Health and Community Care Committee, 08 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 8, 1999

Official Report 245KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

We now turn to item 3 on the agenda, amnesic shellfish poisoning. The Rural Affairs Committee had a meeting on 31 August. Its members were concerned about the impact of the amnesic shellfish ban on scallop fishing. The convener and the clerk of that committee told me that they had invited the chief medical officer for Scotland to talk to them about some of the aspects of amnesic shellfish poisoning and the beef-on-the-bone ban. They asked if we were interested in attending their meeting to ask questions of the CMO on those two matters.

I thought that we would be interested. Resources can be rationalised if our committees deal with those issues together, so there is something to be gained. We touched on the issue of co-operation yesterday. The edges of our remits are blurred on these matters, and, as someone told me, life is not in little boxes. Rather than expecting the whole committee to attend the Rural Affairs Committee, I suggest that I and one representative from each of the political parties go along. We could ask questions and participate in that part of their meeting on 5 October. Does that meet with the approval of the committee? It does. Excellent. That is the type of debate that we should have.

Item 4 is the report from the meeting of the conveners group. I will not need the half-hour that has been allocated to this matter.

With regard to questioning the CMO, the Rural Affairs Committee can deal with whatever it wants, but the issue of new-variant CJD and how it relates to BSE is a detailed and technical subject, and there are many related issues, such as the unit in Edinburgh, how it is funded, how long it will exist, and what predictions can be made. I can think of a good half-hour of questioning on the health issue alone that I would like to ask. I am slightly concerned. We have dealt with the medical aspects of shellfish.

Quite exhaustively.

Yes. I am concerned that the issues might be mixed up. I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee is dealing with the impact—

Obviously, this was passed in their committee, and then they had to come to us.

I do not see what they will question the CMO about.

The issue is, which is the lead committee for dealing with beef on the bone?

The Rural Affairs Committee is under the impression that it is.

On health issues relating to that matter?

No, we deal with that.

We deal with food safety because it is within the remit of this committee. When considering these matters, our role is to examine aspects of food safety.

The CMO and the Rural Affairs Committee should come to us for this issue. That is not being territorial. The whole of this committee may want to question the CMO on the health and public safety issues.

You can understand that I am in a slightly difficult position, because the Rural Affairs Committee has already gone through its committee process. Prior to their meeting, nobody intimated that they would take that decision. If the mood of the committee is that we say we will not go along, and that we should invite the CMO separately, we will do so, but I was reacting to an invite after the fact.

We are dealing with a matter of principle, which also applies to other issues. The economic consequences of the beef-on-the-bone ban for rural areas—for example, how they are affected by it and how they can be protected—is a legitimate area for the Rural Affairs Committee to address. The medical question as to whether the ban should be lifted, however, is a matter for this committee, as is any other medical issue. Other committees should not be making decisions about medical matters.

I strongly agree. This is a procedural issue which the clerk should be asked to take away. This committee has priority, and if the Rural Affairs Committee wishes to call the CMO at a later point, it can do so. If, however, it wants to ask questions on food safety and on public health safety, it is infringing on the prerogative of this committee.

We can ask the clerk to take this up. The request came from the convener and the clerk of the Rural Affairs Committee, as if this was a procedure that was acceptable. If the clerk can investigate that for us, we can revisit the matter. Their meeting is not until 5 October, so we have time.

I think that we would be doing a disservice to the chief medical officer to allow that to happen. It would damage the integrity of this committee. We hope that, if we ever call him, it will be on important issues. It is unfair to have him disappear off to the Rural Affairs Committee.

The request has been made. I do not know whether he has accepted it. We will leave it with the clerk and she can report back to us. I have taken note of the committee's views; obviously, I was being far too soft.