Health Committee, 26 Oct 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Official Report 334KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (No 4) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/417)<br />Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) <br />(West Coast) (No 11) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/418)

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/435)<br />Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning) <br />(East Coast) (No 3) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/436)

---

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) <br />(West Coast) (No 12) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/447)

I welcome the new Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care to the committee for what I suspect will not be too onerous a task in her first showing. I also welcome Martin Reid from the Food Standards Agency Scotland.

The committee is asked to consider five affirmative instruments on amnesic and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning. The Subordinate Legislation Committee had no comments to make on SSI 2004/417 or SSI 2004/418, which it has considered. This morning, the Subordinate Legislation Committee also considered SSI 2004/435, SSI 2004/436 and SSI 2004/447; similarly, it had no comments to make on those instruments. Accordingly, no points arise on the instruments as far as the Subordinate Legislation Committee is concerned.

Does any member wish to seek clarification on the instruments from the minister and Mr Reid? David Davidson has a question.

Thank you, convener. You are remarkably well trained for such a short time in the chair.

I have a simple question for the minister. I am not seeking a full debate, but I would like a response from her in the light of the comments that her senior colleague made on his first visit to the Health Committee. From what he and the representative from the Food Standards Agency said, I got the impression that the ministers had no problem with the Irish system of end-product testing, which is acceptable to the European Union, but the minister went on to say that it simply was not good enough for Scotland. Will you confirm whether I am right in thinking that, at a time of seasonal difficulty in the sector, Irish produce can be taken from the sea, go through end-product testing and be sold in Scotland, but Scottish products cannot? If that is the case, why is the minister not considering more firmly a move to end-product testing so that our industry is not disadvantaged?

Thank you very much, convener. I am delighted to be here and look forward to working productively with the committee.

I understand that, at this stage, we are not satisfied that end-product testing that is as accurate as we would like it to be is available. My further understanding is that the discussions about the transposition of the European directive into Scottish regulations, which are already taking place with the industry, will include consideration of end-product testing, so the door on end-product testing is not closed. However, I understand that, at the moment, we in Scotland are not satisfied that we are in a position to carry out end-product testing that will give us satisfactory public safety levels.

As far as the situation in Scotland is concerned, new European legislation is about to come through, which will take effect from 2006. We are in negotiations with the industry on the balance between official controls, which the Food Standards Agency carries out, and the requirements for industry to carry out end-product testing. We must ensure that we get a satisfactory balance as regards the protection of public health. There are some difficulties with end-product testing to do with various methods that are available to the industry. Much reliance is placed on the official sampling and monitoring that we carry out. We need to work with the industry on striking the correct balance in the regime. What that proportionate balance should be is part of continuing discussions with the industry.

I thank the minister for a much more positive response than that given by the previous incumbent of her post. I welcome any reflection on the Executive's previous position, but I ask the minister to answer my first question. Given that there is a public safety concern—no one disputes that that is what the issue is all about—what moves have you made to deal with the possibility of the Irish product being available when the Scottish product is not? Is it simply the case that the Irish have got their end-product testing in place to a satisfactory European standard? Is that the direction in which you are trying to head?

Before I hand over to the official, I will say that, as a minister, my initial responsibility must always be to ensure that we have adequate regulations in place in Scotland that protect the safety of its people. That must always be my first priority.

The Food Standards Agency has never commented specifically on the regimes that are operated in other member states. It is for the food and veterinary office of the European Commission to assess the acceptability or otherwise of the various regimes that exist in different member states.

In Scotland, we are conscious of the impact that closures have on the industry. At present, we operate what we call a shucking regime, which means that areas that would be closed if the whole animal tested above the current action levels are allowed to continue to be fished and exploited by the Scottish industry, subject to the implementation of that shucking advice. Although that is a different type of concession to that which is operated in Ireland, it is a concession. The continuation or otherwise of that concession will form part of the discussions that we have with the industry over the coming months as we move towards the implementation of the new regime. There are different ways of approaching the problems of toxins, but we have implemented at least one significant measure to help the industry.

I thank the minister and Mr Reid for that and I repeat my offer to meet the ministers to discuss some scientific papers that have been sent to me, which are relevant to their discussions for the future.

The committee considers a large number of such orders and it obviously takes time to consider what is an important issue. However, the committee does not consider the lifting of restriction orders. On average, how long do such restriction orders last?

That is a very difficult question. Some of the restrictions can be quite short term—they might last two, three or four weeks. Others have lasted for the best part of a year. The toxin levels fluctuate significantly.

Predicting exactly the impact of closures is a difficult business. We know that some areas are more susceptible and we target our sampling on them. We also target our sampling on areas that we know that the industry exploits. Our sampling programme is focused.

In addition, as we did last year, we will this Christmas reassess the programme and examine the closed boxes that we know are active boxes. We will focus our sampling resources on those areas to try to minimise the time for which they are closed. If the levels are still high, we can do little about that, but we can test as frequently as possible in the areas that the industry finds it particularly beneficial to have open.

If the information that statutory instruments have been lifted is available, perhaps you could provide it by e-mail or in another fashion.

We will notify the committee when openings have occurred if that is helpful.

Once testing shows that toxins have reached a safe level, how long does it take to lift an order?

We must have a minimum of seven days between two samples that are below the action level in order to lift a restriction. That will be changed. The new regulations that come into force in 2006 will cut that to 48 hours, but a question has been raised about ensuring that a boat is out there to pick up a sample, so logistical problems are involved. At the moment, seven days is the minimum. As I said, at Christmas time, when we are trying to be a wee bit more focused and as helpful as we can be to the industry, we will try to minimise the period between samples.

I am advised that we are told when statutory instruments are closed—or whatever the official term is for saying that they are no longer in force. Perhaps we have just not had any such instruments recently; I do not know. I do not want to prolong the discussion.

I want to say just that the committee receives notice of revocation orders—the official action to lift an order.

We have obviously not received such an order since I became convener.

If it helps, we could prepare a short paper for the committee that sets out what has happened on opening and closing in Scottish waters overall and sets out the pattern.

That would be useful—thanks very much.

The committee has no further questions. I thank the minister and her official for attending. I have no doubt that we will see you in future.

Regularly, I fear—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, but before you head off—

I need to move the motions—do not let me go without doing that.

I was getting slightly ahead of myself, because I know that we have much to do.

No member wishes to debate the instruments and no member objects to a single question being put on the motions, so I invite the minister to move motions S2M-1809, S2M-1810 and S2M-1871 to S2M-1873.

Motions moved,

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (No.4) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/417) be approved.

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.11) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/418) be approved.

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/435) be approved.

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (No.3) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/436) be approved.

That the Health Committee recommends that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.12) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/447) be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]

The question is, that motions S2M-1809, S2M-1810 and S2M-1871 to S2M-1873 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)

Against

Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)

Abstentions

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.

Motions agreed to.

The deputy minister can go now.