Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Rural Affairs Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000


Contents


Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

The Convener:

Item 3 on our agenda is amnesic shellfish poisoning. As members will recall, this item was on the agenda for last week's meeting. We conspired to delay discussion of it until Rhoda Grant and John Farquhar Munro had met the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs. Rhoda has produced a paper, which should have been circulated to members. We will take this opportunity to invite her to say a few words on it and on her experience of the meeting last week.

Rhoda Grant:

I want to clarify that Maureen Macmillan and I asked for a meeting with ministers because of constituents' concerns—the basis of the meeting was that it was between ministers, our constituents and ourselves. Needless to say, word got round the industry like wildfire and, even before we invited our constituents, we received representations from a number of people who wished to attend. Where we could, we tried to accommodate those representatives, as we felt that that was important. Unfortunately, we were unable to accommodate everyone, as numbers were limited in the small room that we had booked.

It is important that I report back to the Rural Affairs Committee because of the interest that it has expressed in amnesic shellfish poisoning. That is why I submitted my report as requested.

I understand that John Munro was present at the meeting as well. Is that the case?

Yes.

Do you have any comments about the meeting?

Mr Munro:

I was advised that the meeting seemed to be closed. As an intruder, I was not aware of that.

We had a useful debate, at the end of which I made the point that we had gone through a similar process a year before, when we had much the same representations, with little happening during the intervening period. I expressed concern about that and, given that so little had happened, asked whether we would be meeting in a year's time in order to go through the same exercise again.

However, as a result of that meeting, there has been a lot of interest in what is happening in the shellfish industry, particularly in relation to scallops and the closures around the coast. Yesterday, some of my colleagues and I had a useful meeting with the Food Standards Agency and some of the team from the Marine Laboratory in Torry in Aberdeen. I appreciate the difficult, complex work that is going on in the testing regime, which appears to be the cause of concern to the scallop industry.

The Food Standards Agency, or the Marine Laboratory at least, should be more prominent and transparent in its dialogue with the industry, so that the industry is made aware of the method of testing, where the testing is taking place and the regulations and restrictions that govern the testing regime. During the autumn and winter and before the fishery opens in spring next year, I hope that the regulations will become more acceptable to the industry—unlike what is happening at present.

Do members have questions for Rhoda Grant or John Munro, or comments on the issues raised at last week's meeting?

Richard Lochhead:

I want to make a brief comment, although I could talk for a wee while about the background to the meeting that, apparently, Rhoda Grant and Maureen Macmillan organised. I have communicated with the minister since that meeting, which Fergus Ewing was not allowed into, and I am grateful to him for apologising for the confusion that arose. Many questions arise over the meeting itself.

However, Rhoda Grant's report is useful and we should take it on board for when we have the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Health and Community Care before us, a meeting to which we agreed last week. I understand that that meeting may not take place until November, but that is too far away. We should pull out all the stops and have a meeting as soon as possible.

Alasdair Morgan:

Rhoda Grant's report says that

"the Food Standards Agency was unsure whether Ireland was acting within the terms of the directive."

Over the piece, it has been my impression that there has been confusion about the precise situation in Ireland. Fishermen certainly seem to believe that the Irish have found an acceptable way in which to proceed and there is a suggestion that they may be acting outwith the European regulations. I would like to ask Rhoda whether she was able to determine whether there had been any contact between the Food Standards Agency or any such bodies and their equivalents in the Republic of Ireland to see whether there was anything that we could learn from the Irish.

Rhoda Grant:

It was certainly mentioned that the FSA had been in contact with people in Ireland and that it had concerns about the regime there. However, it had not officially flagged up those concerns to the European Union; it wanted to pursue that line of action at some point, but not yet. It would be counterproductive for the FSA to tell the EU that the Irish are in the wrong and should be ruled out of order while asking for a similar derogation for Scotland.

On the instructions of the committee, I wrote to the relevant department in Ireland requesting further details. No reply has been forthcoming.

Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):

I have a quick question on the last paragraph of the paper. There was a suggestion in the meeting that white meat could be sold because of the low incidence of infection. The paper says that

"the industry could not agree to look at this as a way forward."

Who made the suggestion and what reasons were given for not considering that as a way of enabling the industry to make some sales?

Mr Munro:

The Food Standards Agency is of the opinion that it is complying with the regulations as it understands them. I asked why our Irish counterparts were able to put white meat on the market. The Food Standards Agency has questions about the legality of such sales. It is hoping to have a meeting with colleagues in Europe by the end of the month in order to clarify what is happening in relation to the Irish fishery. My point was that, if such activity is allowed in Ireland under the EU directive, it should also be allowed in Scotland. There are complications.

Was it the Food Standards Agency that did not want to go down that road?

Rhoda Grant:

The suggestion about selling the white meat was made by the scallop farming industry, which is unable to diversify—for the scallop farmers to be able to sell anything would alleviate their situation. The mobile fishermen in the scallop industry were not keen on that approach because they believe that the value of the white meat is less than that of the scallop. They thought that that approach would lead to over-fishing and low values and so did not see it as a solution. However, I have written to the minister to request that research be carried out into scallop farms selling white meat only. In that context it would be easy to license the industry and to monitor the areas. I am awaiting a response to that question.

