 Ylé Hamd Covid is a debate on motion number 1148 in the name of Michael Matheson on the food Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak butters now or as soon as possible and I call on Minister Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion. Minister 14 minutes. I'm pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the Food Scotland Bill. I'd like to thank those who gave evidence, both written and in person, as well as the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Finance and the Health and Sport Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. In particular, I welcome their latter support for the general principles of the bill and have recently responded to their stage 1 report. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people in Scotland live longer, healthier lives. Making sure that we eat a good, nutritious diet of safe food is vital to achieving that ambition. Foodborne diseases cause Scotland 140 million pounds per year. More significantly, of the 130,000 consumers contracting foodborne diseases each year, around 2,000 will be hospitalised and around 50 will die. That eating habits are one of the most significant causes of ill health in Scotland and a major factor in obesity. Scotland is positioned near the top of the league tables for obesity amongst OECD countries. The public cost of dealing with obesity could rise to £3 billion per year by 2030. Even relatively minor improvements to the safety and standards of food in Scotland will have significant social and economic benefits. The Food Scotland Bill will give Scotland some of the levers that we can use to tackle those issues. First, the bill creates Food Standard Scotland to be Scotland's independent food safety and standards body. We are currently working to appoint a board and chair of high calibre with the range of experience and skills that are required to guide Food Standard Scotland. We are also in the process of recruiting its first chief executive. Subject to the progress of the bill, we aim to have the chair identified earlier this month with the remainder of the board appointed to a shadow body by the end of November. We hope to have identified the chief executive by the end of this month also. As Food Standard Scotland will be a non-ministerial body operating free from the influence of ministers, the board and chief executive will need sufficient space to prepare and develop their strategic thinking and build key relationships with partners in time for the FSS being up and running in April 2015. Food Standards Scotland's clear objectives, as set out by ministers and Parliament in the bill, will be to develop and help others to develop policies on food and animal feedstuffs, advise the Scottish Government, other authorities and the public on food and animal feedstuffs, to keep the public and users of animal feeding stuffs advised to help them to make informed decisions about food and animal feedstuffs, and to monitor the performance of enforcement authorities in enforcing food legislation. The bill sets out specific duties and associated powers for the new body on acquiring and reviewing information through, carrying out observations and inspections, monitoring developments and carrying out and commissioning and co-ordinating research. The bill also allows the body to set performance standards for enforcement authorities, mainly local authorities, in enforcement of food legislation in Scotland. Once the bill establishes the body, we will constitute it separately, by order, as a non-ministerial office in the Scottish Administration. As such, Food Standards Scotland will be fully accountable to the Scottish Parliament and autonomous from the Scottish Government. Food Standards Scotland will take on all the functions that are currently exercised in Scotland by the Scottish division of the UK-wide Food Standards Agency. The remit of the Scottish division has for some years been wider than the remit south of the border. However, in 2010, the UK Government removed responsibility for labelling and for nutrition policy from the English arm of the Food Standards Agency. In Scotland, we maintained the link between those and food safety. The UK decision was subsequently seen as having been a factor that hindered the UK Government's response to the host meat scandal in 2013. The host meat scandal demonstrated the importance of having a single body with clear responsibility for all aspects of food safety and standards. Indeed, it was the UK Government's decision that led us to review the work of the FSA in Scotland. In March 2012, Professor Jim Scudamore, a former UK chief vet, published his report on the issue. His review concluded that food safety should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling and that advice on those subjects should be independent, evidence-based and consumer focused. Advice on food safety and nutrition should come from a body at arm's length from Scottish ministers. I am sure that the minister is very well aware of the long series of contributions that Harry Burns, the former chief medical officer, has made in relation to the nurturing of our very youngest people in our society. Will the FSS pay particular attention in looking at nutrition to help to ensure that our youngsters, particularly in deprived areas, get the best possible start in life from the best possible food? One of the important elements that we can achieve through the creation of the FSS is the ability to have a body that can coordinate how we tackle issues around nutrition and changing people's diets to leading a more healthy diet and lifestyle in a way that we do not achieve at the present time because of the work that is undertaken by a range of different agencies. The issue that Stuart Stevenson has highlighted is one of the areas that the Food Standards Scotland will be able to take forward in a much more co-ordinated fashion than we are at the present time. Given the report that we received from Professor Jim Scudamore, we took forward his key recommendation, which was for the establishment of a specific food safety body here in Scotland, which has led to legislation today to create the Food Standards Scotland. The bill also introduces new food law provisions. They are designed to protect and improve public health and other interests of consumers by driving up hygiene standards and reducing the instance of foodborne disease, providing safeguards against food standards such as the host meat food fraud and strengthening and simplifying the penalty regime for breaches of food law. Those arrangements will increase consumer and investor confidence and will help make Scotland an even more attractive place for food businesses. The bill provides for powers to seize and detain food, which does not comply with food information law. Those powers will more closely align food information powers with existing food safety powers. Currently, if food is unsafe, it can be seized or detained. Where food is unsafe, courts must order its destruction of the food itself. However, there are no such powers for food that is safe but does not comply with food information requirements. In light of the host meat food fraud incident, the power to seize or detain food that does not meet food information requirements in respect of labelling, for example, will help to eliminate food fraud. Without such a power being available, at the moment, a food business may still be able to pass on food that does not comply with food information law. The bill also provides for the creation of a statutory offence of the failure to report breaches of food information law. Again, that will more closely align food standards requirements with the existing duty to report breaches of food safety legislation. Under the suggested arrangements, it would become an offence to fail to notify Food Standards Scotland if any food business suspects that food placed on the market does not comply with food information law. The bill also provides for a statutory scheme to be introduced at some point in the future by regulation for the mandatory display by food businesses of hygiene inspection outcomes. That is intended to drive up food hygiene standards and reduce the instance of foodborne disease. A voluntary scheme, the food hygiene information scheme, is already in place and almost all of the local authorities in Scotland have launched it locally. A similar scheme has already been introduced in Wales and is being introduced in Northern Ireland. We will be monitoring developments with this particular scheme with a view to considering the creation of a statutory scheme here in Scotland. For this reason, the new Food Law provisions in the bill gives ministers the powers to introduce a statutory scheme after fuller consultation. The bill also includes provision for Scottish ministers to regulate animal feeding stuff and their production, retaining the existing powers that ministers have in the UK-wide Food Standards Act 1990. That is included as a delegated power for ministers to use where existing delegated powers may not be sufficient. Since 1999, the power has not been used in the UK, but we believe that it should be retained to give us absolute assurance that we have everything possible in place to guard against sufficient feed instance in the future. The bill also streamlines Scotland's Food Law enforcement regime by offering administrative sanctions so that those who make commit offences will be dealt with much more quickly and at less of a cost. The administrative sanction regime comprising of a compliance notice and a fixed penalty will give enforcement officers more flexibility to deal appropriately with food offences. The use of administrative penalties as an option will reduce the burden on the courts and reduce the cost of local authorities in respect of prosecuting through the court system. It will give enforcement authorities a wider, more proportionate set of tools to choose from when dealing with contraventions against food law. In evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, it was suggested that there should be an appeal process for fixed penalty notices. We are considering this proposal and working closely with stakeholders to develop a transparent and consistent process for resolving any disputes. Those enforcement and improvement arrangements have been recommended to the Scottish Government by an independent expert advisory group in the report on the lessons learned for Scotland from the 2013 host meat food fraud scandal. The recommendations on the seizure of food, the food hygiene information system and the administrative sanctions have already been suggested by the Food Standards Agency in Scotland last year following a public consultation on new food law provisions. We intend to lodge a small number of Government amendments in light of the stage 1 proceedings to date. Those will include, as the Health and Sport Committee will be aware, an amendment to the definition of food in the bill to reflect the recently amended definition of food in the Scotland Act 1998. We also intend to follow the delegated powers and law reform committee's recommendation to restrict the powers to regularly animal feeding stuffs in section 35 and 34 by introducing an amendment to cap the maximum penalty level for an offence created by that power. The bill will also ensure that food safety is given the prominence that it deserves in Scotland. By creating Food Standards Scotland and equipping it with the necessary functions and powers, it will be able to make expedient decisions focused on issues that specifically affect Scotland and to take action to improve the diet of the people of Scotland. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Food Scotland bill. I now call Uncle McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee. Mr McNeill, 10 minutes for your work. Thank you for making it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee, although the topics of food, animal feed and fish factories are not the normal bread and butter of our committee. That is the first one, not the last, I am afraid. However, I think that it is opportune that we are having this debate this week, this fortnight, the British food fortnight, so it does come at an opportune time. More seriously, from the work of our committee and our separate inquiries into health inequalities in Scotland, I am pleased that the new food body will seek to address the key issues of diet and nutrition and their links with obesity and ill health. We look forward to that ambition being achieved, because saying that and doing it are different things. Earlier this year, the Health and Sport Committee therefore conducted inquiry into the general principles of Food Scotland Bill. In producing our report, we drew on evidence received by the finance and DPLR committees, and I thank those committees for their contributions. We held oral evidence sessions in May and June, and we received a valuable insight to some of the main issues during our visit to Aberdeen. We met the FSA representatives of the Raut Institute of Nutrition and Health and the eminent microbiologist, Professor Hugh Pennington. I would like to record my thanks and the committee's thanks to all those who gave evidence in person or in writing, and to everyone who engaged so fully with the committee in Aberdeen. I am very grateful to SPICE and the committee class for their invaluable help in supporting the committee through its inquiry. Presiding Officer, we received the Government's response to our report last Thursday. I am grateful to the minister and his team for that response, and indeed for responding in good time to today's debate. We have heard from the minister that the bill seeks to establish a separate food body in Scotland, food services Scotland. The proposal was first muted during the so-called machinery of government changes in Whitehall. UK Government moved some of the food standards agency responsibilities back into Whitehall department. Following that, we had a smogasborg of reviews, reports and consultations from the Scottish Government. As we have heard from the minister, the Scottish Government began with a review to report on the merits of setting up a separate Scottish food agency. Then Jim Scudamore delivered a further report on food standards and safety, as we have heard, in the light of the horse meat incident in 2013. Before the bill was introduced, consultations were also undertaken by the food standards agency and the Scottish Government. Finally, Ray Jones, chair of Scotland's Food and Drink, chaired the expert food group, which focused on red meat and looked at the issues of traceability, labelling and provenance. The committee recognised the work of each of those reviews, and we are certainly well satisfied that the bill has been subject to sufficient consultation. The bill covers a number of areas. However, the new food body is very much the meat in the sandwich, so I will focus my remarks on that and on three areas in particular. First, the committee received a considerable amount of evidence in relation to how food standards Scotland will operate in practice. Our report makes clear that there were a number of differing views on the proposed powers and scope of Food Standards Scotland. Norwich Scotland, for example, suggested that food standards Scotland should focus on improving the nation's diet and nutrition. The Scottish Food and Drink Federation, meanwhile, thought that the new body should play an active role in growing the food and drink industry in Scotland. On the latter point, we took the view that Scotland already had a great reputation for its food and drink, and that raising the standards of safety of our produce can only serve to further boost that reputation. The committee is satisfied that the proposed powers and remit of Food Standards Scotland, and we are hopeful that those powers will be deployed in a proportionate and appropriate way. Secondly, the committee spent some time considering the proposed structure of Food Standards Scotland. In particular, we received a lot of comment about the size and the makeup of the new body's board. The bill stipulates that the board should have no fewer than three, nor more than seven, members appointed by the Scottish ministers. The committee agreed with the many submissions raising concerns that a board of three would be too small. The minister told us, however, that he envisages a similar setup to be equivalent to other public bodies with a membership of around eight. I am grateful to the minister for the reassurances that he has offered us on that front. The committee is satisfied that the structure of the board, together with a duty to report to Parliament, annually provides sufficient level of accountability. The third area that we looked at in detail is that of how the new food body would interact with other institutions, both here in Scotland and around the UK and Europe. Bugs do not observe borders. We were reliably informed by Dr Jim Wildgus, chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee, stressing the need for the SSF to fit seamlessly into the network of food bodies in the United Kingdom and Europe. The Scottish Food and Drink Federation called for a consistent regulatory framework across the UK. The Scottish wind whisky industry called for a memorandum of understanding between the FSS and the FSA in the rest of the UK. The Scottish retail consortium issued a plea for a robust and transparent protocol to be put in place to ensure that food businesses know what to expect from the FSA and the FSA UK. The Government response last week indicated that a memorandum of understanding was, in fact, in progress. That is currently being drafted in time to be agreed by the incoming board of the new body in the new year, and that is to be welcomed. I understand that there is to be provision within that agreement for the FSS to have full access to UK research, which I also very much welcome. Other evidence highlighted the fact that the large amount of food policy has its origins in Europe, so there will be an onus on the FSS to deliver an improved level of influence at a European level. The minister has offered reassurances that the FSS will have a wider role in co-ordinating food and nutrition research that is funded by the Scottish Government. We look forward to seeing that. We are also assured that the FSS will carry a strong voice in liaison with, on behalf of the Scottish research institutions, to secure access to research funding from Europe. Likewise, the Government response tells us that the FSS will retain access to UK resources such as the FSA's advisory committees. Stakeholders such as Aberdeen Rout Institute will, I am sure, be pleased to hear of those assurances. The committee found that there was near unanimous support for the bill. There are areas where we expect the Government to take on board evidence received from key stakeholders, and I am sure that the minister will ensure that that happens. That aside to the health and sport committee, it is content to recommend that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Food Scotland Bill. Many thanks, Mr McNeill, and for your report, which contained a veritable punnet of puns. I now call on Dr Richard Simpson. 