. Pwg pwg pwg yma i ddweud o'r newid yn ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud. I have it. I thank you for that. We now move quickly to item number two on our agenda today, which is subordinate legislation, and we have one affirmative instrument before us, the Registration of Social Workers and Social Service Workers In-Care Services Scotland amendment regulations 2014 draft. As usual with affirmative instruments, we will have strains on the instrument. Once we have had all of our questions answered we will have the formal debate on the motion, if necessary. Welcome by the minister for children and young people and her officials. social work adviser a Katie Richards, solicitor, food health and community care division Scottish Government. I give the minister an opportunity to make a brief opening statement. I thank you for the opportunity to introduce the regulations that were made under section 72 and 3 and 141 of the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2019. Those regulations amend the schedule to the registration of social workers and social service workers in care services Scotland regulations 2013. The 2013 regulations require social services workers within the scope of registration to register with the CCCC. Specifically, all new workers commencing employment in any of the groups within the scope of registration must achieve registration within six months of commencing employment, and set final dates by when existing workers must achieve registration. The draft regulations before you relate to the latest group of workers from whom registration with the CCCC will commence in June 2014, namely supervisors working in care at home and housing support services. The provision amends the schedule to the regulations to set the date when existing workers working these services must achieve registration with the CCCC. In summary, the regulations maintain and fulfil the policy intention that registration with the CCCC is a prerequisite of employment and continuing employment and provides the final dates of registration for the latest group of workers. I move the regulations and I am happy to answer any questions that you or the committee may have. I wonder if there is qualification attached to the registration. Is there a minimum qualification that those people need to attain? If so, how long does it take for someone with no previous qualification to get to that level? It does apply with qualifications. In terms of the timing, there is a level of qualification that is required in terms of the timing. The timing can vary between 12 months to 18 months. It depends on how much experience the worker has because their experience goes towards the accreditation of obtaining the qualification. In terms of the regulations that we are laying today, there is a lead-in time up to 2017, so there is a period of time by which workers can be registered and that closing date is 2017. There is a time for people to gear up to be able to register for this group of workers that we are talking about today. Do you think that three years is adequate to allow people to qualify, given that people may not get the certification first time? The original act was consulted upon and we have put out the draft regulations for consultation, and that went to all employers. It went to employees as well, including unison and other groups and representative groups, and there was no comment that came back. The timescale is doable and achievable for the group of workers that we are talking about, and that gives us enough lead-in time to allow employers to have an opportunity to have the right qualifications. The act was passed in 2010, so there has been not only the time from now to 2017, but it has been since 2010 that the workforce has understood that there will be a requirement for registration. Is there a cost to registration? Is that cost going to be uprated yearly or is it going to be uprated at several points? The cost depends on the level of standard that the person has, so it will be for senior managers. It is £30. For this group that we are talking about today, it is £20. There are different strands and tiers of cost depending on the type of person that is registering. Is that a yearly cost? It is a yearly cost, yes. Any other questions for members? No other questions then. We now move to agenda item 3, which is a formal debate on the affirmative SSI, on which we have just taken evidence. I remind the committee and others here that the member should not put questions to the minister during this session. We are now in formal debate and officials may not speak in the debate. I invite the minister to move motion S4M-1040, please. Thank you. Do any members wish to participate in the debate? No, thank you. Can I invite the minister? I'll give her the opportunity to sum up. No, she doesn't need that. I then put the question on the motion. The question is that Health and Sport Committee recommends that the registration of social workers and social service workers in care services Scotland amendment regulations 2014 can be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you, and can I thank the minister and your officials for your attendance here this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you, committee. We just suspend at this point briefly until we set up for item 4. We now move to agenda item 4, which is to take evidence on the national health service, pharmaceutical services Scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2014, SSI 2014-148. I suppose that it should be said that it's slightly unusual to take evidence on the negative instrument, but as there has been a fair bit of interest, I think everyone would agree, on this issue, I thought it would be useful to invite Scottish Government officials along to answer any questions that members might have, and we appreciate that we have with us this morning Professor Bill Scott, chief pharmaceutical officer, deputy director finance, e-health and pharmaceuticals directorate, and David Thompson, deputy director primary care division and Katie Richard again solicitor food health and community care division Scottish Government who was with us earlier. Can we go straight to any questions that members may have? Richard Simpson. I hope that the witnesses will be aware of the questions that I tabled last week in the Petitions Committee, which was designed to give notice of the areas in which I had particular interest. I should begin by declaring my membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Membership of the BME to remind members that I have an interest, they're not personal anymore, I'm glad to say in this area. My first question really, if I can just say by way of opening remarks that I think this is our second bite at this, we changed them in the last Parliament, I thought we got it right then and we clearly hadn't, hopefully this time we'll have got it right, so I very much welcome the new regulations but there are some issues I think outstanding. The first thing is that the new concept of protecting remote and rural practices by designating protected localities, just if the witnesses could possibly give us a some indication of the potential definition of this because that would help I think those out there who have got, still got some concerns as to how large or how small this protected locality is likely to be in terms of the Scottish geography, if they could give us some further information on that. Thank you Dr Simpson I think, Carol. I'll ask my colleague David Thomson to address that. Okay, thanks and thanks for the opportunity to explore the regulations with the committee. First off, I think that there is one thing to say which is that obviously with those regulations we're hoping to address four objectives, we want to enhance the objectivity of the process, we want to give due weight to the effect on a dispensing practice affected by the application, we want to ensure that all affected have the right of consultation and we want to improve access to pharmacists for patients of dispensing practices, so that's our aim with these regulations. The amendments introduce the concepts of a controlled locality as Dr Simpson said and with the aim for controlled localities what we're trying to do is provide some extra process in the consultation for areas within a health board which are remote or rural in character and which are served by a GP dispensing practice, so that's the policy aim behind it and Katie will be able to talk us through the elements of the regulation which help to provide that definition if that's helpful. The drafting solicitor can help with explaining the effect of the 2014 regulations. The process is quite specific and we believe that it should be readily understood. There's a newly inserted paragraph 1A of schedule 3 to the 2009 regulations which sets out two requirements that an area must have to be classed as a controlled locality. Firstly, the area has to be remote or rural in character and secondly there has to be a dispensing doctor in that area. The terms remote or rural are further explained in Scottish Government urban rural classifications and the existence of a dispensing doctor will be a matter of fact, so in that regard the requirements for a controlled locality are known in precise conditions and dispensing GPs can look at the Scottish Government urban rural classifications to assess the likelihood of their area being classified as remote or rural. In addition paragraph 1A states that once you have identified a particular area as being a controlled locality the boundary of that controlled locality will be the same as the dispensing doctor's practice boundary. Thank you for that. Hopefully that information will be fed out to in more detail perhaps even in a map or you know a list of the practices that actually would fall within the so every doctor doesn't have to look this up but actually will be then aware of it. I think I think it would be helpful to reduce the tension that there is amongst dispensing practices which is very significant if that were something that could be done. Can I have a supplementary on that convener and that is at the moment the proposal is I think for the designation to last for three years except in exceptional circumstances such as the building of a new housing estate or some substantial development which might alter the character of the locality. Can I say to you I think you know we should remind ourselves that GPs are running businesses three years is not a long enough in my view not a long enough time for people to be able to plan their businesses ahead three years could create uncertainty except in the very very remote and rural areas where the likelihood of a change I think is probably going to be much more remote as a result of the regulations but it's that borderline which has been pushed out where we want more pharmacy services yes but we've actually affected those practices badly as the Wilson and Barber report indicated in paragraphs 49 to 51 of their report that they were