Beef on the Bone
The next ministerial statement is on beef on the bone. The Minister for Health and Community Care will take questions at the end of her statement. I remind members that we have only a short time for this item and that we prefer questions to statements disguised as questions.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement to the chamber today. Members will recall that in last week's food safety debate, I touched on the Executive's position on beef on the bone. Since then, there has been considerable press coverage of the issue and we have received requests from a number of members to clarify the Scottish position. We considered it important that we take the opportunity to do just that. The purpose of my statement is to set out, fully and clearly, the Scottish Executive's position and to answer questions that members may have about it.
It may be useful for members if, briefly by way of background, I touch on the history of the issue. The beef-on-the-bone ban was introduced on 16 December 1997, following consideration of the issue by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, or SEAC—the Government's scientific advisers in this field—and advice from the then chief medical officer in England. That advice was fully endorsed by the Scottish CMO and was also accepted by the then Scottish Office ministers.
A review of the ban was undertaken by the present CMO in England in January 1999. His advice, again fully endorsed by the Scottish CMO, was that a lifting of the ban at that time would result in the reintroduction of an unacceptable degree of risk that had been eliminated by the imposition of the ban.
While progress had been made in the measures to reduce the incidence of BSE and the risk of transmission of the disease to humans, the recommendation was for a continuation of the ban with a review to be undertaken after six months. The outcome of further work by the Wellcome Trust Centre at the University of Oxford was to be part of that further consideration. That was the position in January this year.
Since then, the CMOs in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK have continued to keep the position under review and to consider the relevant evidence that has emerged during the intervening period.
There is at present a difference of professional view between the English CMO and the CMOs for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the evidence available. I refer here to information that has been in the public domain over the past few days: the English CMO advises that the additional risk to human health created by lifting the bone-in beef ban, on visible cuts of beef, is tiny and unquantifiable in any meaningful way. However, he also advises that the retention of the ban on the use of bones for manufacturing food products, including infant foods, would be a sensible and very precautionary approach. I must emphasise to members that all the CMOs are united on that last point—that the ban should not be lifted on manufactured beef products.
The Scottish CMO, in common with the Welsh and Northern Irish CMOs, remains concerned that there is insufficient evidence available to underpin a decision to lift the ban on visible cuts of beef now. He has advised specifically that:
"the evidence has not changed sufficiently to justify a lifting of the ban at this time. The history of the BSE epidemic underlines the advisability of continuing to err on the side of caution. The Scottish CMO does not consider that we yet have enough scientific certainty to depart from the precautionary principle and would recommend that the ban stays in place, subject to review on receipt of the definitive estimates from the Oxford Group and to re-appraisal in January 2000 if the ban has not been lifted by that time".
The Oxford group is considering the risks associated with maternal transmission—cow-tocalf infection—of BSE. Updates of its analysis, which informed the earlier review and, indeed, the original ban, will not be available until November.
Some of the Scottish CMO's key concerns are as follows. For the whole of 1999, we can expect more than 2,200 BSE cases in Great Britain. Dorsal root ganglia are the tissues that are connected to the spinal cord and have been shown to carry BSE. They are in part removed by deboning, they are known to be highly infective and they contain infectivity before the disease becomes clinically apparent. There is also uncertainty about possible infectivity in bone marrow. There remains uncertainly about the number of cattle acquiring BSE by cow-to-calf maternal transmission: the Oxford study results will assist with that. Finally, there is still considerable uncertainty about the eventual size of the variant CJD epidemic.
In short, there is a difference of professional view, but there is no difference in policy outcome. It is well recognised in all parts of the UK that uniform action throughout the UK is highly desirable, and that is what has transpired. Equally, as I have said on many occasions in this chamber and will repeat today, it is recognised that this is a public health matter and that a precautionary approach is essential if we are to safeguard public health in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
Variant CJD is a particularly distressing disease, and so far it has always been fatal. By the end of June 1999, 43 people had developed vCJD. More cases are awaiting diagnostic confirmation. We cannot ignore or underestimate the human suffering and loss that results from vCJD. Given the long incubation period, it is too early to make confident predictions about the eventual scale of infection: estimates range from a few hundred to several million cases. There is, therefore, considerable uncertainty and no room for complacency in our handling of this issue.
