Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Michael and Kathryn, you are no strangers to the Committee. You are both very welcome. I advise you that we have considered the Hansard report of the evidence on 11 February and the correspondence received. Thank you for that. We discussed it last week, and we now have an agreed list of clauses that we think merit further discussion with you. I propose today to go through each of those clauses in turn. I will ask you to comment, and we will open it up to members if they have any questions or comments. That is the proposal for the way forward today.

We will go straight to clause 1(7). It would be useful to have clarification on whether the power to amend the definition of a food business establishment can be done at any time or only after review of the Act. Maybe you will clarify that for us.

Mr Michael Jackson (Food Standards Agency NI): There are various powers in the Bill that allow changes to be made, one being the definition of a food business establishment as in clause 1(7). The intention is that we would not always conduct a review before making such changes, because there could be situations in which information or evidence may come to light through other means that would give us what we need to say that there was a strong case for taking it forward. It would also be a financial burden on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the councils to have to carry out a review every time we needed to make a change linked to those specific provisions. Obviously, when any changes are considered, we will undertake a full impact assessment and full formal consultation.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): What I am hearing is that it will not always be the case that you have to conduct a review.

Mr Jackson: That is correct.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): On clause 2(1), the councils were concerned about the requirement for them to notify businesses of their rating within 14 days in case there are exceptional circumstances — that is the key issue — that prevent them from meeting the deadline. You certainly seem to have taken that concern on board and are proposing an amendment to deal with situations in which compliance with various timescales in the Bill could be reasonable due to exceptional circumstances. Will you talk us through the detail of that amendment, which, I understand, comprises a new clause, "Adjustment of time periods"? Why have you decided not to define in the Bill what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

Ms Kathryn Baker (Food Standards Agency NI): You are quite right. The Chief Environmental Health Officers Group (CEHOG) raised the issue of needing some flexibility for exceptional circumstances. It has been put into effect by amendment 26 in the list of amendments, which are in the appendix that is attached to our letter of 26 February. As you mentioned, it will be a new clause entitled "Adjustment of time periods". Subsection (2) of that new clause provides for an extension of seven days over the Christmas period. That is because some councils may completely close for seven days, so it gives them that period of time back. Subsection (3) deals with exceptional circumstances. If a council cannot comply within 14 days because of exceptional circumstances, it will need to do it as soon as is reasonably practicable. What do we mean by exceptional circumstances? We are talking about events that are very unusual and certainly not typical — for example, a district council might be required to investigate a major food poisoning outbreak. I remind you of the E. coli outbreak that was associated with a restaurant in Belfast a few years ago. That was very significant, and the council's food safety department had to divert its efforts to that for a prolonged time. It is not a common occurrence, but, when it happens, the impact can be quite major. Another instance that I draw your attention to is when the Food Standards Agency might request a district council to do particular things. I will take you back a few years to the horsemeat scandal, which was a high-profile incident, when we requested councils to undertake certain work. We asked them to conduct inspections of all the meat-processing establishments under their control within a defined time to allow the incident to be managed and brought under control. That was additional work that had a significant impact on their routine, business-as-usual work.

The councils deal with issues that are outside their control. We have flooding situations in Northern Ireland, for example, and, when that happens, all staff in the environmental service will be diverted temporarily to get those situations under control. There may be IT failures that take a short time to put right, and there might even be issues that are completely outside the control of the district councils and the Food Standards Agency. There could be a postal strike, for example, so the need to notify people by post within a certain time could be affected. All we are trying to say is that, in those very exceptional circumstances, the requirement is not absolute. We will clarify in guidance what those exceptional circumstances are. It allows some flexibility, so when new exceptional circumstances arise that we have not seen before, that could be reflected in the guidance rather than the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): You talked about exceptional circumstances and very exceptional circumstances. Surely that would need to be very clear. If someone was on long-term sick absence, maybe among a council's environmental health officers, would that be exceptional circumstances?

Ms Baker: It may be for a short time. The amendment says that councils must deal with a situation as soon as is reasonably practicable, but I think that those issues are foreseeable. Every department has to imagine that one or two people may take sick leave from time to time, so the department should have arrangements in place to pick up work. We are talking about bigger, more major events whereby resources have to be diverted for a time. We will detail that quite clearly in the guidance.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Why would you not define in the Bill what constitutes exceptional circumstances?

Ms Baker: That might be quite confining, and, if something else were to come forward at a later stage, amending primary legislation would not be easy. We want the Bill to be able to adapt, within parameters, to situations that we do not foresee at this point. We can be very clear on what constitutes exceptional circumstances and put such situations, which may change and alter, in the guidance.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): One person's exceptional circumstances may be very different to another's or to an organisation's.

Mr Jackson: In the first instance, the idea is that the examples that Kathryn outlined will be in the statutory guidance to accompany the Bill. In developing the guidance, we will engage with district council representatives and say, "Here are what we believe to be exceptional circumstances. They are out of your control for one reason or another". Through discussions with the representatives, we will see whether, from their experience, they know of anything else that would mean that they would not be able to address their obligations under the Act, and we would refine the list. If a district council came across a scenario that did not fit with what we had detailed in the guidance, we would expect the council to liaise with us to see whether it is an exceptional circumstance. We think that we can build a list of issues that are outside councils' control in agreement with the councils, and we can ensure that they make use of the flexibility with time only in those circumstances.

We will talk to you later about the right to reply, the general powers of the agency and how we ensure that councils do things the way that we expect of them through other powers that we have related to audit. To make sure that any aspect of the scheme is being operated appropriately, we have other powers that we do not need to put in the Bill that will allow us to make sure that councils are behaving responsibly and in accordance with statutory guidance.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): In short, you think that a definition of exceptional circumstances in the Bill would be restrictive, and you are prepared to look at the guidance and will offer up definitions.

Mr Jackson: Most definitely, yes.

Ms P Bradley: I can fully understand that, as can Mickey. We had the same issues with the Welfare Reform Bill and had lengthy debates, with other parties putting forward things that they thought should be in the Bill, but it made more sense to have them in the regulations or guidance. That is not only to protect this establishment but to protect the people affected, because, as you said, it is much easier to change something that might not necessarily have been working well or if something better comes up. It is much easier to do it through regulations and guidance than to try to amend a Bill, which is extremely difficult. We want to see some things in the Bill, but that leaves us room for manoeuvre afterwards and to be able to ask whether it is really working out for the people whom we are trying to help or whether we need to change it.