very concerned about destabilisation it's that boundary that I would still be concerned about so I just wonder why you settled on three years rather than perhaps five or even you know for some areas a longer designation so that they have certainty in business planning certainty in investing in the dispensing part of their practice I can understand that sentiment Dr Simpson when we put the consultation out of course the response we got back was from one year and upwards and we chose five years we have to be honest we chose three years to get just a balance and this was linked to the pharmaceutical care planning that the boards have to do and in that planning tool they are reviewing their plans for three years thank you that's a helpful explanation but I think it doesn't give comfort to the ones on the boundary in terms of business planning I mean I still think that as you know convener I didn't move to annul this regulation because I think it's important we get it in quickly and I think it's a very useful advance but I do think that that will need to be watched carefully to see if going forward there are going to be considerable tensions on that boundary with the I can say that we will take into account of course the points which are made here as we look at putting out our guidance thank you I've got a couple of questions the first is regarding co-location where a GP where a pharmacist wants to co-locate but other pharmacists in the area block that what in is the role of the community if they're supportive in that how much credence is put on their their wishes to have co-location the regulations themselves do not prevent co-location but when we look at co-location the regulations look at all applications coming in and therefore we have to be aware of maybe some unintended consequences of that such as inadvertently introducing commercialisation within the primary care services financial interests gps or others and whether large companies as we see who have money to win with industry to build health centres then apply for the contract that means that other pharmacies in the high street or around could be affected by that and and by affecting them you then reduce unintended the number of pharmacies because pharmacies still depend on the prescriptions they also say that once a health centre has a pharmacy if they close at weekends patients can't get those pharmaceutical services we found that in a number of places where the pharmacies are within the health centre so it's not just coterminosity in one aspect in the regulation it would apply much wider I suppose what i'm asking is what strength given to the community community position on this because for instance if the community are keen to have co-location because that makes it easier say people are traveling a distance they don't want to then stop and have to go somewhere else to access the pharmacy is the what what credence is given to the community position if they are keen to have co-location but pharmacists say pharmacies from out with the area are keen to stop that development going ahead because you know people would have normally had to to go to the gp and then travel to another pharmacy some distance away I mean sometimes the other pharmacists who are obviously protecting their business are giving more credence in the discussion than the community that would benefit from that I think the pharmacist will care services plan we've asked them to look at the services provided and where they're provided and to batch those with the demographic showing around so that is one vehicle where the community can make their representation okay so the community representation would be taken seriously in that yes these plans will not be constructed by the boards without taking into account the communities they serve so they will input into that okay and can I just ask another question and it kind of turns the thing slightly on its head you know and I welcome this instrument coming forward because there's lots of issues that need to be dealt with however my view is that this instrument doesn't deal with allowing patients in remote rural areas to access pharmacy services and obviously people want their gp services want their gp services protected and don't want a pharmacist if that is going to cost the gp services that they know and enjoy however it doesn't deal with the issue that people will benefit if they get access to pharmacy services so how can we get people in those areas to have access to pharmacy services that doesn't undermine their gp services okay the first thing is as you know we are going to have pharmacists clinical pharmacists to support the general practitioners with their patients for reasons of helping with complex medicines complex patients I think the issues which you may be addressing would be that of the minor ailment service how do you get medicines without having to go to the general practitioner all the time and I think that's something that we would want to look at in future how we do that in a way which does not undermine the general practitioner and yet at the same time does not require the community pharmacy to put in an expense which they're not getting a return back on so yet that is work in progress work in progress there's also the issue of for instance people with complex conditions who would benefit from sitting down and speaking to a pharmacist rather than have the gp getting that advice and then getting the advice through the gp who themselves could benefit from sitting down with a pharmacist going through their medication and kind of tweaking their regime to suit their lifestyle and I think that's very important with long-term conditions and also palliative care yes I agree and in fact we've just received a project proposal from western aisles we received that yesterday and we are looking at that because that will help us shape the model which will serve these patients in rural communities I don't have a declarable interest in this but some years back my sister-in-law did run a dispensing practice up in the north of scotland and I'm aware that gps invest a significant amount in sort of equipment maybe adapting premises and employing staff if a community pharmacy was then to take over in that area is there any plan to compensate gps in any way for the you know the elderly they may have had in the past and what about the staff that they're employing specifically to do pharmacy work would they be transferred to the incoming pharmacy or is there any arrangement to be made about that I think it's with here obviously gps are independent contractors they're continually making decisions about their own investments and in fact in contrast with pharmacy contractors who are responsible for the provision of all infrastructure and staff required to deliver pharmaceutical services dispensing doctor contractors in addition to the dispensing remuneration they receive also have the cost of premises which they require to provide those dispensing services covered by the health board so we're already getting a potential advantage there to answer the question if staff were to be made redundant any redundancy costs would fall to the original employing practice obviously that contractor would normally look to redeploy those staff if that was possible and but we are aware that in practice some staff as you said have also transferred to the new pharmacy where the costs would obviously be borne by the new pharmacist when our dispensing practice loses its dispensing rights health boards already normally allow a period of grace for the dispensing practice to continue to dispense and have access to income to help with winding down costs things like staff stock recycling and some staff redundancy costs but in our view I think it's important that the the board and the practice are in discussion at an early opportunity to discuss that impact on that individual GP contractor's business and to jointly consider how to continue the delivery of GP services in the in the area any transferring staff would would that be under tupi conditions or I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't want to say that and I'm not sure that Katie is particularly qualified I think in in some circumstances yes tupi would tupi would apply but I wouldn't be able to say that definitively for each situation the same reasonable they had the same terms and conditions as they've used to there's a no further response though as David said it's not my area but what I can say what I do know about tupi is it tends to be very fact specific so it's not really possible to make a general statement about whether something would or wouldn't transfer without knowing specific information in relation to cases Richard you that supplementary understanding is there is no protection and the other thing is that unlike any other business the GP has not got the right nor should they have the right to sell the goodwill so they are not able to actually receive recompense for the investment I understand the bit about the premises but you're still left with premises which you may be renting or you may have built or purchased you are left with those premises which are now empty or unless you can use them for other purposes or unless you can renegotiate your rental agreement your recompense from the board to compensate you for the bit of space which is now no longer required so I think there's a frankly there's a failure in these regulations to address the whole area of of the retraction of a service from from from the general practitioner that they may for example and I quoted the example of drummond the other day where the GP I know had invested you know a not insignificant amount for a small practice three and a half four thousand pounds on software to improve patient safety that now is of no value to her whatsoever she can't sell it to anybody else it has no value and the pharmacists are not and when they take this dispensing over they are not paying anything to us as taxpayers or the health service for the for the effective goodwill they are acquiring so I think that you know just commercially we've actually we we have a situation where you know if the if the if the if the new pharmacy is borderline in terms of its sustainability financially and that is now looked at and the new regulations as one of the items which I'm glad to see but if it if it is actually in a town and it's very sustainable they can acquire this without any purchase of goodwill from the health service so I think you know I I just feel we we've lost an opportunity here to say in some cases we want this pharmacy in it's in our interest to do that we will charge nothing on the other hand for other areas we should charge something I I appreciate that was a supplementary register so you need well I appreciate there is there is a needy we need to pay for the consultation we need to we need to allow a response and I've got I've got another question from charity member okay the first thing is the pharmacy in millport there were four members of staff