Rural Development Committee, 19 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Official Report 349KB pdf

---

Scallop Industry

Members will recall that the committee has examined issues affecting the Scottish scallop industry on several occasions, with a particular focus on amnesic shellfish poisoning. Most recently, on 8 October, the committee took substantial evidence on ASP and the proposed technical conservation measures for the scallop fishery. Following that meeting, the committee wrote to both the relevant ministers with several questions and recommendations. Members have the papers containing the ministers' responses and supplementary letters.

Today, we will hear from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Mary Mulligan, who is, if I remember correctly, an ex-member of the committee. Mary Mulligan is here to discuss ASP only, while Ross Finnie will be able to deal with ASP and the technical conservation issue.

The officials in attendance from the Food Standards Agency Scotland are Lydia Wilkie and Martin Reid. They have attended previous committee meetings, so members will be familiar with them.

I am sure that they remember those meetings.

I am sure that they do.

I thank the committee for inviting me to discuss ASP. The Food Standards Agency Scotland, which is developing options and recommendations on the proposals for a tiered system for ministerial consideration advises me on matters relating to food safety. The options will take account of all relevant factors, such as the impact on the scallop industry and the legal framework within which we must operate.

The committee has heard from Martin Reid, of the Food Standards Agency Scotland, and from Paolo Caricato, of the European Commission, on the proposals for a tiered analysis regime. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to update the committee on the actions that the agency has taken since that committee meeting. Following a request at that meeting, the agency wrote to the European Commission about the ASP action level for scallops. The agency also wrote to invite members of the scallop industry to meet officials to discuss progressing the tiered system proposals.

With a view to researching a suitable traceability system, agency officials have met representatives of two traceability software companies and will attend a further meeting at the end of this week. I am aware that the agency agreed to visit a large processor to examine the traceability system that it employs. The industry has been unable to accommodate the agency as yet, but it has offered assistance in arranging that meeting.

A full regulatory impact assessment is being prepared to be presented alongside recommendations to ministers using financial information that has been received through extensive consultation. The agency will liaise with Executive colleagues and use data from the recently published report on the economic impact of toxin closures. I assure the committee that the regulatory impact assessment will contain a thorough quantitative assessment of the proposals' effect on the scallop industry. I am happy to take any questions.

Does Ross Finnie have anything to add?

Not a lot. However, I will take the opportunity to introduce the officials who accompany me. On my right is Dr Paul Brady, who is the head of fisheries and rural development in my department, and to his right is Gabby Pieraccini, who is in charge of inshore fisheries.

I will set the record straight on a matter of which the convener is aware, following my letter to him. Public health is a matter for my colleague Mary Mulligan. My role and remit and those of my department are to become involved in how ASP or any other disease might impact on the sector as a whole. It is not for us to determine or adjudicate on whether such measures are appropriate. The measures are entirely for the Minister for Health and Community Care and for the Food Standards Agency Scotland.

I emphasise that at no time has my department underestimated the difficulties that ASP has caused. We commissioned an economic analysis from EKOS Ltd, which highlighted some of the difficulties that closures have caused. The Scottish Scallop Advisory Committee will fully consider that analysis. Members might recall that that committee was established under Rhona Brankin and has the job of bringing all stakeholders together to discuss matters of importance to the sector.

We are aware of the sector's concerns about the potential outcome of whatever decision the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Food Standards Agency Scotland make and of the decision that the Commission makes about the testing that will be introduced. That has been brought to our attention several times. We continue to discuss with the industry how we will deal with that and the commercial decisions that the industry might or might not take.

We have been approached about compensation. We have consistently said that we have followed the policy of successive Governments on compensation for losses incurred as a result of toxin closures. We do not make payments for them.

My officials have had positive initial discussions with colleagues in the Fisheries Research Services about the possibility of commissioning new scientific work to examine issues such as the ASP trigger and action levels. We are concerned about how the system and the industry operate. The results would be a matter for determination elsewhere. That has been progressed at the Scottish Scallop Advisory Committee.

I am sorry that I cannot contribute hugely. Later, I will deal with conservation measures. My job is essentially to liaise with the industry. We deal with it directly and my officials deal with it regularly. We communicate the industry's concerns internally, but attempts to direct how and on what basis public health decisions should be taken are passed on to the health department, the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Food Standards Agency Scotland.

Thank you, minister. We can assume that Mary Mulligan will answer most of the first round of questions, but if you want to add anything, I will happily bring you in on the impact on the industry.

Minister, you will understand that the majority of the fishing industry considers the ban on scallop fishing to be somewhat draconian, considering that there has not been a case of illness in Scotland from eating Scottish scallops—

I am sorry to interrupt. I tried to make it plain, though perhaps I did not make it clear enough, that the first round of questions should focus on ASP.

My question concerns ASP. One of the points in question is the portion size of scallops that was used to determine the trigger level. The portion size is 12 king scallops. Most people who eat scallops would agree that it is unlikely that anyone would eat such a portion—most people would be sick before they had finished 12 king scallops. The portion size is generally considered too large.

I also gather from the secretary of the Western Isles Fisheries Association that financial instrument for fisheries guidance funding has been sought to facilitate a survey on portion size, which the European Commission requires to ascertain the correct portion size. Would it not be a good idea to wait until the evidence of that survey is received, before settling on a trigger level of 4.6 micrograms per gram, which will shut down most of the scallop fishing waters off the Scottish coast?

This is the Weetabix question—how many can you eat? Clearly, the scientific evidence must be balanced against the assumed number of scallops that people are consuming and the damage that that amount would cause should the scallops be infected with the poisons. Therefore, although we are pleased that no one has been ill, in the absence of empirical evidence we must use the scientific advice to guide us on the level at which the trigger should be placed. Given that the trigger was set at 20 micrograms per gram for the whole scallop, testing one part of the scallop requires that a pro rata estimate be made, which is why we decided to set the level at 4.6 micrograms per gram.

I am aware that, in previous discussions, the committee has suggested that the scientific evidence must be reviewed. The agency has made representations to Europe to continue to review that. The process will be on-going and will take time, but we are already in a situation where it could be suggested that we are not complying with the directive. Therefore, we must consider the options to bring us into compliance. One option is a tiered system, on which the agency has been consulting—it will provide ministers with its recommendations.

My point was that FIFG funding was sought to facilitate a survey, whose results we should wait for before making a decision. What is your reaction to the fact that 90 per cent of the toxins in a scallop are in the gut and the mantle and can easily be removed by fishermen? Will we see an industry destroyed because that process is not allowed to happen?

