Health and Community Care Committee, 13 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 13, 2000

Official Report 255KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

We shall now consider a series of Scottish statutory instruments. We have a bit of a backlog of instruments, because during the recess and for a couple of weeks before it we did not consider any subordinate legislation.

The Deputy Minister for Community Care, Iain Gray, is with us, together with officials from the Food Standards Agency. The clerks have asked whether members have questions about any of the affirmative or negative instruments. Mary Scanlon has indicated that she would like more information about the instruments on paralytic and amnesic shellfish poisoning, a subject that the committee has considered in detail in the past. All the affirmative instruments that are before us today deal with shellfish.

I do not pretend to be an expert on paralytic shellfish poisoning or amnesic shellfish poisoning, but as a regional member for the Highlands and Islands I will take the opportunity to ask two simple questions that are often put to me, although I am not sure whether you will be able to answer the second one.

First, I am told that 97 per cent of scallops are processed. There is a feeling that there is no danger to public health after scallops have been washed and processed, and that we should be testing them as they enter the food chain, which would mean that scallop fishing could go ahead. I understand that that is what happens in Ireland. I read an e-mail earlier this week that questioned whether the Irish were obeying the European directive on testing. I would like some clarification on that.

Secondly, I understand from fishermen that similar situations have arisen in Spain and Portugal, and that there has been compensation for loss of earnings and the devastation of rural communities. I am not sure whether that point comes under your remit.

The committee has considered your first point on a number of occasions. The testing and monitoring regime that we impose is necessary to comply with the European Commission directive. The end-use testing that you describe would not comply with that directive, but we are sympathetic to looking at the testing regime. Discussions and negotiations are taking place to explore whether it would be possible to introduce a several-tiered testing regime.

I believe that research is being done, the results of which are expected soon, to compare the testing that you describe with the testing that is being used. That would be part of the consideration of whether a different testing regime would be possible. There is no quick fix; it would take time to negotiate a different regime. One aspect of that would be that, to ensure food safety for the public, we would have to have a strict regulatory regime alongside the testing regime. Neither the Executive nor the Food Standards Agency is close to pursuing that, but as things stand at the moment, we must comply with the directive.

The position has always been that compensation is not usually provided for the consequences of a naturally occurring incident; shellfish poisoning is a naturally occurring incident, arising as it does from algal blooms. Other countries may take a different view, but that has always been, and remains, the position in this country.

Is it true that poison is removed by processing the scallops?

My understanding is that that has not been tested. It would be proper to ask one of my colleagues from the FSA to comment.

Processing does not remove the toxins. Even cooking does not remove the toxins—they remain at the same level—but, during the processing, the most toxic elements of the animal can be removed. That is why we might be able to go down the route of a formal tiered system.

Thank you for answering those questions. I ask the minister to move each of these Scottish statutory instruments, beginning with the emergency affirmatives.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (No 3) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/266) recommends that the order be approved.

That the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/267) recommends that the order be approved.

That the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No 2) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/291) recommends that the order be approved.

That the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (No 4) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/295) recommends that the order be approved.

That the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No 3) (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/303) recommends that the order be approved.—[Iain Gray.]

Motions agreed to.

That is the end of business, as far as the minister is concerned. Minister, you are free to go if you wish, or you can stay and enjoy the delights of the negative instruments that we have before us.

The first negative instrument is the Meat (Enhanced Enforcement Powers) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/171). The Subordinate Legislation Committee sought clarification from the Executive on this matter, and drew to its attention the fact that there had been a number of instruments relating to it. The committee asked the Executive to find out what the FSA planned to do. The FSA is considering the matter, but has yet to consider whether consolidation of the legislation in Scotland would be appropriate—once something like five instruments have come into force, a decision has to be taken on whether it is better to consolidate them. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has asked us to draw those comments to the attention of members.

No motion to annul has been lodged, so the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next instrument is the Community Care (Direct Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/183). The Subordinate Legislation Committee has no comments. No motion to annul has been lodged. The recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next instrument is the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/190). The Subordinate Legislation Committee has no comments. No motion to annul has been lodged, so the recommendation is that we make no recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On the National Health Service (Choice of Medical Practitioner) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/191), the Subordinate Legislation Committee had no comments. No motion to annul has been lodged, and again the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. However, I intimated to the minister that one member of the committee—Irene Oldfather—wished to take up the matter with him privately.

It is right and proper that general practitioners should not be placed at risk from violent patients. None of us would disagree with that, but we all know of patients who have been struck off GPs' lists for very little reason. Would the Executive be willing to consider strengthening or clarifying the criteria? In a patient-centred health service, that would strengthen and clarify patients' rights as well.

I told the minister that you were concerned. If that concern is shared by other committee members, I am happy to write to the Executive to ask for clarification, because most of us, at one time or another, have come up against the issue in our surgeries and in comments from constituents. If members agree, I will write to the minister on the issue.

On the instrument, the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next instrument is the National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/188). The Subordinate Legislation Committee has no comments. No motion to annul has been lodged. The recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn the Parliament's attention to the defective drafting—which was acknowledged by the Executive—of the National Health Service (Professions Supplementary to Medicine) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/202). However, no motion to annul has been lodged, so the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On the Processed Cereal-Based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/214), the Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn to the attention of the Parliament the delay of 13 days between making and laying the instrument, and the explanation by the Executive. The problem had something to do with the postal services between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The delay in laying instruments before Parliament, and the delay that that causes in instruments coming to us, is an issue that we will address again when we consider how the committee has functioned over the past year. Members should have had, or will be receiving, an e-mail about that.

At the conveners liaison group yesterday, some of the proposed changes to committee procedures were laid before us by Murray Tosh, the convener of the Procedures Committee. I will circulate that information to members so that I can have their input on any changes that they would like the conveners liaison group to consider. The timing of statutory instruments is an issue that we have had problems with in the past, and I know that we are not alone in that.

On this instrument, no motion to annul has been lodged, so the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comment on the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Amendment (Scotland) Regulations (SSI 2000/217). No motion to annul has been lodged, and the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am told that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's comments on the Tetrachloroethylene in Olive Oil (Scotland) Revocation Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/229) will be available after the meeting. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the instrument only yesterday, and thought that insufficient footnotes were available. That point has been acknowledged by the Executive, and I hope that it will act on that in future, but that does not substantially alter the instrument. No motion to annul has been lodged, so the recommendation is that the committee does not wish to make any recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your patience colleagues. I draw today's meeting to a close.

Meeting closed at 12:22.