working in the GP practice two of whom were reabsorbed into the practice and two were transferred over to the pharmacy now that may not be a 2p agreement but it was a way of trying to sort that goodwill doesn't exist for NHS services goodwill is about commercial services and community pharmacies as we discussed some weeks ago in prescription for excellence the amount of business that's now coming through their front door is decreasing because of other competitors so and also pharmacies receive no help with their rental no help with the electronic systems and staff so we are not publicly giving them money for that so the goodwill and there is no goodwill as you said in general practice okay thank you I just checked something and I think it was just a turn of phrase that Dr Simpson used because he's made a lot of good points he spoke about a failure in these regulations can I just clarify something do these regulations strengthen the position of dispensing GPs in remote and rural areas I can answer that the cabinet secretary has listened and listened with concern about what has been coming through the parliament what's been coming through communities and people riding in and he was most insistent that this became a priority for us to address how we strengthen these dispensing doctor practices and that is the purpose of the regulation helpful I mean it's just I think it's just to get clarity so there's not a failure in these regulations Dr Simpson others might think there may be an opportunity to go further whether just now or at a later date even if these are reviewed at a later date but this strengthens the position of dispensing GPs and I think that's lost a little bit in relation to some of the the dynamics there he used the word Professor Scott balance can I agree with that and the word commercialism has been used quite a lot as well because GPs practices are commercial concerns as are community pharmacies and I agree with additional protection in certain circumstances but you can also effectively providing a commercial monopoly to one business against another is that maybe one of the reasons why you went for three years because it is quite a big thing to say for all the right reasons to give a commercial monopoly to one commercial interest to exclude other commercial interests was that a concern when you went for for three years that is one of the concerns where you may get a new housing estate or some new use of land which could effectively alter that balance and therefore we have to keep looking at that but the other thing I would say is we were very conscious as we've said before the national health service is a public service and regardless of any commercial activity our requirement within the NHS is to provide an environment for cooperation and so one of the aspects we looked in here is with the clinical pharmacist working with the GP surgery is to try and strengthen that cooperation just as we are doing in the wider pharmacy and GP community on clinical pharmacist you mentioned clinical pharmacist in theory with the stop community pharmacist making that relationship with with the GP practices in remote and rural areas either are they excluded from doing that we can use pharmacists who are employed in any aspect but the one thing we must do is to ensure we're not providing some perverse incentive so we have to ensure that that pharmacist in their activity is about the patient and not about any thing that their employer would want in terms of commercialism okay so it's whoever's best place to provide it in in that area perhaps now sustainable financial sustainability is a key criteria now I'm now not talking about GPs per se my colleague Gil Patterson's business experience I don't but I suspect if you ask a remote or rural dispensing dispensing GP is your dispensing pharmacy vital to your sustainability every single one will say yes because if they don't have a monopoly on that they will lose money but losing money doesn't necessarily make a GP's practice not sustainable it means they have less money so how do you get the balance between commercial self-interest and what is sustainable how's that teased out I think I would like to bring Mr Thomson in at this stage I think it's important to to to note that dispensing income for GPs is never intended to cross subsidise the delivery of core services that's in our statement of financial entitlement and that's the directions which are the financial basis for this we do know that that is not what plays out on the ground and I think it's important that we do recognize that even if the rules state something slightly different and I think in terms of balancing the the commercial interests of both parties that's why we've drawn the regulations in such a tight way with a very specific set of criteria for controlled localities so it is remote and rural there is a GP dispensing doctor there but we do recognise there will be tensions and as has played out previously and will play out under the new regulations so there will always be this argument as to as to who is who's commercial interests are best served clarify something about the effect of a controlled locality whereas like monopoly have been used I just wanted to make sure that the understanding is correct a controlled locality designation doesn't mean necessarily that a pharmacist application won't be granted what it does do is the existing test of necessity or desirability will still apply and then in addition to that the PPC the NHS board will look at whether granting that application could prejudice existing provision of primary medical and pharmaceutical services in the controlled locality if they decide that that application won't create any prejudice then they can grant the application so a controlled locality doesn't necessarily mean that a pharmacy applicates so that's about striking the balance that very help is a much more new explanation which has helped me understand it was my lack of understanding and that's helpful mr thompson it's quite helpful be put on the record that there's no cross subsidy there so for me this is more about how how we retain gps in certain localities who might decide to relocate elsewhere so it's retention of a individuals who may for whatever reason decide to relocate elsewhere but it's not about making the delivery of primary healthcare affordable the dispensing part of the business because there is no cross subsidies I find that quite helpful as well I think the final question that I want to ask convener is in relation to this controlled area because one of the things that sometimes a community pharmacy might bring to an area and I'm a city msp I have to say so I don't know the nuances of the dynamics in remote and rural areas is sometimes you don't just get a pharmacist you might actually get someone selling a loaf of bread and a pint of milk in other words they could be other social concerns in that outlet so there could actually be a a regenerative dynamic to a dispensing pharmacist within a community out with the a gps dispensing area is that something that would be considered as part of the overall package should a should a community pharmacist seek to go in the pharmacy to go listen to an area of these concerns that are are these issues that would be looked at in the round I think the main concern for the NHS would be the national health services that would be provided I understand the bigger picture no further questions thank you very much thank you Richard Lyle do you want back in yes can you any thanks um can I welcome the comments made by professor bill scott in regards to safeguarding and the strengthens the situation but like others I've received a couple emails and I want to refer to one I'm not named the person who actually a doctor who sent it to me but I'll basically suggesting that the proposed legislation says nothing about how commercial pharmacies will be sanctioned if the promises they enter into where the health board are not fulfilled how would these people be sanctioned if they don't fulfill the promises they make yes present we do actually have systems within the NHS where if a contractor does not provide the service that's required they can be taken to a disciplinary committee and further to that if a patient or the board itself is not satisfied they can refer that pharmacist to the general pharmaceutical council the regulator and that could have severe consequences so it doesn't need to necessarily be in this legislation is there are other acts of laws or other procedures that can be invoked against pharmacies who don't fulfill their duties yeah that's fine thank you can you uh gill partisan you know it's in regards to some of the questions that's been raised in regards to tupi and so we need to ask a couple of questions they'll try and round them all together and get a feedback on it I take it that someone that's employed for the dispensing gp is employed solely by that individual and that the health service have no participation in that whatever would that be right that is correct unless it's a member of staff who are actually being employed by the board to work within that practice right that doesn't apply in this case so these these so there's no input by the the health service and the number of people that are employed in that location or who they are or what they are would that be right I think um and David can back me up but these are commercial businesses right and it's for them to determine who they're employing and how those staff are used not the NHS so in other words that uh they're not they're not working in the public sector they're actually working in the private sector so therefore if if that be the case then they would be covered by employment law just like the business that I own I'm uncovered by a by a employment law that I need to adhere to which would mean that the employer me or the doctor would be the person that's responsible for any redundancy and in any circumstance that the that business closes down for whatever reason I'm sorry I don't feel qualified to answer that question it would be extremely worthwhile no it may be I mean I think it has been an issue it has been raised but it is we are in a you know employment law now and there would need to be an arrangement and indeed I think the message that we're getting here that the national health service would would would not be expected to incur any additional costs as a result of any change in delivery of the service and of course if to be applied then the national health service would need to take on the liability of those tens of years of employment and then as a consequence in any future redundancy they would become liable for you know so you know it's pretty complex and you know whether it could apply suppose it could apply if it was being presented to some sort of takeover but I think we've had the message that the the national health service here in Scotland is not going to incur any additional costs as a result of these arrangements on the ground is that the position nor