Rural Affairs Committee, 29 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Official Report 207KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

The next item relates to the Executive response to the report on amnesic shellfish poisoning, or ASP.

We have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in response to a letter that I wrote to him after we considered the Executive's response to the report on ASP. I want to acknowledge receipt of this letter. Do members have any comments on John Home Robertson's letter?

It does not take us any further forward. The ban has extended for almost a year and we have still not come up with a solution. We are entering the new fisheries season; I am concerned that another ban will be imposed before we have lifted this one. It is time that we received some direct answers about how fisheries can continue in other countries, such as Ireland, that have an environment similar to that of Scotland but came up with a solution very quickly. Our testing regime has to be re-examined.

I support John Munro. A Scottish Parliament information centre report comparing the situation in Ireland and Scotland would be helpful. I am getting confused messages: we have the response from the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, what the Minister for Health and Community Care said in Parliament, and what other people say about end-product testing in Ireland. A research note should also consider the interpretation of EU law.

I, too, support John Munro on this. In his letter, the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs says that

"there is unlikely to be a speedy resolution to this matter"

and that David Byrne, the European commissioner for health and consumer protection, has advised that

"the Commission are taking the necessary steps to proceed with these examinations."

As John Munro said, if Ireland can operate an end-product regime, why do we not interpret EU regulations in the same way? I would have liked to receive more information on that in the minister's letter. We should ask the minister, as well as SPICe, to give us that information.

I am quite happy with those suggestions. The letter states that the minister has spoken to the European commissioner for health and consumer protection, who has said that work needs to be done to establish whether the way in which scallops are tested can be changed. I take that to mean that the Commission believes that what we are doing is correct and is examining what is in place. We should urge the minister to push the Commission on, as work should be done on this as a matter of urgency.

I have a couple of suggestions that will cover some of what has been said. First, I think that it would serve our purpose to ask the Irish Government for details of its end-product testing scheme and for guidance on the interpretation of EU law that has allowed it to operate that scheme.

Secondly, although we have been concerned with the economic consequences of the ban, this is essentially a health matter, so we should seek the support of the Health and Community Care Committee for a request that the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Health and Community Care and their officials appear before this committee to discuss the issues that cut across the two committees' remits.

That is a good idea and we may want to keep it as an option, but first we should hear from the Irish Government.

I want to broaden those options. We should ask the Irish Government what monitoring and testing it carries out. We need to know about the whole system to understand whether it meets requirements. Also, when we write to the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, we should emphasise two-tier testing.

We should not seek information from the Irish Government—it is the Executive that must take action. I would rather hear the Executive's interpretation of the system that is in operation in Ireland, as we will not influence any ministerial decision by getting information from Ireland.

I would be happy to keep the minister fully informed about our actions and about any information that we receive from the Irish Government, so that he can respond to the same questions.

I do not understand why we cannot request information from both the minister and the Irish Government. We have had two vague letters from the minister and do not want to be sitting here in three weeks' time with a third one.

We will seek information from the Irish Government about how it reached its current position—

We should not let the minister off the hook. I would like him to explain his interpretation of the Irish Government's position.

We will also request that the minister explain the differences between the interpretations of European law in Scotland and in neighbouring countries.

I get confused by all the answers that I have had over the months. A couple of weeks ago I received a response from a minister saying that the Irish testing regime is far more onerous than ours. That does not stand up to scrutiny, as the fishery in Ireland is able to continue while ours is closed.

There is another matter about which we seek information. The directive that obliged the Executive to impose a ban was directive 492. One of the members of the EU standing veterinary committee has suggested that that is the wrong directive and that the right one is directive 493. Directive 492 is directed at shellfish that are static on the seabed, such a limpets and mussels, but the scallop is mobile and therefore comes under directive 493. That may offer another avenue for investigation.

That is an interesting idea.

We propose to write to the Irish Government to request information on its testing scheme and its interpretation of EU law. We will also write to John Home Robertson to ask for his interpretation of EU law in this area, and to inform him that we have written to the Irish Government. The clerk tells me—he is well trained—that we should also inform the Health and Community Care Committee and the Minister for Health and Community Care of what we are doing. Does that course of action meet with the approval of the committee? We will put the matter back on the agenda when we have collated the responses that we have solicited.

Do members wish to raise any points relating to any matter that has been discussed today? As there are no further comments, I thank you for your attendance and support.

Meeting closed at 16:14.