We do not want to see an industry destroyed. By maintaining confidence, we believe that we will support the industry's continuation for many years.

Mr McGrigor referred to the survey that is being conducted. Obviously, we will await the results of that survey. We cannot make an alternative decision until we have that outcome, so we must continue the discussions about how we should test for ASP in scallops.

I shall try to break my questions into small chunks. To what extent has the minister's department been involved in obtaining a derogation from Europe's basic limit of 20 micrograms per gram?

The FSA sought the derogation following discussions with the industry.

I just wanted to be certain about who took the lead.

You say that a tiered option is being developed, and we have seen some information already. On what timetable is that option being developed?

The tiered testing is being consulted on.

I wrote the words "tiered option being developed" during your opening remarks. I am checking what you meant when you said that.

The tiered option is not in development, but is being consulted on.

Section i) of Malcolm Chisholm's letter says:

"To date, no significantly different proposals have been put forward to that suggested by the Agency which would fulfil the requirements of the Directive and the Decision."

Do you agree that that is predicated on working within the decision and the present derogation?

As far as I am aware—I will ask officials to clarify the matter—

I think that Lydia Wilkie is nodding her head.

As far as I am aware, no other suggestion has been made. I will check that with Lydia Wilkie.

The proposals that we are developing must meet the requirements of the existing decision, because otherwise the legislation that the Scottish ministers might introduce will not meet our European requirements.

If other proposals are made to simplify a tiered testing system—I use that only as an example—could the derogation be renegotiated? Would you intend to do so if appropriate proposals were made?

If proposals were presented to us, we would need to ensure that they fulfilled the directive's requirements. If they did not fulfil those requirements, but might fulfil the terms of the Commission's decision, we would investigate the possibilities further with Europe. We have always said that we want to reach a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to the industry and will allow us to remain within the guidance that Europe has given us. Therefore, we are more than willing to discuss any other suggestions that have been made, provided that they keep us within the directive.

The comment that we are open to returning to Europe and to renegotiating the derogation is important. That is likely to offer the prospect of a way forward. I see that the convener is anxious to allow other members to speak. With his consent, I might ask questions later.

If that is possible, you will.

Minister, would you consider delaying the implementation of the tiered testing system, given that science is being carried out that could affect the derogation?

As I said, someone could claim that we are not complying fully with the directive. We are therefore anxious to move on that matter to ensure that we are in full compliance. As I said to Mr Stevenson, we want to reach a settlement that most people will find the most acceptable. However, that is becoming more difficult the longer we are in this situation. Although we are concerned about delaying implementation, the inquiry and the consultation process over the summer have presented opportunities for people with an interest to suggest alternatives that can be examined in the light of the directive.

Are you willing to find out whether the time scale in which scientific research is to be completed will allow you to delay the tiered testing system?

The difficulty is that the science is an on-going process. Although we have asked for a further scientific review, that might be delayed because of the demands on those who would carry it out. As a result, it would be difficult to say that we could delay the introduction of the tiered testing system until we received the results of the research. However, the science does not stand still. Because we are continually learning new things, we would have to keep it under review anyway.

The committee has heard evidence that details simple ways of including traceability in the tiered testing system. The industry is hugely concerned that a bureaucratic system of traceability could put a lot of operators out of work because of the pressure of fulfilling the criteria, keeping all the forms, trying to second-guess where they might be fishing on a certain day and so on. Will you assure us that work will be carried out with the fishing industry to ensure that the system has the most simple form of traceability that will provide what is needed without requiring a lot of bureaucracy?

The FSA has been considering the committee's points about the traceability system. Obviously, there were concerns about how bureaucratic the system could become. As we do not want that to happen, the FSA is examining how to improve the situation and is discussing the matter further with the industry, which has said that it will be able to provide a simpler system. We hope that that on-going discussion will help to improve the original proposal.

Could we run a traceability system pilot before the tiered testing system is introduced to ensure that it has no negative impacts on the industry?

I suspect that that might be possible, but I could not give you any details about it at the moment.

In answer to Rhoda Grant's first question, you said that you would not want to delay implementation too long. However, that response suggests that there is room for delay. Can you quantify that for us? How long a delay is too long? How long would you be able to delay?

At the previous meeting, the FSA said that it was keen to make recommendations to ministers on how to proceed by the end of the year. However, if we were having very full discussions about how to take the matter forward, we would not want to curtail them. The difficulty is that no alternatives have been suggested. As a result, there is no reason for us to delay implementation any further. We need to pursue any suggestions or points that people might have as quickly as possible.

Are you happy that all the alternatives have been sought?

I am happy that the consultation process has been widespread and has allowed people to suggest any alternatives.

The minister will be aware of the evidence that we took from the industry on 8 October that the effect of the FSA's proposed tiered testing method would be "catastrophic" and "disastrous". The committee accepted that evidence, which came from across the board. We all want to work with the FSA. However, the minister has probably not specifically considered some adminicles of evidence. Is she aware that the FSA gave an undertaking to the Scottish Scallop Advisory Committee that, prior to the publication of the consultation paper, the SSAC would be consulted to ensure that the industry in partnership with the FSA could propose a practicable scheme, not an impracticable one? Sadly, that undertaking was not adhered to, as Mr Martin Reid admitted in his evidence on 8 October. Were you aware of that?

I am aware of the answer that was given on 8 October. However, as I said in response to the convener, the consultation process has been wide enough to involve as many contributors as possible. We remain willing to accept contributions that people have to make.

The industry is anxious to work with the FSA, but is the minister aware that the industry has still not received the data on which the ASP working group's report was based? Should not the industry receive that raw data now?

All relevant information should be made available to all those who are involved. There is no reason to be secretive. All of us have the industry's interests at heart. We need to have some open dialogue about progress.

I agree absolutely. In that spirit, are you aware that the FSA had sight of the ASP report in January 2001, but that the industry did not get hold of it until November 2001 and that was only because the Commission, not the FSA, provided the industry with a copy?

As two FSAS representatives are present, perhaps they could explain the process for providing such information.

That would be useful.

It is important to say that that report belonged to the Commission. Releasing it was not in our gift. We released parts of the information because they related to our country. Over several months, we sought the Commission's agreement to release the document. That took longer than we wished, but in the end the Commission agreed to release all the scientific information. My colleague Martin Reid probably knows more about the detail, if you require that information.