should the transfer of any staff from one private sector to the other would be for the private sector and we regard community pharmacy in that respect as a private employer okay is there any additional question scale I think we've got one more for Richard Simpson Aileen did you want to know okay yes it's about the consultation process the new consultation process now whereas previously it was the applicant who was required to consult the community it's now a consultation process which has to be agreed between the board and the applicant and there have been concerns expressed to me about the fact that it's it's it's there is not appear to be a role either for the GP's practice itself which is obviously going to be affected nor for the community one of the problems we've had is gps have encouraged their communities to need I go on and the witnesses will know exactly what I'm talking about and that's fair enough but I think I'm just concerned that we again it's not a failure as Bob Doris has suggested I was saying I very much welcome these regulations but I do think again you know they haven't really addressed the issue of how the community can be involved in in ascertaining that the process that is proposed in consultation is one that they subscribe to because I can see foresee a situation in which the board and the applicant agree consultation goes out but community whether or not encouraged by anybody else actually say I'm sorry we don't think this process is reasonable or fair we don't think it's correct so who is going to uh how are you going to get the community involved in agreeing this should the board be required in any guidance to consult the community council who are the named person who put up the named person eventually um if you could just explain that a little bit further to me um and I have I'm sorry that's not my last question all right as we know health boards of a general duty to ensure that any consultations which they undertake are consistent with the Scottish health council guidelines and as we produce our guidelines we shall be looking to address some of those concerns and I do take the point that we have to make sure that we differentiate propaganda from fact my last question it really arises from the comment by Katie Richards that the I've forgotten the word now protected practice of the designated localities or whatever it is that that actually doesn't give any protection because there can still be an application made for any area in Scotland and that is a slight concern because although there's a three-year now designated locality any application can be made and there is then an assessment as to what effect it might have on the practice but there is as far as I can see in the regulations and I may be wrong they are quite detailed there is no requirement on the board to have any discussions or investigation of the practice to determine what the potential effect might be before the process actually starts so does our can Katie Richards explain to me if you're a designated locality an application comes in is there a requirement now on the board to go and talk to the practice and say right well we've received this application you're protected locality you know what effect will this have on you if we proceed with this application and I make this comment convener and this question because my other concern is that there is the is the basic fallacy that is not being addressed here either which David Thompson has alluded to and that is that we know very well that there is cross subsidy and he has said that now on the record so although the intention is that there shouldn't be that business of general practice has a has a wholeness to it has a holistic view which includes its dispensing with its costs and its any any money that they they get into the practice from it so I really have a serious concern that we haven't got this right I hope we have Mr Doris I hope we have but I still have this concern so I wonder if that I think could be addressed because there hasn't been a review of the effect of our previous regulations on practices which I've asked for we've had a very good question answer session here Richard and I want the witnesses to respond I think in the back of that Gil you want to ask so could we could we have a response from Katie Richards and the others that the question was directly put yes well as I said before I think the idea of the controlled locality is to increase the protection that is given to a dispensing GP it introduces a further layer of scrutiny that boards can look at in relation to existing primary medical services which didn't apply under the old regulations so that's a new thing in terms of how ppc might assess the effect on a practice I think it's about going back to this new joint consultation process if you look regulation 5a which introduces this new concept there's specific questions that the community is asked to provide views on one of which is the potential for pharmaceutical services provided by the applicant to impact on existing NHS services so it would be for a dispensing GP to write in any members of the community who had relevant views there and after the consultation has finished a consultation analysis report will be created which will summarise the responses and the ppc then have to look at that when they're determining an application so that would be my response to that part. Mr Thomson to see you just in terms of the dispensing income and the potential obviously we recognize that dispensing income might have become part of the business planning model for a number of practices and when a practice is having to withdraw or reduce a patient service as a result of the loss of dispensing income and the continuation of that service is considered to be necessary for the community we expect that the health board and the practice are in discussion to put a properly funded contractual arrangement for that so that's the thing at the back of that as well so do you recognise the situation as you're saying? Can I thank the witnesses for their attendance this morning and longer than expected session and extended questions and answers can I thank you all for your attendance this morning thank you very much indeed we now move to agenda item number five which is petition PE 1492 um which was referred to last week by uh referred to referred to last week by the public petitions committee and of course this relates to the evidence we have just taken and to the SSI that we will consider formally later uh in the meeting uh there is a paper as committee members will be aware of which suggests that uh ultimately we can close the petition or indeed allow it to remain open and returning to the issue later in the parliamentary session and I invite uh comments from committee members as to their view of of the paper before us bob thanks convener I was yeah a lot of the issues or themes raised within this but i've just had a question answer session which which very much relates relates to it but I suspect there's also another piece of work that this committee is doing and obviously we discussed our work plan in private in normal circumstances but I would expect we will be looking at prescription for excellence again going forward in the future which is very much about the new relationship and dynamic between dispensing gps clinical pharmacists community pharmacists and how we can better meet the needs of of patients and constituents who are who are not getting the pharmaceutical care that we'd like them to get currently I was wondering convener that said if rather than close the petition or do a specific piece of work on this if when the next time we do scrutinise prescription for excellence we might think about how we can incorporate some of these themes within our evidence sessions so that would be my that would be my suggestion it's an alternative view no can we say that we will then allow the petition to remain open and it will be a focus on future discussions on prescription for excellence is everyone agreed thank you we then move to agenda item number six which is subordinate legislation and we have two negative instruments today the first instrument is the national health service pharmaceutical services scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2014 ssi 2014 148 there has been no motion to annull and the delegated powers and law reform committee has not made any comments on the instrument are there any comments from the members there are no comments is the committee agreed therefore to make no recommendations thank you the second instrument is the national health service superannuation scheme scotland miscellaneous amendments regulations 2014 ssi 2014 154 there again there has been no motion to annull the delegated powers and law reform committee has drawn the instrument to the attention of the parliament the and the details are outlined in your papers as the committee agreed to make no recommendation well agreed thank you for that and can i suggest that we suspend briefly at this point while we set up for the minister on our agenda item number seven thank you we now move to the seventh item on the agenda today which is subordinate legislation and we have one affirmative instrument before us which is the national confidential forum prescribed care and health services scotland order 2014 draft as usual with affirmative instruments we'll have an evidence taken session with the minister and his officials on the instrument once we've had all of our questions answered we will then have the formal debate on the motion and can i welcome the minister for public health and his officials michael matheson ailsa garland principal legal officer food health and community care and sue moody survivor scotland team care support and rights division scotland government welcome to you all and can i give the minister an opportunity to make an opening statement thank you convener for a chance to say a few words about this order this order sets out what a care or health service means for the purposes of eligibility to take part in the national confidential forum you may recall that at stage two of the bill i made a commitment to the committee that we would aim to offer the opportunity to take part in the forum to as many people as possible who were in institutional care as children in scotland this meets that commitment and we have sought to prescribe as broader range of care and health services as possible we've also tried to reflect the different types of care and health services that have existed over the last 80 years we want to make sure that everyone alive today who was in institutional care as a child at any time can take part in the forum the order makes no distinction between private and public providers of institutional care nor does it distinguish between arrangements made by the state and private arrangements made by families this is again designed to enable as many people as possible who were in institutional care as children to participate regardless of their circumstances