Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
Rhoda Grant, quite rightly, asked for the next item to be put back on to the agenda. She has been the committee reporter on amnesic shellfish poisoning for some time and has produced a second interim report on the subject. Members will have had circulated to them a copy of the reply that I received from the European Commission following our previous discussion of the matter.
This morning, I finally received a letter on the matter from the minister, Malcolm Chisholm, who is also answering on behalf of the Food Standards Agency Scotland. Members should also have received a copy of that letter. I am sorry that this is all so last-minute; the situation is not satisfactory and I am not terribly pleased about the length of time that the minister has taken to reply. However, that is perhaps a matter for another occasion.
I ask Rhoda Grant to speak to her paper.
I wanted this short paper to be included on the agenda because representatives of the scallop fishermen have returned from a visit to the European Union. Their report is also attached and I thank them for making it available for our consideration.
One of the results of the visit was a possibility that the trigger level might be reconsidered if scientific evidence were provided to support that. As the fishermen have a very tight time scale in which to find that evidence, I ask the committee to agree to write to the minister to ensure that Fisheries Research Services is working alongside them and giving them the required assistance to put the information together and submit it to the EU by the end of January. That is why I wanted this item to be included on the agenda so quickly; if we are to do anything, we must agree to do it today.
However, I have not had a chance to read through the late papers. Yesterday, I also received a copy of the FSA's submission to the ASP working group. It is a large document and when I looked through it, it made little or no sense to me. Indeed, one would need to be a scientist to make any sense of it. However, I am happy to forward the submission to any members who want to read it.
Thank you for bringing the matter back to the committee at such an opportune moment.
The proposal to lower the present limit of 20 micrograms per gram of domoic acid to 4.6 micrograms per gram will have a substantial impact on the scallop industry. That industry is worth £16 million a year, and some people have estimated the costs of implementing the reduction at £6 million a year.
However, the real issue is the great gaping gap in the science. Nothing in the report suggests that anyone has ever suffered any illness at any time because of the current management regime. Does that mean that no people have ever suffered—which I believe to be the case—or does it mean that the scientists have simply focused on statistics rather than on operational outcomes? There would have to be a very strong case to cripple such a long-established and valuable industry—which is provably and visibly operated with a worldwide reputation for healthy products—by reducing the limit to 4.6 micrograms of domoic acid per gram. I simply do not believe the case for such a reduction. If the pressure to make it is coming from elsewhere, we should also address that issue.
I support many of Stewart Stevenson's comments and express my thanks to Rhoda Grant for the information that she has continued to supply to the committee.
The industry finds itself in a ridiculous position. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. It can stick with the original regime, which closes down the boxes, or it can adopt the new regime, which opens the boxes but removes the markets for the product. The committee should ask how the industry has found itself in such a position. I suggest that we should ask for an inquiry to examine how a Scottish industry has been disadvantaged by the impossible constraints of regulations that have been imposed to prevent an illness that no one in this country has ever experienced. That is the bottom line.
The issue concerns how Europe relates to many of our industries. As well as calling for an inquiry into how we got to this ridiculous stage, we should pass the issue to the European Committee and ask it to examine Europe's decision-making network to find out how this ridiculous situation arose. In the meantime, we should ask Rhoda Grant to continue as reporter. Indeed, we need more reporters on amnesic shellfish poisoning, which is a serious issue that is moving up the committee's agenda. A group of reporters should work on the committee's behalf.
I want to say basically the same thing as Richard Lochhead said. Setting the level at 4.6 micrograms of domoic acid per gram could easily close the industry for nine to 10 months of the year, which would put most of its vessels out of business. At that level, it is possible that some boxes might never reopen. The internationally accepted level seems to be 20 micrograms of domoic acid per gram.
It is also important that whole scallops can be sold because, in the meantime, the white meat market is being taken up by rather inferior scallop meat from Chile. The west coast of Scotland cannot afford to lose such an industry for no apparent reason.
I support the argument that there seems to be no justification for reducing the toxin barrier to 4.6 micrograms per gram. If we were to argue more strongly and ask why, given the fact that there is no recorded incident of such an illness coming into the human food chain, the level should be set at 4.6 micrograms, the scientists would suggest that the reason is that their regime has been set appropriately and is working properly. I do not accept that. I advocate strongly our not agreeing to the reduction.