I will make progress, because much ground must be covered. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care said that the FSA sent a letter to the European Commission following the committee's evidence session on 8 October. I believe that that was an attempt to progress the science, which the industry challenges. Has the FSA provided the industry with a copy of the letter that it sent to the Commission? Was the industry involved in that letter's compilation, to ensure that industry input was maximised and that we had the benefit of the knowledge and experience that the industry's information provides?

Mr Reid has been elected to answer.

We wrote to the European Commission just a few days after the committee's meeting on 8 October, as the committee requested. The letter took the form that the committee suggested, which was to ask that the Commission consider reviewing the action levels as set out in the directive. That was all that it was necessary to do at that time. The Commission indicated that it is prepared to consider that in conjunction with the request for a study into portion size. That will now be referred to the Community reference laboratory in Vigo, in Spain. The matter will be taken forward at a European level; it is now up to the Community reference laboratory to consider the proposal in the context of its other work. As soon as we hear the outcome, we will advise all those concerned of the response.

With respect, that did not answer the question, which was whether you would provide the industry with a copy of the FSA's letter to the Commission. I hope that the answer to that is yes, because I cannot see why it should be kept secret if we are to be open.

Will the FSA give an undertaking today that it will be completely open and willing to work with the industry to try to provide a workable solution to some of the problems and questions that have come from MSPs of all parties?

On your first point, we would be more than happy to provide a copy of that letter to the industry, to committee members or to anyone who would like a copy.

On the second point, I feel that we have to date worked openly and closely with industry through three written consultation exercises, numerous public meetings—including five this year—through the Scottish scallop advisory committee and through attendance at industry meetings, at which we discussed the issues. We have been open, transparent and approachable throughout the whole exercise, although I accept the point about the written consultation paper and the Scottish scallop advisory committee. Aside from that, I think that we will continue in the vein in which we have already operated, working closely with industry and the enforcement bodies to develop proposals and, hopefully, improve the proposals that we have already tabled.

I am grateful for that.

Do you accept the evidence from Dr Colin Moffat of the marine laboratory? In his submission of 17 October 2002, on the science of your proposals, he said that the methodology was flawed. In particular, he referred to the lack of any basis for the test's being based on a 1:1,000 ratio. Do you accept that?

We can only take the advice of the scientists who put forward the recommendations to the European Commission. The decision about what should go into the recommendations was based on that scientific advice.

I understand that, but if you feel that Dr Moffat is right and the science is wrong, your advice to ministers must surely reflect that. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care has told us that her response has to be "proportionate" to the health risk. If you are saying that your role is to provide her with advice, that advice must be based on your actual views. Is it your actual view that Dr Moffat is correct, and that the methodology under the current rules is at best questionable and probably wrong?

That is one of the scientific points that must be pursued in Brussels. I am not a scientist and could not sensibly comment on a paper produced by a scientist. We rely on the national marine laboratory to give us advice.

But is the FSA not in the business of giving scientific advice? If you cannot do it, are you admitting that you cannot perform your function?

We seek the best scientific advice available at any given time on any given issue.

Is it not the marine lab that provides the best available advice? I thought that it was.

With respect, the marine lab was part of the team that negotiated, or rather discussed, the proposals that led to the development of the detail that makes up the Commission's decision, including the trigger levels. The FSA's negotiating position in Brussels, which is clearly documented, was that the trigger level itself was not necessary, provided that comprehensive end-product testing was in place. That perhaps goes to an even more fundamental level than the point that Mr Ewing is making.

I have some final points to make, and the minister may wish to resume answering. First, the current rules were not based on testing scallops off Scotland, but on testing mussels off Canada. Will the minister confirm that the necessary new research into the biochemistry, specifically the reaction of domoic acid, not in mussels, but in scallops, with the other two acids involved, will be funded through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance?

Secondly, will no decision be taken on ASP and no regime be implemented until such time as we, and the industry, have a chance to study the outcome of all the research on both portion size—which Jamie McGrigor mentioned—and on the biochemistry? Once we have had a chance to consider all the scientific advice, would it then—and only then—be the time to make a decision? Furthermore, may we rest assured that that will not contravene European law?

I am aware that the original advice was partly based on tests on mussels from Canada, but the advice is that similar circumstances can arise with scallops from Scotland. We have to take cognisance of that fact.

As I said earlier in response to a question from Rhoda Grant, the scientific research that we are requesting will continue to examine the catch from within the Scottish shores. We will therefore have a firmer base on which to take our decisions. However, the question remains about the time scale for taking the issue forward. I urge those within the industry who want to discuss the matter further to make contact now with the Food Standards Agency Scotland and discuss it further. We want to take the matter forward in a way that will not be damaging to the industry but will maintain the safety of all those who might consume the scallops. To do otherwise would put the industry at risk and I would not want to be responsible for that.

When did the industry last contact your department?

We last wrote to the industry at the end of last week and we have been in telephone contact about traceability systems, attempting to progress the matter. We have been actively pursuing the industry.

I ask the minister what she means when she asks the industry to be in contact with the FSAS. Lydia Wilkie's answer appears to suggest that a regular and focused series of conversations is taking place.

I was in no way criticising anybody for not speaking to anybody else. What I am saying is that we do not have an alternative proposal to the tiered system that we could investigate. If there is such a thing, Mr Stevenson, I would obviously urge the FSAS to investigate it. So far, such a proposal has not been made.

Given that most of the questions have been asked, I will try to be brief. The minister said that, if we do not adopt a tiered system soon, we would have to fulfil the obligations under the directive in full. What pressure is on the Scottish Executive to bring the issue to a head and where is it coming from? Is there a deadline?

There is no deadline as such except for the fact that the directive has been issued. It is up to the Executive to initiate the procedures to fulfil the directive. That is what we are seeking to do, but there is no deadline in terms of a date.

Is it fair to say that Europe is not exactly banging your door down to get the directive implemented? We have seen France break the law over the ban on Scottish beef and Europe doing nothing about it. When France eventually allowed Scottish beef back into the market, Europe took no action despite the fact that France had waited years to do so. Is it fair to say that the Executive could easily allow implementation of the directive to be delayed, wait a year or two and get the science sorted out or whatever it takes and that, if it did that, Europe would not bother?

Is Mr Lochhead suggesting that the Executive should not fulfil its part with regard to European Council directives?

All I am saying is that, if there is a case being put, you should wait until the science has reached some sort of conclusion. Perhaps it is worth waiting if you are under no pressure to bring the issue to a conclusion.