The Scottish Executive's policy is clear on this matter: public health must come first, and we must listen to the medical advice that is given to us. We all want to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban, but only when the medical advice indicates that it is safe to do so. The advice is that it is not yet safe to do so, hence the ban will remain for the time being. That is in everyone's interest—producers as well as consumers.
We will, of course, continue to keep the position under review and, as indicated, the ban will be lifted as soon as the medical advice suggests that it is safe to do so. I hope that that clarifies the Executive's position. I would be pleased to answer any questions that members may have.
Will the minister explain why she told me in a written answer of 17 August that
"When considering the Beef Bones Regulations it would . . . not be sensible to ignore the position in the rest of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 17 August 1999; Vol 1, p 207.]— but she is happy to do that now?
The key concerns of the chief medical officer, which the minister outlined in her statement, clearly apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. Will she publish in detail why and how those concerns have led the various medical officers to come to different conclusions?
Can the minister explain what she means by a definitive estimate? I would have thought that a figure was either definitive or an estimate, but not both.
Can the minister explain why the six-months review promised on 1 February is now so late? Why, when Professor Donaldson's previous report said that
"the review should pay particular attention to the incidence of BSE infected cattle" and when there have been only 25 cases of BSE in Scotland this year—less than 2 per cent of the Great Britain figure—did a Scottish Executive source say yesterday:
"There is no new evidence so why we should change our position now"?
Does the minister agree that Scottish agriculture—and, indeed, the Scottish consumer— deserve better than the lack of urgency that was shown in today's statement and that the research and the six-months review that was promised on 1 February should be brought forward?
Does the minister agree now more than ever with the statement that the beef-on-the-bone ban is "a ludicrous policy"? That is not my statement, but a statement made on 1 March this year by Charles Kennedy, then the Liberal Democrat agriculture spokesman and now the leader of the party to which the Minister for Rural Affairs belongs.
Alasdair Morgan put a number of questions—I lost count at eight—but I will attempt to answer them in turn.
I was quoted as having said previously that we should pay attention to what was happening in the rest of the UK. Absolutely—I repeated that in my statement today, and ministers in other parts of the UK have said the same thing this week. We recognise that it is in the best interests of all parts of the UK for us to co-operate and have an agreed UK policy position on this issue. We have constantly striven for that and continue to have it.
As I said in last week's debate, we have remained in contact with colleagues across the UK on this matter because we recognise that there is considerable cross-border traffic in beef and beef products. A Scottish isolationist position, or any political posturing on this issue by us in Scotland, would be wholly inappropriate and detrimental to public health. There is no contradiction in the position that we have adopted—quite the opposite.
In a spirit of openness and in the interests of clarity, we are more than happy to make publicly available the current advice that Scottish ministers have received from Sir David Carter, the Scottish chief medical officer. That advice will be—if it is not already—available through the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the Scottish Parliament website for those who wish to examine it in detail. I encourage all members to do that. As we have said consistently, the action we take will be appropriate, based on medical advice.
There are a large number of technical and practical reasons for the Oxford data's not yet being available. It is unlikely to be available to us until November. That is simply a statement of fact. The Scottish CMO has stated that he wants to be in possession of that evidence before he issues further advice to us on this matter. That is the sensible thing to do.
In response to Mr Morgan's questions, we must return to the purpose, validity and sense of the ban. I repeat the information that I gave in my statement: more than 43 people have developed
variant CJD. I appeal to all members—of all parties—to cast their minds back to some of the pictures that we saw on our television screens when the BSE crisis first emerged and when the existence of variant CJD was identified. Remember the pain and the suffering of those infected by this terrible disease; remember the pain, suffering and loss of their relatives. That is why the ban is in place. That is why we are taking advice from the Scottish CMO and that is why we will continue to act on the basis of medical advice in the best health interest of the people of Scotland.
