Rural Affairs Committee, 05 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2000

Official Report 139KB pdf

---

Shellfish Poisoning

At the beginning of the meeting, we agreed that we would return at this stage to item 1. We have moved through the agenda at quite a speed, and Rhoda Grant and John Munro have not returned from their meeting. I think we should take this opportunity to discuss the shellfish poisoning problem, given that it has appeared on our agenda several times.

A paper on the matter has been circulated. Does everyone have the briefing note to the Rural Affairs Committee on fishing closures due to shellfish poisoning?

If there are spare copies, I would like one.

Before we go on to discuss this item I should say that it is difficult to discern the marked areas on the maps in the paper.

I had no idea that there were marked areas.

If you look carefully, you will see that there are marked areas on the west coast.

They do not show up on my copy.

On the amnesic shellfish poisoning map I can see a marked area, but on the paralytic shellfish poisoning map I can see no marked areas at all.

If I use some imagination, I can make out one or two areas, but that is all.

I am told that there are one or two extra copies that are printed more clearly and can be read more easily.

Perhaps this is how the boundary changes to Scottish territorial waters got through.

We have had that discussion.

I am told that we do not have the spare copies.

Is a huge number of boxes marked?

If you look carefully at the ASP map, it is possible to make out the marked area. On the map referring to PSP, the area that is marked is around the Orkney Islands. If you compare the copy that I have with those that have been circulated, it is just possible to make out the marked area. Are members content that they understand the marks that should be on the maps? I do not know whether this is particularly relevant to the discussion that we will have, but we should have the maps in front of us and a rough idea of the circumstances.

As I said, a briefing note has been circulated on the fisheries closures that result from shellfish poisoning. This issue has been put back on the agenda because it has been one of the committee's priorities. If I remember correctly, on 31 August last year we devoted the majority of our meeting to amnesic shellfish poisoning and took evidence from a number of parties. This issue has become relevant again, and has remained so to the committee, in the context both of the current closures and the on-going dialogue on the issue that we have had with the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs during the past 12 months. Would anyone like to comment on the current situation or the briefing note?

I would like to make a few comments. About 10 days ago I spent two days in Mallaig meeting representatives of the fishing industry and, of course, the No 1 topic was the current crisis that is the result of boxes being closed for scallop fishing because of ASP. I can assure the committee that that crisis is devastating for the industry. Those in the industry are pulling their hair out because of the difficulties that are caused by the crisis and because they have again to go through what they went through a year ago. We must remember that Scotland has 50 per cent of the European Union scallop industry and virtually all of the UK's scallop industry, so it is an important fisheries sector, particularly for the west coast and many of our smaller communities.

As I said, many scallop fishermen are pulling their hair out through sheer frustration because they find themselves in a similar position to that in which they found themselves a year ago. They feel, however, that the Government has not helped them to move any further forward. Indeed, many feel that one step has been taken forward but two steps have been taken backward and that many matters are worse than they were last year. Some scallop fishermen currently face bankruptcy.

However, as we speak, a meeting is taking place between Government interests—the minister in charge of fisheries and the Minister for Health and Community Care—and the industry. MSPs from the coalition parties are also invited. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I was the first MSP to call for such a meeting, non-coalition parties are not allowed into this afternoon's meeting. As a result, it is important for the committee to discuss the matter.

The current crisis has a number of ramifications. As I have mentioned, people are facing bankruptcy. The few boxes that remain open are subjected to fishing from many more scallop vessels. Furthermore, some scallop vessels have returned to fishing for prawns, which is another sector that is having difficulties. Prices are low in that sector and its problems are exacerbated when more boats fish for prawns. That means that the scallop crisis has ramifications for the rest of the fishing industry.

As the convener mentioned, the committee took the ASP outbreak in our waters so seriously a year ago that it undertook a considerable investigation and published a report subsequently. Of course, certain issues remain outstanding, and I—and the industry—believe that little has moved since the report and last year's crisis, which has led to an exacerbation of the current difficulties.

Regulations could be introduced to allow tier testing, which would mean that a whole scallop could be tested for ASP. If whole scallops were found to be above the recommended levels, the roe could then be tested and if it were found to be above the recommended levels, the white meat could be tested. If even part of the scallop was marketable, some of the industry could continue to work. The fact that the issue does not appear to be progressing is causing the industry much frustration.

Furthermore, there is the outstanding question of compensation. The committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that, from 1 January this year, the Scottish Executive has the option of giving financial packages or compensation to our scallop fishermen. That option has not yet been taken up. I should point out that, as the crisis broke some weeks ago, pig farmers were being offered compensation for having to slaughter pigs that have swine fever. That has caused much anger among the fishing communities, as they have been continually refused compensation for being unable to fish because of health risks.

The committee should reconsider the issue. Indeed, I can see only one way forward. We should request that the minister in charge of fisheries and the Minister for Health and Community Care come back to the committee to tell us what has happened since last year and since we published our report—which we put a lot of effort into—and to find out how they can help the scallop industry get through this crisis. The crisis might, unfortunately, prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the industry.