Another anomaly that has bothered the committee for some time—it has been raised on several occasions—is the inequality of the testing regime. Some of our neighbours, such as those on the Irish coast, are able to test scallops differently. That has always annoyed committee members and it has caused much distress to the people in the industry. We have been unable to get a clear understanding of why one regime tests to one standard, while another is allowed to do something different. When people question that, the reason that is given is that we need to comply with the EU directive. Why is the EU directive applied differently in neighbouring countries?
As a number of members have said, the reduction from 20 micrograms to 4.6 micrograms per gram cannot stand up to any kind of scrutiny. The committee's efforts should not be directed into an unnecessary inquiry.
I look for guidance from the convener and the clerk on the ways in which the committee can influence those who make the decisions. We might approach members of the European Parliament or the European Committee. This committee should focus its attention on those individuals who can do something for what is, as Jamie McGrigor said, a vital part of the Scottish economy.
I agree with John Farquhar Munro and other members. We first considered the issue two years ago, yet the matter continues. I said then that I would like Scotland to use the Irish test, because it seems that the Irish are far better at testing than we are.
Nonetheless, I offer a word of caution: I was a bit alarmed by members' earlier comments. I would not want the committee to be brought into disrepute by its assuming that there is no such thing as amnesic shellfish poisoning. Amnesic shellfish poisoning exists and it causes harm, which is why the regulations exist. Although I agree that we must consider carefully whether there is a need to reduce the test level, I am not especially in favour of that. It will ruin our argument if we start to pretend that amnesic shellfish poisoning does not exist. I hope that we have not gone that far.
Perhaps I can assist Mike Rumbles. I am reliably informed by fishermen colleagues that one would have to eat about 36 scallops at the 20-microgram level in 30 minutes to be at risk. I would happily serve that meal to Mike Rumbles. It would be an incredible achievement for any human being to devour 36 scallops in 30 minutes.
Mike Rumbles makes a valid point. One or two incidences of amnesic shellfish poisoning would have a detrimental effect on a fishery. However, the 20 microgram limit is sensible, and there have been no recorded cases of human illness. I challenge Mike Rumbles to eat 36 scallops in half an hour.
He often claims to be capable of great feats, but I do not know whether he would manage that one.
It would be quite an achievement if he paid for the 36 scallops.
We are getting off the subject slightly.
The letter that we have received from the Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, to Rhoda Grant comments on the issue of scientific evidence to which members have referred. The letter states that the evidence on which the decision was based was kept secret until recently. The minister acknowledges that fact by saying that there can be an informed debate only now that the information has been made available. We are in the absurd position of a minister admitting that a decision has been made by the Standing Veterinary Committee in Europe without there having been the possibility of an informed debate. That statement is contained in the second paragraph of page 2 of the minister's letter.
Rhoda Grant has referred to the report that has been received, a copy of which Hugh Allen showed me last week. He said that he could not understand it. One would need to be an advanced mathematician to understand some of the formluae. The report starts by providing a mathematical model that showed that there was a one in 1,000 chance of there being any scallops that might exceed the current test level of 20 micrograms of domoic acid per gram. The evidence—such as it is—has come from mathematicians rather than from people in the industry and it has been kept secret. I find that quite extraordinary. It brings the activities of the SVC into disrepute.
Richard Lochhead's suggestion—that there be an inquiry into the way in which such a decision has been made—is valid. I have discussed the matter with people such as Hugh Allen and Duncan MacInnes in the Western Isles, and it is clear that the impact on such areas, including my constituency on the west coast, will be substantial. We have come to a pretty pass, with a decision that seems not only to be unjustified, but to have a total lack of support from other member states. According to one fisherman to whom I spoke at the meeting, the Republic of Ireland did not seem to be aware of the consequences that the decision might have. That may or may not be true. However, that begs the question whether the Republic of Ireland was lobbied by either the Scottish Government or Her Majesty's Government, in order to obtain support from another country that one expects would be seriously affected if the new regulation came into force.
There should be an inquiry. Given the importance of the topic, I hope that the work that Rhoda Grant has done can continue and be supplemented by members from other parties. We should also take up Richard Lochhead's second suggestion that an additional rapporteur or rapporteurs should be appointed.
Finally, I agree that Rhoda Grant's initial point should be supported. We should continue to adopt the unanimous approach that we took when I chaired the meeting of the committee on 23 October. We expressed our concerns unanimously to the minister at that meeting.
