Health Committee, 18 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Official Report 88KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/260)

I ask members to consider the paper on subordinate legislation. It is not a numbered paper—the clerk and I are getting used to each other's methods.

The papers have not been circulated to me, because I am not a member of the Health Committee. All I have been able to get is what I have downloaded from the Parliament's website.

That is correct.

Is it possible to have copies of the papers circulated to me?

I do not want to create special circumstances for anybody in the Parliament. The position is that what is on the public website is what is available to other MSPs. You have the public papers. All the other documents are papers that the committee has decided are private. The paper that we are considering is in the public domain.

I will need to check that out.

You can get the paper now, if you have not downloaded it. It is certainly in the public domain.

Has it not been the practice in previous committees that when MSPs who are not committee members attend, especially when they show a special interest, the convener has been able to exercise discretion in the distribution of papers?

I have been the convener of only one committee, but I never gave out private papers to anyone who was not a member of the committee.

Is there not a difference between members having copies of private papers and having a copy of a Scottish statutory instrument?

The SSI is in the public domain.

Does Carolyn Leckie have a copy of the SSI, convener?

I have a copy of it.

The SSI is our only paper for this agenda item.

I intend to attend committee meetings as regularly as possible. Some stuff might be sensitive, but I need to check what the normal protocols are for private papers. I am not certain that it is entirely necessary to withhold all of them.

Rather than take an ad hoc decision, I suggest that the Procedures Committee or the Conveners Group should discuss the issue. If there is to be a policy on the issue, it should be consistent for all the committees of the Parliament.

It is against the standing orders of the Parliament for me to provide Carolyn Leckie with private papers. The standing orders need to be changed for me to do so.

The Procedures Committee could consider that point.

Yes. Conveners do not have the discretion to circulate private papers other than to committee members.

May I ask for all the papers that are not private to be circulated to me?

That is the case. All public papers are in the public domain—they are available electronically and should be produced quite early in the week that we meet. If Carolyn Leckie wants paper copies, I have no problem with that. She can also have copies of supplementary papers, should those be issued, but I cannot circulate private papers to her.

I suggest that we move on to debate the item. I welcome Tom McCabe in his new role as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. I ask the minister to speak to and move motion S2M-117, after which members may speak for or against the motion.

I will take a few minutes to preface my remarks. I welcome Christine Grahame to her new role as convener and wish her all the best in that role. I also express the hope that, over the months and years to come, I can work constructively with the committee on a variety of issues that will crop up over that period. The Executive is committed to working in as constructive and open a fashion as possible with all the committees of the Parliament. I assure the committee that I will do my best to ensure that those objectives are achieved over the months to come.

That said, I will move on to the subject of today's debate, which concerns an emergency order banning the harvesting of king scallops in waters in part of Scapa Flow in the Orkney isles. As most people know, the order has been triggered as a result of amnesic shellfish poisoning being found at levels that are above the action levels set by the European Union.

The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 is a measure to address issues of consumer safety and public health. Shellfish that contain high levels of the toxin can cause illnesses in humans, which can range from nausea, vomiting and headaches to short-term memory loss, and—in extreme instances and if enough toxin is ingested—even death.

That is a brief outline of the current position. I know that members are aware of many of the issues. I am assisted this morning by two officers of the Food Standards Agency Scotland, Chester Wood and Martin Reid.

I move,

That the Health Committee, in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/260), recommends that the order be approved.

Thank you, minister. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the instrument and, although it has not issued its written report yet, the committee's oral report is that it has no comment to make.

How many deaths from amnesic shellfish poisoning have been recorded in the United Kingdom?

We know the answer to that question.

None, so far. Thankfully, no deaths have been recorded since monitoring began in 1999 until the present time.

We do not disagree with you on the matter—the committee is concerned about health. Can you tell the committee how many deaths or serious illnesses due to food poisoning have occurred as a result of consumption of fish products that are not covered by the instrument?

I do not have that information to hand, but I can obtain it from my department and write to the member.

Why does the Executive think that the instrument has to be enforced? The measures will cause tremendous damage to a local industry and there appear not to be serious health concerns.

Mr Davidson makes a large presumption in his last point. The Executive is applying the measures as a result of a European Union directive; we are legally obliged to monitor properly toxin levels in these shellfish. It is an assumption to say that the Executive is overreacting; we do not know what the position would be if the monitoring did not take place.

Scientific evidence suggests that ingestion of the toxins can be extremely dangerous. It also suggests that, in extreme situations, ingestion can lead to death. In those circumstances, we would always want to take the precautionary approach. In any event, we want to comply with our obligations under the European Union directive.

I ask the minister to reply to David Davidson through the committee so that the response can be circulated to committee members.

I am more than happy to do that.

The question is—

I have a supplementary question for the minister. How many deaths from amnesic shellfish poisoning have been recorded in the European Union?

I will ask the officials for assistance.

I am sorry, but the protocol for this type of debate is for officials to speak through the minister.

I am sorry, convener. I did not know that.

I am informed that there have been no recorded deaths in the European Union. In a recent debate on the subject in the Parliament, we mentioned that we were aware of four recorded deaths in Canada as a result of the consumption of mussels.

May I ask a question, convener?

Another line of questioning seems to have opened up. Please continue, Mike.

The questioning so far seems to have concentrated on deaths, yet the purpose of the order is to avoid death. Can the minister tell the committee whether there have been any instances of illness caused by amnesic shellfish poisoning?

I assume that Mike Rumbles is referring to recorded illness and not to people sitting at home feeling ill.

I assume that that is why the order is before us.

A body of scientific evidence tells us that people will become very ill if they ingest enough of the toxin. We know that food poisoning is a condition that is significantly under-reported, which makes it difficult to gather accurate statistics.

The question is, that motion S2M-117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

Against

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)

Abstentions

Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to.

That the Health Committee, in consideration of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/260), recommends that the order be approved.

Before we move into private session, I thank the minister for his brief appearance before the committee. I am sure that we will see each other at greater length from now on.

Thank you, convener—no doubt we will.

Meeting continued in private until 10:34.