Mr Jackson: We are fortunate that, in developing the first iteration of the guidance, we can build on the experience of the operation of the food hygiene rating scheme since 2010, but the guidance will be very much a live document. We will review it as frequently as we need to, as and when something new needs to be included, changed or amended. It will not be a one-off document that we do not make sure is delivering what we need it to deliver.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): That probably leads on to the next point, which is about monitoring. How do you propose to do that? How often will monitoring happen? Why are you and the councils relying on exceptional circumstances for not meeting deadlines set out in the Bill? How do you propose to monitor whether councils are applying different definitions of exceptional circumstances? Will you clarify that?

Mr Jackson: I will go back to my point about agreeing what constitutes exceptional circumstances at the start of the process. We have regular engagement with the district councils. We set up an implementation group specifically to look at bringing the statutory food hygiene rating scheme into play. That group will always have a role, as will the other liaison mechanisms that we have with the councils, to make sure that, in essence, there is consistency in interpreting and applying any legislation, not just the Food Hygiene Rating Bill.

We also have powers to audit district councils. At an appropriate time after the scheme is embedded, we intend to conduct a focused audit of the district councils, specifically looking at how they are fulfilling their obligations under the Food Hygiene Rating Act and how they are applying guidance that relates to that Act. Post implementation, we will undertake an exercise to make sure that the councils are doing what they are supposed to be doing.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): You are saying that it will be reflected in the guidance so it will not appear in the Bill. There is no requirement for a clause on exceptional circumstances to be removed or amended as situations are redefined. Your view is that the guidance is sufficient.

Mr Jackson: Our view is that we explain from the outset what exceptional circumstances are, and we keep that under review in conjunction with the councils, with the clear expectation that, if they think that they have a situation which does not fit the guidance, they should discuss it with us before deviating.

Ms Baker: Some of the exceptional circumstances relate to the times by which councils have to notify the FSA about certain things. That is easy for us, because we maintain the website, so we know how frequently we are getting information from the councils and when time periods have been exceeded. It is easy for us to look at those times through our IT software and identify where they are not being met. We can then ask the question: why was the time period not met? Was it an exceptional circumstance, and what was it? We will specifically know what is happening. It will be timely and regular information.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Let me come at this from a slightly different angle. Who monitors you in the process about exceptional circumstances?

Mr Jackson: Nobody monitors us because, in the world of food safety, we are what is known as the central competent authority for the United Kingdom. If you imagine the system as a pyramid, we sit at the top. We are responsible for making sure that all competent authorities, including district councils, discharge all their obligations under food law correctly and in accordance with codes of practice and statutory guidance to ensure that the systems work as intended. There are times when the overall performance of a country is subject to scrutiny by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission, but, because this is domestic legislation, the FVO is not interested in it. In effect, nobody checks what we are doing.

As for how we operate as a department, you will be aware that we are non-ministerial and independent, and one of our core values is transparency. When we undertake any activity on an audit and so on, all reports are published in the public domain. We make our findings known and easy to access so that others can see what we are finding and learn from it when they need to.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): I move on to clause 2(3), which specifies the information that a council must send to a business when notifying it of its rating. The councils made the point that they send some of that information well in advance of when they send notification of a rating. They want the clause to recognise that. I think that you have taken that on board and have proposed an amendment to allow for some of the information to be provided at an earlier stage and the remainder to be provided within the 14 days as part of the notification of a rating. Will you talk us through that amendment?

Ms Baker: The way the Bill is drafted, it reads that all the information must be given to the food business operator at the same time. The councils quite rightly pointed out that that is not how the system currently works. We have brought forward amendment 1, through which that would be effected. The purpose is to ensure that the information that is listed in clause 2(3) does not necessarily have to be provided all together at the same time. Let me give you an example. A council will inspect a business, and, in some instances, it may leave a written report on the premises that covers clauses 2(3)(b) and 2(3)(c) at the time of the inspection. The council official may then go back to the office, and there will be internal checks, whereby other people will look at the way in which he or she derived the rating and agree that it has been done correctly. The rating, the sticker and explanations of some of the safeguards will maybe come in a letter after that. The wording of the amendment will allow for those instances. The information will always be provided within 14 days but not necessarily at exactly the same time. That is what the amendment does.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): The amendment allows for those instances that you outlined.

Clause 2(4) has no timescale for councils to inform the FSA of a business rating, which could mean that there is a significant time-lapse for businesses being inspected and the new rating being displayed on the FSA website. You are taking that on board and have proposed an amendment. Can we have a bit more detail on the amendment?

Ms Baker: The timescales within which councils must notify the Food Standards Agency of a rating will be put into effect by amendment 2. It requires councils to inform the Food Standards Agency of a new rating within 34 days from the date of inspection. That is the maximum period; they can do it earlier, but they have to do it within 34 days. The purpose of setting that time limit is to enable the FSA to publish the rating on the website, once the appeal period is over. It puts a framework on when the information will be published. It is important to state that the new rating will be published online only after the appeal period is over. That is because, during the appeal period, as we have discussed, food business operators can decide whether to display their new or existing rating at their premises. During the 21-day appeal period, we do not necessarily know which of the two they have chosen to display. For that reason, during the appeal period, the existing rating will remain on the website, but it will be updated as soon as the appeal has expired. Once a business has decided that it does not want to appeal and that it is happy with its rating, that will pop onto the website. If a business decides that it wants to appeal the rating, once that has been determined and the FSA has been notified, that will pop onto the website.

You may wonder how we arrived at 34 days. Let me explain where that came from. It relates to the 14-day notification period. From the point at which a business gets an inspection, within 14 days, it should have received its rating, and added to that is the 21-day appeal period, because the business has that time to decide whether it wants to appeal. That gives a total of 35 days. We have just taken one day off to make sure that we get the information in a timely manner so that we can publish it as soon as the appeal period ends.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): So it is the 14-day notification period plus the appeal process period, minus one day.

Ms Baker: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Let us move to clause 2(5). The issue here is the timescale for the FSA to publish a business rating on the website. You explained that, currently, when a council notifies the FSA of a business rating, it is automatically uploaded, and you have referenced that on the website. You also accept that there should be a requirement on the FSA about publication. We all accept that IT systems can change, so perhaps this is future-proofing the legislation. There is now a proposed amendment. You are talking about the introduction of a deadline of seven days after the end of the appeal period. Will you give us a bit of reflection on that?