10 minutes are there by doctors. I do not intend to compete with either yourself or Mr McNeill in terms of puns, but I welcome the opportunity to speak on stage 1 of the Food Scotland Bill. Background here is the minister said in the 1999 act establishing food standards agencies, a UK body, with the Scottish ministers having authority at that time to direct the FSA in relation to its activities in Scotland. That act gave the FSA power to develop food policy to audit enforcement, usually carried out by enforcement authorities as part of the local authorities duties, to carry out research and develop policy and give advice on food and feed stuffs. The Scottish section of the FSA has earned considerable respect among all those for whom it was acting and was in good standing with both government and public. Most recently, their independent work in relation to the food fraud in horse meat scandal was regarded as of particular value. However, in 2010, as we have heard when the new coalition Government decided to split the FSA as a UK body, removing parts of its responsibility for nutrition and labelling in England, there was a need for us to consider what was going to happen in Scotland. Certainly, it is a matter for the Westminster Parliament to determine how they govern their affairs down there, but there was a general view that the split had somewhat hindered the response of the horse meat scandal. Some of my Labour colleagues at Westminster feel that the role of industry in respect of the functions of the previous FSA has increased, and that has not always been in a particularly helpful way. The act that we are considering today, in the first stage, has arisen following the review, as we have heard undertaken by Professor Jim Scudimaw. His clear advice, which the Government and my party fully accept, was that food safety should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling. A more of advice on food safety, nutrition and meat inspection should come from a body at arm's length from the Scottish ministers, and that has been fully accepted and endorsed in the act. My colleague Claire Baker will deal at greater length with the issue of meat inspection, which is an important part of the functions of the body. That certainly does remain of considerable importance, particularly those colleagues who will remember the issue of BSE, the damage done to our meat exports here in Scotland following that outbreak. Claire Baker will also deal with concerns that we have about those in charge of inspection and the squeeze on their numbers and the difficulties that they are facing. Lewis MacDonald will look at the role of the riot and the issues around collaborative research and the development of the memorandum of understanding that we have heard is being developed. I want to dwell briefly on two of the most important challenges facing public health in Scotland. Ever since we Scots gave up eating porridge as a regular part of our diet in the morning, we have increasingly adopted an unhealthy diet. Indeed, 140 years ago, workers in my constituency went on strike because they were receiving salmon three times a week, and yet now oily fish and salmon and herring being part of it is something that is only just beginning to regain in terms of salmon part of our diet. Our diet is still too high in saturated fats, too high in salt, with excessive amounts of sugar. As our society has grown richer, we also have excessive portion sizes, not to mention substantial food waste. The results have been significant in contributing, along with smoking and alcohol, to Scotland being regarded as the sick man of Europe. Mortality from heart disease has declined, but that has mainly been due to smoking reduction. The FSA has done a good job, along with industry, in reducing salt levels, but we still have a long way to go to reach a healthy level in that aspect of our diet. I have been having some trouble with my iPad due for an upgrade for some time. The attempt to reformulate foods to lower levels remains very important. Working with industry in that respect is going to be an important part of their work. On saturated fats, although excellent progress has been made in reducing the amount of trans fats, members made a member that I proposed a private members bill on trans fats to try and substantially eliminate their presence, except in natural form. I believe that the new standards body will need to continue to address the issue rigorously, particularly in respect of takeaways, which I understand that they are going to be reporting on shortly, because they are more used by people in deprived communities and have substantial trans fats. Sugar is the final part of the equation, and it may be making a contribution in terms of calories to the problem of obesity. Although the rate of increase in the levels of obesity is now flattened, it presents one of the most serious challenges to Scots living healthier and longer lives, which is the ambition of the Government and, indeed, ourselves. 27.8 per cent of Scots are regarded as obese. This is greater than England, and it compares to southern European countries, which have an obesity level of around 15 per cent. Japan is only around 3.5 per cent. One of the main consequences of the epidemic of overweight is a substantial rise in type 2 diabetes, which is now thought to be affecting about a quarter of a million people in Scotland. As a result of, for example, an increase in amputations due to vascular disease associated with diabetes is increasing by 20 per cent in the last couple of years. The public cost of dealing with obesity, as the minister said, is predicted to rise to £3 billion by 2030. The important remit of the FSS is to improve the protection of the public from risks to health arising in connection with consumption of food and protection of other interests of consumers in relation to food. Those are all commendable objectives that we would support, along with the new remit of improving the extent to which consumers have diets conducive to good health. The bill will put the current co-operation between the Food Standards Agency in Scotland, the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland in partnership on to a statutory basis. When the bill is passed, I understand that the Government has undertaken to ensure that many of the suggestions that have been made in consultations for involvement directly by the FSA will be considered. Those include more direct involvement in the regulation of animal health, animal byproducts, eggs, poultry, meat, organic food labelling and drinking water quality. All of those are commendable, but I would suggest that the Government should proceed cautiously and not overload the FSS in its first year or two of operation. They will need to be properly financed for this. The committee also expressed some caution in this regard. There are substantial challenges in foodborne infection, and new challenges will arise, which are presently unknown. However, we must recognise that Scotland suffered one of the worst outbreaks of E. coli in Whishaw in the 90s. Although most lessons have been learned, Scotland still has a higher level of this of the dangerous E. coli than other home nations. Campflerbacter and poultry has been admitted by the FSA as proving stubbornly difficult to control and will be an area that needs to be continued to be addressed. As the minister said, if there are 50 deaths a year from food poisoning, 2,000 admissions to hospital, but 130,000 consumers are suspected to be affected by it, although the exact figure is not known. Food hygiene continues to be important, and following the Welsh and Northern Ireland's example and building on our own experience will be important. However, I would also add in the use of hormones and antibiotics. Antibiotic use in animals is not a new concern. The Swan report in the 60s advocated caution, but recent growing interest in our own human microbiome and our symbiotic relationship with billions of bacteria in our gut may reawaken interest in what antibiotics are being used in animals. There are a number of other issues that have been raised of concerns in the report of the committee, and those will be looked at in stage 2. The minister has mentioned the question of appeals against certain convictions or acts, and the Scottish Grosive Federation has raised that issue. I am glad that there will be consideration of the appeal system. Scottish Whiskey Association has also raised concerns about an appeal process, so that will be looked at in stage 2. One final area that I want to refer to is the promotion of Scotland's food and drink industry. That is clearly an area of substantial importance for Scotland. Our exports are good and growing, but our recognition as a place of excellent food is absolutely of fundamental importance. I was recently in France, where I was able to observe in French markets a Scottish salmon identified from all the other sources of salmon because it has the Labelle Rouge, and it is the only salmon that actually has that. That sort of appellation is absolutely vital to us going forward, and so I welcome the fact that the FSS is going to play an important role in that. In conclusion, the proposed newly independent corporate body will, I hope, be able to provide the necessary leadership and advice on issues of nutrition to create a fitter and healthier community as the 21st century progresses. Many thanks. In this day and age, when so many of us rely increasingly on processed food and ready-prepared meals, it is crucially important that we can trust the safety and nutritious value of the food that we eat. The food standards agency has served us well in this regard until now, but given the changing remit of the FSAs out of the border, the need to tackle the serious problems of obesity in Scotland caused by an inappropriate dietary lifestyle, and in the wake of the horsemeat fraud, the Scottish Government, as we know, proposes to set up food standards Scotland as a new standalone body in Scotland to replace the FSA and with wider powers than that body has. First, not all consultees were in favour of this proposal. The majority of people who responded to the call for evidence agreed that this is the way forward, and Scottish Conservatives, too, are supportive of the general principles of the bill. With its three key objectives, of protecting the public from risks to health that may arise in connection with food consumption, of improving the extent to which the public has diets that are conducive to good health, and of protecting other consumer interests in relation to food, the new FSS body would have a broader remit than that of the existing FSA in Scotland, and it would also have powers in relation to wrongly labelled food and non-compliance with food law. The policy memorandum states that the new body will bring the FSA's existing public health protection role together with a new objective on diet and nutrition. The minister in oral evidence said that the proposed legislation will allow food standard Scotland to work in a co-ordinated way with the NHS and other organisations that have a role to play in the obesity and dietary challenges that we face in Scotland. The proposed powers for the new agency in respect of diet and nutrition were generally welcomed by witnesses, but given that there are a number of other existing bodies that also have a role in the area, they stressed the need for FSS to have a strong co-ordination and leadership role. How that will be achieved will largely depend on negotiations after the new bodies are in place, and there are concerns that the work of FSS and the relevant NHS bodies must be appropriately co-ordinated in order to best tackle the complexities of diet and nutrition in Scotland. The Scottish Government sees that as an opportunity to clear up confusion over the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders and to base advice to the public on sound scientific evidence. However, there is clearly a great deal of work to be done after the legislation is in place, and I think that ministers should heed the Royal Society of Edinburgh's caveat that to achieve its dietary and nutrition goals, FSS must be adequately resourced and well connected to the Government's scientific advisers. There are some concerns about financing of FSS whose extra powers beyond those of the existing FSA are likely to cost an extra £5 million or so in the first year. It is intended that the increased running costs will be offset through a financial transfer to the Scottish Government from the FSA UK wide budget, but the exact value of that is still under negotiation, and, whilst the minister assured me at committee that negotiations have been straightforward and that he is confident of a satisfactory outcome, he will not actually be complete until after the incoming FSS board is in place, predicted to be early next year. Of course, any future extension of the remit of FSS could have financial implications for the body itself and even for local authorities. To my mind, there are still significant uncertainties about the funding of the new body, which will be crucial to its success. A clear theme emerging from evidence to the committee was the need for FSS to have access to the best science to underpin policy, pointing out the extensive diet and nutrition expertise within the food industry, academia and national bodies such as NHS Health Scotland, which should be accessible to FSS, and expert committees such as the Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison Committee and Food Related Research from UK Government resources. Professor Peter Morgan of the Rower Research Institute and Professor Hugh Pennington on behalf of the RSE both highlighted the need to maintain existing links to the advisory committees to the UK Food Agency, noting that a lot of work is going on in the UK and across Europe, and the advisory committees can pull this together and give advice through FSS as an independent body. The great opportunities for Scotland through Horizon 2020 funding were also stressed by Professor Morgan. So the memorandum of understanding between FSA and FSS currently being drafted, with its protocols on science and research setting out the arrangements for those bodies to work together where appropriate, and to exchange data and research findings in all areas of mutual interest, will be crucially important to the success of the new body, and I look forward to the promised publication of the agreed MOU at the earliest opportunity. Presiding Officer, other issues raised with the committee include the governance of FSS, particularly the size of the board in charge of its work, proposed sanctions for food law offences, the possibility of setting up an appeals process against fixed penalty notices, which the minister has referred to, measures to tackle food fraud, and a possible negative impact on Scottish food businesses should we develop a different labelling regime from the rest of the United Kingdom. Time is too short to deal with these in detail, but no doubt any unanswered concerns will be raised as the bill proceeds through Parliament. Finally, there was general support for an mandatory food hygiene information scheme to be set up in the future, and an acceptance that the Government should monitor such schemes in Northern Ireland and Wales before finally committing to such a scheme for Scotland. Presiding Officer, there are still significant issues to be resolved in the complex area of food, nutrition and diet, but I am satisfied, together with my fellow committee members, that setting up Food Standards Scotland is the right way forward. The detail of the legislation will be examined further in stages 2 and 3 of the parliamentary process, but I am happy to accept the general principles of the Food Scotland bill. We now move to open debate. We have a little time in hand, so there will certainly be time for interventions. I call on Eileen McLeod to be followed by Claire Baker. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. I begin by thanking the committee's convener, Duncan McNeill, for his opening remarks, and also by thanking all the stakeholders across local government, the NHS, our food and drink producers, the industry and regulated bodies, and many others who provided written and oral evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, which has seated us greatly in our scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. That is an important bill. I am pleased to see that there is general consensus over its broad principles and what it is trying to achieve. As others have said already, it will establish a single independent body to ensure that the former functions of the Food Standards Agency remain together, allowing for clear responsibility and accountability for all aspects of food safety and standards, which can only be beneficial for our consumers in Scotland, while crucially helping us to tackle the serious public health issues surrounding obesity. The bill also learns from the lessons of the 2013 horse meat scandal and many of the measures that are recommended by the two expert working groups tasked with reviewing what went wrong in our food chain have been incorporated into the bill. I also welcome the Scottish Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report and, in particular, the clarification that the Government has provided on the envidaged role of the Food Standards Scotland in relation to diet and nutrition, accessing European research funding and the research functions of the new body. I want, in particular, to focus on section 2 of the bill, which sets the objectives of Food Standards Scotland and includes a new objective on diet. It says to improve the extent to which members of the public have diets that are conducive to good health. As the minister said in his remarks, obesity in Scotland presents a significant and growing public health challenge. Regrettably, we are near the top of the OECD league tables for obesity. We are, in my view, very aware as a Parliament of the contribution that obesity makes to the incidents of other potentially serious long-term conditions, including types 2 diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis and some various forms of cancers. I welcome the principle that the FSS will have a new focus on diet and nutrition, since obesity cannot be viewed simply as a health issue alone and neither will we tackle it successfully if we only rely on creating behavioural change. The causes of the increase in obesity are complicated and the efforts to address this trend will require co-ordination and collaboration across various sectors. Many people tend to associate food standards with food safety, hygiene and cleanliness, but not necessarily with improving the extent to which the public has diets conducive to good health. The inclusion of the objective on diet and nutrition and policing was also supported in the evidence that the committee received from the Solace Association, the James Hutton Institute, the BMA Scotland and the Society of Edinburgh and Quality Meat Scotland. Linked to the competency of the FSS over diet and nutrition, it is also the potential role that it can play in influencing the EU agenda working together with various Scottish research institutes and research groups, not least in terms of identifying and accessing research opportunities both at a UK and an EU level. I also welcome the Scottish Government's response and the memorandum of understanding that is being developed between the FSA and the FSS to ensure that the latter has full access to UK research. The creation of the FSS is an opportunity to build more formal and effective working relationships with the appropriate UK and EU agencies. The new body will be able to collaborate, co-operate and share intelligence with other organisations in Scotland, the UK and Europe. Clearly, that will be valuable should we ever see a repeat of international food fraud incidents such as the horse meat scandal, but it will also allow for a similar approach to research. In Scotland, we already have expertise that others need, for example, on shellfish and highly regarded research into food and diet such as that that has been carried out by the James Hutton Institute. We have a lot to offer in that regard, as well as much to gain. Indeed, as my other committee colleague Annette Mellon said, in her remarks, there are substantial potential opportunities for Scotland's research and scientific communities arising out of the EU's new horizon 2020 research funding programme. The issue of food security is one of the grand societal challenges that is identified by the EU to be supported in the context of the programme, with research work focusing on food and healthy diet. The horizon 2020 statement on that theme refers to social and economic access to safe and nutritious food, which to me reflects very well the diet and nutrition objective that the FSS is to have in its remit. The creation of food standards in Scotland affords us a wider opportunity to not only plug Scotland into that developing pan-European research, but it also ensures that Scotland is ideally placed to make a significant contribution to what is one of the major challenges that is facing our society today. It is an opportunity, as I suggest, as the work that we have been doing on our integration of health and social care for adults, which is helping us to make the case very strongly for Scotland to become an international centre of excellence in research, into healthy and active ageing using digital health solutions. I look forward to the bill proceeding to stage 2 and to the committee's further discussions around the bill, and I am happy to support the general principles of the bill this afternoon. I am pleased to be taking part in this afternoon's debate. The bill sets out the operational detail for Food Standards Scotland. I think that everyone in the chamber supports the general principles of that, but I would like to make just one point around membership of the board. While the committee supports the Government's proposal on the board's membership and does not support the proposals for sectoral representatives, I would ask the minister to reflect on the report from the Mather Commission that the Scottish Government welcomed at the time that recommends employee directors for public body boards. The establishment of Food Standards Scotland gives the Government an opportunity to act on that. Given the particular responsibilities of Food Standards Scotland and the key importance of the consumer in that, it would be important to have employee representation in some form on the board. Although the Food Standards Bill has been scrutinised by the health committee and it is the public health minister putting the case to us today, it is an organisation whose responsibility extends also to the food inspection regime in Scotland, covering work in abattoirs and meat plants, as well as issues around accurate labelling and food fraud. Those are the issues that I wish to focus on this afternoon. A few weeks ago, I spoke at the Scotsman conference on food and drink during Food and Drink Fortnight. At that conference, there was a clear emphasis on Scotland's strong brand, our international reputation, providence and transparency within our food sector. I recognise that if Scotland's food and drink sector is to grow and make a significant contribution to Scotland's economy and offer quality employment opportunities, those strengths must be promoted and protected. The establishment of a new food standards body and we all support the necessity for a separate Scottish body for the reasons that have been outlined by others, gives us an opportunity to be clear about what our expectations are on the operations of the food sector in Scotland and be prepared to introduce a robust regulatory regime that puts the consumer firmly at its centre. There are some real challenges in the sector. It is a tough sector, food production is highly competitive, it operates on very narrow profit margins and we can see the impact of that within Scotland. We have recently seen the termination of four free-range chicken producer contracts with two sisters. That will result in the total number of independent chicken producers in Scotland falling from 28 to 16, and the number of chickens produced in Scotland falling by 7 million birds, yet that is a time when we are seeing chicken consumption as increasing. We all recognise the pressures that there are on food producers, rising prices, pressure from the supermarkets and increasing competition from overseas, but we cannot allow that to lead to any weakening of our regulation. We have seen a fall in the number of meat inspectors and inspections in recent years, and all those factors are there to protect the consumer, but they also protect Scotland's brand and reputation. A recent Bank of Scotland report into the food and drink sector found that 64 per cent of those questions identified regulation and compliance as a significant challenge for their sector. However, any damage to our sector, which is left vulnerable with light-touch regulation, would take years to recover from, and we know that from recent examples. We need to ensure that well-earned reputation is protected and, while all effort must be made to have proportionate regulation, it must also be robust and effective. If we look at some of the realities within the sector, a recent FOI carried out by Unison Scotland showed that, from April 2012, meat inspectors and vets have prevented over a million cases of disease animal carcasses entering into the food chain. That included 659,000 instances of liver fluke parasite and 427,000 instances of pneumonia in red meat carcasses. Those are pretty concerning figures, but the fact that we have an inspection regime means that disease carcasses are being detected before they are reaching the human food chain. There is intense lobbying at EU level for a lighter-touch regulation, which increasingly looks to pass the responsibility from the public sector to the industry. There are real concerns about the consequences of that for the consumer. Already 37 out of the 87 poultry plants across the UK have now employed their own meat inspectors, which for me raises issues around accountability and conflict of interest. The creation of a new body in Scotland gives us an opportunity to ensure that that body acts in the interests of the consumer. Two of its objectives clearly emphasise the protection of the consumer, and, while measures must be proportionate and support the industry, they must also be able to demonstrate that they deserve the public's trust, and trust must be at the heart of the new body. It needs to be able to hold the confidence of the public, and if sections of the industry are failing, certainly we need to work with them to challenge that and to raise those standards, but they also need to be transparent and accountable. Meat inspectors and vets must be able to carry out thorough independent inspections free from food sector influence. Of course, there are those in the sector who recognise that and recognise the value of that system, but they only need to speak to some people who are working on the factory floor to get an understanding of how tough the sector can be, how the working conditions are pretty hard, how pressurised the sector is to produce the end product quickly, and how difficult it can be to go in and enact that inspection regime, to understand how essential it is to have a robust regulatory regime with independent scrutiny, and the new body, the Food Standards Scotland, must have a clear position on that and support its staff who are working at the sharp end. Another reality of that is that it is the lower end produce that is more vulnerable, the lower end of the sector. The demand for cheap food from the retail sector and from the consumer does put pressure on the sector, but we cannot allow the low-income consumer to be left vulnerable to poor practice. The growth in food fraud that has recently been highlighted, ranging from counterfeiting, mislabelling and substitution, is also a significant challenge for the new body to address. I want to close with some concerns over environmental health officers, in particular issues of capacity and underfunding. At the height of the horse meat scandal a few years ago, the pressure on local authority services became clear. Budgetary pressures meant that, in 2008, there were over 16,000 food safety samples being taken across Scotland, and by 2012 that had dropped to just over 10,000 samples. There had also been a 21 per cent drop in the number of specialist food safety officers who were employed by local authorities. There is just increasingly not the capacity there to carry out any kind of regular checks, and if we want them to deliver a service that meets the challenges of the modern world, it really does need to be better supported, not just by local government who are facing financial pressures, but also by central government and by the Food Standards Scotland body. The bill establishes the legal standing of the Food Standards Scotland. The future debate will now move on to around policy and practice of the new body. If we are prepared to put the interests of the consumer first, everyone, including the industry, will benefit from the advantages of safe, high-quality, respected and trusted Scottish produce. Many thanks. I would once again offer up the opportunity to the chamber to remind them that we do have time for interventions today, and should people even wish to develop their ideas and thinking as the debate develops, then this day would be welcome. I now call on Kristian Allard to be followed by Bob Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I first add my thanks to the committee convener, Nicol McLean, and to the members of the committee for their work in comparing the stage one report on the Food Scotland Bill. I'm particularly pleased that the committee chose to come to Aberdeen. The past few months Aberdeen has been in the major spotlight. I never stopped reminding journalists that there is more than one booming sector in the North East of Scotland. Food on drink in Scotland is much more than an economic driver. It is part of this country's fabric and culture, part of our past, our present and our future. And of course, the North East is at the very heart of it. The North East of Scotland is Scotland's natural ladder. Presiding Officer, I don't feel ready yet to be speaking on diet and obesity. As I have not followed the First Minister's advice of moderating my food intake, so I'll pass and let other members talk about diet and obesity. The only comment I will make today is the quantity of food some of us are eating. It's mostly the problem that we are struggling to cope with. Eat less and better quality food will be the advice I must follow. Unlike Duncan McLean, I worked in the food industry for the last 30 years, and it was my bread and butter for many, many years. I will concentrate in this debate on food safety, the implementation of the regulations and the enforcement of those regulations. My plea to all members of Parliament is to support our food industry, like some members have done before me, and remind Scottish consumers to buy locally and to eat safe, nutritious food, Scottish food. Let's be clear, the consensus that emerged at this stage when we were at the report is that the present situation has been made untenable by the direction taken by the Westminster Government. A lot has been said about a particularly food scare. I note that in the oral evidence, U. L. Morton from Quality Meats Scotland stated a quote, as we know from the horse meat scandal, the substitution of beef with horse meat in ready meals and burgers occurred further down the chain. It was not committed in the UK. It happened in Ireland, in the case of the burgers, and in France, to my shame, with a background in the Netherlands. It was a complicated, intentional food fraud, he added. While the member is correcting his description of the horse meat scandal, does he recognise that, still, in Scotland, there are substitutions, whether there have been cases of white fish, cases of lamb being substituted for meat, particularly in the restaurant sector? That is still an issue that, even though horse meat scandal is not linked to Scotland, we still have issues with food fraud and substitution that we need to deal with here. I would agree with the member of that particular point on the restaurant, and I would encourage anybody when they buy, for example, the catch of the day that they do ask where the fish comes from, because they will be surprised if they come from the other side of the world, so catch of the day cannot be coming from the other side of the world. That is important, yes, especially at the consumer point that we know exactly where the food comes from. What is very important, because of the same time in Aberdeen, of the same time that we are the food scared, in Aberdeen a local authority was stopping the