The Conservative group has always considered the ban to be unjustified. I have a few questions— the few left to me after those of Mr Morgan—that I would like to be answered. First, is the Executive prepared to accept the statement by the English chief medical officer that the health risk
"created by lifting the bone-in beef ban on visible cuts of beef, is tiny and unquantifiable in any meaningful way"?
Does the Executive accept or reject that view?
Secondly, the minister quoted the Scottish CMO as saying that he
"does not consider that we yet have enough scientific certainty" and that he suggested that evidence be
"subject to review on receipt of the definitive estimates from the Oxford Group and to re-appraisal in January 2000 if the ban has not been lifted by that time".
Can she explain the difference in meaning between "review" and "re-appraisal"?
Could she also explain why, when we are talking about differences of opinion between the English CMO and his Scottish equivalent, she was happy to quote BSE figures for the United Kingdom as a whole, rather than to consider the position of the industry in Scotland and its commendable record in the eradication of BSE so far?
The minister said that:
"there is a difference of professional view, but there is no difference in policy outcome."
How does that correlate with the story in yesterday's papers, which suggested that Nick Brown and his colleagues in England intend to follow a very different policy if the opportunity is available?
After all is said and done, can the minister justify a situation in which, at some time in the future, it may be possible for Tony Blair to tuck in to roast beef in Downing Street, while in Bute House Donald Dewar has to dae withoot?
I have repeatedly argued that matters such as this should not be reduced to party political debate and I am going to try to adhere to my own advice, but I must remind Mr Johnstone, and other members, that the Executive and the UK Government adopted a precautionary approach on the issue—it is why we have had to take such widespread measures to reduce the incidence of BSE in cattle and in turn reduce the risk of infection of variant CJD in humans— because of the crisis that arose because the previous, Conservative, Government failed to act.
We are not prepared to make those same mistakes. We are not prepared to keep the information that is available to us—the medical advice about the health risks—from the public. I have stated clearly and plainly, as openly and accurately as I am able, the basis on which we made our decision.
Someone asked what the distinction was between a professional view and a policy view. I have made it clear that a distinction can be made between the views of the CMO's on this issue. However, precisely because a United Kingdom position is essential, there is no distinction between the policy positions of different ministers and different Governments across the UK. That is in the best interests of public health throughout the UK.
In the spirit of openness—lest I should miss the opportunity to say that—may I point out to members that the Scottish CMO's advice is available not only from the Scottish Parliament information centre, but from the reference point at the back of the chamber. I urge members to read it in detail. It is also available on the Scottish Executive website—not on the Scottish Parliament website as I said earlier.
We should do what the Scottish people expect of us on this issue, which is to be open, responsible and to exercise sensible political judgment based on sound medical and scientific advice. That is in the best interests of the Scottish people and of the Scottish industry. The best way in which we can achieve long-term confidence in the Scottish beef industry is to ensure that we take sensible precautionary measures in the interests of public health and to ensure that we have safe beef and beef products on the market.
Everyone I have come across in the beef industry agrees that the Executive's policy must put public health first.
My question focuses on the medical advice that is available. If the scientific evidence of the Oxford group is not available to ministers until, we are now told, January, on what specific scientific basis does Professor Donaldson say that visible cuts of beef on the bone are now safe to eat—a statement with which Sir David Carter is in such
disagreement? What has changed in the medical evidence? We need more details.
On a small point of clarification, the Oxford group's scientific advice will be available in November. The CMO for Scotland has suggested that a further review may be conducted in January 2000.