Ms Baker: Certainly. This is amendment 4. As you mentioned, it provides a new requirement on the Food Standards Agency to publish a rating online no later than seven days after the end of the appeal period. As we explained, if we get that information within the timescales that are now on the councils — 34 days — it will appear immediately. It will appear as soon as the appeal period is over. We probably will not need the additional seven days. However, it is in keeping with the provisions in the Welsh Bill, and it allows for any slight IT technical difficulties. We are all aware that IT difficulties can occur, so this is a reasonable amount of time to make sure that such difficulties are sorted out, and it allows for the rating to be put on the website.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): We move to clause 2(6), which is about the format of the sticker. Again, an amendment has been proposed. Will you talk us through that?

Ms Baker: Certainly. That will be effected by amendment 6. The wording has been enhanced to ensure that the regulation-making power already provided in the Bill will allow for more than one form of sticker. That is in response to CEHOG's concerns that the sticker should be available bearing council logos. The amendment details that the regulations will provide clarity on who would bear the costs of producing the sticker. The FSA currently provides the generic sticker for free to the councils to give to the businesses. If councils want to apply their own council logo, they can do so, but they will have to buy the stickers themselves.

The amendment also ensures that we explore the forms of sticker and who provides the various stickers during consultation when we produce the regulations. At that time, we will seek stakeholders' views on stickers, whether the logo should be applied and who will bear the costs. It is to make sure that that regulation-making power is wide enough to allow that to happen, should stakeholders want it to happen.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): On clause 3, Pubs of Ulster suggested that there should be a grace period after an inspection to allow businesses to remedy or fix any issues that had been identified. You previously advised the Committee that you were opposed to the idea of a grace period because it goes against the purposes of the scheme, and you clearly saw that as encouraging self-compliance by businesses. You thought that, if businesses were allowed a grace period to fix issues, there would be no incentive for them to maintain hygiene standards continually. We have discussed it further, and, as a Committee, we understand the arguments on both sides, but will you talk us through your rationale for not providing a grace period?

Mr Jackson: That is one of the most difficult issues that we have to deal with. I am going to take some time to try to go through it in detail to give members a good appreciation of why we are so opposed to the suggestion.

I want to take you back to what it is that we are trying to achieve through the scheme. The purpose of the food hygiene rating scheme is to provide meaningful information to consumers about food hygiene standards and to help them to make informed choices. That in turn provides the incentive for businesses to achieve and maintain compliance with food law and to produce safe food. The fact that the scheme as designed at the moment promotes self-regulation has proved to be a massive benefit to district councils, because most businesses now want to comply and have raised their standards. That in turn allows district councils to focus their resources on the worst businesses that are not taking their obligations to comply with food law seriously.

How did we get to the policy position in the Bill, bearing in mind that we started with a voluntary scheme? You will be aware that we conducted a 12-week consultation between February and April 2013. That was widely distributed to all interested parties, and we organised briefing sessions to inform stakeholders of the consultation. In this instance, we had one session with the enforcement stakeholders and another session specifically for the food industry, and we arranged a number of one-to-one meetings with interested parties. We afforded people lots of opportunities to come around the table and discuss the policy that we were putting forward, which was based on the voluntary scheme, which we know works and delivers the policy objectives.

Mr G Robinson: For clarity, does Pubs of Ulster include hotels and restaurants?

Mr Jackson: Yes. We received 29 responses to the consultation. That was outside the discussion sessions that we had around the table. Of those, five responses came from trade associations, including Pubs of Ulster. At the time of its response to the consultation, there was no suggestion of a radical change to the scheme, such as a period of grace.

In the responses, there was overwhelming support for the appeals mechanism. You may recall that Pubs of Ulster was talking about the period of grace possibly replacing an appeals mechanism because of a reluctance on the part of some businesses to use appeal. Through the consultation, it was very clear that industry does support the concept of the appeals mechanism, and the biggest issue there was the fact that, in our initial policy position, we were proposing only 14 days in which to make an appeal. The policy was revised in light of the consultation, and, indeed, when the Bill first came before you, that had been moved to 21 days, so we had already responded to industry around the length of time for an appeal.

The other issue that was discussed that is relevant in the discussions with industry and with the enforcers was the issue that, under the voluntary scheme, you can have to wait up to a maximum of six months before you can get a rerating inspection carried out. That is, in essence, because we have what is known as a three-month standstill period. Once you have been notified of the rating, no matter what you do to improve conditions, under the voluntary scheme, you cannot even ask for a rerating inspection for three months. Then the councils have, under the brand standard, a further three months to conduct that. In the voluntary scheme, you have that six-month window. Industry was very concerned about this, in the context of a scheme where businesses were going to be required by law to display their sticker, particularly if they had done the necessary work to improve conditions. This was an issue that the district council representatives felt very strongly about, and we had several meetings with the chief officers group, which was very robust in trying to maintain the six-month period in order that they could be satisfied that, when a business did take the necessary action, it was properly committed to changing its ways and had secured long-term improvements. However, we recognised the point that industry made that this could be potentially damaging in the context of having to display stickers, and we agreed a compromise position that the standstill period of three months would be taken away and businesses could request a rerating inspection that would be carried out within three months. In effect, we halved the period of time that any business would have to wait before it could get a new rating. This was quite difficult for the district councils to accept, but the reason for flagging it is that I wanted to make it clear that, on this issue, which is fundamental to industry, there has already been significant compromise in getting to this position.

I will flag again the numerous meetings and discussions that we had with stakeholders. Those who came to the table were able to see how the current voluntary scheme and the basis on which it operates delivers and the rationale behind it, so everyone came trying to refine the policy proposals, and we did not at any stage receive any suggestions about doing something radical such as a period of grace. I want to make it clear to the Committee that this was not an idea that had ever been discussed before and that the first time that it came to light was when Pubs of Ulster suggested it to the Committee earlier in January. The stage at which this has been tabled means that there has been no opportunity for other stakeholders to be consulted on the principle and, indeed, the wider implications that it would have for the scheme.

I will now look in a little bit of detail at what this would actually do to the scheme. First, it is actually very difficult to understand what has been proposed by Pubs of Ulster because there is a lack of information as to how the concept of a period of grace, as is suggested, could operate in the context of the provisions of the Bill, specifically that in clause 3 for appeal and also in clause 4 for a request for rerating. It appears to us that, in proposing a period of grace, Pubs of Ulster has conflated these issues into one issue. It was suggested to the Committee that the period of grace should replace the provision for an appeal, but what we are clear on is that such a mechanism could not replace either the appeal in clause 3 or the request for rerating in clause 4. The reason for saying that is that the appeal provision provides a mechanism for the food business to challenge incorrect decision-making. A period of grace, when you would be accepting the findings of what an officer said and putting things right, is very different. We need to make sure that there is the provision to challenge when what the officer said is incorrect in your eyes.