the order potentially includes services that were not designed exclusively or mainly for children we know that children in the past have been placed in adult facilities including prisons and poor law institutions the order prescribes in article two health services provided in a hospital an independent clinic or a sanatorium it also prescribes a range of care services in article three which members can find on page two of the order the prescribed services in the order need to be read alongside the conditions set out in the 2003 act relating to eligibility to participate in the forum so for example one of the conditions is that the care or health service included residential accommodation for children I've reiterated that the intention is to include a wide range of services to make the forum as accessible as possible and I'm more than happy to answer any points that the committee wish to raise. Thank you minister we're now open for questions from the committee do we have any questions for the minister? Just on the comment the minister made about residential care what happens to those who weren't in residential care do they still have rights to access? Well you may recall it stage one at stage two we had a discussion around issues relating to for example kinship care etc and we had some work undertaken by Celsus to consider this issue and it was a very low response to their consultation whether settings out with an institutional setting should be included in the national confidential forum and given the findings that was decided it wouldn't be appropriate for the national confidential forum to include what would be considered to be residential settings so that's why the national confidential forum is focused on institutional settings and of course there are a scope for anybody who's in a residential setting to raise concerns with the appropriate authorities but the national confidential forum was focused on residential settings right from the very outset and that's how the time to be heard pilot was established as well. Okay I'm just thinking of schools and the like. Well so long as it's got a residential element to it yes it's included in the care definition has been set in the order. Okay but not an ordinary school? No normal it doesn't have a residential setting no. Any other questions bob Doris? Just very briefly Minister I was just having a look at the consultation and I see with 450 stakeholders it was quite a substantial consultation exercise undertaken but the notes we have said in terms of the number of replies but 12 substantive replies is the note that I got I'm just wondering if there was any particular reason why it was such a low substantive replies yes but quite a low number of replies that come into the consultation. Do you refer to the Celsus consultation work? Yeah I've got under the policy note that it says 450 stakeholders including survivors, supporter organisations, child health commissioners, service providers and purchasers, academics and I could go on at list several and it says there were 12 respondents to that it doesn't my note doesn't specifically tell me that it was Celsus it may very well be but that's what's in the policy note Minister. It may be in terms of the actual orders themselves in general I think it's a reflection of general support from what's been set out in the actual orders the Celsus consultation which maybe a separate part not sure if it's the same figures would also have a very low return and actually a significant portion of those who returned the response that weren't the support of kinship care etc being included or foster care being included in the national confidential forum. That's helpful thank you very much. There are no other questions we now then move to agenda item number eight which is the formal debate on the affirmative SSI in which we are just taking taking evidence and I refer to my earlier warning that we are now the difference between questions in debate and we've done that on a previous item so I don't feel there's any need to do that again. Can I now invite the minister to move motion S4M10414 please. Thank you. As we are now in the debate do any of the members wish to contribute to the debate? No. I don't think the minister will feel the need then to sum up. Okay can I now then put the question on the motion the question is that health and sport committee recommends that the national confidential forum prescribed care and health services Scotland order 2014 draft be approved. Are we all approved? Agreed. Thank you. Can I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance at this session and we're just going to take a moment till we turn round and of course the minister is staying for our agenda item number nine food Scotland bill so we'll just take a moment to spend for a moment. We now move to agenda item nine and our final evidence session on the food Scotland bill. We welcome again the minister for public health Michael Matheson and his officials Morris Fraser, bill team leader and Lindsay Anderson Solicitor Scottish Government. Welcome to you all. You're not going to make us say we're going right to questions. Yeah that's fine. Do you go straight to questions if you wish to? Right good. We go. Who's got the first? No questions minister. The net millon. We were nearly out there. Thanks Camino. It's just looking at this quote from the financial memorandum bill which says the financial grant provided to FSS will exceed that. Currently provided the FSA in Scotland by approximately five million to compensate for the extra roles that FSS will now have presumably taking on board the activities that have been taken out of the FSA south of the border. Anyway the intention is to have the increase offset through a financial transfer from FSA UK wide budget to the Scottish Government to represent the activities which will now be delivered in Scotland rather than a UK basis. Yeah I think I've got that right myself now. And the level of the financial transfer is the subject of ongoing negotiations. I just wondered if you have any information as to how those negotiations are going on. I mean anecdotally I've been told they're proving a little bit difficult but I don't know if there's a time set from that or what the current situation is. Obviously funding given by the Scottish Government directly to the FSA in Scotland but there's also funding that goes from that that goes into the UK central pot for providing functions to Scottish ministers and some of the negotiations which are taking place just now are around some of that money being repatriated and drawn back. Negotiations are at a very advanced stage. I'm confident we'll get to a point of agreement on the final outcome from that but it's essentially monies which have gone from the Scottish Government into funding aspects of the FSA at a UK level to provide certain functions to us that we're in negotiations with and they've got three office bases over which that's covered so I'm confident we'll get to a point of agreement on that. I mean I heard anecdotally these haven't been very straightforward negotiations I don't know if there's any comment you can make on that or not. I think they've been straightforward in terms of just within machinery of government. I don't think there's been any particular difficulties with or more than as you'd always expect negotiations. Different positions being taken but I'm confident we'll get to a point of agreement that we are satisfied reflects what we think is an appropriate amount that should be returned to the Scottish budget for it. Thank you. Thank you. Whatever the financial arrangements I think we heard in evidence and you've probably seen that that the other important factor is not to disturb too much the networks and the exchange information, the whole issue of research as well which were things that were highlighted in our evidence so how is that progressing to ensure that we don't cause too much disruption and then we can still use all of these important networks that evidence says we should be maintained? Yeah we're making good progress with that we've had a you know from the very outset we've had a very good working relationship with FSA at a UK level since the decision was made to establish the FSA and to maintain a good partnership with them and there are aspects that they're keen to maintain with us because there's areas of research and expertise in Scotland that they want to continue to be able to make use of and we're keen to work with them. It also puts up some opportunities for us as well at a European level which would normally be filtered through the London office which the FSS will be able to tap into directly themselves so there's potentially some new opportunities for us going forward around areas such as research but also what we're also doing is developing a memorandum of understanding with the FSA around accessing and sharing expertise and information between the different agencies so in general there's actually been a very cordial and a very good relationship right from the very outset and looking to maintain and to support access to relevant bodies of expertise that we have here in Scotland and that they also have within the FSA in the rest of the UK. In terms of the opportunities will we be competing with the UK agency for European research funding or does that happen now? Most of it will be taken forward on a corporate basis by the FSA at a UK level. There is obviously areas of expertise in Scotland so for example around shell fisheries Scotland is from a world perspective seen as a leading authority in that area and quite a bit of that research was then passed to the Scottish office to conduct on their behalf but there will also been opportunity for the FSS from an operational point of view to consider where they wish to carry out other areas of specific research and for them to then consider how they wish to fund that, where they use that within their own resources, where they look at tapping into other international resources, particularly at a new level which is available to them, that opportunity will be there in a way which isn't there for the same for the FSA office in Aberdeen at present time because of the corporate nature and the way in which the FSA operates across the UK. I'm just wondering whether that would disturb the relationships if you're actually competing for European funds with the UK body? I don't think that it would be a case of competing, it's about utilising expertise so areas of the UK agency feel they've got an expertise and money is allocating the basis of where expertise is in these matters and the quality of the research. I wouldn't say that it's being competition but it will allow, for example, the FSS to look at areas where it wants to build up its expertise and to, as it sees fit, to apply for any funding that it thinks might be appropriate for that. But it's based upon expertise and the quality of the research that will be undertaken. It's more about the issues that we hear constantly that joint submissions