I will turn that suggestion on its head and say that I have some concerns that, were we not to ensure full compliance with the directive and someone was made ill, we would be in grave danger of not having fulfilled our obligations. There is, therefore, some pressure to move along the right path, but I have tried to make it clear today that we are anxious to ensure that we do so in collaboration with the industry, which, I am sure, also wants to ensure that we are offering a safe food product.

I am assuming that you are aware of the number of people who have suffered from ASP since it was discovered: to wit, none.

Yes, but none of us wants anyone to die from it, do we?

I am quite sure that we do not.

What could happen in the next few months that has not happened in the past few years that would cause someone to be ill?

I am not a fortune teller, unfortunately, but I believe that we must make some progress, given that the directive has been issued.

Minister, you say that you are told that the poison can exist in scallops, but I must reiterate that there is no case of that ever having happened in relation to scallops. In fact, scallops have the best shelf life of almost any shellfish. Furthermore, before the testing regime was started, using the 20 micrograms per gram level, hundreds of tonnes of scallops were harvested without a case of poisoning appearing. You say that you do not want to destroy the industry, but the Food Standards Agency is spending an enormous part of its budget looking for a poison that does not seem to be a problem. With respect, for no apparent reason you and the Food Standards Agency are pushing towards ending the scallop industry as we know it.

When Paolo Caricato spoke to us in October, he suggested that the FSA, which is the competent body, had suggested using the tiered testing system and that, if we wanted to do it another way, we should apply to Europe to say that we did not agree with the suggested way. If we use the level of 4.6 micrograms per gram, nearly all the scallop grounds in Scotland will be closed. Surely there must be a better way to go about testing if we do not want to destroy the industry, minister.

We have no intention of destroying the industry. We are more than willing to consider alternatives to our current course of action, which is why I am asking whether there are any other suggestions for ways in which we might make progress. The bottom line for the health department, which I represent, is food safety. The available science gives us the levels that we are using. Until we can prove that those levels are not correct, we must continue to use them.

I ask this question as a layman, minister. Your responsibilities lie in public health and one of your remits is to ensure that the general public are not poisoned by the food that we eat. Could you tell me, in a comparative way, what the most dangerous foods are for the Scottish consumer? At what danger level would you place scallops?

I ask you not to go through the foodstuffs one at a time, minister.

I was just wondering about the libel rules in case a particular brand was mentioned. At the moment, I am dealing with questions on scallops and my concern is for producers and consumers in the scallop industry. Our decisions depend on the advice that I receive, which is scientifically based, and the current advice is as you have been told.

As a layman, I want to pursue the point, because I want to understand the relative dangers to the Scottish public. You are moving to protect the Scottish public against a danger from scallops. I am asking for a comparison. What is the level of danger to the Scottish public from other foodstuffs for which you have responsibility? What is the problem for public health in comparison with other foods that are consumed in Scotland?

Since taking on the role of deputy minister, I assure you that I have received regular updates from the Food Standards Agency on a number of foods that may pose a risk. On several occasions, foods have been removed from shelves and stores, and we respond as and when we have the information available. The scientific information that is available at the moment is that we need to test scallops at the proposed level to ensure that we maintain our good record of people not being affected. Until we can provide scientific evidence to the contrary, it would be foolhardy, to say the least, to ignore it.

I am trying to follow the logic. You say that there is a potential risk to the health of the people of Scotland from eating the product, but there is no evidence that anybody has suffered from such poisoning. Are we saying that we are not interested in comparing scallops with all the other food products that we examine? Why are we pursuing this issue when so many jobs are dependent on the scallop industry? As a layman, I would imagine that there are far greater problems with food products in Scotland for which the Food Standards Agency and ministers have responsibility. Why is the effort being made on an industry that does not cause any ill health when anecdotal evidence says that there is a lot of ill health elsewhere?

Information is provided to people to ensure that they do not become ill from other food products. This is not an isolated case. Your committee may have chosen to discuss it, and there are genuine concerns about the future of the industry, but we take similar action about risks from other foods as well.

So if there are problems with particular foods in Britain and people suffer illness, you will recommend proposals to close down the industry?

We continually issue information on food safety, which may result in foods being withdrawn from consumption. We continue to advise on the preparation of foodstuffs, and all factors are taken into account. The situation with scallops is obviously causing us great concern, and the committee is pursuing that concern.

I am keen for us to make progress towards technical conservation measures, but several members have points to make. I hope that both questions and answers will be brief.

Given the concerns about the science and the fact that scientific projects that could pin the matter down once and for all are either continuing or about to start, can we ask the Commission for a delay in our implementation of the directive? That might also be useful in speeding up the scientific research and making the projects a more urgent priority.

If we were to implement the Commission decision for derogation, it would expect us to introduce complete scallop testing, which is what other countries in the same situation are having to do. We could delay the implementation of a tiered system, because that is our derogation, but we would be expected to comply with whole scallop testing.

Surely you are not suggesting that a decision will be taken before the results of the research that I mentioned are available and are studied?

Any decision will be taken once we have as much sound scientific evidence as we can ascertain, and with the advice of the Food Standards Agency.

That is not a particularly heartening answer. Are you aware that the industry has already submitted certain proposals?

To whom?

To the FSA.

Can I—

May I stick with the minister? I know, for example, that on 19 September the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association made proposals, which were subsequently rejected by the FSA on 18 October, although they were rejected on grounds that seem to me to be seriously questionable. Is not that something that your department, minister, might want to look closely at now, given that you did not seem to be aware that the proposals had been made?

I said in a previous answer that any proposal for an alternative scheme would need to be tested against whether it complied with the directive. If the FSA has responded that that is not the case, further discussions need to take place. However, I said that no schemes had been proposed that would allow us to comply completely with the directive.

Yes, but with respect minister, should not your civil servants start to take a close look at the reasons why the FSA said that the scheme—which seems to be practical and workable—has been rejected? The reasons seem to me to be flawed. Is it just entirely up to the FSA? Surely your civil servants should take a close interest? If they do not, we will see the sacrifice of an industry, because apparently we are not willing to challenge, examine or reconsider the advice of the FSA.

The FSA continues to work closely with the civil servants in the department. These matters will be examined on their merits. Should a scheme be proposed that satisfies the directive or the decision, I would expect the FSA to put it forward as part of the recommendations that will be made, and to provide me with that information. I am not aware that that is the situation at the moment.

On that note, we must draw the discussion to a close. I am sure that the minister will have picked up the genuine concern of all members of the committee that the decision is in danger of being rushed. In particular, I suspect that we will communicate with you to the effect that we can see little reason for not delaying—you have already stated that there is room for some delay—to await the full scientific evidence to back what is to be implemented. That is the concern of this committee.