Secondly, if, after six weeks, the business, which had been found to be not very good on the day of inspection and did not get a five, was being inspected after a period of grace, it is highly unlikely that the business would, on that occasion, be able to get the top rating, even though it had put things right. I will come back to that in detail, but the reason for flagging it here is to make it clear that, because of that, the rerating provision in clause 4 would still be required. The idea of a period of grace cannot get away from the fact that there is a sound rationale, and there would still be a rationale, for appeals and reratings.

The bottom line is that a period of grace would result in a scheme that did not meet the primary policy objectives. In the current voluntary scheme, and in the principles that we are proposing to bring forward through the Bill, the incentive for businesses to comply with food law comes from the fact that if they do not do what the law requires them to do, they will be forced to display a poor rating. That is a fundamental aspect of the scheme. A period of grace would entirely remove that incentive and drive perverse behaviours where, in effect, a business would put things right only when it was told to do so. I am not suggesting that all businesses would act irresponsibly and take that attitude, but we know that there are businesses that, for one reason or another, do not comply, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they would adopt that sort of behaviour.

We also have to bear in mind that the law requires food businesses to comply on an ongoing basis. The real achievement of the food hygiene rating scheme is that it provides the incentive to do that. We are now in a position where 87% of businesses in Northern Ireland are good or very good, and a further 10% are generally satisfactory. Our research has demonstrated that the food hygiene rating scheme has played a key role in achieving that. We know that the mechanism that we have, whereby there is the incentive to comply and a motivator to continue to do so, is effective in maintaining standards of hygiene and, ultimately, in ensuring that businesses produce safe food.

Under the current scheme, a business owner does not know when a food safety officer is going to inspect. However, I know that, if I have not got my house in order, I am going to be forced to display that rating, which will potentially do my business harm. I have a motivator to say, "Actually, it makes more sense for me to try to keep on top of these things and be sensible and run the business in accordance with the law." Then whenever that inspection happens, I will not have anything to worry about. I will get a good rating; my business will not be damaged; and things will be good.

If we look at it from the perspective of the consumer, the reason we are looking for the mandatory display of stickers is to provide consumers with meaningful information. It is our view that introducing a period of grace would completely devalue the scheme, because a rating that was determined only following action or intervention by the district council would not be a reflection of how the business is managing food safety on a regular business day. It is at least questionable whether consumers would consider such a rating to be providing meaningful information if it was prepared only after a business was allowed six weeks to fix its failure to comply with the law, which is an ongoing one on a day-to-day basis.

If you think this through logically, the next repercussion is that it would result in a lack of transparency for consumers because the worst ratings based on unannounced inspections would never be displayed. Consumers would never know how a business, without the intervention of the district council, was performing. They would not see the bad ratings; they would disappear. We would no longer have a scheme that provided meaningful information for the consumer. If you think that through to the next step, it would bring into question the merits of having the six-tier scheme that we currently have, which moves from "urgent improvement" to "very good".

The other thing related to the consumer is that, if you had a six-week period of grace, it would have a significant impact on the length of time that consumers would not have accurate and up-to-date information about hygiene conditions at establishments. It would add six weeks to all the other time-bound requirements in the Bill. For example, you would then be talking about eight weeks from the time of the initial unannounced inspection before the business's new rating would be available by way of a sticker, and then, potentially, another period on top of that before it would appear on the website. That is the impact that it would have on consumers.

Think about the impact that it would have on district councils. I make no apologies for speaking on behalf of district councils; I have the benefit of the experience of enforcement and working with colleagues throughout food hygiene rating from when it was first devised as an idea. The idea of a period of grace would be totally unacceptable to district councils for a number of reasons, but primarily because the scheme would no longer provide an incentive for businesses to comply on an ongoing basis, as required by law, which is what the current scheme has very successfully delivered since it was introduced. The fundamental concept of producing and publishing ratings that are determined based on the findings of unannounced inspections has proved to be a very significant tool in driving and maintaining compliance by food businesses. That is what makes the scheme to value of distinct councils. The current approach has had a very positive impact for the councils, in that they do not need to inspect good businesses as frequently as they would have done when they were not complying. That allows them to target more resource at dealing with businesses that persistently fail to comply with food law. That is an increasingly important point in the context where councils are going to face increasing financial challenges. Fundamentally, the fact that the scheme is driving standards up, with the motivator to self-regulate, is good for the safety of consumers.

If we look at the practicalities of a grace period, we cannot be certain about how it would work because the proposal that has been put to the Committee is an idea without detail. For example, apart from any business that did not get a 5 on the day of the unannounced inspection, would every business have to get a revisit after the six-week period of grace? We do not know. Would that be an automatic right? If it were not an automatic right, how would that work with the provisions in clause 4 for rerating inspections? If it were an automatic right, that would clearly have massive impacts on district councils; it would divert scarce resources away from conducting their planned inspections, which is critical to ensuring that businesses are complying and that the public are being protected. It would also present a burden on businesses if they were automatically required to get a further inspection.

The other thing that there is no detail on is whether industry would be required to pay for the inspections at the end of a period of grace, similar to the proposal that we have in clause 4, whereby businesses will pay for the rerating inspection. We were not exactly clear about whether Pubs of Ulster was talking about a six-week grace period. At times, when it was presenting to the Committee, it referred to 21 days and six weeks. If we assume that it is the longer of the two — a six-week period — that would not always be sufficiently long to allow food businesses to put right all the things that were found to be wrong at the time of inspection. Obviously, some minor things can be fixed just like that; sometimes before the officer even leaves the building. However, if, for example, the business had to address significant structural work, or had to source new equipment that would have to be delivered and supplied, or if food hygiene training was required that had to be delivered by an external provider, six weeks would not, in many cases, be sufficient time to allow that to happen. Fundamentally, we believe that it would not be a sufficient time in which to demonstrate that changes to food safety practices and procedures had been properly implemented and that the business had demonstrated a sustained commitment to improved practices and management of those on an ongoing basis.

I want to go back to the point I made earlier about the concession that has already been made to reduce the rerating period from six months to three months. If we were talking about a six-week period, I am certain that the district councils would find that extremely unacceptable, on that issue alone, never mind the impact that conducting all of the inspections would have. Finally, on that point, I highlight the fact that the rerating provision in clause 4 works on the basis of a request. It is up to the business to decide when the time is right to make the request, depending on how long it knows it will take to put things right. That approach, which is already in the Bill, minimises the burden of re-inspections on district councils and on the businesses. That seems sensible to us.