export of seafood because of a wrong label. Not that the content of the seafood boxes was different of what the label said, but the shipment was stopped because the label was not seen as following all the rules and regulations. Believe me, I worked 30 years in the food industry, and the labelling is a nightmare because rules and regulations change all the time, and sometimes you have to ask yourself who is directing these things, and people have to be known in the profession, in the food and drink industry, what the rules are, and that is very, very important. I would say, presenting officer, in short, that there were nothing wrong with the project at that time. The name of the project was clearly on the label, but all the eyes and all the teeth were not dotted and crossed to the lacking of the local authority, a local authority that had no idea of existing food label laws. Claire Baker talked about funding, I think maybe there is a point where priorities, some local authorities are maybe not prioritising this part of spending. There must be a better way of enforcing legislation. Because of the report pointed out in its summary, I quote, few witnesses questions the creation of the new food body and instead sought assurances of what is working practices. The National Farmers Union Scotland was another organisation very supportive of the Scottish Government's intentions to bring back power to Scotland. There's a lot I like in the recommendations, and changing sections 2.3 and 15.1 of the bill. Food standards must be transparent and objective, and the way it goes about its business, and the way it goes about its business. Better consultation, co-operation, coordination, and the recording of the decision made is what we all expect when moving those services from south of the border. The word leadership to coordinate relevant laws and regulation is where I want to see the new food standards Scotland agency to operate. It is lack of leadership that sometimes brought us where we are. Let's make sure this bill supports Scottish producers, and let's not forget that what makes our food industry Scotland is first the producer, then the retailer, and more importantly the consumer. I happen to disagree with Mr Morton from Quality Meets Scotland when he argued the retailer is a soft target, and the retailer in fact is the right person to target if we want the consumer to have confidence when pushing food wherever the food comes from, from abroad or from Scotland. As I said, I was very impressed with the committee's visit to a seafood producer base in Aberdeen. I know Michael Robertson very well, the managing director, and only the seafood sector shares concern about increasing costs associated with the bill. We need the reassurance for the minister today that having different systems in Scotland and the rest of the UK doesn't automatically means higher food costs. Scotland doesn't operate in a vacuum at home or abroad. Our Scottish producers have to be able to compete. A new labeling and regression in Scotland must be accepted in the rest of the UK and in the EU before to be enforced. They need to be clear, they need to be transparent. I agree with Michael Robertson. There must be some discussion about inspections because local authorities inspection is not of high quality standards. I want to move away from retailers dictating to Scottish producers like it's happening just now in the food industry. I'm asking the Food Standards Scotland to take leadership of a major retailer on this point. The members of the committee wrote that they would hope that Food Standards Scotland would exercise its powers in a proportional and appropriate way that would protect the prospect of sustainable growth generated by the industry themselves. I would like this sentiment to be more than hope. I would like this bill when completed to be a guarantor to the sustainable growth of our food and drinks industry. I have been very much encouraged with the support received from the food producers in Scotland recognizing that the Scottish government is moving in the right direction with this bill. Let's have a food standards agency in Scotland fit for the fantastic food and drinks sector that we have and fit for the 21st century. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start off by echoing as my convener, Duncan McNeill, has our thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the committee and the clerking team in spite of all the support that they've presented. It's only fair that we should put that on the record. At this time, I would like to start off by saying a little bit about access to research, evidence to science and to advice that other members have also spoken about. We've heard much about making sure that we still have access to the relevant UK experts. I think that it's also worth noting that sometimes those relevant UK experts actually happen to be in Scotland. Indeed, sometimes the experts are not in the UK at all, but they're elsewhere within Europe. It became clear to me fairly quickly that the Food Standards Scotland would not have a narrow horizon in relation to research, evidence to science and to advice. It was clear that the scientific community and the research community are global and that borders are increasingly irrelevant. In our stage 1 report, the Health and Sport Committee in section 6974 supported that view. It was endorsed by the minister who made it clear that there had been a very good working relationship with the FSA at a UK level from the outset and that a memorandum of understanding with the FSA is being developed. I would almost have taken that for granted, but it's good to have that firmed up for the avoidance of doubts that that is good progress. It's also worth stressing that such a memorandum will involve the rest of the UK, as I've said before, seeking advice from Scottish-based experts as important. It's not a one-way traffic, there's a self-interest from the rest of the UK in having this memorandum of understanding as well. Sections 7 to 8 to 8 to 4 in our stage 1 report also utilised broad support for this support, but I think that goes a step further. It leads us to consider the huge opportunities to develop research and expertise in Scotland. At section 81, Professor Peter Morgan of the Rout Institute of Nutrition and Health said, that great opportunities for Scotland are coming through horizon 2020, funding and understanding of billions of pounds of research monies available in that. He also remarked that food standards Scotland should have a definite role in trying to influence what research is done, so a key role for this new organisation and a key economic role, as well as food standards role with our higher education institutions and accessing funding across Europe and beyond. I know that the minister agreed with it, but support to go even further than that came from another source that came from Tim Smith from Tesco and he's quoted at section 84 within our report, who said, I encourage more boldness and suggest that the new body will not just want to access but influence. Some issues will be more important in Scotland than in the other parts of the United Kingdom. The new body will need to ensure that those priorities are met with the same enthusiasm as they are just now. One of the key things that I would like to know is how the new body can be proactive to be specialists in certain food standards issues across Europe, across the world, in research and development, massive opportunities to direct that. In a more local level, I suppose to all of us, I'd like to look a little bit at section 32 in the bill, which creates new provisions related to conservation of food information laws. In many cases, if put in plain English, we're talking about is food fraud. It may seem trivial to some, but if you go down the local chip shop and pay £5 for a fish supper and you think you're getting haddock, you should get haddock. It's an offence if you're not. As we've heard earlier on, if you go for a meal with your family and order a lamb curry, you want to make sure that what's actually in there is what you think is in there. I'm not talking about food safety, Presiding Officer. I'm talking about food fraud and misinformation. The member is right to highlight this, and it's far from trivial, and it's not just domestic. I've seen CAT 69, which certainly didn't come out of the VAT 69 factory in South Queensland in Nepal. I've seen the trade in second-hand Johnny Walker bottles in India, and I've seen Coke bottles being refilled in a back street in Hebron in the west bank. Major brands attract fraud across the world, and we can play a role domestically in setting a standard and protecting the value of brands that we earn so much money from, because that is far from being a trivial problem. I can reassure the member that, since I got married about two and a half years ago, there's certainly less recyclable Johnny Walker bottles lying about my house. That's for sure, but he does, of course, make a serious point. That is that food fraud, for example, doesn't actually start with the retailer. The retailer is quite often the endpoint of a complex web of criminal activity across the globe, and it's about that traceability and accountability. I know that some retailers feel as if they've perhaps been overly scrutinised for offences elsewhere, but they have a duty to report, and if a deal is too good to be true, they should know that it's too good to be true, quite frankly, so they can't assert their responsibilities either. I'd like to point out that I was quite surprised to find out that mislabelled food or food fraud, the courts couldn't step in and confiscated that food. It was actually easier to confiscate hooky trainers than a dodgy Donna Kebab. That sounds like a bizarre thing to say, but it was the case, and this new law will change that. I would like to see that food destroyed, of course. If it's safe, then let's give it to homeless people, let's give it to food banks, let's put it somewhere where it can be used for benefit. A couple of things I'd like to say in closing. I do support the scheme of fixed penalty notices, and I think that that will be quite well received by local authorities who have to prosecute criminal offences. I wouldn't read out the full quote for time constraints, Presiding Officer, but William Hamilton from trading standards at Glasgow City Council said that it would be a boon to them to fix penalty notices rather than complex quote proceedings. I think that the final thing I'll say is that I know that ministers are taking the provision through guidance if they choose to make sure that there's mandatory food hygiene information scheme and displayed in all food outlets. I would encourage that to be rolled out as soon as possible in a way that doesn't put a business constraint on many local businesses, but I think that it should just be standard when you walk into a place where food and drink is available that you can just see at a glance what level that place is operating at. I do point out that I know that we sometimes target the end point of bad practice with food and drink systems across Scotland, Britain and Europe. In closing, we should remember that the vast majority of food and drink producers and processors in Scotland do an outstanding job as do retailers, but those powers are necessary not just to keep that standard but to improve it further. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this bill. Establishing food standards Scotland as a standalone body is clearly the most viable option based on the recommendations of the Scudamore and other reviews on building on the existing expertise and best practice of the Food Standards Agency. I also congratulate the committee and support their recommendations. One that particularly interested me was the request for a clearer detail on the proposed research functions and capability of the FSS and how they will relate to UK-funded research bodies. It reminded me of the rationale for setting up the FSA as a UK body in the first place. The 1998 consultation document said, for example, and I quote, the Government believes that a single body to control and regulate food safety and standards in the UK is appropriate because it would be impractical and costly to duplicate the necessary scientific advice in all parts of the UK. I was therefore reassured by Duncan McNeill when he referred to the memorandum of understanding that is in progress and the guarantee of access to UK research, so I think that that is an important development. Duncan McNeill also referred to the committee's approval of an eight-person board. It welcomed the minister's reassurance on that, but can I take this opportunity of backing up what Claire Baker said about the Mather Commission and the merits of having an employee director? Of course, I do not need to give a lesson to the minister on that, because, of course, many, if not most health bodies, already have an employee director. Claire Baker, if we need it reminded, mentioned the invaluable work that people on the ground do, and she particularly referred to the meat inspectors who prevented over 1 million instances of diseased animal carcasses entering the food chain. I hope that the minister will consider that proposal for an employee director. It is no secret that many in Scotland have difficulties with weight and health, and much of that relates to the quality of our diet. A preventative approach is clearly essential, and clear and reliable nutrition advice through labelling of food is one important part of that. That is why it should be welcomed that labelling will be made a priority when the new body is formed next year. Having a standalone body that addresses the regulation of food standards will allow us to place emphasis on our national health priorities and protect Scottish consumers, while also avoiding the UK's rather fragmented approach to food standards as a whole since 2010. It is not entirely clear why the different responsibilities were sectioned off to different departments in the way that they were. In fact, the review panel under the guidance of Professor Scuddemore, along with many stakeholders, made the point that FSA UK had functioned well prior to the UK Government's machinery of government changes in 2010. What is clear is that a joined-up approach that recognises the connections between different areas of monitoring and maintaining food standards and the over health priorities of the Government will be required if we are to address issues such as obesity and tackle lapses in food quality. As the Scuddemore review concludes, Scotland has unique and complex problems in relation to diet, obesity and certain foodborne diseases. That means that food safety and regulation should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling and standards. In that respect, the extended remit of the FSS will require substantial extra resources. The financial memorandum states that there will be a direct transfer of existing staff from the FSA to the FSS. However, the minister has also indicated that the remit of the new body will go beyond that of the current functions of the FSA. To this end, I hope that the Government will produce an update before stage 2 on the budgetary negotiations with the UK Government and give further assurances that future expansion of the FSS's role will be appropriately resourced. As the Scottish Government 2010 report preventing overweight and obesity in Scotland points out, evidence suggests that the provision of health information, although important, is not sufficient and that, to make the changes necessary, we have to reshape our living environment from one that promotes weight gain to one that supports healthy choices. By broadening the scope of the FSS to prioritise an evidence-based approach that allows a greater understanding of what leads to poor diets and ill health, we can go beyond monitoring quality and labelling to promoting health and tackling health inequalities on a broader fund. However, it is important that any existing staff receive the appropriate level of upskilling to allow them to deliver any new changes. The concern reflected in a small number of responses to the consultation was that it would be preferable perhaps to allow some time to pass to allow the new body to bed in before expanding the remit to include public health issues more generally. That is perhaps a prudent suggestion and one that might be worth considering as the bill moves forward. Indeed, there is much to be considered in the Scottish Government's further suggestions on the additional work of the FSS, much of which has merit but perhaps all of which will require careful consideration as to what is feasible. It has been suggested that the scope of the body could include considerations of environment, provenance, sustainability, food security, or tracking and measuring food poverty. Indeed, this last suggestion is intriguing and I look forward to hearing more on how the additional work will link in with current responsibilities and who within the new body will ensure that its role is co-ordinated with the existing programmes and priorities of the NHS. There is still a lack of clarity on that and, as the committee stage 1 report suggests, the onus is on the Scottish Government to, and I quote again, take any necessary steps to ensure co-ordination between the work of the FSS and relevant NHS bodies. Widening the scope of the