Thank you for giving us evidence and for answering questions. We are moving on to technical conservation measures, so if you wish to leave us—hard though it may be—please feel free to do so. Thank you for attending.

Obviously, I am also concerned about the future of the industry. We will continue to examine any options that will allow us to make proposals on which we can get agreement.

Thank you for that.

I am aware that Ross Finnie has sat patiently for more than three-quarters of an hour. I thank him for doing so, but I am sure that he will understand that it was important that he was here during that session in case he needed to make a contribution.

We move to the technical conservation measure aspect of this fishery. I begin by asking Ross Finnie if he wishes to make any opening remarks.

Thank you, convener, for your concern, but as I am with you for most of the afternoon, I had geared myself up for the excitement of that prospect.

We all start from the same standpoint. We ultimately want the same thing, which is a sustainable future for the scallop industry. I do not think that any of us would wish to see affecting the scallop sector the same problems that over the past decade or more have affected other fisheries around our coast.

The Executive's proposals contain many points on which there is broad agreement across the sector, for example the limits on French dredges and regulations on dredge design. However, a large part of the sector is now opposed to proposals for weekend bans and restrictions on the number of dredges per side. I recognise that and I have been listening to what has been said since those proposals were announced.

I am also aware that new information will soon become available. We expect to see the latest scientific evidence on the state of the stocks in the next few weeks. We will also receive an industry-sponsored report, the Ecodredge report—please do not ask me what that means—on aspects of the industry, including various technical recommendations. I am conscious that that will be relevant in the context of conservation measures.

Briefly, my position is this: I want to act in a way that is demonstrably fair and effective; therefore, I give you the assurance that I do not intend to proceed without reflecting carefully on the forthcoming Ecodredge report and on the deliberations of the committee. I do not believe that we should delay the decision until we have resolved the ASP issues. I recognise that ASP is a major problem, but it is not my view that closures because of ASP are a conservation measure. In some areas, such closures may allow stocks to recover; however, in others, they may allow other species to displace scallops. Closure of the fisheries is not a reliable or controllable means of delivering conservation benefits, and such closures simply divert effort to stocks in areas that remain open. ASP thus increases the need for technical conservation measures.

I am keen to proceed as quickly as possible with conservation measures. However, I repeat that I shall proceed only on the basis that the measures are fair and effective and on the basis that all the evidence has been presented to me. I will not proceed until I have had time to consider the forthcoming Ecodredge report and the deliberations of the committee.

Will the period of reflection, which we welcome, also include a formal process of reconsultation of the industry? Having spoken at length to many people who are involved and who depend on scallops for their livelihoods—fishermen, processors and restaurateurs—I know that there is great concern that the responses that were made some years ago are not relevant now, post-ASP. Those people want to come up with effective conservation measures, but they believe that there needs to be a fresh start and a reconsultation. Will that be offered to the industry to assist you in your reflections?

The way in which ASP is being dealt with may have changed, as we did not test for ASP two or three years ago. However, we do not accept the connection between conservation and dealing with ASP. The fact that we did not test for ASP four or five years ago is relevant in terms of ASP; however, I have not seen any evidence that a proper connection can be made between dealing with ASP and conservation. I am, therefore, not sure about the first point that you make.

I hope that the information on the state of the stock will become available instantly, not just to me but to the scallop industry ASP steering group. I hope that the issue will be discussed by that group and I expect that my officials or I will meet the group to discuss the findings of the Ecodredge report.

A formal reconsultation process is required, but you have not committed the Executive to that. Perhaps you will reflect on that.

A weekend ban is contained in the proposed technical conservation measures. In the minister's view, how many boats in total currently fish for scallops and how many would the weekend ban be likely to affect?

The first point that we must understand is the one to which I referred in my introductory remarks, in which I was careful to say that I was conscious of the opposition that we now have. The process has been fraught, in so far as many of the suggestions that were made at the outset of the consultation, including that of the weekend ban, came from the industry itself. It was only when the regulations were published that that view turned round.

Something like 191 Scottish vessels are licensed to fish for scallops. We understand that some 102 have caught scallops in 2002; 51 have caught scallops only. For the limitation exercise, our discussions were about how to restrict effort, but I do not know that we have records indicating the total amount of effort that goes into the fishery.

I understand from the industry that only a small number—just over 100 boats—would be affected. Therefore, in so far as the aim of a weekend ban is conservation, that aim would be achieved only in respect of a tiny fraction of the scallop vessels.

That might explain why the industry originally suggested a weekend ban, but it does not explain why it is now opposing such a measure.

The explanation might be that the opposition is from those who will be affected.

It has been suggested to me that another reason why it is crucial to the continued success of scallop processors and restaurateurs that scallops can be caught in Scotland over the weekend is the Spanish market. It is essential that the scallops can be transported to Spain to meet the second bi-weekly market, on a Thursday, so that the produce can then be available for the Spanish citizenry to consume at the weekend. People can achieve a premium price of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent from that market. Although perhaps not all the advisers involved would agree, the industry's view is that any weekend ban would have a severe impact on that valuable market.

I am not sure about that. Our information on the implications of a weekend ban on the export market to Spain is that the industry is already able to handle the not infrequent disruptions that occur due to weather and other incidents. As the weekend ban would not cover the whole coast, processors would still have access to supplies. My department looks at the information that continues to come forward, but the picture is not as stark as that which has been presented by Fergus Ewing. We are well aware of the existing position that there are disruptions in those areas that might be affected by the ban. Also, scallops are caught in other areas that would not be affected by that ban.

The impact of the weekend ban on vessels that, because they fish from ports such as Mallaig, must sail for longer distances to reach their fishing grounds will be very difficult indeed. Given the bad weather in the more northerly ports such as Mallaig, which means that boats are tied up more frequently, would not the impact of a weekend ban be almost to force skippers to take the boats and their crews to sea in times when they might be taking a risk in doing so? I have discussed that issue at length with fishermen's representatives today. In short, will the lives of some fishermen not be put at risk if the weekend ban continues to be pursued?

Clearly, any attempt to restrict effort by limiting days at sea carries that possible implication. Careful consideration must therefore be given as to whether effort is required to be reduced. To be blunt, it is extremely difficult to consider conservation measures in this kind of fishery that do not require some form of effort limitation.

