Official Report 124KB pdf
You will be happy to hear that we are moving out of the land of SSI and various foodstuffs into item 7, which concerns the clarification of the committee's remit.
You say that there is to be no vote during that Rural Affairs Committee—
That is my understanding.
I know that the parties have different opinions on the beef-on-the-bone ban, but we all accept that it is a health issue. If there were to be a vote, it would be about health, and the Health and Community Care Committee should do the voting. Our remit is to study and to protect the health of the people of Scotland. If we went along to the Rural Affairs Committee and it voted on a health issue, that would be back to front.
I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee has invited the chief medical officer to give the committee members information on the beef-on-the-bone situation. We asked for a clarification of the committee's remit, and were told that its invitation had been couched in such a way that it fell within its remit. The Rural Affairs Committee is perfectly at liberty to invite him. The question for us is not what that committee has done—because it has not done anything wrong—but whether we want to go along to its meeting and take part, or whether we want to invite the chief medical officer to this committee so that we can talk to him about beef on the bone and so that we can vote on it.
Our going along would set a dangerous precedent, and we should not set such a precedent. The issue clearly falls within the remit of this committee and we should speak to the chief medical officer here.
We have unanimity.
So far.
Beef on the bone is clearly a health issue. In the context of today's discussion, it is an issue that will be for the food standards agency. The food standards agency relates to the Health and Community Care Committee, not to the Rural Affairs Committee; and I think that the clerks have got it wrong. That is not to say that the Rural Affairs Committee cannot call the chief medical officer.
Can you clarify whether the Rural Affairs Committee has competence to vote on the issue? If the chief medical officer goes to speak to the Rural Affairs Committee and the committee then proposes a motion on lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban, will that be ruled to be within the committee's competence?
I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee is simply gathering information to give it some background. I do not know whether the clerks have considered the possibility of having a joint meeting.
That was not suggested before, but we could look into it.
Earlier, Jennifer outlined the system by which a statutory instrument should progress, telling us where it would go and when, who it would go to, and what would be done. She mentioned the lead committee. Is there some doubt about whether the Health and Community Care Committee is the lead committee?
No.
None at all?
We are the lead committee. I will explain what happened. An approach was made to me by the Convener of the Rural Affairs Committee and the clerk, after a decision had been taken in that committee. Had the approach been made beforehand, I think that we would have investigated other options. However, the decision had already been taken. Although I felt that that was not the best way to do things, in the spirit of co-operation, and because our joint working arrangements have not yet been—
I am worried by the wording of the clarification of whether extending an invitation to the chief medical officer to speak about beef on the bone was within the remit of the Rural Affairs Committee. The clarification states that the invitation was on a matter
Yes—Jennifer, can you explain that?
Food safety falls entirely within this committee's remit. Members of the Rural Affairs Committee should not examine anything to do with food safety. However, they can gather information concerning their own remit from anyone they choose. We understand that they have invited the chief medical officer so that he can give them an informed view of how to tackle their own remit. There is no cross-over remit—this committee has food safety and the Rural Affairs Committee does not.
Could you or the clerk make it clear, in your representation, that it is not within that committee's competence, if it were to lodge a motion, to vote on it?
The matter is not "entirely within the remit" of that committee.
I do not think that we should lose too much sleep over this.
It is such a major issue that a lot of us would like to hear that question and answer session. Only if it came to a vote might we have problems.
Can we agree that we should go along and take part on the basis that there will be no vote on that subject—that we will take part in an information-gathering exercise, and that in future, if the Rural Affairs Committee wants to examine anything that impacts on food safety, we would appreciate it if the matter were discussed with our convener beforehand, so that we could work together on such things more effectively?
Are you suggesting that we should all go along?
I am mindful of the fact that committee members have an awful lot on their plates. My suggestion was that I and the three spokespeople should attend. If the rest of the committee wants to attend as well, I do not mind.
The committee should decide that.
Exactly. If all committee members want to go along on 5 October, it is up to them. The invitation was sent to the committee. I made the suggestion that only some of us might want to go along simply because I thought that others might take the opportunity not to have an extra meeting.
In practice, anybody from the committee who wants to attend should be able to do so.
At what time will the meeting take place?
We imagine that it will be 9.30 am on Tuesday 5 October. On the basis that it will be information gathering, that there will be no vote, and that all members of the Health and Community Care Committee who want to attend may comment and ask questions, we will attend that meeting. In future, if there is anything that impinges on food safety that the Rural Affairs Committee wants to discuss, we suggest that it might be more useful for the conveners of the committees to discuss the matter in advance. We will still be able to get the information from the chief medical officer on two important issues.
What is happening next week?
We will examine more statutory instruments. If you feel the need to take a holiday, that would be a good day on which to do so.
The Accounts Commission for Scotland has offered to give us a pre-publication briefing on its document on GP prescribing, on 22 September.
That is a good idea, but can we use next week's meeting to flesh out what we decided last week? There is a properly scheduled meeting next Wednesday, so can we have an agenda item on fleshing out the community care inquiry and the work of individual groups? Will that be on the agenda?
Yes.
Can we also look at how we are going to plan our work? Are we going to meet fortnightly?
Yes. It has been difficult. We have had odd meetings that have been slotted in. It would be nice to know how often we are going to meet.
Could we have the Minister for Health and Community Care or her deputy come to our next meeting to discuss the hospitals for sick children in Glasgow and Edinburgh? A decision is imminent, as she made clear at our previous meeting.
We had an open invitation to both ministers to come and speak to us on a range of issues, as you know, but the minister is unavailable for some time. However, we have a meeting organised for the beginning of November.
But she said at the end of our previous meeting that she would present something within a few weeks. The issue of the children's hospitals in Glasgow and Edinburgh is the big one.
With respect, it is one of a number of issues. Last week, I tried to make the point that we could continually pick up local issues that each of us thinks are important. I appreciate that that one has a national impact, but it is of particular interest to local members. There is any number of issues that we could pursue. Margaret's point about trying to work out our work load is one we must grapple with.
But as you will appreciate, just as in the quasi-emergency situation over shellfish, it is the pressure of time that is important in this matter. The minister is making a decision. We already know from Glasgow, and perhaps from Edinburgh, that quite a number of groups have been cut out of the consultation process on the sick children's hospitals. It is a matter of huge public concern.
There is no notice of this item on the agenda. I have made my view on it known. As far as I am concerned this is an issue that you and anyone else is able to ask parliamentary questions on and you can write to the minister. I know that you have brought it to her attention. I and others have done so, too. The matter is in no way linked with our business today.
No, I meant that because of the time scale she had to come before us soon.
This issue has been debated at previous meetings. We have also commented on it today. My comments are easily understood: this committee will not examine the issue. You have the right to lodge a parliamentary question. If you want to debate an item that is not on this agenda, please let me know in writing in advance of the meeting and we will then debate it, but do not debate an issue by bringing it up in the middle of a meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:39.