Chamber
Plenary, 22 Sep 1999
22 Sep 1999 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Beef on the Bone
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?
"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?
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
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 m...
The Minister for Health and Community Care (Susan Deacon):
Lab
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 E...
Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP):
SNP
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 t...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 sho...
Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 mu...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
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 t...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 revi...
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):
Lab
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 r...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 ...
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
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....
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 ...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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...
Susan Deacon:
Lab
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 ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
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.