I will now deal with something that goes right to the core of this: why, if we use the current scoring mechanisms for the food hygiene rating scheme, a period of grace would not work. I take you back to the visit that we arranged for the Committee to the kitchen in Parliament Buildings and the explanation that we provided about how a food hygiene rating is calculated. You will recall that there are three elements of the intervention rating system in annex 5 of the 'Food Law Code of Practice' that are used to calculate food hygiene ratings. One of those elements is confidence in management. That is where the officer is making a judgement on the likelihood of satisfactory compliance by the business being maintained in the future. Several factors are taken into consideration when scoring that element, but a fundamental factor is the track record of the company and its willingness to act on advice and enforcement actions. That is the element that means that a rating is not based just on the findings on the day of inspection, as has been suggested by Pubs of Ulster. In fact, the compliance over time is being taken into account in producing the rating. Take, for instance, a situation where a business was not proactively complying with the law and was waiting to be told what to do when the food safety officer came along, which is what could happen with the period of grace. That would result in a poor score for confidence in management, even after the six-week period of grace, because the six-week period is not relevant to the confidence in management score. The confidence in management is about how the business was being run when the inspection was carried out, and the history in the period in the run-up to that. That would, in fact, mean that, at the end of a period of grace, it would be virtually impossible for a business to achieve a score of 5, because the limiting factor would be the score for confidence in management. Your hygiene may have improved, your practice and procedures may have improved, and your scores there could have moved to 5 or indeed 0, but the chances of you getting a score of 0 or 5 for confidence in management would not be possible because of what the confidence in management is. So, that is going to the core of the scheme and why we believe that it would not work as a concept. If you wanted to bring this type of approach in, you would have to rebuild the complete scheme and have a different way of rating the businesses and working out the scores.

We also have to remember that there are businesses that take their obligation to comply with food law very seriously and behave responsibly on an ongoing basis. They value the fact that that results in them achieving a good rating that they can proudly display and use to commercial advantage. If there was no incentive for businesses to comply, as would be the case with a period of grace, some of those who currently comply would be less likely to do so in future, and the scheme would become pointless. We also have to remember that many businesses spend a significant amount of money on ensuring that proper hygiene standards are maintained and that food safety is properly managed in their business. A period-of-grace approach by businesses that do not put in the effort to comply until they are told to do so by the food safety officer would, therefore, be unfair and unacceptable to responsible businesses.

Hopefully, that has given you an insight into the complexities and difficulties that exist around the period of grace. If you were to bring in the period of grace, we would end up having to have a hygiene rating scheme that is operating on a basis that is fundamentally different from those that currently operate in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. We would have to completely redesign and rebrand the scheme, and, ultimately, the food hygiene rating scheme as we know it would not have the same meaning as the current FHRS does across the three countries. When you see the sticker with the number in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether it is a voluntary scheme or a mandatory display scheme, it means the same thing to the consumers. So, we do not think that it would be good for consumers if we had to have a totally different scheme in Northern Ireland. Our research has demonstrated that the awareness of the current scheme is high, consumers can easily understand it and value it, and it can be used across the three countries with confidence that it is providing a consistent and meaningful message.

Finally, at this stage, we do not propose to bring forward an amendment to introduce a period of grace or further compromise on this aspect of the scheme, having made clear that compromise has already been made as regards the period for a rerating inspection. Because it goes to the very heart of the scheme and would, in effect, pull the scheme apart, as we currently know it, we suggest that it would be necessary to engage with all stakeholders who would be impacted, before it would be possible to get to a position of change on something of this nature.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): OK, thank you. That has been very detailed. What I am hearing is that your view on the introduction of a period of grace is that it would not meet the policy objectives of the Bill.

Mr Jackson: That is correct, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Ultimately, it would not provide the challenge function that would be provided for in an appeal.

Mr Jackson: That is correct. The appeal is a very different thing and would still need to be there.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): You have been very clear on it. It is very useful. Do members have any comments on that clause or need any more information? OK.

On clause 3(6), you suggested an amendment that required the council to inform FSA of the outcome of an appeal or if the appeal has been abandoned. It also specifies that if the rating has been changed as a result of the appeal, the FSA must publish the new rating online within seven days. We have touched on some of that. So, briefly talk us through the amendment.

Ms Baker: It has been put into effect by amendment 7 on the list of amendments, and it follows on from what we discussed around clause 2(5). It is, in effect, to ensure that the FSA can publish ratings speedily and as soon as possible. The amendment places a requirement on the FSA to publish ratings online no later than seven days, but, to do that, they would need to have received the information from the councils. The amendment proposes that, within 21 days, at the same time that the district council notifies the operator of the decision of the appeal, they would also let the Food Standards Agency know, and if the rating has changed as a result of appeal, the Food Standards Agency would publish that within seven days.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): OK. Are members comfortable enough? Do you need any more information? No.

On clause 3(10), it would be useful to have clarification on whether the power to provide for an appeal to be determined by a person other than the council that produced the rating can be done at any time or only after review of the Act.

Mr Jackson: First, we would conduct a review to attempt to address any issues around how the appeal mechanism works. This is one of the provisions in the Bill where we said that we will conduct a review to determine whether or not the appeal mechanism is working. Again, going back to the point that I made at the start, it would not necessarily, on all occasions, be a review, because we may be able to gather information about the appeal process working through a different approach on a more informal basis.

The bottom line is that, in the first instance, we will conduct a review in accordance with the legislation, but, after that, we would not always want to be tied to having to have a review to change that mechanism.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): So, it is similar to clause 1(7) that we looked at; it is not necessarily a review.

Mr Jackson: It is exactly the same, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): The proposed amendment to clause 4(3) is to require a council to notify the FSA of the outcome of a rerating within 34 days. It will also require the FSA to publish the new rating online within seven days of the end of the appeal period. That mirrors the arrangement in clause 2. What is your rationale for that amendment?

Ms Baker: As you said, it mirrors the arrangement in clause 2. The amendment to require the council to notify the FSA of a rerating is put into effect by amendment 9, and it just replicates the requirements in clause 2 by inserting two new subclauses, 4A and 4B. The periods are exactly the same as those detailed in clause 2, so, within 34 days, they would notify us of the new rating, and the FSA would publish within seven days.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): It would be useful to have clarification of whether the power in clause 4(10) to limit the number of times that a rerating can be requested can be used at any time or after the review of the Act. Is it similar?

