Rural Affairs Committee, 18 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Official Report 183KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning Report

Item 7 on the agenda is consideration of the Executive's response to this committee's report on amnesic shellfish poisoning. Members should have a copy of the response and a paper from the clerk comparing it with the committee's original recommendations. The papers were circulated on Friday.

The committee should decide whether it wants to accept the Executive's response. Are there any comments?

I was quite disappointed in the Executive's response. All it really says is, "Thanks very much for your report—we'll be talking to the industry about these matters." I do not think that that acknowledges the importance of the issue. I would be interested to hear the opinions of other members. We raised several issues, which have been addressed to some degree in the Executive's response.

The one thing that I would agree with in Richard's response is that the most important thing was the Executive's recognition of the importance of talking to the industry about the issues that we have raised. One of the key things that we pointed out in our report was that communications could have been improved to overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen in the shellfish industry. A full meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow to bring together the department, the scientists and the industry. That is positive.

We raised a number of issues, and they have been addressed to some degree in the Executive's response. I am encouraged by the Executive's willingness to consider closely the question of end-product testing, which is one of the industry's key demands. As well as monitoring the existing difficulties, there should also be proactive research into the fundamental causes of ASP and other shellfish toxins. This point certainly covers that and indicates that on-going long-term research programmes are examining those matters.

My final point refers to paragraph 9. The Scottish industry was keen to raise the question of which part of the scallop should be tested to establish toxicity. It is clear from that response that the matter has been taken up at the appropriate level in the European Union. In order to make progress, the Scottish industry must have a level playing field with the Irish industry and other shellfish producers. Going through the European Union is the appropriate way to achieve that. Again, the fact that ministers have taken that up is to be welcomed.

I wonder whether I have read the same letter as Richard Lochhead has. The letter that I have had does not say, "Thanks very much for your response, full stop." It does not elaborate specifically on the need for better communication, but it is clear from the way in which it is written that the need for that is implicit.

The letter does not commit the Executive to allocating extra funding to research. However, it tells us about a research project investigating the factors that affect the growth of algae and influence their toxicity. That is a project of which I, for one, was unaware. The money may already have been allocated, but we should welcome the fact that that research is being conducted. The industry was worried about a possible link between fish farming and the growth of toxic algae, so we should welcome the paper and monitor the results of the research. We should encourage the Executive to communicate those results to the industry.

I welcome many of the points in the letter, which is informative. However, it does not say whether it accepts or rejects this committee's recommendations, which is the response that we wanted. For that reason, I consider the response to be a bit of a fudge. We should ask the Executive again whether it accepts or rejects the recommendations that we have made.

Lewis Macdonald mentioned testing. We were told that a meeting is taking place in Europe and that the Scottish Executive will be keeping a close watch on developments. However, we do not know the Scottish Executive's view. Does it have a view? Does it have any input to that committee to convey its views? We do not know.

I have some concerns about the time scale for discussing the part of the animal that is to be tested. It has been suggested that the committee will consider the matter in March. As we know, once things get into the European circuit, it can take a long time to achieve any result. The industry is concerned because, if one tested the bit of the shellfish that is going to be sold, it would clearly be edible under the regulations.

It is only because the whole shellfish is being tested, or because bits are being tested that might in some circumstances be eaten but which would not be eaten in the circumstances in which the suppliers plan to sell it, that the toxin levels are over the limit, leading to the product being banned. The matter needs to be dealt with quite quickly, because what would otherwise be edible products cannot be sold. More accurately, a whole area of the industry is being put off limits. The fishermen want to fish and sell a product that is edible within the regulations.

I agree with what Alasdair Morgan said. Unfortunately, one edible part, the roe, tends to be toxic, but the white muscle does not. That is where the problem is coming from. I think that the problem could be easily overcome if people were not allowed to sell the roe but were allowed to sell the white muscle. We should follow that up urgently. A move to end-product testing of the white meat would allow fishermen to sell it and would alleviate some pressure. We could do that temporarily. I have concerns about testing only the end product as that would affect the live market. We have to find a crossover between end-product testing and testing as it is carried out just now. A decision on that cannot be made overnight but we need to ask for fishermen to be allowed, temporarily, to sell the white meat and for it to be tested as an end product.

I back up what Rhoda and Alasdair said. Ireland dealt with a similar situation by coming up with a speedy method of end-product testing that has been greatly to the benefit of their scallop fishermen. The March date shows that the situation is not being treated as a matter of urgency. I feel that a more speedy response would be welcomed by all.

The response that we have received, while it goes down the road of what we want, does not go as far as I would have liked, nor into as much detail. Do we think that it would be appropriate to ask the minister for clarification on a number of issues and highlight issues on which we want progress made within the terms defined in the report?

We do not need clarification; we need urgent action in regard to end-product testing.

Time frames are an issue and we need clarification of the issue. There are also two areas on which the Executive did not respond at all. It should be stressed to the Executive that the committee feels strongly about extra resources and compensation. The answers that we have are inadequate.

I am sorry, Irene, could you repeat the last point?

The committee recommended strongly that resources should be made available for a compensatory mechanism. The answers that we received are not clear. There is mention that it might be possible to examine the issue under the new structural funds. Guidance on that would be useful. Also, there is no mention of resources going into testing at the Marine Laboratory.

We should welcome the minister's response. It is important to recognise the important and useful things in the report. However, we should say that there are two or three areas in which we would like more detail and a clearer indication of the Executive's view. For example, it would be useful to have more information on end-product testing, on testing of parts of the animal and on the criteria under which Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 regulations are brought forward. I would ask the convener to respond in those terms, rather than reopening all the many questions that have been largely answered.

Would it be appropriate for me to write, on behalf of the committee, to the minister, highlighting some of the issues that have been raised?

Members indicated agreement.

As different members have different ideas about priorities, I would make sure that a couple of members see the letter before it is sent out. Perhaps we can nominate a couple of members to do that—I suggest Lewis and Alasdair.

That is fine.

Okay.