Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Official Report 124KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

The next item is consideration of the papers on amnesic shellfish poisoning from the Food Standards Agency Scotland and the Executive. The committee reported on the issue in 1999. Since the publication of the report, we have had continuing dialogue with the minister and officials. The papers supplied provide updates on the work of the Scottish scallop advisory committee, the economic impact of the shellfish toxin outbreak and the implementation of tier testing for shellfish toxins. The development of the tier testing regime and the strengthening of the dialogue between industry, scientists and Government have been recurring issues, which the committee has been keen should be resolved.

Do members have any comments?

The issue has badly affected the scallop industry, certainly in my constituency and right up the west coast. I am sure that the same applies in Fergus Ewing's constituency. I welcome the moves by the Food Standards Agency Scotland. There has been a lot of pressure to move to product testing. A number of issues still arise because of the changes that are being proposed, which relate especially to scallop farmers and divers rather than to the trawler industry. That is the premium market in the UK. Its ability to sell the live products straight to the hotel trade will be affected by the proposals.

I wonder whether it would be worth while bringing the Food Standards Agency Scotland before the committee to explore issues around marketing of live animals to the hotel trade when end-product testing is in place. There seems to be an issue about where the balance of risk lies and whether the hotel trade can be deemed a processor, which would allow it to continue to take the product.

We have to be careful with the remit; we are running very close to the remit of the Health and Community Care Committee.

I have already been lobbied by Doug McLeod from the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, which is concerned about the issue. It welcomes the general thrust of the policy, but there are specific issues that affect the divers and shellfish growers. We need to clarify whether there is a way forward that will allow us to address those issues.

I agree with George Lyon's suggestion. I propose that we ask Doug McLeod along to the same meeting as the Food Standards Agency Scotland so that we can find out what he would see as a counter-proposal and whether we can find any solution to the problem.

On the point about the overlap with the Health and Community Care Committee, I wonder whether we will in fact take this issue further. I would like to hear some explanations from the Food Standards Agency so that we can pick up on what the issues are. Could we liaise with the Health and Community Care Committee to ensure that, if we take the matter further, we do so constructively and people do not feel that we are crossing the boundaries inappropriately?

It is vital that we establish contact with the Health and Community Care Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to hear the FSA and Doug McLeod, who I think has sent a briefing note to us all, raising problems about marketing. While we welcome the developments, I am concerned about their pace. Much economic damage has been caused to scallop fishermen on the west coast, nowhere more so than in Mallaig, in my constituency.

If we hear from the FSA and Mr McLeod, it will be necessary to hear from scallop fishermen or their representatives, so that we have their input on how any new regime would affect them. I hope that, if we have an evidence session, they will not be excluded.

I echo many of the comments that have been made so far, but there is a strong case for an inquiry into the shambolic way in which the crisis has been handled. By that I mean the time scale and European bureaucracy holding up everything. No doubt there was some Scottish bureaucracy, too. This committee reported on the crisis at the end of November 1999. One issue was the economic impact analysis of the toxins. On 31 October 2000, the minister finally announced that an economic analysis was to be commissioned. It has now been commissioned, yet it is four or five months away from being finalised. The economic analysis of the crisis will not be on the table until September this year.

I will now address what has been happening in Europe. We reported in 1999. The Standing Veterinary Committee in Europe was ready to report on the issue in December 2000. The report of the Food Standards Agency stated:

"however, due to various other commitments of the Group members, it was not possible to arrange a meeting to consider it until 3-4 April 2001."

We are still awaiting the next stage in the process. Neither European bureaucrats nor the Executive have treated the issue with any seriousness. It has been two years since the matter turned into a serious crisis. We have been told that the tier testing system may be in place soon, but the possibility of further complications has been flagged up, which has led the FSA to come up with its own options in the meantime, which it will enforce. That raises the question of why the FSA did not come up with such options originally and enforce them under current legislation, if that were possible. There is a strong case for inquiring into the time scale and the impact that European bureaucracy and decision making has had on the whole issue.

I return to Fergus Ewing's point. There are concerns in the industry about some of the proposals in the statutory instrument that is under consultation. I would welcome the opportunity to examine the statutory instrument, the consultation paper and the responses that are made to it after 20 July. I do not know when the Executive can make them available, but it would be helpful to those of us with constituency interests in the scallop industry to have such details.

I back that up. I have received similar representations to those received by Elaine Murray. There are considerable reservations about some of the provisions of the draft statutory instrument. I, too, would welcome a chance to question people about such issues.

Would members be content if we passed such suggestions to the reporters, who are currently organising a time to meet? They can consider them and place them at an appropriate place on a future agenda.

Members indicated agreement.

I wish to flag up the bureaucracy that will be involved in implementing the measure. Traceability has huge implications for the bureaucracy that will be needed. We must be able to trace the product through to the marketplace.