Mr Rumbles:

It is my understanding that one of the major differences between the Irish industry and its testing methods and our industry and our testing methods is that in Ireland the scallops are washed before being tested. As far as I know, that does not happen in Scotland. That could account for the different approaches in Ireland and Scotland. Convener, I hope that you will press the Irish for a response. I want to check whether the difference is simply to do with washing scallops prior to testing. That is an important issue.

Rhoda Grant:

The question of dealing with processed scallops was mentioned at the meeting. The FSA told us that it was going to do some testing on processed scallops—washed and prepared scallops—to discover whether there was a difference in the testing results. Those experiments are on-going.

The FSA may be surprised.

Did its representatives say what would happen if it found, on testing, that the processed scallops were within the limits?

They did not. They have a proposal at the European Parliament to consider different ways of testing. I would assume that this information and the evidence, if they get it, will help them to get that proposal through.

The FSA assured me at a briefing two weeks ago in Aberdeen that washing the scallops had no impact whatever on the tests.

That is not the view of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

Was there any indication of a policy change on the part of the Executive at that meeting? From the report, there does not appear to have been, but I want that to be confirmed.

Rhoda Grant:

I think that the Executive's policy remains the same: it is striving to find a solution to the problem, as it reiterated strongly at the meeting. The reason for the existence of the Food Standards Agency is to remove such decisions from politicians, who come under pressure. The Executive was urging the Food Standards Agency to explore all angles.

Mr Rumbles:

I was speaking to Hamish Morrison of the Fishermen's Federation this morning. His point was, "The Food Standards Agency would say that, wouldn't it?" I am asking only that we consider the issue. I would like to ensure that we can put the matter to one side if it is not an issue, but it could be important.

Are there any further comments?

Mr Home Robertson:

For starters, it might be appropriate for me to say something about the circumstances surrounding the meeting that took place last week, about which there has been some misunderstanding.

Rhoda Grant contacted my office early in the previous week, asking for a meeting between the industry and Executive ministers and officials. I happened to be out of the country for some days that week and my private secretary, Stuart McLean, who is sitting behind me, found himself under siege from practically everybody up and down the west coast and on most of the islands, all wanting to attend the same meeting. At one point, I thought that we would have to book the Usher Hall for the meeting. I stress that the purpose was for ministers—Susan Deacon and me—and for representatives of the Food Standards Agency to hear from the industry. It was not intended to be a political meeting, although some colleagues at this meeting today were present at it.

I have already apologised personally to Richard Lochhead for the misunderstanding about his attendance. That said, the meeting was frank and full. About 95 per cent of it was on the food side, rather than the fisheries side, and it would not be proper for me to comment on that aspect of the Executive's responsibilities. Members will have an opportunity to return to that side of things in due course when dealing with colleagues from the health department.

Those of us in the rural affairs department with responsibility for fisheries want to do what we can to support the scallop fishing industry. We have invited representatives of the industry to come forward with proposals for activities that we might be able to support through funding from the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, for example. We want to do anything that we can to help, as we recognise that the situation is serious.

Colleagues on the committee may wish to know one snippet of good news: just before coming into the meeting, I learned that box J14 has just been reopened for scallop fishing. I am not sure, but I think that it must be somewhere near Jura—it is somewhere west of the Mull of Kintyre. The order for that was signed earlier today. I cannot speculate, but that may be an encouraging indication.

Richard Lochhead:

I can make a clarification on box J14. I think that the decision on that arose after a visit I made to Mallaig about two weeks ago. A fisherman, who was at sea at the time, made a call into the office when I happened to be there, saying that J14 was being fished by Irish boats but was closed to Scottish boats. I called the FSA straight away, telling it about that call. The FSA immediately agreed to charter a boat to test J14, given that one fleet was fishing there and one was not. The confusion arose because the boundary between the Scottish and Irish zones goes through J14. The clearance resulted from confusion because the Irish were able to fish areas—

Mr Home Robertson:

With respect, I think that that is very unlikely. The Food Standards Agency gives advice to ministers on the basis of scientific advice rather than because of political pressure. I just thought that it would be worth conveying that little bit of good news to the committee.

The Convener:

If there are no further comments, we should go on to address one or two other matters. A meeting with the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Health and Community Care has been tentatively arranged for Tuesday 7 November at 2 pm. Richard Lochhead has expressed the concern that that may not be soon enough. Does anyone else have views on that date?

We are also asking the Minister for Health and Community Care about rural dental care.

The Convener:

I will discuss with the clerks whether it will be possible to arrange that meeting for an earlier date. Given the additional information that we have received from John Munro, Rhoda Grant and the minister, are there any alternative views on how the meeting should be organised? Do members still wish to meet the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Health and Community Care to discuss the issues surrounding amnesic shellfish poisoning?

We also need someone from the Food Standards Agency.

The Convener:

That arrangement is in hand. Members can take it as read that we will take further steps to find out from the Irish Government what is happening and to raise the specific points that Mike Rumbles mentioned. I thank the minister for his help on this and the previous item.