It is not unreasonable for me to say that it is not for me to comment on the basis on which Professor Donaldson, the English CMO—or, indeed, the Scottish CMO—has reached his view. It is for the Government's medical advisers to issue their advice to us on the basis that they consider to be correct. I stress that not one of the CMOs is advocating a total lift of the ban. There is considerable agreement on this issue, which members who examine Professor Liam Donaldson's advice will see. As was quoted in the press today, Professor Donaldson has also reiterated the fact that no accurate idea of how many people will die from CJD after eating BSE- infected beef can be given.
As I said, there is significant agreement among the CMOs. The basis for their conclusions is a matter for them, as medical advisers. Again, I urge members to examine that advice more closely if they are minded to do so.
Will the minister confirm that the number of cases of new- variant CJD and the number of deaths are still rising? Does she agree that were the Oxford study report in November on transmission from cow to calf to show that such transmission is far more common than has been believed to date, a premature total lifting of the ban could lead to further increases in the number of deaths among young people? Does she further agree that we need to review the situation carefully once the report that has been commissioned is out, rather than to prejudge it?
I agree with Dr Simpson that considerable uncertainty remains about the eventual size of the variant CJD epidemic. It is difficult to say with certainty how many cases of variant CJD there are—that is one of the great problems with this disease. We can say for definite how many deaths there have been. I think that I am right in saying that one death occurred as recently as last month, and there was another in July.
We know that variant CJD is a reality and that there is a health risk. I agree that it would be quite wrong of us, as the Government, to ignore that risk. That is why we have taken these decisions on this issue.
The minister openly and rightly drew attention to the fact that the Scottish CMO expects there to be more than 2,200 cases of BSE in Great Britain this year. However, as Alasdair Morgan said, only 25 cases have been confirmed in Scotland so far this year, all of which have been in the dairy herd, which does not go into the food chain. Given that fact and the current advice of the English CMO, does the Scottish Executive agree that the Scottish public should be given a free choice to buy beef on the bone, as was originally proposed by SEAC?
I repeat that either this Executive acts on the basis of the medical advice that it is given, or it does not. I recall Alasdair Morgan asking a week ago, in this chamber, whether we would act on the basis of the Scottish CMO's advice or would just listen to the English CMO. The clear inference was that we should listen to the Scottish CMO. I have made it clear this afternoon that that is precisely what we are doing. The advice of the Scottish CMO has been clear. I repeat that this decision arises from a discussion that has taken place among the CMOs. Therefore, the UK Parliaments agree that we should not lift, or partially lift, the ban at this time.
Finally, on Mr Fergusson's point, one of the great uncertainties about variant CJD is that no one yet knows the precise degree and nature of human-to-human infection of variant CJD. Therefore, the argument that this is about individual choice is fallacious. If one person is infected by variant CJD, we do not know what risk there is of their infecting another person. As a Government, we have a responsibility to act on that basis.
I would like to explore the difference in view a bit further.
Will the minister publish the criteria by which the judgment on lifting the ban will eventually be made? As she has said, it will be made on medical and scientific evidence. Normally, such things are quantifiable. Will she tell us today, or in the near future, what figure for cases of BSE will be required before the ban can be lifted? Will there have to be no new cases of BSE? Will a figure be required that represents a risk that is
"tiny and unquantifiable in any meaningful way"?
There is a difference of view between advisers north and south of the border. We, too, can make a judgment on the basis of the figures. Let us have the figures—this is all about openness.
Is the minister actively considering a partial lifting of the ban? Will she draw a distinction between what most people would regard as beef on the bone and the manufactured product?
The only thing that we, as the Government, will continue actively to consider,
and have actively considered since the Scottish Executive came into being, is to listen carefully to, and act on, the medical advice that is given to us.
I suggest that it is not for politicians—however knowledgeable some of us may be on the science of this matter—to kick the number of cases around this chamber. From his professional background, Mr Adam knows that there is no one definitive number that can be the trigger for lifting the ban. As I said earlier, a complex range of data are being worked on at Oxford. Our medical advisers will look carefully at that data and then give us advice; and that is the advice that we will act upon.
I apologise to members who were not called, but I remind members that long questions simply cut out colleagues. That is what has happened today.