However, the logical conclusion is not necessarily the somewhat dramatic position that people will be forced into putting lives at risk. Of course, if we believed that that would be the case, that would affect how we implemented effort limitation. However, although that may be the industry's position on the ban now—this is one of the awkward positions with this evidence—the suggestion of reducing effort over a weekend came originally from the industry.

I accept that entirely. I will conclude the point. Given that you acknowledge that circumstances have changed—the exercise was embarked on years ago—does everything not suggest that there should be a fresh start?

The Ecodredge report cost £1 million, to which the UK contributed for the express purpose of evaluating and improving dredge design and fishing effort. Once that report is available, surely the industry should be reconsulted on technical conservation measures after it, too, has had a chance to consider the report. To propose technical measures before everybody can consider the Ecodredge report is to put the cart before the horse.

I have said clearly that I am not about to take any action until I have read and considered the Ecodredge report, so I am hardly putting the cart before the horse.

If you do not accept a reconsultation, that is exactly what you are doing.

I say with respect that neither you nor I have read the Ecodredge report. If it comes up with information that is seriously deleterious to the industry, I will have to take that view. If the report does not require immediate action, that will be part of my reflections. Until I have read the report and know its results, I will not bind myself to a course of action. I said clearly in my opening statement and I repeat that I am not about to take action that would be detrimental to the industry without properly reflecting on the Ecodredge report's findings.

I welcome those comments and the delay to the instrument's introduction until you have read the Ecodredge report. If Ecodredge produced alternatives to conservation, would you be willing to consider them? They might include proposals on the end-scallop size rather than cutting days at sea.

It goes without saying that my reflection must include a proper consideration of any options or alternatives that the report proposes.

The industry first proposed conservation measures in 1998. We have had the Parliament since 1999. What are the reasons for the delay?

Much discussion has taken place with the industry, and the industry committee has been developed. It is interesting that the two issues that are being discussed in parallel this afternoon have dominated the discussions. There is no particular reason for the delay. There has always been a problem about establishing matters. I do not criticise the industry; as I said, we have tried to accommodate that. Some of the industry's original proposals that were worked up are proposals with which the industry is unhappy. In my opening statement, I said that the issue was more some of the technical matters in relation to dredge, the amount of dredge and dredge sizes, which are now agreed. That has contributed to the delay.

I am concerned to be apprised of the latest evidence about where the industry stands, which is why I am anxious to read the Ecodredge report. Given the delay, it would be foolish of me to proceed, as that information will be available imminently.

If at any stage—whether post report or whenever—some conservation measures were introduced, when would they be reviewed? Would that be within a year?

The option is always open of saying that a review of evidence will be undertaken. We must be slightly careful. We must at least set out the framework under which we will define conservation measures. Such measures must be time limited. Our decision on for how long it will be necessary to implement those measures to establish a recovery of prime stock will be a response to the evidence. I would like to think that the time scale will be proportionate to the scale of the problem, which we hope will be evinced in the Ecodredge report, but that is not an ad infinitum position. That must be subject to review.

Your letter to the committee says that evidence of the biggest decline in stocks was from areas that had been fished, which is self-evident. What analysis has been conducted of areas that have not been fished because of ASP closures? What is the impact on stocks in the boxes that have been closed?

Compared to the evidence that was produced for the effect on stocks that were actively fished, what impact have boxes that have been closed as a consequence of ASP regulations had on stocks?

Well said.

The advice of our scientists is to consider the overall health of the stock. As members know, most of the closures are short term, and the scientists' argument is that although a short-term conservation benefit is gained from closing a box, as soon as the box is reopened the fishermen re-enter it. My understanding is that the scientific tests and surveys target the whole stock and do not operate on a box-by-box basis.

Perhaps I can encourage the minister to consider that issue further. As we know, other areas of the fisheries sector are suffering because averages are used.

In his opening remarks, the minister stated that he is concerned about the general welfare of the scallop sector. What is happening in Brussels in relation to the white-fish sector? Has he considered the impact that a proposed ban on white-fish fishing would have on the scallop sector? Also, given the knock-on effect that the loss of infrastructure in the white-fish sector would have on the scallop sector, what would be the impact of the 80 per cent cut that was proposed at yesterday's meeting?

Given that the minister is before the committee, will he reflect on —

I must stop the member. His subtlety is getting greater and greater and he is introducing items that are not on the agenda. The minister may wish to respond but, as this topic is not on the agenda, he is under no obligation to do so.

One relevant issue in Richard Lochhead's question is the prospect of displacement in the shellfish fisheries, which is of considerable concern in relation to the provisional proposals that were put to the fishermen when they met yesterday, but not with Commissioner Fischler.

And the loss of infrastructure?

Yes, the knock-on effect of the loss of infrastructure is very much in our minds when addressing the potential impact of, or alternatives to, those measures.

It has been suggested that there will be a strong move towards buying scallop entitlement and increasing its cost, thus requiring greater effort to repay the investment. I have been informed, rightly or wrongly, that no additional scallop licences will be granted. Therefore, how could there be increased effort if the entitlement for extra licences for scallops is no more?

I am not sure how either your speculative question or the further information that you have given the committee relates to fact. There are a number of unused scallop licences, which creates the opportunity for displacement and increased effort, and I can only speculate over how that affects the price of licences. There is a potential problem, and Mr Lochhead's point was fair.

Do you agree that the scallop industry is a case in which joined-up thinking is required? On the one side, there is the problem of ASP, and on the other side, there is the question of whether we have technical conservation measures. We have one lot of associations saying that they want to protect the artisanal fisheries and another group that wants to travel. Rather than developing it on a piecemeal basis, do you have an overall strategy for the future of the scallop industry?

I do not think that we are moving on a piecemeal basis. It would be easy for my officials and me simply to disassociate ourselves from final decisions that have to be taken by health ministers on ASP and not to be cognisant of the evidence and its potential impact on the industry. That is why we continue to attend meetings with the scallop industry. Those and other meetings may have ASP as their general subject for debate, but we attend because of our concern for the structure, direction and future of the scallop industry. That is what we are about. It may not be a question of us working in silos, but it is a question of why we attend those meetings.

On the joined-up thinking, we must try to ensure that we end up with a sustainable scallop industry and, in doing that, we must have regard to both the opportunities for and threats to the industry that might be posed by displacement from other fisheries.

How many scallop licences are not issued and when did the minister last receive an application for a new licence?

Strangely enough, I do not keep that register on my desk. I am happy to take note of that question, although I do not receive licence applications personally—they come to my department. We will answer that point later.

And we thought that you were omnipotent.

Indeed.