new FSS provides an opportunity for the new body to lead on a national response to the problem of food poverty in particular, thereby helping to confront one of the most pressing public health problems that we face. There are various ways that this may be achieved but key to this is partnership working between local authorities and the FSS. Earlier this week, the finance committee discussed the connection between achieving national outcomes in the performance framework and implementation of measures at a local authority level. There was a great deal of discussion as to how budgets could be allocated combining national ambitions with effective partnership working to achieve a healthier and more equal Scotland. That is a policy that could be highly effective in challenging some of the major health problems facing Scotland if it is implemented with the partnership working that local authorities desire. In conclusion, our relationship to food as a nation is fundamentally linked to many of our health issues. Gaining an understanding that safety and regulation should not be divorced from nutrition and labelling will hopefully translate to a more holistic approach to maintaining standards and promoting health. On that basis, I am happy to support the bill at stage 1. Many thanks. I now call Colin Kear to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I thank Duncan McNeill for his chairmanship of the committee during this. My colleagues in the committee who have gone through this stage 1 process. I have to say that it has been one of the most interesting things that we have done, but, effectively, everyone thought that it was a fairly standard thing to have in terms of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. What we found the further that we took it on, the more it brought in problems that brought in everything from the producer at the low end right the way up to the retailer and, indeed, how those people within that chain of supply actually felt about the FSS. What point does regulation kick in to penalise severely those who have done something wrong to those who feel that the over-regulation effectively means that they are being discriminated against, to the producers who are looking for a lighter touch regulation because they feel that the local authorities already have enough power to come in and do work within their companies. It is this thing that makes it so diverse, because there is no one view. Everybody wants to have this, but there are different views within the system. Certainly, I think that that was found to be the case on a number of occasions. Indeed, looking at the stuff that I had never actually thought about before in relation to the regulation of animal food stuff that has been mentioned by various members, you take it right away through the entire system to where Christian Allard is years in the food industry and his vision of how regulation should be. I think that it is very difficult to get absolute agreement from everyone. Certainly, the committee made a very interesting trip up to Aberdeen earlier part of the year, where we visited people from food standards agencies as well as various other agencies such as the Rowett Institute. We ended up visiting Joseph Robertson food processors up there, and I was not aware that someone who, as you can probably imagine, has not been a stranger to a fish supper and perhaps I should stop. Where do some of the fish come from? How do you identify it? How do you track it? How do you ensure its quality? In terms of food safety, you do not realise that. I was astonished to find that something like £140 million a year at cost in terms of damage to the economy with 2,000 people hospitalised. I could not quite get that through my head at the time. You do not realise the overall effect on the economy. It is not just the food industry. The food industry has been pointed out by many, many people here today. It has got a phenomenal reputation, and yet we have had to endure incidents such as the Wishot E. Coli outbreak and, of course, the horse meat scandal of last year. I am really interested in how we enforce the act. Some of the comments that were made by retailers who feel mildly discriminated against in some ways. The opposite view was taken by the officers from Glasgow Council, as Bob Doris pointed out, who said that the fixed penalties—excuse me, I am suffering from a bit of a throat this week—the fixed penalties and compliance notices that could be used is a boon to them. It is fantastic, but they have a problem just now where the cost of actually taking food fraud and the likes in through court just to come back with a fine that barely dents the finances of the perpetrator of the food fraud. We really do have to think in terms of how do we toughen this up, because if we do not toughen it up, if we do not provide a situation that our reputation is one of the great food providers of the world, the quality food providers in the industries that are followed around will diminish. You will not have, as has been pointed out, salmon in France, which is seen as being of the highest standard. We must show this, which takes us on to how do we do it when in this period of time European legislation actually is so prevalent and how do we take into account the fact that the horse meat scandal was something that emanated over in the continent? We have to have this partnership working. Of course, it goes through the idea of research. The bugs do not respect Borders idea and all the rest of it. We cannot act independently in this way. We have to look worldwide, because the food processing business that we have is a worldwide issue. I do not want to go through all the stuff that has been said. Virtually everything that has been said here today I can agree with. I think that the principles of the bill are absolutely correct. It is how do we do this in terms of not hurting the people that really are not at fault but tracking perpetrators of fraud and ensuring that issues such as Wishaw and the 2013 horse meat scandal are dealt with in an appropriate manner. I support the principles of the bill. We still have a bit of time in hand, so I can give the remaining members in the debate seven minutes anyway each. Jane Baxter, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. I thank the members of the health and support committee for producing this report and for the detailed way in which they have considered the proposals as set out in the Food Scotland Bill. As members in the chamber have often recognised, we are rightly proud of the quality of Scottish produce and of the many Scottish food and drink brands that are recognised across the globe. It is not just high-end brands that have a global reputation. Witness Iron Brew and Tunox Teacakes taking centre stage at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony and you will see that they are both national icons. Despite our international reputation for certain high-quality food and drink products and for products that find themselves regularly in a shopping trolley of families across the UK, it is just 18 months since the horse meat fraud filled our media and provoked a widespread concern and uncertainty about the quality and origin of the food on sale across Scotland, whether it be intended for domestic consumption or provided to children at school, patients in hospitals or residents of care homes. Those revelations focused public attention on the way our food is produced and processed, as it makes its way along the chain from source to store. It was timely indeed that the Scoodymore report had been published some months previously with proposals for a Scottish food standards body to be established. That same report highlighted that food safety in Scotland seems out of step with the rest of the UK, with us seeing higher levels of e-collar at times than elsewhere. The inspection and regulation of the food industry across the board, whether it be supply, production or hospitality and catering services, is clearly much needed. I was worried therefore to read the concerns of unison in their evidence to the committee where they highlighted the cuts that have been made to the numbers of environmental health officers in recent years. Given the history of food safety in Scotland, it is vital that the food inspection workforce remains adequately resourced and supported. Further detail on such issues and other aspects of the future work of the FSS would be welcome as the bill progresses, and I look forward to seeing some of that explored at stage 2 of the bill. As has been noted, one of the key objectives of the new body is to improve the extent to which members of the public have diets that are conducive to good health. As with some of the aspects around administration and governance of Food Standards Scotland, the detail of how the FSS will address some of the dietary challenges of Scotland needs to be explored further. I note that the Scottish Government has confirmed that that will be firmed up once the organisation is properly established. It is vital that the new powers of Food Standards Scotland to improve diet and nutrition are used and that they function well alongside existing bodies such as NHS. I look forward to seeing that and to learn more about how it will interact with existing stakeholders, including local government and the third sector, in improving the wellbeing of Scotland's people. There are examples across Scotland of community-based food-growing projects, schools working with parents to improve knowledge of nutrition and cooking, and projects that are built by food and make it available to communities where the choice in local shops might be limited. I firmly believe that such initiatives are a big role to play in changing behaviours and raising awareness and hope that that will be recognised as we move forward. Because we remain a nation that has worryingly high levels of obesity among men, women and children, the Scottish Health Service's own data indicates that in 2012, as many as one in six children were at risk of obesity. Colleagues, we literally are what we eat, but although that is perhaps an irrefutable fact, it is not enough in itself to influence behaviours and attitudes to food. I say this as a grandma who has been known to treat the family to a fast food feast. Consider my use of the word treat. It says something about our attitude to food. I confess that my grandchildren would probably choose the fast food option over grandma's home cooking any day, but the health implications of the food that we eat are huge and can directly impact on day-to-day quality of life, as well as long-term wellbeing. At the time of the horse meat ford last year, there was a renewed focus on how people can access good quality, affordable, fresh food. For many people, there is simply not the money in their pocket nor the time in their day to pop along to their local organic market, even if such a thing were to exist in their area. Many people do not have the skills or equipment to produce a nutritious home-cooked meal. None of those are circumstances in which people might have much control, so there needs to be realistic discussions about how people access food in their local communities and what choices are available. We need to consider the quality of food when the consumer may be vulnerable and yet have little choice available. Members will recall that there was widespread concern about the content of meals in schools and hospitals and care homes, as well as the meat being sold in supermarkets up and down the country. That episode flagged up a clear breach of trust, which is why the food labelling provisions of the bill are so important. We must also be able to trace food back through the chain to see the production stage to the slaughterhouses and suppliers at the beginning of the process. Many of the problems last year were traced to international suppliers. There was a good response to that scandal, but I am keen to see clear measures of how we can prevent such instances from ever occurring again. Although there were some reservations from those who have given evidence, on the whole, there has been clear support for the establishment of a separate food standards body, and I am happy to lend my support to that today. However, as others have noted, we must ensure that cross-border regulations work well and that Scottish producers are not faced with additional labelling burdens or different requirements if selling to markets in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a great privilege to represent the people of the north-east of Scotland. It allows me to indulge my palate and pamper my digestion. As I look across my constituency, I can be eating smoked salmon from Port Soy, which has been smoked using whisky barrels redundant from the local whisky industry, with a variety of flavours. Isn't that wonderful? I can go to my supermarket and buy a ready meal in every supermarket in the islands that has been produced in Frezibra to high standards. I can eat haddocks that have come from Peterhead. Of course, I can eat excellent beef, lamb and other meats. Increasingly, the greengrocer has been supplanted by the butcher across my constituency. Perhaps the one that I particularly enjoy is to go to Fife Hills and buy for a pound the Cullan Skink Scotch pie, which popped in the microwave or under the grill or in the oven is the most delicious Scotch pie that you will ever have in your life. If, by chance, they are shut, I can go to the chip shop where Billy Gat serves excellent fish and chips, and I know that he is excellent because he also has the fishing boat that provides the fish. In the north-east of Scotland, we can do extremely well. I will give way. I thank the member for giving away it. I know that we do have some time in hand, Presiding Officer, so I hope that you do not mind me making this intervention, but I am just wondering if the member ever brings some of this produce through to the Scottish Parliament from time to time. Stuart Stevenson. I will take the orders later. Downies of White Hills will be delighted. I will say to you that you can go online and they will send it to you, and I genuinely, genuinely encourage you to do that. It is superb. Tonight's tea has a boiled egg from a chicken that is kept in a garden in Edinburgh. A friend gave me it two nights ago. Now, not all outcomes of consuming our excellent Scottish produce are entirely predictable. I once, as a very young lad, was so attracted to the Victoria plums growing in our garden that the doctor had to be called because I had turned a rather delicate shade of purple, and that was found to be the cause. Richard Simpson talked about the demise of porridge. Well, it's revived. I was brought up in Cooper in Fife, and of course, Scott's porridge oats were produced just on the doorstep in Cooper. They now produce excellent microwave porridge. Two minutes in the microwave, it's got a little bit of soy in it to stop it boiling over, and it's well worth. And there are other suppliers. I don't just focus on that. I hope I've not caught the feet from my colleague who represents North East Fife, but porridge is still there and it's excellent. I have it every single day in my life, often with fruit, particularly Scottish berries. Now, we're talking about, you know, how difficult is it to do cooking? Well, I was in the Boy Scouts, I won't be alone in that, and I started my cooking career in the Boy Scouts without a single implement of any kind. I threw an onion into the fire, and you waited until it was really jarred, then you fished it out, peeled all the bump bits off, and you had a sort of semi-cooked onion that you could chew on. And that was really very good for you, if not very good for your love life, but there we are. And we moved on to wrapping potatoes in tin foil and throwing them in the fire, and you could make baked potatoes without any instruments. Now, I can see the looks of horror round the chamber, but seriously, colleagues, seriously colleagues, let's show our youngsters that you can actually make a start, a start in the business of cooking from the simplest of sources using what is to hand. So it sounds funny, but it actually got me into the idea that you could do cooking, and I hope that the FSS will do a little bit about that. So, Jane Baxter, you don't necessarily need to have any equipment. Now, let's just have a wee think about some of the things that happen in our communities, particularly in rural areas. There are a lot of home-made bits of produce, jams, scons, there are coffee mornings, there are soup and sweets, there are a particular feature of life in the north-east. And it's very important that when we set up a regulatory regime, we don't end up in a position where it's difficult for that kind of voluntary sale of food products becomes difficult. The vote in the recent election and all elections where I go is the WRI hall at Hilton in the middle of nowhere, and they have wonderful strawberry teas and et cetera, et cetera. So let's be careful that we don't do anything that might compromise that. Now, we've made quite a lot of references to quality of Scottish product, and I think sometimes there are unintended side effects that come from certain actions. And I refer particularly to the Immature Spirits Act of 1915, which was brought forward at the behest of Lloyd George to restrict the supply of spirits by meaning that it had to be kept in bond for three years