I want to respond to some of those comments. I agree that the science does not back the action that has been taken. As far as I understand it, the science is based on mussels, which are quite different from scallops—that is where the problem lies. The fishermen are concerned because the science is not being properly examined.
I must pay tribute to Mark Brough who has done a lot of work on this. He has reminded me that fishermen are keen to have a public health risk assessment on scallops. They need funding and support for that. We should include that point in our letter to the minister.
It has come across loud and clear that when the European Committee considered the matter, it did not take a risk assessment perspective, but considered the science. However, the science is not complete.
Other members talked about the testing regimes. Our current testing regime is reasonably close to the Irish testing regime, although it was not similar when we began investigating the topic a couple of years ago. The reason why it has moved closer to the Irish regime is that the whole subject has been considered by the EU. Our testing regime will be monitored by the EU in the spring. A decision must be made about whether we go back to the old regime or move forward on the new regime. I understand that a consultation on that will be carried out in the near future. That must move on before the European Committee rubber-stamps a decision.
Secret submissions were referred to. The Food Standards Agency told me that it did not have any problem about making its submissions public. However, other EC countries had made confidential submissions and the FSA was therefore unable to release those until it had permission to do so. I think that the agency has now received that permission.
I do not mind having an inquiry, but it will not solve the problem. At the end of the day, the decision will be rubber-stamped at the end of January. We do not have time to hold an inquiry. We must give backing to the fishermen and put pressure on the Executive to make available resources to the fishermen to do the work that they need to do before the end of January. We can hope that at least we can vary the trigger level, which is causing a huge amount of concern.
I would like to make two proposals in response to comments that have been made. An inquiry by the European Committee—which I would like—will not help the scallop fishermen in the foreseeable future. However, it is an example of a problem that we do not want to happen in any other industry. For that reason there is a strong case for referring the experience to the European Committee and asking it to conduct an inquiry into the decision-making process in Europe and how that relates to the Scottish ministers. For many people, particularly scallop fishermen, the European decision-making process is a big maze. The industry may go with a plea to change something, but the proposal disappears and then comes out at the other end in the form of an anti-Scottish proposal that is bad for the industry. That is what has happened in this case and we should learn from that. We should ask the European Committee to conduct an inquiry to see what lessons can be learned.
The other issue is the immediate problem of what the committee should do. I suggest that we appoint one or two additional reporters to work with Rhoda Grant to produce an action plan for discussion at one of our future meetings.
I would welcome the appointment of other reporters. However, I must emphasise that I need the committee to make a couple of decisions on the points that I have raised. If we wait until the new year, we will have missed the window of opportunity. The scientists for whom the Scottish Executive is responsible should do everything possible to assist the fishermen and we should urge the Scottish Executive to make supporting funding available to the fishermen or to a public body to carry out a public risk assessment for scallops, to determine whether they pose a danger.
We have three decisions to make. First, does the committee agree to the suggestions that Rhoda Grant has just made?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Rhoda Grant for her report, and Mark Brough for helping her to produce it.
Secondly, Richard Lochhead suggests that we ask the European Committee to conduct an inquiry into the issue so that we can learn lessons for other sectors of the industry.
I would like the European Committee to consider the decision-making processes and the relationship between those processes, Scottish ministers and the industry.
I see no great difficulty in our asking the European Committee to do that. We cannot force the committee to do it, but there is no harm in asking. Are members content with Richard Lochhead's suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Thirdly, we need to decide whether to appoint other reporters. Rhoda Grant has intimated that she has no problem with that. Does any member wish to nominate another member as a reporter?
I nominate Jamie McGrigor.
Would you be happy to serve as a reporter, Jamie?
Certainly.
I nominate Fergus Ewing.
Do members agree that Fergus Ewing and Jamie McGrigor should be appointed as reporters, alongside Rhoda Grant?
Members indicated agreement.
That sounds like a very happy trio.
Before we move on, convener—
Would John Farquhar Munro like to be nominated?
No—I have enough to do.
I would like the reporters to consider an anomaly. I understand that on the south coast—that is to say, the English channel coast—there is no testing regime for shellfish or scallops, because the testing agencies are in dispute about who should pay for the test. At issue is whether the test should be paid for by local authorities or by the testing agencies. As a result, scallops are being landed there without being tested.
That would be a very good starting point for the reporters.