and there's no single point of particular expertise about how to pursue funding, how what issues would be suitable for research and the main thrust of all of that was keeping that network pretty tight, more about joint submissions rather than, I don't think we had any evidence that the opportunity for many of the people that we had that there would be an opportunity to go away on our own researching. We didn't seem to have that evidence when I said that but you know that's why it's the first. There'd be absolutely no reason why the FSS and the FSA couldn't make a joint submission for the purpose of actually pursuing research. Yeah, absolutely none whatsoever. It's the first time we've heard about the opportunities that an evidence that may be there for our research institutions to be working on their own. It wasn't in any of the submissions or indeed it was the opposite of that. I can't comment in terms of the view that there'd be no reason why, for example, a university in Scotland in a particular field who wants to do a piece of research with the FSS wouldn't be in a position not to look at taking that forward with them. They can do that now? They can do it but it's more limited in terms of the type of work that they can actually do because of the corporate nature of the FSA and how it carries its research out. Richard Lyle? Oh, Rhoda, sorry, I've got Rhoda on the list first. Just a supplementary question on the finances. We had evidence as things stand in the financial memorandum is okay but there is scope in the bill to increase the duties on food standards Scotland and let's talk about nutrition and diet and the like. Will further resources become available if the scope of the agency is increased? So if there's in the bill on the basis that if there was a view at some point we should provide additional responsibilities to the FSS that we've got the legislative framework which allows that to happen so we're creating the footprint however there would have to be a reason for doing it committing any additional responsibilities to the FSS going forward including looking at the evidence base for doing that, the justification for doing that and also what the cost implications for that would be as well. So the due process it would be gone through including look at any cost implications before any additional duties were undertaken by the FSS going forward so because we aren't extending their role significantly there was no need for any additional resource at the present time but if that changed in the future we would have to look at the financial implications that it could have for the FSS. Can I turn to the board? We took evidence on the make-up of the board. It seemed to be a general consensus around the fact that three would be far too small. I'm wondering if you've had thoughts about the size of the board, the make-up of the board, whether industry representatives should be on the board or as many people have said to us that people should be independent of industry on the board and also of trade union recognition as base for trade union reps on the board. Have you had any thoughts about that? In terms of the board numbers, it's a minimum of four, a maximum of eight. That broadly reflects what we have for our organisation of that size, which are non-ministerial led organisations. Oscar, for example, the housing regulator all have a minimum of four, a maximum of eight. We obviously have some of our bigger boards, like SIPA-bigger organisations, have a higher number, they've got to 10. Is it a 10? A minimum of five? A minimum of five, but they're much bigger organisations in Scottish Enterprise. So we've, I think the board numbers are broadly reflective of an organisation of its size. I think four would be, if it dropped down to four it would be too low, but we would want to maintain it up at a higher level, closer to date as possible. That's about just managing on-going board numbers. In relation to the makeup of the board itself, you know, this is a consumer protection organisation and it's important that the representatives on the board have a clear commitment to that responsibility and taking forward the FSS's objectives in seeking to achieve that outcome as well. The board membership should be one which reflects that, but members, rather than going for a sectorial approach to something from that sector and that sector, it should be based upon their ability to contribute to achieving that objective and their expertise and knowledge that can assist in the FSS achieving its outcomes. On the final point about the issue of trade union membership, the process for public appointments to a board of this nature is to the public appointments process, the commission for ethical standards in public life, which will apply to this in any other way, but I would expect the FSS to have good industrial relations in the same way the FSA have and to have a structure in place that allows those union representatives to be able to engage fully within the processes that they have as an organisation. But would it not be the case that if there was a room-fence trade union place on the board that that would enhance trade union relations as part of the board and is that not common place in other boards? No, it is not common place in other boards, but the board is being constructed in the same way that it is for any other public body. For example, we have within our health boards, we have employee directors who are trade union representatives that have a responsibility for engaging in the process, but with the board structure, the processes that the board and the chief executive look to put in place, I would expect to reflect maintaining and supporting good industrial relations and to make sure trade unions have a strong voice and a role to play in helping to shape and manage your organisation going forward. Once the board is in place, they can then look at how to best achieve that. Okay, but do you want legislate to make sure that that happens? It is not contained within the bill. We have constructed it in the same way as we have for other public appointment boards and it will be done on the basis of an open public appointment process. You have supplementary in that. You should clarify something that the minister said, because I mean that the bill says no fewer than three nor more than seven. You mentioned the figure four. Will that be written into the legislation? Do you want to just clarify, I think? Yes. The food standard is four, so it is a person appointed as the chair, so I think that that is what the minister is referring to. Yes, three plus one and seven plus one. Actually, Rhoda Grant has asked a question. I was going to ask, but can I just explore and I take the point about trade unions, but basically within the FSS you would, if we really want to add people from that division, you talk about environmental health officers or someone from the society in order to be on the board. After the bill is passed, we will advertise, do interviews and who will select the people on the board? Will it be officers or cabinet secretary or even yourself, minister? The process will be the same process that is set down by the commission for ethical standards and public life. That is that they will conduct a process, which is an open and transparent process that goes out to public advertisement. It would involve an interview panel and then it would involve making recommendations to ministers on who should be appointed to the board. So, as it is for the present board of the FSA, so the FSA's appointment has come to, it's actually a shared responsibility. All four ministers who are responsible for the FSA in the UK have to agree to appointments to the board and for the FSS it will be the same process. So it will be an open, transparent, fully comply with the commission for ethical standards and public life and appointments will be made on the recommendation from the interview panel. Through you, convener, I certainly don't doubt that. Again, the interest part over the last couple of sessions is the interest on who would be on the board. At the end of the day, there are various firms who don't want to see someone from another firm on the board, but basically we have well respected people who in the past have been consulted in regards to food, Professor Pennington etc. Basically, would it be people of high standard who are there to ensure that Scottish food and drink is the best in the world and to ensure that that high standard is kept, so we would ensure that whatever we draw from and whatever interviews are made and that the best people are on this board? Is that the intention that you have? It's certainly the intention. It's down to individuals to choose obviously to apply to be a member of the board, but as I said at the outset, this is a consumer protection organisation and the board members should be reflective of that type of approach and that they should have an origin expertise that can assist in achieving the objectives of the FSS, which again have to be submitted to Parliament. I want the best people as possible on the board. It will then be down to who applies in for the interview panel to then make recommendations to ministers with the objective of individuals who can achieve the objective of what the FSS is and that is a consumer protection organisation. Bob Doris. Thank you, convener. Just a couple of brief questions. Alen, a question which was pursued with some quick constructive answers from industry. I think that Tesco had a representative here was in relation to testing that particularly large supermarkets, but a whole range of those in the sector would do. Now following the horse meat scandal, I think a number of large providers, Tesco included, are now voluntarily putting much more of their testing regime in the public domain for everyone to see. I'm just wondering how consistent that is across all such players within industry. And whether or not the Government is minded to have some kind of voluntary code around that, because I noticed that there's no statutory obligation within the bill to compel that at present and where does the balance sit between working with industry and the sector to get. First of all, not just to see the results of tests, but just to work in partnership to provide support to make sure that there's an intelligent risk-based approach, informed risk-based approach to testing. So some more information on that would be good in terms of the voluntary basis, a potential voluntary code or the need for any statutory moves in relation to that. It would be helpful if I give a wee bit of background to some of the stuff around the horse meat fraud issues, because I was obviously involved in that. Although it wasn't a public health issue, it was a food labelling issue, so I was involved because of my responsibility to the FSA in Scotland. One of the challenges at that particular point was that retailers were conducting testing, but the testing wasn't routinely shared with the FSA. And during the course of the horse meat