so that the military towns and factories had less spirits available to sobrietry would rule, productivity would rise. Well, that was all neither there. The reality is what it did was it eliminated the cheap rock-gut whiskey from the offering, and it laid the foundations for the export industry that is an important part of our economy to this day. Indeed, some brands of whisky still have on them bottled under British government supervision, and that all stems from the 1915 Immature Spirits Act. Although food drove the cost of whisky up and created a certain set of problems, it ended up creating an industry with a worldwide reputation which, as my interventional Bob Doris illustrated, is much copied, and we need to protect that very, very hard indeed. Clare Baker in particular raised the issue. The new FSS, Food Standard Scotland, I suggest has got one thing that I am not sure I see clearly articulated in the work on the subject so far. How is it going to respond to innovation in the food sector? We will not stand still on this if we do not move forward and continue to innovate. Others will out-compet us. The FSS has to have more than simply a duty to regulate. It also has to have an element of a duty to help and assist. In other words, like SIPA now does, it cannot just knock on your door and tell you that you have a problem. It has got to be working with people in the industry to help them to develop a solution to the problem, and taking that solution away and sharing it with others and helping others. That is maybe one little thing that the minister and others who are involved in this might care to think about. I envy the minister because I have a suspicion that he is going to, like me, find himself visiting food producers, perhaps in the course of his will. Maybe he has done all that already. When I was a minister, I got taken to a community garden in Monimail, again in my colleague's constituency, and presented with a basket of organic fresh vegetables. I harvested that very day. Believe me, the taste of that, when I took it on my way, I said, where did you get this? Can you get some more? I regret, of course, that MSPs, as is usual, are not allowed to be appointed to the board of this new body because I just foreseen that the board will be a position that is greatly sought because it will be so close to our wonderful food that we produce in Scotland. Like others, I am happy to see the bill brought to Parliament. I look forward to the debate here on end, and I will be supporting it at every inch and every bite of the way. It is always a difficult job to follow, Mr Siebenson, particularly today, but he has expanded my knowledge of a piece of legislation. I have heard that he had no knowledge of it at all. He met your spirit sat in 1915, and I shall remember that for some time. However, as a non-member of the committee, I would like to thank the committee for its sterling work on the bill. As has already been mentioned today, Scotland has a worldwide reputation for being the home of good food. Our food suppliers proudly trade in Scotland's name in produce as diverse as meat and potatoes to desserts and other forms of confectionery. Like Stuart Stevenson, I represent a part of Scotland in which the food industry is vital. North-east Fife, as Mr Stevenson has already mentioned, and indeed I can assure Richard Simpson that the porridge oats industry is alive and kicking in my part of the world, but the food industry is both vital to the local and indeed the Scottish national economy. It is therefore imperative that the standard and safety of the produce is second to none. Scotland's reputation in international food markets has suffered in the past due to events, including the BSE crisis, the food and mouth disease and the most recent horse meat scandal. It should be remembered, of course, that in none of the products sampled by the Food Standards Agency on a UK-wide basis were any traces of horse meat in any produce manufactured in Scotland established. All 47 products found to be containing horse meat were from other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent when it comes to food standards in Scotland and we must learn from past mistakes, but I applaud the Scottish Government's decision to accept the recommendations from the reporting groups led by Professor Jim Scudamore and Ray Jones respectively, which we have heard referred to earlier on. I agree with the conclusion reached by the Health and Sport Committee in its stage one report that the changes made in the UK have made it necessary for there to be a new food body in Scotland. The machinery of government changes made by the UK government in 2010 that affected the Food Standards Agency were of course criticised by Professor Scudamore in his earlier work. As far as I am aware, there is a continuing disagreement down south between the FSA who are continuing to demand control and be given back to it over authenticity and labelling policy and other agencies of the UK government. The policy here was that there was already a devolved matter, but as Professor Scudamore had earlier warned, the consequences of the machinery of government changes were detrimental. I am sure that the Scottish approach that we have adopted is the correct one. I hope, however, that a suitable way forward is found in England following the publication of the Elliott review, or to give it its full title, the Elliott review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks and national food crime prevention framework. There you are, but one of the things that I am concerned about is that there has been no negative knock-on impact in Scotland as a result of a continuing wrangling taking place between DEFRA and the FSA. I noted with interest that the majority of the respondents that the Scottish Government's own consultation on a new food body in Scotland were in favour of extending the remit of the new body at some stage, and that those included all local authorities that responded. There appears to be a broad agreement that any extension of the remit should be done so on the basis that it provides, quote, improved strategic leadership and better co-ordination of multi-agency service delivery. That is an admirable way. Issues relating to food contamination, safety and standards have been well rehearsed in the debate today. Many of the respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on creating the new food body recommended that the new food authority should have scope over all aspects of food, quote, from farm to fork. Localising this work as far as possible would be very helpful. To that end, I share the sentiment expressed in their response by Fife Council when they stated, Fife Council believes the existing partnership between local authorities and FSA works well, and this successful partnership approach in Scotland is the building block for a new body. I agree with that aim. As to enforcement, I welcome the enforcement provisions set out in the bill, particularly the power to seize and detain food, which does not comply with food information law, as is currently the position in relation to unsafe food. It is quite clear that knowing that the food that we are eating is safe is something that we perhaps all take for granted. We assume that the food in its packaging and on our plates have come from reputable reliable sources and will cause us no ill harm, but, as the minister has already mentioned in his opening remarks, for 50 people a year in Scotland, food-borne disease proves fatal. For 2,000 people each year, hospital treatment will be needed, which, as Simpson has already referred to, is the historic problem of e-collay at Whishaw. We obviously do not want to go down that route again, but it is not only in terms of safety that the new body will be charged with overseeing. In addition, it will be charged with improving diet and nutrition, or, as has been mentioned already, to improve the extent to which members of the public have diets that are conducive to good health. As many will recall, we have previously discussed the Fife diet in this chamber, and I make no apology for drawing the chamber's attention once again to it. Since October 2007, the Fife diet campaign has challenged people in Fife to eat locally sourced produce. The initiative has continued to grow and has encouraged people from further afield to try a locally sourced diet. One of the benefits of this is knowing exactly where the food you are eating has come from, tying in with the from farm to fork ethos that I previously mentioned. This means people will know that the food they are eating, which will generally be seasonable, will be of good quality and, most important of all, safe to consume. The long-term effect of the diet will, I hope, be significant. While I am aware that some stakeholders believe that the new body now being created could go further in supporting the growth of the food and drink industry, in my view, the agency will have achieved a lot if it can help to improve Scotland's diet, with undighted benefits not only to the health service but to individuals concerned. It also seems to me that, in the bill, the objective to see is the clause to protect the other interests of consumers in relation to food. That seems to me quite wide-ranging, and it gives me every opportunity for the new agency to expand its role in the period to come. In my view, this is an important bill, and I wish the new agency when it is established well. I have a number of perspectives on the debate as co-convener of the cross-party group on food in the last Parliament, as minister with the responsibility for the food standards agency in Scotland in the term before that, and as one of those who campaigned successfully for FSA Scotland to be based in Aberdeen back in 1999. I believe that the existing agency has been a success from all of those perspectives. It has been engaged with Parliament and other partners. It has been responsive to government and to public policy, and it has been an exemplar that I think makes the case for locating central Government agencies in cities and regions of Scotland outwith the central belt. The food standards agency was set up by the incoming Labour Government of 1997, at much the same time as it legislated for the Scottish Parliament. It is no coincidence that the inspiration to set up the FSA came from two leading academic experts in Aberdeen, microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington, who gave evidence to the committee's inquiries this time round, and Professor Philip James, the then director of the Rout Research Institute. Hugh Pennington led the inquiry into the E. Coli outbreak in Wishaw in 1996, which has been referred to by a number of members, and his report recommended the creation of a new food standards agency. Philip James had a report on how to do that on ministers' desks within days of the 1997 election, and it was that report that was then implemented to establish the FSA over the following couple of years. It is an observation about the fall-out from the E. Coli that it requires butchers to raise the standard separate cold meat from uncooked meat. Curiously, it seems to have had the result across Scotland that, while there are fewer butchers, those butchers by investing in and innovating are now much safer and competing successfully with supermarkets, so sometimes if a good central agency does its job well, it actually helps industry in a way that is not always seen in that example. Lewis Macdonalds, I can't give you the time back. I'm grateful to Mr Students for that point, and he's absolutely right. I think we heard earlier criticism of enforcement in relation to the fish processing industry. The same applies that effective enforcement of the right regulations is actually good for the industry, as well as good for the consumer, and I think he is right to make that point at this stage. The timetable of the establishment of the FSA meant that it was being set up in Scotland as one of the first actions of the new devolved Government in 1999. The intention to locate FSA Scotland in Aberdeen was announced by the Scottish Executive in October 1999, and the present headquarters at St Magnus House was opened in April 2000. Professor James and Professor Pinington were only the best known of a very substantial scientific research community in Aberdeen, which is what made the city the obvious choice of location for the agency, and which continues to support the work of the FSA Scotland to this day. It is striking on the one hand how the institutional landscape of that research community has changed in the period of revolution, but even more strikingly how the scientific excellence that supports it remains of the house order. For example, the Rout Research Institute is now part of Aberdeen University, but it continues to be a world leader in the science of nutrition and health. That was important in 1999. It is even more important today, given that the bill proposes to strengthen the remit of Food Standards Scotland in relation to dietary health. The Marine Lab, the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, is now part of Marine Scotland. It too continues to provide best-in-class expertise in a whole range of areas such as safe consumption of shellfish. The former McCaulay Land Use Research Institute is now part of the James Hutton Institute. The former Scottish Agricultural College is now part of Scotland's Rural College. Again, both of those remain important partners for the FSA today and for the FSS in future. That critical mass of scientific expertise is not gathered in and around Aberdeen by accident. The north-east region has, as we have heard, an exceptional concentration of both primary food producers and food processing industries, and that is ultimately what sustains Aberdeen as a centre both of knowledge and of regulation. Joglify has also helped FSA Scotland to make a success of its Aberdeen base beyond the immediate city region. Ease of access to ministers and other stakeholders, both in Edinburgh and in London, has been important and will continue to be so. Whatever the institutional framework of the policy priorities of the respective governments, close partnerships and Scottish access to research excellence and food advisory bodies across the UK will continue to be vital to the effectiveness of FSS. Another benefit that has also been alluded to in part has been that food standards practitioners from other parts of Britain have come to Aberdeen and to Scotland to learn from the work done here. That is not only good for those other regulators, as Bob Dorr has said. It is also a source of informal influence beyond Scotland, which is very much in Scotland's interests. I hope that it is something that ministers will also seek to maintain going forward, as the memorandum of understanding between FSA and FSS is put in place. Quick and frequent transport links between Aberdeen and the Northern Isles have also been very important to the success of the FSA Scotland. FSA Scotland has had very high levels of engagement with food producers and processors in both Shetland and Orkney to benefit both of the agency and of those island communities. As a central government agency located outwith the central belt, FSA Scotland has from the very beginning had an outward-looking approach to engaging the stakeholders across the islands and islands and throughout the whole of Scotland. There is no culture of staying warm in an office close to the centre of power, instead of getting out and engaging with the real world. FSA staff have always seen the whole of Scotland as their home patch, and I am confident that culture will continue in a new agency based in Aberdeen. Many of those strengths that FSS will inherit from FSA Scotland can be built on in the period ahead. The Rowhead, for instance, provides the scientific basis for the Food and Health Innovation Service, with funding from Scottish Enterprise, but brings together partners from across the UK. For example, Marks and Spencers are a fuller longer range of foods that is available in stores throughout the United Kingdom and is developed with the active support and advice of the Rowhead Institute. Just one example of the excellent work that is done by FSA's partners in Aberdeen that will continue to be available to the new FSS. FSS will also want to maintain its strong partnerships with the local authorities in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, as well as with the food sector. I commend local councils for enforcing food safety regulations in the interests of consumers, and I support what both Claire Baker and Annette Milne had to say about the importance of properly resourcing that regulatory activity at all levels. I hope that today the minister will reaffirm the Government's commitment to meeting that resourcing challenge, its support for continuing partnerships both in Scotland and beyond Scotland, and its commitment to continuing to deliver Scotland's food standards from a new headquarters in Aberdeen. With those commitments, I believe, the bill will go forward with support from across the chamber. Many thanks. Just before I call Gil Paterson, who is our final open debate speaker, could I remind Parliament that members who have participated in debates are expected to be in the chamber for closing speeches? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate this afternoon. Of course, some of the points that I intend to raise have already been outlined by other speakers, so please bear with me, but I think that some of the items are worth the stating. Firstly, I would like to praise those involved in the food industry in Scotland and the positive effects that they bring for Scotland and our economy. Across the globe, the products are known, respected, trusted and enjoyed, which bring great advantage to the country's economy and, of course, the industry itself. I believe that Scotland's platform on the world stage in 2014 through the Commonwealth Games, the Rider Cup, the homecoming and even the referendum will bring greater interest in our products. To give the industry the protection and security that we need to ensure that there are clear structures in place to ensure that standards remain as high as possible, that is why I am pleased that the bill sets out the establishment of a single-body food standards Scotland, in which it has a clear responsibility on all aspects of food safety and standards. To gain trust and confidence with not only the food industry but also the consumers, I welcome the fact that the new body will be independent, evidence-based, transparent and accountable to this Parliament. There have been too many incidents over the last few years where trust has broken down between Governments, the food industry and the ordinary people. All of us in this chamber will remember the mad cow disease epidemic during the 1990s, where British beef, including our own Scotch beef, was banned from a number of countries around the world. The horse meat scandal was one such incident recently, where trust in our food produce was lost and had a detrimental impact on our economy. However, I am relieved that the long-term trust was not damaged and that we have come out of that much stronger. I am fairly sure that a single-body agency in charge of food safety and standards could have prevented those examples from happening, and the changes carried out since then must continue to develop and adapt to new environmental conditions to ensure that we can combat any future issues. I believe that Food Standards Scotland, through measures contained in this bill, have been given the appropriate enforcement powers to follow this through and maintain the trust of the producers and the consumers alike. There is no point having a weak organisation when dealing with such a vital component of day-to-day life. The people deserve nothing less. The creation of appropriate non-criminal enforcement sanctions will go some way in this regard, as will the measures allowing officers to seize and destroy foods that do not meet food standards or labelling rules. Consumers will be comforted in knowing that produce that they have purchased will contain exactly what is outlined on the label and nothing else. That is a very important point to emphasise when building trust. As a member of the health and sports committee, one of the aspects of the bill that draws my particular attention is the measure relating to a nutritious diet for people in Scotland and how that is paramount to ensuring that our people live healthily and longer. Knowing what is contained within produce will help families to purchase goods that are of nutritional value, which will have a positive impact on their diets and the general population. We have discussed at great length not only in the health and sports committee, but also in this chamber the importance of tackling obesity in the country and the health problems associated with it. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has taken this matter very seriously. Scotland is not alone in experiencing the obesity crisis, and we must learn from other countries. However, there must also be a Scottish dimension to any solution what is an ever-increasing problem not only in health of our people but also the impact that it has on our health service in the long run. I work to my good friend Christian Allard, who said that he might not be particularly equipped at this particular time to address matters of obesity. My guidance to Christian Allard would be that someone with a few pounds around their middle at the present time might be the very person to engage in that matter with some people who suffer from not being able to control what they eat. It is like all addictions. Therefore, someone who has had an experience of it and may be carrying some of it, as in my book, is the very, very best person to do that. I can, yes, by all means— Just on a related matter, with the increase in the consumption of meals that people microwave and the different way that a microwave cooks things—in other words, in the middle outwards—I wonder if some of the health issues arise from the fact that, because the outside of a microwave meal may not be heated enough if it is done properly, some of the bacterial load is not eliminated by the cooking process. I wonder whether there is a wide range of things that, in the change of our cooking habits, we need to look at to protect the health, not simply by overconsumption, but by the way that we cook, prepare and eat things as well. You make a good point, because I think that in this modern life I not only are people so moving so fast and maybe do not perhaps take enough time to prepare their food, but there is another thing that I have learned that some families have never had the experience of engagement and have been taught how to cook a meal. I think that that is a very, very serious issue for all of us. Let me finish my little chat to my good friend. Just talking from someone that suffers from an addiction and that sweet things in iron brew, I just cannot give it up. I am the wrong person to talk to somebody about doing that, or to talk about weight, because I am okay that way, but to try and control what I eat in terms of sweets in iron brew is a hard job. We have discussed at great length not only in the health of sports committee, but also in the chamber that very thing. I hope that we do learn from it and we can make improvements to it. It has been estimated that a total cost of obesity in the Scottish society in 2007-2008 was in excess of £450 million, and the public cost is expected to dramatically increase to £3 billion by 2030. Those are scary, scary figures for the health service. That is a problem of a truly serious nature, and it all must be done both at government and personal level to tackle it. One area that concerns in particular with the unhealthy diet is the impact on the low-income people in our country. I could ask you to begin to draw to close, please. Surely. Thanks for watching. Thanks for being so patient with me. I think that I should just finish by commending to the chamber this bill and hope that it passes unanimously tonight. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches. I call on Jackson Carlaw. I can give you up to seven minutes. Well, after three frenetic weeks bashing round Scotland, debating the great issue of our constitutional future, back we come to Holyrood keen to involve ourselves in the business of Scotland. What more thrilling prospect could there have been for the first piece of primary legislation that we would discuss than the Food Scotland Bill? It was, of course, the minister's mission this afternoon to make this as thrilling and as exciting an opportunity for discussion as he could. He studiously sought to avoid, I thought this afternoon, as the words worthy, consensual and non-controversial fought each other into an early grave. I make no criticism of him for that, because Scottish Conservatives support the principles of the bill, because the content of it and the various aspects of it that members have referred to throughout the debate this afternoon are indeed important. There are a number of points that rose that attracted my interest during the course of the afternoon to which I would like to refer. There was almost the tongue twister that the minister involved himself in at some length of the horse meat-labeling food fraud scandal, which I waited for him to trip up on it from time to time. Of course, he made a point about it. I just want to say first of all that it was the fraud relating to horse meat that was the problem. We are quite precious in this country about a number of things. In other parts of the world, people eat horses quite freely. In fact, I saw in the papers this week that we are all being encouraged to eat dark moor ponies as being the only way to make the species sustainable. The minister said that the labelling would prevent the fraud. I was not quite sure how that would necessarily come about. Obviously, the key thing will always be the testing of product to ensure that what we are getting is what it says inside it. That is the part of that that is particularly important. I was grateful to Duncan McNeill, who I think set out the work of the committee in this respect, which demonstrated that he felt that the consultation had been widespread. I might wait until I get it, because your interventions have been about half an hour in each occasion, Mr Stevenson. You are a predecessor in the chair, of course, referred to Mr McNeill's punnet of puns. We had meat in the sandwich, we had food for thought. At one point, I have to say to Mr McNeill that he was getting quite confused between his FSSAs, his FSAs, his SFAs and, potentially, his SFAs. I think that we were almost getting round to that, but I thought that he made important points about the whole question of board accountability and about the composition of the board, which I think the minister already recognises. I want to focus a little bit on the area that Richard Simpson touched on, because I think that the whole question of diet is undoubtedly one of the most important. When this Parliament first met in 1999, frankly, the issues of dementia and obesity were rarely, if ever discussed. They are health challenges that have emerged, which are two colossal pillars of the health challenge that the NHS now has ahead of it, that have emerged essentially during the lifetime of this Parliament. The whole question of obesity, the type 2 diabetes that 250,000 people, the estimated cost of £3 billion a year by 2030, is one of the great challenges. I want to concentrate on diet because Mr Simpson and Mr Stevenson touched on porridge. Porridge is one of those foodstuffs that has been corrupted, because if you buy instant porridge, as so many people do, and on the supermarket shelves you will see dozens and dozens of variety, they are absolutely thick with sugar substitute. If you look compared to the natural product, you will find something like 26 to 45 grams of sugar in each portion that is served. It is this concentration of sugar that I think we need to spend a lot more time analysing and drawing attention to, because our whole focus on diet has been concerned with low-fat diet. Without recognising that whether it be instant porridge or whether it be low-fat yogurts, they are absolutely rich in sugar substitute. I have to tell you that I looked at it. I know that you should do your own porridge and everybody who has got time to do so. I had to look very hard to find an instant porridge that does not have a lot of sugar content in it. I recommend that it be stuffed up with blueberries and raspberries, and you will all be very much better off as a result. Both Jane Baxter and Eileen McLeod also made reference to the whole issue of diet as we move forward on the importance of it. However, our responsibility to inform is that we must not allow it to become our responsibility for individuals themselves and the diet that they consume. Everybody has to remember that they have a responsibility themselves to the diet that they have. If we simply allow it to become a transferable responsibility to Government, I think that we do the public a disservice. Christian Allard, I thought, made a very fine contribution. It came from, of course, the 30 years of experience that he has had in the food industry, and I think that he made particular points about food labelling. I think that he also made an important point as a businessman from the food industry in saying that the good intentions of politicians sometimes do not always take into account the practical realities of having to deal with all the food labelling responsibilities that are then placed upon retailers. We should be mindful of that. He referred to his visit—it was a private one—to Joseph Robertson Ltd. I have seen the photograph in the report, and Eileen McLeod, Duncan MacNeill, Richard Simpson and Richard Lyle, who is not with us, all look very fetching in their Wellington boots, plastic hats and coats. You can see why Richard Lyle is not here actually, having seen his photograph in that. Bob Dorris quoted the SNP's new favourite retailer, Tesco, and that was interesting to hear. Malcolm Chisholm drew attention to important matters around future research. Stuart Stevenson, I thought, also made an important point. He talked about super and sweet, which I hope is not the Aberdeen way of saying that you have had your main course, but he did talk about regulation does not become an unintended food hazard, and I think that that is an important consideration as well. We do not want to see that come about. We have got to twin the whole issue of diet, of the food response, the food agenda that we are addressing here today, with the twin of exercise, which, of course, is an unrelated but indirectly so aspect of the whole question of ensuring that people going forward are healthy. I also pay tribute to Colin Kear, Roderick Campbell, Claire Baker, Lewis MacDonald and Gil Paterson, who made contributions to this afternoon's debate. At stage 2, there are issues that we would like to see addressed. We are concerned slightly about the notice to detain food that may contribute to food information. We want to be sure that there is a right of appeal, because when it is down to whether or not the labelling has been complied with regulation, that could be quite subjective, and we could see an element of interference and waste there. Also, just to ensure that the fixed penalties do not become something that people absorb as a cost deliberately to try and frustrate the legislation, but we are happy to support the first reading of the bill this afternoon. Many thanks, and I now call in Roderick Grant. Nine minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I join with other members and thank witnesses, those who facilitated the committee visits to Aberdeen and those who submitted evidence, and indeed the clerks and committee staff who co-ordinated all that work, so I just want to add our thanks to them in particular. We are supportive of the general principles of the bill and recognise the need for it. We need a robust regulatory regime that protects our consumers. High standards not only protect consumers but promote our producers and indeed our products, a point very clearly made by Claire Baker. We shouldn't have been surprised that members took the opportunity to talk about their favourite brands and indeed some of our iconic brands, Scottish Salmon, Johnny Walker's Whiskey and Jane Baxter. I mentioned Iron Brew and Tinnock's Teacakes and Stuart Stevenson, Cullen Skink and a Scottish Pie, which was a new one on me. That might tell us more about the Scottish diet than anything else, but quoting the old adage, a little of what you fancy does, you good means that if you eat that in moderation any pleasure you get might offset the detriment if you are very careful. Other than that, I think that the debate has been a serious debate. Looking at the public health role is one of them and a lot of the speakers have talked about the Scottish diet and indeed health and obesity in our nation and how we need to interact with that and have welcomed that the Food Standards Scotland may have a health prevention role, which would have to be carried out along with the others involved in this health service and local government and the need to make sure that, as Jane Baxter said, that this is co-ordinated and does not duplicate those efforts, but given the enormity of the problem that we face, it is very important that Food Standards Scotland has a role there, too. Richard Simpson talked at some length about our health issues regarding obesity, regarding diet and portion size, but he also talked about things like the trans fat members bill that he had promoted in the Parliament and what a difference that would have made in our diet. We know that cheap food tends to be high in fat and high in sugar because that improves the taste, but it can also be hugely harmful to health. Jackson Carlaw also pointed out that food that is sometimes termed as healthy low fat is really high in sugar and we need to be very careful that that does not have a health consequence when people are thinking that they are making the right food choices but are doing more harm in their diet than they would have hoped to do. Malcolm Chisholm talked about food poverty and I think that that is really important. Again, it emphasises the need for local authorities to work with Food Standards Scotland and health boards to make sure that people are able to access good healthy food. As I said earlier, cheap food tends to be the most unhealthy. On that topic, Jane Baxter talked about community food initiatives, and part of the committee's Aberdeen visit was a visit to the community food initiative north-east and saw some of the work that they were doing in trying