Did I understand that you would get back to Mr Stevenson on that point?

We will certainly respond to Mr Stevenson's point.

To the committee?

Yes.

I want to pursue the issue of effective conservation measures. I hope that I am wrong, but you seem to suggest that effort limitation and a weekend ban are the effective way to go, and that other conservation measures are not likely to work. That seemed to be the tenor of your evidence.

No, with respect, that was not what I said.

I am very glad.

For goodness' sake, I thought that we agreed that the agreed measures—the ones that were not even being questioned—were dredge limits and the other technical measures. They were not disagreed. What was brought to my attention was the disagreed measure and its impact. That was your question. You did not ask me to address the other measures in the proposals on dredge limits.

I am pleased to hear that, although we can perhaps look back at the Official Report of your earlier remarks. I wanted to raise one issue in particular. One method of technical conservation—the ring size adopted—is important and can have a positive impact. I understand that the instrument proposes a ring size of 75mm but that the industry may be prepared to go further than that and let small prawns escape. [Members: "Prawns?"] I am sorry. I am thinking—

Of Jamie McGrigor?

Indeed.

If that is true, minister, does it not indicate that it would be sensible to get round the table, following reconsultation with the industry, in the light of the altered circumstances after ASP? If there is to be a substantial period of reflection, which will continue until after Ecodredge is available and digested, there is every reason to involve the industry fully with a fresh consultation exercise.

As I said to you earlier, I have every intention of passing the Ecodredge report to the scallop industry committee. The report will be discussed and its impact will be felt. If the industry is volunteering to implement larger mesh sizes, I am very happy for that to be considered. I have no problems with that. As I indicated at the outset, I want to make clear that other issues—the limits of French dredges and the regulations on dredge design—are involved. Those are issues that are broadly accepted and are very important as part of the package of conservation measures.

I have one further point, which has not been touched on fully. In the opening statements, reference was made to a financial appraisal that will be carried out. Will it be carried out by the minister's department, the health department or jointly?

The opening statements referred to financial considerations that were largely driven by issues to do with ASP. It is those who are collecting evidence on that who are addressing that issue.

I mention the financial appraisal because of the EKOS report, which I understand was commissioned by the Executive and published at the end of September. Although the report was out of date by the time of its publication, nonetheless it highlighted the significant economic impact on the scallop industry of the sea-bed closures that were caused by ASP. Your summary demonstrated that a total of £3 million was lost in 1998-99, which equates to an average drop in vessel earnings of around 28 per cent per vessel or £109,000. Your conclusion was that the west of Scotland fleet is currently breaking even.

Is it not the case that, if the tiered testing system goes ahead, technical conservation measures may be irrelevant because there may not be a scallop fleet left to implement them, as it will not be economic to do so? It is clear that boats cannot continue to fish for more than a short time if it is obvious that that will lead to massive losses. We are in danger of seeing the disappearance of the scallop fleet and the fishing communities in the west Highlands.

Even by Fergus Ewing's standards, that is quite the most remarkable jump in logic that we have heard for some time. He can shake his head, but we have not yet established the precise facts. The Rural Development Committee has just spent an hour or so discussing exactly what measures can be taken to try, as best we can, to comply with the European directive with regard to the health requirements on ASP. The committee has pointed out, and the Executive is aware of, the serious economic impact that such compliance will lead to. However, Fergus Ewing has leaped to the conclusion that technical conservation measures are completely unnecessary because the end of the industry is nigh. Unless I was listening to different evidence, that evidence has not been produced.

There are clear dangers to the industry in terms of its ability to comply. It was our industry that made the suggestion of three-tier testing as an alternative to whole testing and they are to be commended for so doing. However, technical difficulties have emerged that make the three-tier testing suggestion difficult to implement.

If the Ecodredge report points to any collapse in the fundamental stock levels, I will accept that there is a threat to the industry. The threat, however, will arise from not taking conservation measures and so allowing the stocks to degrade to a point at which there is no industry left.

We have to be careful in respect of the language that we use. I am not, my department is not and my colleague the Minister for Health and Community Care is not in the business of putting this sector out of business. My concern in relation to conservation is to ensure that there is a sustainable industry that can operate within safe stock limits. That is what we are about.

I endorse those aims. I simply say that the FSA's predictions of the impact of your testing system being "catastrophic" and a "disaster" were the predictions that were made by the witnesses from whom we heard on 8 October. If you are claiming that I am exaggerating then I am afraid that you are making a comment on that evidence. That evidence was given by several witnesses, who were united on the perceived impact of the ASP issue. I hope that you will reflect on that.

Minister, I also agree with what you have said about conserving stocks. Most of the people in the industry to whom I have spoken want conservation measures of one sort or another. The main danger is losing the market for scallops due to the supply drying up. Do you agree that if there is not a continuous stream of the product, we are liable to lose the market and the industry will go to the wall?

Yes. That is why in my response to the earlier question about weekend closure, I indicated that we had examined that issue. If there are disruptions, there are other areas from where supplies can be procured. In designing a package of measures, it is important to understand that point. It is recognised in the measures we have agreed with the industry. Periods of closure that do not take that possibility into account or that affect the whole sector could have the effect of losing us the market. However, I do not think that that will happen with the current measures.

We are getting off topic here because I made it clear that I want to reflect on the evidence that will emerge from the Ecodredge report. However, Mr McGrigor's point is one that has to be taken account of in finalising and formulating any package of measures.

On that point, I am happy to draw the questioning to a close. I thank the minister for the time that he has given to this agenda item, bearing in mind that we will be taking evidence from him again very shortly.

I therefore thank Mr Finnie, Dr Brady and Gabby Pieraccini and ask them to stand down from the committee while we discuss the response that we want to make to the evidence.

We asked the minister to appear in front of the committee because of the responses we received to letters of concern that we had written. I do not know how the committee wants to respond to the minister. If we are going to respond, we should do so by means of a letter that can be signed off by the three reporters fairly speedily. However, I am keen to get input from committee members.

Rhoda Grant is looking pensive.

I will make some suggestions, if that would be useful.

On the latter part of the evidence about conservation measures, we should welcome the fact that those are not going to be put in place until after the reports have been studied and consulted on.

On ASP, we should write to the minister thanking him for giving evidence, and also to impress on him a couple of points. First, the industry must be involved in writing up the tiered testing regime. There has been concern that the industry was promised those consultations prior to the full consultation but that it did not get that. We must impress on the minister the fact that the industry must have that involvement before anything else happens.