scandal, it was put to the retail industry that would be helpful if that testing was shared with the FSA in order to have a clearer understanding of what their own findings were. That was agreed in a voluntary basis. That information, when it was appropriate, was then placed in the public domain at that particular point. Now some of the retailers have a system in place where they give some indication as to the outcomes from some of the testing that they conduct. In terms of the policy going forward in that matter, whether there should be a mandatory scheme or not, that would be for the FSS to advisers. If the FSS, from a policy perspective, advised ministers that we should move this on to a statutory footing, we would then have to consult on that matter and then consider how we then take that forward as a Government. The FSS's role will be, as is the FSA's role just now, to advise ministers on what we should do in this area. Should it be a voluntary scheme? Should it be a mandatory scheme? If so, what should it look like? For us then to respond to that and to look at taking that forward through a consultation process. I think that you raised an important point about the relationship between the industry and the food safety body, such as the FSA or the FSS, which is extremely important. There is a balance to be struck by how effective they feel that placing that type of information can be useful in terms of driving forward consumer protection or whether there is a more appropriate way in which that can be achieved. However, how that ultimately is taken forward is a matter for the FSS to advisers as a Government. If they recommend to us that that is their job, they should advise them to inform us and to do that in an open way. If they are saying that they should be putting a statutory footing, then we would then consult and look at how that could be taken forward. Okay, thank you. That is very helpful. I have another area of question. Is there any more from my colleagues? I mean, just on the food inspection, we had some, you know, because we raised that with some of our panels because we had an evidence session from a visit to Aberdeen fish processors, and they explained to us the level inspection from the various supermarkets very high, whereas local authority was maybe once a year, but there was a lot of regulation going on there, so we were asking some questions about, you know, there is a lot, you know, a regulation inspection that already goes on. Of course, the counter view to that was that whereas the independence here and the importance of the ability, whether that be co-located in Scotland or whatever, you know, rather than the responsibility of individual small councils, but the importance of independent testing and inspection, I do not know where you wish to comment on any of that, given that lots of local authorities, given the situation, are withdrawn from some of those services of inspection and regulation. Well, I think that you've raised a good issue and a good point, because one of the, of course, the FSAs it stands at the present moment as a confident authority does have a level of work that it does with local authorities and tries to provide and provides them with a level of guidance and structure around some aspects of testing that they should be considering, but there is independence at a local level and how they take that forward in a practical basis. Moving forward with the FSAs, again it would be an operational matter for them. I think there is an opportunity to explore how some of that testing regime is taking forward, whether there is scope to look at having some, a greater level of it, taking forward at a national level and what aspects should also then be left to local responsibilities. I think there is an opportunity to look at that relationship between the local and the FSAs once it's established on whether there should be an element of centralised testing that's undertaken rather than being left to local discretion and that would be something that would obviously the FSAs would have to discuss and explore with their counterparts and local authorities, but I think there is an issue in there that merits further consideration and that's something I would imagine that the new FSAs would want to consider. Also raised some of the questions, I think it was previously with Bob and others in the discussion of some of the panel, the issue between food hygiene and safety and quality and the labelling regime or indeed when it's mislabelled the question of, I think we've got a strong message from Arsie Anderson that one of our recent sessions that we shouldn't be wasting good food, we should really, you know, so by the consequences of finding something that's mislabelled, it's pork, not beef, but there's nothing wrong with that and what, you know, how we dispose of it and I don't know whether the minister wants to speak to any of these issues that are being tested in our evidence sessions. I think, you know, obviously the food and drink industry is of tremendous value to the Scottish economy and it's of interest to have a very robust and clear regulatory regime in place for food safety and for food quality given that in general Scottish food has been of a high quality. If you go back to the horse meat issue as well, the reason was that a public health issue is because it was a labelling. It wasn't by consuming horse meat that you would do any harm to your health, it's that the label didn't say it contained horse meat, so it was fraud on that basis given that the product contained something that wasn't in the label and what we're doing with the bill as well of course is taking forward some of the recommendations that were made by Professor Jim Scuddemore and his team who reviewed the horse meat incident to make recommendations around, for example, being able to take forward robust action if there is an issue around mislabelling to ensure that there is appropriate action taken swiftly in these matters and some of the regulatory powers that enforcement officers will have will allow them to deal with those types of things more robustly, so I think there's a need to make sure that the public can have confidence in what the labels say on products that that's what it actually contains, balanced against a reasonable testing regime as well, but also having the necessary enforcement powers in order to make sure that action can be taken quickly and robustly if it's necessary if there's an issue around mislabelling of products. We heard, I think, just recently, last week about the European regulations that are already in the system, the food information to consumers regulations, you don't intend to go beyond any of those regulations, do you, or, I see Mr Fraser nodding? Yeah, well these go a bit further than what's contained in them. There's also a timeframe around the European regulations in terms of their enforcement point, which is not clear yet, so there's an issue around that, but we are taking it a bit further in terms of responsibility that if you might not be selling the product, but if you believe that there may be an element of mislabelling, then you have a responsibility to report as well, so that comes off the back of the host meat scandal, which was recommended as being a way of helping to drive forward improvement and clear responsibility in reporting areas where you suspect that there may be a mislabelling, so if you are a distributor, you might not be able to produce a bit. If you're a distributor and you believe that there is an issue around mislabelling, then you have a legal responsibility to report that. If that's too good to be true, then you've got a responsibility to pass that and tell us yourself. So that would go beyond the regulations? That goes, that goes a bit wider than what's actually set out in the European regulations. So are there any other elements of that that are just that element that's? Principally just that element, and the issue we have around there's still a lack of clarity around the timeframe, I don't know if we've, what is this? The timeframe is likely to be roughly the same as ours, right? So there's not very much difference. I think that the committee may have had evidence that there might be a perception of duplication across the two, but there very clearly isn't that the duplication is not there that our bill brings for the duty to report to the central authorities that you think something's gone on. That's an intelligence gathering tool to try and clamp down. Whereas what the food information regulations are doing is if you know something, then you ought to tell your supplier and to your supplying it, not the authorities. It was an issue that was raised with the manufacturer experience because they are producing pallets of prepared food and fish going to Norwich and all over the UK and they were anxious that any changes in labour requirements that wouldn't harm their business, but you've given the assurance that there will be no requirement to. The one thing to perhaps give assurance on is that the authorised officers have powers not only to detain and seize and offer the course opportunity to destroy, but simple relabeling, recomposition, these can all be done, so the food need not be wasted just because a label has found to be wrong. The authorised authorities have the power to ask people to take certain action and that might just be to relabel so that food wouldn't be wasted. I think that most of the questions that I was going to explore, convener, has absolutely nailed the things that had to be asked. Just for a little bit of clarity in relation to food fraud, where it's a deliberate labelling fraud, would the option be there not just to seize the food? I said wrongly destroy, I was comparing it to hooky goods, if you like, that might or might not get destroyed. Could the order be to pass it on to food banks or to charities or to whatever? I want to sound too heavy-handed in some elements of industry, which I'm sure are a minority, but if it's a blatant food fraud, I mean blatant because you're getting something at 50p for 500 grams or whatever rather than 4.99, then it's a blatant fraudulent activity. I don't mind if they're not allowed to relabel that food, I'm quite content for that food to go somewhere else as long as it's commensurate with the scale of the fraud. Is that power there to redirect healthy but fraudulent food to elsewhere? I think the enforcement officer's got broadly two options here. One is that they can obviously take a fixed penalty there, they can actually enforce the same look. You can't move that anywhere until we've done further investigations into this matter and it may then be they come back and say you're going to have to relabel this product to make it correct because what's contained in their packet doesn't constitute what's in the label. The other option is that it could be referred to the procreate of Frisco and it would go to a sheriff, a sheriff court, who then determine what should happen to the food. So Rana has been able to