On that last point, it might be helpful for the ministers to come and explain the current situation.

I support that suggestion. My understanding of the situation—which I will admit freely is not very deep—is that, although quite a few issues have moved on considerably in the year since we discussed the matter, Government action has not moved on much. For example, we have been told that compensation is never given for a problem that results from natural causes. However, I have read a lot in various journals about whether ASP is due to natural causes and I want to question how much work is being done to find out the causes of the disease. Therefore I strongly support Richard Lochhead's suggestion.

There is much frustration in the industry because it perceives that nothing seems to have changed since last year's crisis. The situation got better in the winter, as it does, but the problem comes back every summer. The industry feels that it has suggested reasonable proposals for end-product testing instead of whole-fish testing and believes that the Government's response has been dilatory at best. We need to find out from ministers whether they think that they are acting quickly enough. The matter affects a substantial number of onshore jobs as well as fishermen's jobs; this is a significant Scottish export industry.

Ministers would be coming to the committee to reassure us that they are taking every action—it is important that we hear that.

Absolutely.

I am quite happy with the proposal that the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, who has responsibility for fishing, should come to the committee to give evidence. However, there is also a health dimension to the matter. I wonder, therefore, whether it might be appropriate to invite a relevant specialist, such as a director of public health—someone whose status is equivalent to that of Sir David Carter, or whoever is the appropriate person. All that we would hear from the Minister for Health and Community Care would be the information that has been given to her department by the relevant experts, so it might be helpful for us to quiz directly somebody who has expert knowledge.

It might also be helpful to get some expert information on testing and on how the testing procedure has moved forward, if it has.

It has been pointed out to me that, since we last discussed the matter at length—just over a year ago—the Food Standards Agency has been established. It might be appropriate to invite the head of the Food Standards Agency to answer our questions.

It might not be appropriate for us to go through the full exercise that was undertaken previously. There might be three or four people who could give us the most relevant and useful information—the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, somebody from the Food Standards Agency, somebody with a public health background and somebody who deals directly with testing procedures. Those people would be valuable to the committee, because they have been recording what is going on.

The views of the committee were clearly defined when we reported on the matter almost a year ago. The questions that we want to ask this time are likely to be similar to those that we posed last time, so we need to invite the people who will be able to answer those questions. We would like particularly to ask about end-product testing, which is something that we recommended in our report, so we need someone who can tell us exactly why we could or could not progress in that direction. It might be appropriate to invite the head of the Food Standards Agency, accompanied by a relevant official.

I support that suggestion. It is certainly disappointing to note that there does not seem to have been any progress made in discussions on end-product testing, despite a considerable period having elapsed since the report was put together. I see from the briefing note that the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs—who has responsibility for fisheries—has indicated that he is willing to meet representatives of the industry. Perhaps we should ask him what plans he has to hold further discussions with the industry.

Is not a meeting taking place today?

I think that it is.

In that case, we should ask for a report from the minister on the nature of the discussions and on any action that he intends to take.

As well as the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, we should invite the Minister for Health and Community Care, who would bring the FSA with her. She is, quite rightly, attending today's meeting with industry representatives and it would be useful to hear from the ministers responsible for both health and fisheries.

As I shall explain when we come to the next item on the agenda, I would like to bring the Minister for Health and Community Care to the committee in relation to another matter, so we could deal with both issues at the same meeting. I understand what Des McNulty is saying and he is right to say that we should hear from the head of the Food Standards Agency.

Does the committee feel that, if we are inviting the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, we should also invite the Minister for Health and Community Care?

Yes.

We should certainly invite the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, because he has responsibility for fisheries. I would also like to hear from specialists, but not simply as officers sitting alongside the minister. I would like to have the opportunity to ask officials directly about what is happening.

I have reservations about that suggestion, because we have already gone through the process of asking for details about issues such as end-product testing and we have heard scientific interpretations. However, many of the issues that relate to the legality of end-product testing are political EU-wide issues and we need, therefore, to question somebody who is in a position of political responsibility and who can give us value judgments that are based on scientific views.

I am sympathetic to that view, but I do not think that the two points of view are exclusive. We require a political answer as well as technical advice from the appropriate people.

I agree with Des that there must be an array of expertise. The Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs would bring along scientists from the Marine Laboratory and the Minister for Health and Community Care would bring experts from the FSA. Communication between fishermen's organisations and the FSA is important and the health minister should be here to hear the industry's views.

It is important that the FSA should be represented. One of the sad products of this whole sorry tale is that the industry seems to be losing faith in the Food Standards Agency—which is a pity so early in that agency's career.

Would it be appropriate to invite the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs to discuss the issues surrounding the shellfish ban?

Members indicated agreement.

We shall proceed on that basis at the earliest available opportunity.

Our final agenda item concerns future business. Members of the committee have copies of a rudimentary draft paper. I emphasise that nothing on the paper is written in tablets of stone; it is guidance for what might happen over the next few meetings. Members will also have an opportunity to raise any issues that are not in the plan, but which they think should be included. At this stage, I dismiss the official reporters.

Meeting continued in public until 15:19.