Mr Jackson: It is exactly the same.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Clause 5(2) sets out the arrangements for a food business to respond in writing to the rating that is to be published on the Food Standards Agency website. You propose an amendment to clause 5(2) to specify a period of 21 days in which councils must deal with the right of reply. Will you give us a sense of that proposed amendment?

Mr Jackson: This is put into effect by amendment 13, which requires councils to deal with a right of reply and notify the FSA within 21 days. We went for 21 days because we consider it a reasonable period in which to consider a right of reply. It may be necessary to visit a business to have a discussion with the food business operator, and it could take a bit of time to set that up. Ultimately, the 21 days is consistent with the period for considering an appeal, which is why we went for that.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): It is consistent with the appeals process.

Mr Jackson: That is correct.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Clause 5(3) deals with the arrangements for a food business establishment to make a written reply to the rating to be published on your website. You propose an amendment to clause 5(3) to specify a period of seven days in which the FSA must publish a right to reply. You also propose an amendment that ties publication of the representation to publication of the rating. Will you give us a sense of that?

Mr Jackson: Consistent with the other obligations on the agency to publish the rating within seven days, we have gone for the same period for the publication of the right to reply. However, I flag to the Committee that, in normal circumstances and given the current technology used, it will happen virtually as soon as it has been received by the Food Standards Agency.

Amendment 17 provides additional clarity to confirm that a right-of-reply representation would be published only after the rating to which it relates has been published. We cannot have a situation of someone trying to publish a right of reply before the rating has been published. I will explain that. If an inspection conducted at a business results in a new rating of 3, and the food business operator provides a right of reply to the council for publication, the 3 rating will not be published until the appeal period has expired. During that period, the right of reply cannot be published. Once the rating is published, the right of reply will also be published. Amendment 17 ensures that we link the right of reply to the rating to which it relates. It just keeps the two together.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): There were questions about clause 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c), which gave councils powers to edit representations before forwarding them to you, or to refuse to send them to you in any form. The Committee was concerned that those arrangements would mean that the FSA, as the ultimate owner of the scheme, would not be aware of representations that had been edited or that councils decided not to send on. As a result, the FSA would not be aware of any patterns emerging in particular councils. You have drafted an amendment to clause 5(3), which would require councils to inform the FSA when they edit a representation or decide not to forward it. However, I understand from your letter of 26 February that you want to discuss this further with the Committee. Will you outline your current thinking?

Mr Jackson: You are correct: amendment 13, as currently drafted, provides for a new clause 5(2). The new elements are in 5(2B)(c) and 5(2C)(b) and would require councils to notify the FSA when they edit or refuse to send a right-of-reply representation to us. However, having thought about it, we do not believe that it is a necessary provision. I would like briefly to explain why we think that that is the case. We trust district councils to discharge all their statutory obligations in a responsible and reasonable manner, including implementation of the food hygiene rating scheme, as currently specified in the brand standard. Most importantly, as I mentioned earlier, we already have the power to audit district council performance under the Food Standards Act, the primary legislation that created the Food Standards Agency. At any time, we have the power to check what a council is doing and how it is applying any scheme or legal obligation, so we do not see the need to draft a provision that would place a burden on district councils, given that the power to gather the information already exists. As I said earlier, it is our intention to conduct an audit, in due course, that will focus on the operation of the food hygiene rating scheme to ensure that it is being implemented in accordance with the Act, the associated regulations and guidance.

I would also like to point out that the brand standard, which currently governs how the councils go about their business in relation to the scheme, is clear on the circumstances in which the text of a right-of-reply representation should be edited, namely, to remove any offensive, defamatory, clearly inaccurate or irrelevant remarks. If the text is edited, a copy of the revised text has to be provided to the food business operator who made the representation, and the district council has to provide an opportunity to comment on that prior to publication. So, there is transparency in any amendments to or editing of a reply and any refusal to publish a reply, and the food business operator always knows what is going on. We envisage that the guidance currently in the brand standard will be replicated in the statutory guidance for the scheme. To strengthen that, we could also include a requirement in the guidance that, before a decision to edit or a refusal to forward a right-of-reply representation to the FSA is made, it must be discussed with or approved by the line manager or head of service responsible for the officer making that decision. So, we could build an additional layer of control into the guidance to make sure that the decision-making is correct.

We have also to remember that the Bill already requires councils to fully inform the food business operator of a decision to edit or refuse to forward a reply to the FSA. Although that safeguard is little used under the voluntary scheme, in the event that the food business operator is unhappy about the decision, there are existing remedies. If an operator thinks that their comment was not defamatory and does not agree with the council removing it, there are mechanisms available. The operator could make a complaint under the district council's complaints procedure or, if they felt strongly about it, consider a judicial review against the council for abuse of process.

Clause 14 requires each district council to keep the operation of the Act in its district under review. Guidance on that requirement, specifically on right-to-reply representations, could be included. We could also include it when we conduct the review that we are obliged to carry out. We could look at how the right-to-reply provision was being implemented and, at that stage, identify whether there were any issues.

District councils are required to have internal monitoring practices in place to ensure that service delivery is in accordance with the 'Food Law: Code of Practice' and other relevant guidance. Decisions on right to reply could be included in the monitoring that takes place of all activities to make sure that the job is being done correctly, and that could be written into the council's procedures.

Finally, notification of such actions would make FSA aware that the action has been taken, but there is no power in the Bill to require the FSA to take action against a district council, so, even if we required them to give that information to us, we could not do anything about it. However, the existing powers available allow us to monitor the council performance and address any issues of concern. So, we are quite confident that it is not likely to be abused by councils and that we would be capable of finding out what is happening, even though we would not require them to tell us every time they edited or refused to send us a representation. In effect, we would prefer not to proceed with the proposed subsections (2B)(c) and (2C)(b) in amendment13. If we do not proceed with those, amendments 15 and 20, which are consequential to amendment 13, will also not be required.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): So, effectively, you are saying that the existing powers would allow for the appropriate monitoring, and it is your view that councils would not abuse it or be in a position to abuse it.

Mr Jackson: One simple way of looking at it is that, if a food business operator feels sufficiently strongly about making a right to reply, the council will deal with that in a responsible manner because the person who has raised it as an issue will not let it disappear. Councils will not be able to forget about it or say that they are not publishing it. Indeed, there would be no motivation for them to do so. The clear guidance is that editing is to remove defamatory or inaccurate remarks and once they have been removed, and it is right that they have been removed, the responses would be published.