say that the food should go to a food bank or something like that. If the sheriff was to determine that, depending on the nature of it, that would be a matter for the court spirits. It will depend on what the nature of the food fraud is and the type of product that you're dealing with as well because, particularly around perishable goods, there's a very limited timeframe and, as you know, with food banks, they don't really use perishable goods to a great extent for obvious reasons. I actually didn't ask exactly where it was going to go, convener. One of the questions that I asked one of the first evidence sessions was if you're a, and I apologize for concentrating in retailers with that, if you like that's the public phase, you don't always see the food chain behind it all. If it's a small independent retailer, one shop, maybe two shops, and whether they've done it's deliberate fraud or otherwise, let's say it's deliberate fraud, and there's a fine scale on that. Let's pick Tesco because I've actually completed Tesco for what they're now doing, so I just picked them randomly. There's Tesco metros right across Scotland, so one similar infringement in one Tesco metro right across Scotland, sorry for singling them out. The footprint of Tesco across the whole of Scotland is far more substantial than that small independent retailer. Can the fine scale be flexible enough or in the future could it be flexible enough to recognise the extent of the tradable business across Scotland for an infringement by a corporation? What important part will be is depending on who's committed the fraud. So, if a product is found in a shop independent or part of a retail chain, there has to mean investigation into who committed the fraud and where that responsibility may lie, and obviously then appropriate measures would be taken. I know that the Lord Advocate is also I think indicated to the committee that he's prepared to make his information and advice available to, I think, prior to stage two around about the advice that they'll be giving around the type of fine structure that should be put in place as well, which would be reflective of what the courts would do. So, an important part would be it depends on the scale, who's responsible and the nature of it, which is going to then be reflected on any fine or any criminal action that's taken or any action about criminal activity that's taken against them. Okay, I don't feel so bad for picking at that last retailer because I complimented him earlier on about what we're now doing. In relation to Food Fraud, a retailer's representative last week whose name escapes my apologies, the gentleman was talking about on labelling and Food Fraud was almost deliberately not painting a picture of small independent producers presenting at farmers' markets and labels and things not being labelled correctly in terms of labelling infringements. My understanding is that the bill was not about a yes-minus of bureaucracy around the finer points of labelling, it was more about overt deliberate attempts to defraud the consumer. So, can you give some reassurances in relation to when we talk about labelling and when we talk about Food Fraud, we're not trying to capture someone who may have five ingredients on a label when there's actually six and the six one's not mentioned by omission, not because they're trying to mislead, but just because it's a minor technical, almost bureaucratic oversight. That's not what this bill has in its sights, is it? Is it more about the more blatant, obvious, large-scale labelling fraud? It's about proportionality. So, where it's very clear there has been an attempt or where there's a significant omission that the appropriate measures would then be taken and enforcement officers would expect to. So there's a level of discretion for enforcement officers to determine whether they think that this is significant enough that they need to take some form of robust enforcement action. So, it's about achieving that balance. In terms of how that's taken forward in practical terms, it would be an operational matter for the FSS. But it's not about just trying to pick up in small retails who may have omitted one small point or idea. The problem is that if that one small point is a significant small point, then clearly that would reflect the response that they may get from the enforcement officer. So, that one small point may be that this says that it's getting pork in it when it doesn't, it has beef in it. So, it may just be one point, but it's a significant point. So, there's a level of discretion there which enforcement officers would clearly use in considering any cases that are brought to them. So, for individuals in farmers markets, whether it's a small technical infringement, I would expect enforcement officers to work on a proportionate basis. I think it's fair just to put on the record when we spoke to enforcement officers from local authorities in a couple of different evidence sessions, they were very much taking the view that much of their role isn't necessarily enforcement, it's supporting compliance. I don't have any further questions, but I think it's just important to put on the record that that was teased out and I think your evidence backs up that approach. Richard Lyle. Thank you. Can I ask that it's just come back into my mind? I take it that the FSS will still be based in Aberdeen and understand the head that's moving to Australia. We will be taking the former head of the FSA will be advertising for new staff and how many staff will be employed and I take it that there will be staff throughout the whole of the country based in different areas within Scotland. Can you give us a short resume of what's intended? The FSS will be based in Aberdeen at the FSA's headquarters and the half staff, for example, will have got their meet hygiene inspectors who are based in locations across the country. They'll continue in that basis. Charles Nunn who's the director of the FSA in Scotland is leaving us to go more to Australia. There will obviously be an interim arrangement which the FSA at UK level will wish to put in place with the establishment of the FSS and the process will be put in place for the appointment of a chief executive within the FSS. Although the first important part is to get the board structure in place and to get the board so that that process can be taken forward. So there will be no reduction in staff and there may actually be if there may be an increase in staff. That's the very point I was going to make, that there may be a possibility of an increase in staff to retain the high quality of food that Scotland has a reputation for. All the staff will transfer to the FSS in line with the Cabinet Office agreement on these matters which protects their pensions and all their other entitlements as well. So there'll be no detriment to their terms and conditions by the transfer and there is no need or plan to reduce FSS staff numbers in the creation of the body and if anything I would anticipate there is likely to be a need for a potential increase in some staff depending once the FSS set out their operational plans and how they intend to take the work forward. I don't see any other questions but I think it would be remiss of the Health Committee not saying something about the ambition of the New Food Standards Agency having a greater influence on Scotland's problems in terms of dire obesity and others. At the same time it's bearing in mind all of these other bearing initiatives about duplication and concerns from retailers and suppliers but to the minister I want to put on the record some of these ambitions about the Food Standards Agency having a greater influence on the diet and the health of the Scottish population and how we can achieve that by squaring off some of the retailers and some of the other concerns that are manufactured. One of the things I've been very clear about since the recommendation was made to establish an independent food safety body in Scotland is to take an approach that allows us to maintain the integrity of the work that they undertake at the present moment without potentially compromising in any way and that's why we've taken a what I would say is probably a relatively cautious approach because there have been a lot of organisations out there who have been saying the new body should do x, y and z in addition to it all of which may have a level of merit in it but I think the danger is that you create a new body move to a new body while adding a whole range of different functions they have to then undertake and you potentially then compromise some of its core responsibilities and its core responsibility in particular around consumer protection so the approach I've chosen to take is one which is about protecting the integrity of the consumer protection work that they undertake but to consider where we could add to the role that they can play and the issue around diet and tackle and obesity is an area which the FSA at the present time feels though they've got a greater role to play and contribute towards and what we're doing with the legislation is facilitating that opportunity it's not for them to necessarily take on this clear role but to allow them to work more clearly in a co-ordinated way with the other organisations who are involved in this sector within NHS and other organisations who may have a role to play in the obesity and dietary challenges that we face in Scotland so it's to give them that ability to take that role forward which is one which the FSA feel is important and can be taken forward and the FSS are going to be given that opportunity to do that but as I mentioned earlier on we've tried to draft the legislation in a way which creates the footprint so that some of these other issues that have been raised that the FSS could have responsibility for is that in going forward if there is a good case to do so and in considering that we can consider adding those functions to the FSS in the years to come. I don't have any preconceived idea that it has to be X, Y and Z but we wanted to create a body that could adapt and develop going forward as necessary but I didn't want to get into a situation where we were adding lots of functions that potentially then compromised it and trying to get it self up and established in doing the bit which is important and that is maintaining customer protection and public confidence in the role that they have in conducting that function particularly given the importance of the food industry to Scotland so that's the approach I've chosen to take and the legislation gives us a framework to add as we go forward as and when that's appropriate and if there is a level of agreement that that's what we should do for any particular functions that should undertake in the future. I don't seem to have any further questions minister thank you and your officials for being with us this morning the evidence provided. We now move to agenda item number 10 which we previously agreed would be health and private. Thank you very much.