We should also ask that any proposed tracing system be piloted before it becomes a statutory instrument. It is important to see how that would work and affect different sectors in the industry, given that anything from divers to quite large boats are involved. We need to put those matters in line first.

Moreover, we need to stress the urgency of the scientific research that has been proposed and make it clear that it should be pushed along.

Thank you for those productive comments.

I want to endorse Rhoda Grant's proposals and suggest some of my own. We have heard about several important pieces of research that either have been or are about to be commissioned and that bear directly on the issues before us. It would be totally in order to take account of the results of that research before any scheme is formulated—indeed, it would be preposterous if that did not happen. All the research on portion size and biochemistry that were referred to should be considered.

I believe that an application to the FIFG for funding for the biochemistry research is outstanding. I hope that, given the urgency of the situation, the Executive might be persuaded to put whatever pressure can be brought to bear to ensure that funding is allocated to the research. After all, as the current evidence is based not on scallops but on mussels, biochemistry is a very serious issue. Indeed, that seems to be a rather glaring omission in the process. However, the main point is that no scheme should be introduced until after the research is available.

Moreover, the response we received to the question about timing was not clear enough. That issue will be of paramount importance to the whole industry. It will want to know whether, next spring, it will feel the impact of the FSA tiered-testing model or some other scheme.

We have heard that the industry has not been fully involved, although the FSA feels that it has been. Instead of reaching any conclusion about who was right or who was wrong, I should point out that Mr Reid acknowledged that there was a failure to fulfil an undertaking to involve the industry before the consultation took place. It was good that he did so. However, it was a key omission, because it has led to an impracticable scheme being proposed. Perhaps if the industry had been more fully involved, the FSA's proposals in the consultation paper would have had the industry's blessing and imprimatur. It is certainly not the industry's fault that we are sitting here six months later and there has been hardly any progress.

We should recommend that the FSA be urged to ensure that it does everything in partnership with the industry and that it makes available all its documents and evidence, including the raw data upon which the ASP working group report was based. We have heard that Mr Reid has not yet provided those raw data to the industry. It is essential that the industry has them; it has a great deal of knowledge about these matters and, without such data, it is at a disadvantage and is not an equal partner.

We must also touch on the issue of EU law. The letters that we have received from the minister admit that there is no deadline for putting forward a testing regime. The minister said that the delay cannot be "indefinite". I hope that the committee will agree that it would be totally unacceptable for a scheme to be introduced before Christmas, as the FSA suggested on 8 October. At least, its recommendation was that a scheme should be implemented this year. That would be disastrous. The minister should accept that there is no legal imperative and therefore no need for any undue haste.

As I suggested in my first question to Mary Mulligan, no decision should be taken until all the scientific evidence has been received and the industry has had an opportunity to be fully involved in devising a workable scheme in the light of all the available evidence and the conclusions based on it.

I am sorry if I appear to be somewhat difficult at this point, but I understood that we were on agenda item 2, which is to take evidence on the Scottish scallop industry from Ross Finnie and Mary Mulligan. I do not see any agenda item 3 for the consideration of the evidence. The minister and Fergus Ewing disputed what was said today, and I would like the benefit of seeing the Official Report before I make any comment. It would be appropriate to comment only then. We are discussing something that is not on the agenda.

It is important that we make progress on a matter about which we have heard evidence in today's meeting and at our previous meeting. Time is of the essence.

I was not under the impression that we were going to discuss a report or our next steps forward. I thought that we were going to do that at our next meeting.

I concede that that is a perfectly reasonable procedural point. Members will bear in mind that we have already agreed that next week's meeting will be totally in private. Are members content that we discuss the topic under that condition?

Is it not right that we have reporters on the subject and that the input from Rhoda Grant and Fergus Ewing is essentially informing them?

And Jamie McGrigor. I am happy with that procedure, but Mike Rumbles is procedurally correct in saying that the consideration of today's evidence is not on the agenda. That is perhaps my omission.

Could I suggest that the reporters consider whether they want to write to the minister in the light of today's evidence?

It is worth while for the reporters to consider it among themselves and come back to the meeting with their views on that, so that we can proceed further. Are members content that we hold those discussions in a private meeting?

I would prefer it to be done in public.

In which case it will have to wait for a fortnight.

I am uncomfortable that, because of a procedural issue, we are failing to make progress on such an important matter. I do not want the minister to have a reason—I hesitate to use the word "excuse"—for saying that we are not keeping up with the pace that she wishes to make. It is important that we are ahead of the minister rather than behind her. It is in your hands, convener, to rule on procedural matters.

I have to rule on procedural matters bearing in mind procedural correctness. I have no doubt that Mike Rumbles is procedurally correct. I could ask him whether he sees a way in which it could be handled through the reporters that we have, given their diversity.

I am perfectly happy for that arrangement to take place. I am pointing out only that we are not supposed to be discussing the evidence at the moment. I am content for it to be dealt with by reporters and then for the report to come to the committee.

I suggest that a letter to both ministers comes back to committee members for their consideration, having been agreed by reporters—even if that is done by e-mail. We can proceed on that basis. It is important that we maintain our momentum. Would you be happy with that, Mike?

Yes.

I understand Mike Rumbles's point and I know that he is putting it forward as a procedural matter, but we had embarked on the process of discussion and two contributions had been made before he thought of it. We have started, so can we not try to finish?

We are trying to do exactly that. Two members have made their points, and Jamie McGrigor wishes to say something as the third reporter.

I think that we should write to the health minister to point out that FIFG funding is currently being sought to do a survey into various aspects of the testing system. Until that evidence has been seen, there should be no move to lower testing.

At this point, I propose that we hand over the duty of drawing up a draft letter to the clerks, who will then refer it to the reporters. I hope that they will then come to an agreement on the terms of the letters, so that it can be referred back to members for any other comment. If there is none, we will assume that those letters can be sent out.

We would all want such a letter to be sent off as soon as possible.

I have a slight, precautionary note on that, which is that we must bear in mind that the clerking team will be spending a considerable amount of time this week drawing up the draft report on agricultural holdings. That report has to be the number 1 priority, but I think that I can give an undertaking that the letters will go out to members as soon as possible.

I am sure that the reporters can help the clerks on that. Can I clarify whether the matter will come back before us in a fortnight's time?

I did not think that it needed to if members are happy with the terms of the letters as agreed by the reporters.

If members are not, we can come back to it.

If members are not, we will have to come back to it in a fortnight's time.

While the minister regroups with another set of officials, I thank Dr Brady and Gabby Pieraccini for their input.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—