Fundamentally, internal checks and monitoring within the council — we can detail this again in guidance — and our audit function and monitoring of the performance and review of the scheme give us sufficient mechanisms that we do not think that we need to put in the Bill this additional burden on councils.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): On clause 6(4), the proposed amendment is because the end of the appeal period is now covered in the amendment to clause 2. Is that correct?

Ms Baker: That is right.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): I just wanted to clarify that.

On clause 7, Committee members raised concerns that the Bill does not require businesses that have a website to display their rating on it. You will be aware of that. We have discussed the issue at length and want to hear more detail on the rationale for that.

Ms Baker: OK. Later, I will refer to the paper detailing the scheme timeline, which you now have a copy of. When the issue was raised in Committee previously, we explained that the Bill as currently drafted is designed to fill the gap in the current voluntary scheme's requirement for food businesses to display their rating at their establishment. As members are aware, the Food Standards Agency currently publishes on its website all the food hygiene ratings for businesses that are in the scope of the scheme. We are of the view that, when consumers make an online food purchase, perhaps on their computer, laptop, tablet or even phone, they will have access to that information. That will either be directly, by going on to the FSA's website, or through the many apps that are now available and are provided by third parties.

We accept that a rating may not be visible directly on the web page, but it is easily accessible and just a few clicks away. This is clearly not the case, however, for a consumer who is purchasing food at an establishment where the rating is not displayed. This is the gap that the Bill as currently drafted is trying to fill.

In considering whether to require operators to provide their rating online, a fundamental question that needs to be asked is this: where on the Internet would we require a rating to be published? How food businesses use the Internet can be complex and multifaceted: for example, some have an official website that offers online ordering. Others have an official website that promotes their business but does not offer an online food-ordering facility, so would the rating go there, too? Increasingly, smaller businesses and others use social media channels to advertise their business, as we often see on Facebook. Would the rating go there, too?

We now have third-party online providers that offer the services of many businesses together. There is, for example, a raft of takeaway sales websites, such as Just Eat, from which consumers can order food online from one of many outlets in their area. Would the rating go there? Other third parties compile general directories of businesses, so there will be instances when a food business might not even be aware that it has an online presence. We also need to take into account that the Internet and how people use it is changing all the time. There is an increasing trend towards the use of social media channels to market and promote services, so we would need to consider how to future-proof any requirement in order to reflect the fact that this environment is changing quite quickly.

Members asked for further clarity on possible technical or other difficulties that would be presented should the Bill require online publication of the rating. In addition to the initial question of where on the Internet a rating should go, issues were raised by people who responded to the consultation in Wales and from Welsh Government officials. They told us that the sales parts of their websites are generic and contain the information that consumers need to decide what to buy. Generally, however, the delivery will come from a large local store, where the goods will be selected for delivery. In other words, the consumers would need to know which store the products were coming from, but that could change depending on business demands on any given day. How could meaningful ratings be made available in those circumstances? For some businesses, the order may come from a warehouse or distribution system rather than from one of their consumer stores. That would not be within the scope of the scheme, and, therefore, it would not have a rating.

Multinational retailers operate a single online ordering facility across the UK. During the consultation in Wales, they put forward comments that the Welsh Government could be exceeding their powers by introducing a requirement that would apply to companies with websites that related to food premises outside Wales as well as companies or businesses in Wales. The same question would need to be answered for Northern Ireland. When ordering food online, the transaction may not take place in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. Would the requirements of the Act in Northern Ireland extend in those circumstances? On what page would the rating appear for it to be useful? Some websites are very large and have many, many pages, and it would not be proportionate to expect them to put their rating on every page. So, where exactly, even on a food business's own website, are we talking about?

The other really big challenge that we see for online publication is enforcement. It would be resource-intensive for district council officers to police. In the first instance, they would need to determine whether a business had an online presence. As I said, an official website could have multiple pages, and it would require some resource to check through all the pages to ascertain whether the requirement was being complied with. We know that district councils would not have the resources to carry out those additional checks. In fact, we would not want that to divert from their planned programmes and the work that they do in dealing with poorly complying businesses. Unless significant resources are put into policing the requirement, there is the potential for many online ratings to be out of date, which could, ultimately, undermine the scheme.

Mechanisms would be needed to ensure that ratings were kept up to date and renewed in a timely fashion so that there were no misleading ratings for consumers. We would need to think about the time frame stipulated for businesses to update any ratings that they had online.

The current position in Wales is that Welsh Assembly Government officials concluded that the resource required for district councils to enforce the provision would be disproportionate to the benefits gained.

When we appeared before the Committee previously, we proposed to table an amendment that would require the Food Standards Agency to continue to do more to promote the scheme. We think that that would have a number of effects. The promotion would be aimed at consumers and inform them of the scheme, not just the new mandatory requirement to display ratings at establishments but as a means to promote the use of the Food Standards Agency website when people are making online purchases. We have already been doing a lot of work in this area over the last number of years. To give you an idea of the kind of promotion we are talking about, we put together a timeline and have circulated it to members. It shows some of the promotions that the Food Standards Agency has taken forward since the scheme's launch in 2011. When the scheme was launched, we ran quite a large publicity campaign, with television ads, which some of you may have seen, and billboard posters. That was a very successful campaign.

We have carried the promotion on since then. What you see in front of you is not everything that we have done; it is an example of something that we have done every year. We have had poster campaigns, and, increasingly, we are moving very much to promoting the scheme through social media. You can see some of our most recent campaigns, one of which was on Valentine's Day, when there was a lot of social media promotion of the scheme.

The Food Standards Agency now makes ratings available through open data, and we will continue to do that. That allows third parties to download the ratings and use them in apps and other ways to continually make the information more easily available online. The FSA will also continue to work with third-party providers to encourage them to use the ratings when food is sold online. We have already worked with, for example, Just Eat, which is an online takeaway ordering service. Members can go on to the website, identify the area they live in, select a type of takeaway and get a list of premises from which they can order. There is already a link on every business page that customers click to take them directly to the place on the website where they can find the food hygiene rating of an establishment. Businesses and third parties already use that information, and we will continue to work with new providers that come into the marketplace to encourage them to do the same. We will continue to provide toolkits for businesses. These provide them with the necessary artwork and branding to enable them to use their rating on any promotional material and online. We will continue to give them the information that they need to do that.

