Health Committee, 10 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Official Report 92KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning)<br />(West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004<br />(SSI 2004/21)

We come to item 2. I welcome the Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, to speak to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004, which is subject to the affirmative procedure. Paper HC/S2/04/6/1 has been circulated. Does anyone wish to make any comments on the order before I invite the minister to speak to it?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the order, convener. I oppose the principles that lie behind what the Executive is doing. I am not against looking after the health interest of the consumer, but as I said to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care at a previous meeting, I have obtained a scientific paper about end-product testing, which could change our perspective and how we act in the United Kingdom. The system that I propose is available and acceptable in the European Union. I have asked the deputy minister to meet me with his officials after the recess to discuss the paper in full so that we can progress from the damaging blanket-ban approach that the Executive is pursuing. On that basis, I give notice that I will not support the minister's motion on the order.

I want to put on record my concerns. Although I appreciate the theory behind the precautionary principle, I believe that it is unnecessary to apply it in this case, because as yet there is no evidence of harm. The testing happens at a stage in the process at which it would be too late to act if there had been harm. For those two reasons, I hope that the minister will introduce a different approach, because the process is putting people's livelihoods at risk for no good reason.

I associate myself with both sets of comments. I was at a meeting with fishermen in Eyemouth on Friday night and they feel aggrieved because what they consider to be clumsy and unnecessary regulations are being put in the path of prawn fishermen. I support much of what David Davidson and Shona Robison have said, particularly on end-product testing and the fact that no evidence has been produced of serious harm's being caused to anyone who has eaten the shellfish. I hope that there is movement on this from the point of view of Scotland's fishermen, who are most concerned. No formal debate is required. I ask the minister to speak to and move motion S2M-845.

I am rather surprised by the tone of the comments. The main thing that I want to put on the record is that we believe that we are implementing a measure that is important for public health, which is the key consideration. Secondly, irrespective of what members think about that, it is a requirement of European law. I am surprised that both the Conservative party and the Scottish National Party seem to be oblivious to that fact. The tone of the comments suggested that somehow we were acting differently to the rest of Europe. The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission assessed our implementation of the order and produced a positive report that noted that the controls that are in place throughout the United Kingdom leave no major deficiencies in the protection of public health.

There are issues about end-product testing and possible changes in 2006 that might be related to the points that David Davidson made. There are still discussions to be had about end-product testing and monitoring, but the point is that the monitoring is required by European law and we are following the law in that respect. We also believe that the measure is necessary for public health. It may be that because we have an effective system in place we do not have recorded cases, although equally we know that people might suffer as a result of eating shellfish, but that such cases are not necessarily recorded because people regard that as being something that just happens. I am surprised by the comments, but I have responded to them appropriately.

Before you move the motion, minister, I have to say that I am surprised that you are surprised, because virtually the same comments were made to your deputy on the most recent occasion on which we discussed a similar instrument. The comments have all been made previously.

I never cease to be amazed by the comments.

Today's motion concerns an emergency order that will ban harvesting of king scallops in waters off the west coast of Scotland. The order has been triggered by the finding of amnesic shellfish poison at a level that is above the action levels that have been set by Europe. The order is a consumer safety and public health measure, as shellfish that contain high levels of the toxin can cause illness in humans ranging from nausea, vomiting and headaches to short-term memory loss and, in extreme instances, even death.

I move,

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/21) be approved.

The question is, that motion S2M-845 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

Against

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

Abstentions

Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.

Motion agreed to.

---

Meat Products (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/6)<br />Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/7)

---

Processed Cereal-based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/8)

I refer members to paper HC/S2/04/6/1, which is on the three instruments that are subject to the negative procedure that we have to consider. They are the Meat Products (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/6), the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/7) and the Processed Cereal-based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/8).

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has commented on the three instruments in its report, which members have seen. No members' comments have been received and no motion to annul has been lodged. The recommendation is that we do not have a recommendation to make in relation to the instruments. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.