to provide healthy food, promote healthy food choices but also operated as a food bank as well. I think that it was good that the committee did go to Aberdeen in the north-east for all the reasons that Lewis MacDonald talked about being a centre of excellence for food production and indeed food safety and research. It was very useful and we met some of the organisations that he spoke about at some length in his speech and they made a great contribution to the committee's deliberations on the Food Standards Bill. One of the issues that came up, maybe not so much in debate as it might have done, was the funding of the agency. The net talked about negotiations on going between the Food Standards Agency UK and Food Standards Scotland. I hope that those will be resolved to bring a satisfactory settlement in finance to Food Standards Scotland, which I think would be very welcome by everybody in the chamber. If they have the existing finance that they currently enjoy, they will be able to continue in the role that they have. However, to take on new roles such as public health, they need to look at more funding, so we need to make sure that that funding is in place. The Scottish Government has acknowledged that it would need to provide more funding, but there are no real assurances on that. We need to get those assurances to make sure that any extension to those responsibilities are fully funded so that they can carry them out. Malcolm Chisholm also made that point in his speech. Others also talked about funding with regard to local authorities. It was Clare Baker who mentioned that about the role of consumer protection and food safety. That falls on local government, and we see local government budgets being tightened. It is not enough just to look at the funding of Food Standards Scotland. We also need to look at the funding of the other organisations that have a lead role in protecting consumers and, indeed, public health and safety. People like meeting spectres who were mentioned in the debate provide a really good job, but are very thinly spread. If we are going to be serious about that, we must make sure that funding goes to them as well as Food Standards Scotland and that they all work together to bring good outcomes to consumers. There was a lot of talk about labelling and the need for robust labelling, because it is very easy, as we saw with the horse meat scandal, to put a different, cheaper product into food in order to provide profits for those who produce that food. Roderick Campbell mentioned that none of that food was sourced back to Scotland, and maybe that is because we already enjoy a good regulatory regime with regard to labelling that stopped that happening. However, I do not think that we can afford to be complacent. Indeed, on our visit to Aberdeen, we visited Joseph Robertson and Aberdeen Limited and saw how their food labelling worked. Indeed, the efforts that they went into ensuring food security in that, if there were products that could have been caused an allergic reaction to anybody, they were used towards the end of the week when other food had already been produced, so there was a huge amount of effort and precision, and indeed programming to make sure that the labelling was correct, that the food was secure and what we had said on the tin was actually what was there, so that was very, very useful. However, we also understand that producers are concerned about food labelling and the need for a compatible regime throughout the UK. It is very good that there is a memorandum of understanding, looking at those issues, which I think will bring the protection that we all want, but also the safeguards that the industry wants to make sure that we can be proud of our products. There was some discussion about the fixed penalty notice, and I think that having fixed penalties means that lesser infringements can be dealt with quickly and more easily, and it means that the process of streamline may be freeing up inspectors and the like to go on to the more difficult businesses. However, I also welcome that we are looking at an appeals process, because I think that it is very important that people have the right of appeal if there is a mistake made and that puts checks and balances into the system, so we would welcome seeing what that will look like as the bill progresses through the Parliament. There was also discussion on the board, and there was some concern during the committee's deliberations on that, but we have, as Duncan McNeill mentioned in his speech, received reassurances from the Scottish Government that the board will be of a size that will allow it to do its job. We have to be very careful that the focus of the board is consumer protection and may not be industry-led. I think that there is a lot of concerns about that. That does not mean that you cannot have an employee director, as Clare Baker pointed out. That makes a huge difference. The Government welcomed the recommendation of the Mather Commission on that. It would be a welcome step forward if the new body was one of the first to implement that recommendation. Everyone could get behind that. It is very important to have employees involved. I thought that I had loads more time, but as it happens, it runs away. I just say that partnership working will be at the very forefront of how Food Standards Scotland operates. We need to emphasise that while I am getting to support the bill and the general principles of the bill. Many thanks. I now call Meg Matheson to wind up with debate. Minister, you have until five o'clock, please. I begin by thanking everyone for their contribution during the course of the debate. I think that there have been a range of very good points raised. I do welcome the fact that there is broad cross-party support for the Food Standards Scotland being established and for this piece of legislation. I think that Duncan McNeill and his contribution set out in a very fair way the broad areas that the legislation will provide for. He also rightly highlighted the various views that there are around the creation of Food Standards Scotland. I recognise that not everyone in the sector believes that it is the right thing to do for their particular purpose, although the vast majority believe that it is the right thing to do. However, as I am sure all in the chamber recognise, we have arrived at this particular point not because of a failing in the part of the FSE, but because of changes that have taken place elsewhere. The expert group—not just Professor Jim Scootermore, but other representatives on this expert group who came back with the recommendation is how we need to respond to the matter. We have taken that on board to bring forward this piece of legislation. We have arrived here with very good reason. It is incumbent on us to make sure that we take that forward in a way that is appropriate, and we will make sure that we get the right type of provision around food safety in Scotland as we require. Duncan McNeill also made a number of very important points about where the FSS needs to sit in with the rest of the regulatory bodies and functions that are already out there. It is partnership with the FSA in the rest of the UK with other representative organisations in the rest of Europe and beyond are absolutely critical. Alongside that, there are local authorities, health boards, producers, retailers and the role that they all have in food safety and food production in Scotland. The FSS has an important role to play and it will need to make sure that it fulfills that role effectively and in an appropriate way. I hope that members are reassured by the memorandum of understanding that we are taking forward with the rest of the UK Government around a range of different issues, which I believe will be a very productive way for us to continue what I think is already from the process that we have been going through to establish food standards. Scotland has been a very cordial and responsive way in which we have engaged with one another in taking this whole area of policy forward. I want to turn to a point that I thought was raised by Richard Simpson. A number of members have raised it and that was about the whole issue about dietary improvement and how the FSS can assist in co-ordinating this whole approach to tackling dietary issues and also improving nutrition. We have put it on the bill to give it that very clear strategic role that no other body in the country has in order to help to drive this agenda forward. Richard Simpson made a very good point about the need to tackle issues around salt, sugar and fat in our diet. The FSA has taken forward a range of work over a number of years now, where it has made progress. For example, it is fair to say that a lot of our big retailers, supermarket retailers, including ASDA and Tesco, have reformulated their own branded products to reduce things like salt and fat and sugar in their products. The area where we have made less progress has been the branded products. I think that we are getting to the point where we have to make sure that retailers recognise that they are part of the solution in dealing with their nutritional challenges and the dietary problems that we have in Scotland and in tackling obesity. It is a societal issue and our retailers and our food producers have to play their part in helping to overcome this issue. I believe that the FSS has an important role to help us in making sure that that happens effectively here in Scotland. I also want to turn to a point that Richard Simpson and several others raised. That was about the wider potential remit of the FSS. I was very clear at the time when we decided to take forward this piece of legislation that I wanted to protect the reputational integrity that we have here in Scotland for good food products. I wanted to make sure that we protected the very first class work that is presently taken forward by our FSA here in Scotland to make sure that there is no loss of public confidence as we move to a new public body. That is why we have taken an approach that is a cautious approach. That is to make sure that we get the things that the FSA does just now right in the new body so that there is no question about its role and people having confidence in it. However, we have created a footprint in the legislation that allows us to expand it and develop it as we move forward. Rightly so, if we do that, we then have to look at the resource implications that some members have made reference to. Annette Millan, in her contribution, made reference to obesity and nutrition, and she touched on the issue of funding. It is important to recognise that we already fund the Scottish proportion of FSA's activity. We fund it at a Scottish level, and we also pay a central amount to the UK body for some of the centralised roles that it undertakes. The budget for the FSA that goes to Scotland just now is the budget that is already part of the Scottish Government's health budget, which will go to the FSS. The issue that we are still in negotiation with is around some of those centralised functions that we already pay for and moving them into the Scottish organisation. I am confident that we will get to an agreement on that. However, I want to give members an assurance that the FSS will have the budgets that are required in order to undertake the functions that are presently undertaken by the FSA. If we move forward and choose to change that, the Government at that time, whichever Government it may be, will have to consider us to what those resource implications might be. Eileen McLeod and her contribution highlighted the whole issue of research and the importance of research within the food and animal health sector. As a number of members have rightly pointed out, it is important that the FSS is able to participate in research programmes at a UK level, but it is also important that we have access to that expert advice as we intend and we have agreed with the FSA. Equally, we also provide access to the expert advice that comes from Scotland, as has already been highlighted by Lewis MacDonald in his contribution. The expert advice that we have here in Scotland is about nutrition and dietary issues, the expert advice that we provide around shellfish, in particular, and in E. coli. Those are areas in which Scotland already provides that level of expert advice. It is our intention for that to continue to take place. Equally, there is also to be able to participate in research programmes on a European level, where there is a range of work that we can contribute to as well. I turn to the issue that Claire Baker raised as well around the issue of the employee director, which I think is a very good and a very fair point and one that we are very sympathetic to on the basis that our own track record around our health bodies at the present time have an employee director appointed to the board by ministers. That is an issue that we will have to—the reason we cannot make a decision on it just now is because we do not have a chief executive and a chair and a board in place. However, what I want to reassure the member is that, given our track record on our present health-led bodies, that is an area in which I would like to see that also being reflected in the FSS in going forward, because I think that it is a very valuable role that the employee director can have in a national organisation. The point that he also raised around EROs are environmental health officers as well. I think that I should say that EHOs are not EROs—that is what happens when you get caught up in elections. I think that that is also a very valid point. One of the things that I think is that the administrative fixed penalty regime will help to relieve some of the burden that is faced by some of our EHOs, because very often, when they want to take issues forward, it is a report to the Procurator Fiscal. There are reports that then have to be then further submitted and then I will wait for it to go to court. Sometimes it can actually take more than a year or two before it even finds itself in the court. A fixed penalty scheme gives us a way in which we can release some of that burden, which is why some of our EHOs in Scotland have very much welcomed that, because it allows them to be much more responsive and it allows them to then move on to other issues. However, one of the other things that we have to look at is the testing that is undertaken by our EHOs. There are different models that we can use with the FSS in taking that forward. We have more centrally controlled by the FSS working with local authorities and funding local authorities for the purpose of undertaking that testing, but we also need to make sure that we have a good collection of that data on astral levels. I think that, in moving forward, there are a variety of different options that we can look at pursuing that can help to address some of those issues as well. On the issue of fixed penalties, which a number of members have raised on an appeals mechanism, I think that we have to be careful that we do not get into a situation where there is an expectation that every fixed penalty notice can be appealed on the basis that it could potentially just draw the whole system to a halt by repeated appeals. If you consider the present time, if you are stopped by the police and you are offered a fixed penalty notice for a driving offence, you have the right to refuse that. If you choose to refuse it, a report goes to the Procurator Fiscal and then eventually the matter will go into court and you can then argue your case there. There is an element within this process that if you are issued with a fixed penalty, you disagree with the EHO in offering that fixed penalty, you have the choice then to refuse it and for the matter then to go to Procurator Fiscal and for you to challenge it in court as well. I do think that we need to have a transparency and we need to make sure that there is a consistency of approach in how those measures are applied from local authority to local authority, but I do think—and I would strike a note of caution in calling for an overall process of appeal. I have unfortunate not been able to go through all of the members who have made a whole range of very valuable points which we will consider as we move forward with the legislation, but I want to finish on that point. That is that our staff in the FSA in Aberdeen do an absolutely fantastic job for us and I am very proud of the job that they have done over a number of years for us. This has also been a difficult time for them in the uncertainty of moving to a new body and I am sure that all members will want to send out a clear note from this Parliament that we value the work that they undertake and as we move towards the Food Standards Scotland, we will make sure that their staff are allowed to continue to undertake that valuable work here in Scotland. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the Food Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 10555 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Food Scotland Bill. I call Michael Matheson to move the motion. This motion will put decision time to which we now come. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 11048, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Food Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10555, in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Food Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.