If Committee members think that there should be a requirement for mandatory online ratings, we suggest further consultation with stakeholders to fully assess the costs and benefits and seek agreement on questions that they have raised with us. Stakeholders may have more questions about how the details of the proposal would work in practice.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Chair, and apologies for being late. I have raised this a number of times. I understand the complexity of the issue, but I am still of the mind that it is almost unfair that some people or some companies will not have to display the rating because they operate online, or, maybe they operate predominantly online or make half their sales online. I do not think that it is fair on the consumer who orders online that they do not have the same access to ratings. However, I understand the complexities and all the issues. That is why I wonder whether you have looked at having a link to the ratings. The rating would not be displayed, but there would be a link to it to take you to your site where, regardless of whether it applied, the information would be available on your site. Is that an answer? Would that not be preferable to throwing the baby out with the bath water and saying that it was too complicated and that you could not do it?

Mr Jackson: It would simplify some of the technical difficulties that Kathryn explained, but I do not think that it would get around the issue of businesses that operate on a UK-basis, for example, and where the decision may be made outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, where the food is being supplied from. It would still be very difficult to provide the specific and meaningful information and not step outside what would be legally acceptable for companies trading on a UK-basis.

Mrs Cameron: But, instead of coming up with a rate of zero to five in those cases, could you not simply have "No rating available" or "Not applicable"?

Mr Jackson: The point that I am trying to make is that for us to make any requirement related to a rating that could take us outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland could mean that there was an issue of competence. We would need to be very careful about that, even if it was not an actual number related to a particular business. We need to be very careful that there is the competence in the Assembly to do anything required to be done in law.

Ms Baker: We still want to work directly with providers and businesses that have an online presence and which sell food online to encourage them to put the link on. We can take that up and do more, although we have not done a huge amount, it has to be said. We have worked with some third-party providers, such as Just Eat. We can do a lot more to provide businesses with know-how, even with applying the link and making it work. Once you make it a requirement in the Bill, you will, in its drafting and for it to be meaningful, have to have some of the answers to the questions that we have asked about where it would be. That is very important for enforcement, because a very general requirement would be difficult to enforce. Quite a lot of effort would go in to seeing that it happens.

We can do a lot more on promotion. If the scheme is mandatory, its profile will be much higher and people will know that they now need to see it on a door. So we can do a lot more in our promotion at that stage to say, "What about when you're online?" and to make people aware of our website. We will have to let them know that they just open another window on their computer, put the name of the business in, and they will get it. It is not that it is not there; it is just not as accessible as it could be. However, we could do more than we are doing at the moment to make it more accessible and to encourage businesses to do it. You see it with third-party providers. There are apps appearing on the market through which this can be quite easily accessed through phones. So third-party people are picking it up and using it in inventive ways — ways that we do not know about yet.

Mr Jackson: The great benefit of that approach is that when the marketplace and tech companies are driving it, they do so at their cost to drive their business model. There is no cost to government; there is no cost to district councils to enforce something that would be very difficult to enforce. So, the market, in effect, occupies the space. IT and the Internet have evolved in recent years, and it is clear that that will continue to be the case. We talked about official websites. Outside the major supermarkets that have a well-defined business model that can operate on that basis, many businesses, particularly smaller ones, are not going for the website route. As Kathryn said, a lot of places are using Facebook and so on, so to put something very prescriptive in the legislation as to how a rating should be displayed on the Internet would be extremely difficult.

We know that only a small proportion of consumers use web ratings. What will become even more prevalent will be using the rating at the point of purchase in establishments.

Mrs Cameron: I know that there are many complications, but it does not need to be as complicated as it is being made. It could be as simple as turning up at a restaurant or food outlet to order or receive food and seeing the rating. Surely when it comes to online, it could be as simple as having access to the rating on the page on which you order food, whether the rating itself or a link to the rating. It is too important a factor to be left out.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): I sense that you are not convinced, but we will reflect on what we have heard today. I get a sense that there is more that the FSA could do on this issue, but we will reflect, Pam, on what we have heard.

Councils expressed concern about the requirement in clause 12(2) for them to provide certain information to food businesses in the 14 days after they registered. Councils made the point that they provide a lot of information prior to registration and they wanted flexibility in being able to provide information at various stages of the process. You accepted that concern and are proposing an amendment. Again, this is just to get a sense from you of that amendment and the detail.

Mr Jackson: That is exactly the case. On reflection, when we looked at what was in the Bill, we had not taken into consideration how that information would be provided to new businesses. The councils are perfectly correct that they will be working with a business for a long time, quite often before the business registers.

Amendment No 22 provides additional words to clause 12(2) to ensure that councils can continue to provide the information before the 14-day period following registration if they wish. That is a pragmatic approach that reflects current practice. It is similar to what we said about providing information following an inspection. Sometimes that happens at the time of inspection, but, in any event, it has to happen within 14 days. There is the outside point in time by which the information must be provided, but it can happen sooner.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): OK, that is clear enough. Are members clear on that or do they need more information?

We touched on some of clause 14 and related amendments to clauses 4 and 18, and the introduction of the new clause about the adjustment of time periods, which we touched on at the start of this process. The Committee expressed concern about the wide-ranging powers in clause 14(8), which was shared by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who believed that it was an inappropriate delegation that set a dangerous precedent. The FSA has now accepted the Examiner's points and has proposed the amendments set out in the letters to the Committee dated 5 and 26 February 2015. Can you provide some detail about the amendments? It would be useful to have clarification on whether the power to substitute different time periods under subsection 1 of the new clause can be done at any time or only after review of the Act. Maybe that has been dealt with, but if you would just clarify that.

Mr Jackson: Because the amendments are very technical, it is quite difficult to explain it. We have fully taken on board the points made by the Examiner about clause 14(8). In essence, we now have five powers in prescribed situations where we can amend the regulations. Those are very tightly defined in the Bill, and they would all be subject to affirmative procedure in relation to the powers. That wide-ranging ability to change primary legislation has been completely removed. If we wanted to propose amendments not covered by the provisions now listed, we would have to do so through seeking amendments to the Act in the Assembly. That area has been completely addressed to be very clear as to the five powers when we can amend through regulations.

We mentioned review. In the case of the provisions that we propose that we would be able to change through the regulations, they would, in the first instance, be linked to the review that will be carried out. Thereafter, they would not always be linked to a review because of other ways that the evidence may come to light that we need to change those provisions.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Yes, but not always linked to the review.

Mr Jackson: No.

The Chairperson (Ms Maeve McLaughlin): Do members want any clarification or do they have any comments on that?

OK, folks. Thank you very much. It was certainly useful. We will reflect on the evidence that we heard today. Thank you for your time and detail.