Rural Development Committee, 29 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Official Report 327KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

We move to item 3 on our agenda, which concerns amnesic shellfish poisoning, 35 minutes later than was scheduled. I trust that members agree that the evidence that we have just heard was too important for us to move on swiftly. It is probably just as well that a few members were missing. I suspect that item 4 on our agenda will have to be consigned to the bin. I will make suggestions later about how we should proceed on that issue.

At our meeting of 8 October, we agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Minister for Health and Community Care to give our views on amnesic shellfish poisoning and the proposed technical conservation measures for the scallop fishery. We have now received responses from the ministers, which have been circulated to members. I am almost frightened to ask the question, but would members like to comment on the letters?

I am far from satisfied with the answers that we have received. The convener will recall that at a previous meeting I was dissatisfied with the Food Standards Agency Scotland's expenditure on amnesic shellfish poisoning, which I regarded as far too high and as disproportionate to the risk that exists.

Because we are short of time, I will highlight just one aspect of the letter from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The claim is made that scallop fishing and dredging are concentrated in the areas of greatest risk. In fact, the evidence to which the letter refers appears to suggest otherwise. In the north-east of Scotland—the Moray firth area—there are difficulties with stock, but the fishing is taking place on the west coast. It would be useful for the committee to ask the minister and his advisers to account for themselves on this subject. We should invite the minister to give evidence to the committee.

I may be able to save some discussion of this matter. I have similar concerns about the quality of the replies that we have received. At the meeting at which we agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, we said that if we were dissatisfied with his reply, we would ask him to appear before us. In my view, we should do that. However, I am open to suggestions from members. If members feel differently, they should indicate that now. Do members agree that we should ask the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, or the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Minister for Health and Community Care, to appear before the committee? In my view, we should invite both ministers.

I agree with the suggestion that Stewart Stevenson has made and I am pleased that we all support it.

Can we make clear to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development that all members of the committee believe that no decision should be taken by ministers, following advice from the FSA, either on a tiered testing regime or on the introduction of technical conservation measures until the minister has had an opportunity to give evidence and all the fishing bodies have had an opportunity to comment on the letters that we have received?

I have been able to speak to representatives of some of those bodies, who have pointed out that there are factual errors in Mr Finnie's response. For example, in his reply, Mr Finnie states:

"continued increase of effort could lead to unsustainable pressure".

However, it has been pointed out that there has been a reduction in the number of vessels. To suggest that there has been an increase in effort is wrong.

The letter also states:

"The most recently published scientific report has indicated that the most obvious signs of decline are to be found in the area which had experienced the highest level of effort."

Again, that information is disputed by the representative bodies. I do not think that we have time to go over all the points today, but the representative bodies have vital information.

I gather that the £1 million research document known as Ecodredge will propose measures to promote conservation. That document will be available shortly. The industry is also seeking to obtain research into portion size and biochemistry. That research should be available as early as March. I hope that the committee agrees that, until all that research and information is available and a further consultation has been carried out, we should ask the minister to refrain either from introducing the regime that was described in the previous evidence-taking session as "a disaster" and "catastrophic" or from going ahead with the conservation measures in the meantime.

I do not disagree with what you say; however, the time for us to do that will be when the minister appears before us.

As you know, we have not received any assurances from the minister, despite the fact that we made it clear, on a united basis, that we were asking for another consultation on the proposals. The minister says simply that he is reflecting on the matter. I hope that the committee will retain the unity that it achieved at the previous meeting and say that, although we welcome the minister's reflection, we believe that it would help him to reflect if he had the benefit of the research. We should also say that the industry should have a proper opportunity for input, which it has been denied, as we heard at the previous evidence-taking session. The minister should assure us that there will be no introduction of limited conservation measures until all the bodies have had a full opportunity to be heard. The alternative is introduction of the ASP tiered testing system or limited conservation measures. However, we have heard evidence to suggest that that would be disastrous. I hope that the committee can proceed with my suggestion on a unified basis.

I am perfectly happy for us, when we invite the minister to come before us, to repeat what we asked in our original letter—that he should delay the implementation of any measures for the foreseeable future—and for the committee to put those points to him when he appears before us.

I am happy with that. The foreseeable future should mean until next spring at least, as there are people who are extremely worried about their livelihoods. Can we go a wee bit further? The minister will not have all the necessary research information for some time, as he admits. He certainly will not have it before next spring. If the committee could say that we feel that there should be a moratorium until next spring at the earliest—we are talking about March or April—that would provide fishermen who are worried about their future livelihoods with some assurance.

Have we received—even informally—an indication of the timetable for the ministers to come before us?

We hope to have them at the meeting on 19 November—that is three weeks away—but we have not yet heard whether they can come. [Interruption.] Sorry. I am advised that Ross Finnie's diary is clear for that day, but we do not yet know about Malcolm Chisholm.

We have two separate issues to deal with. The first is the conservation measures; the second is the ASP testing scheme. I agree with what Fergus Ewing said about the conservation measures. However, I am keen that, before the ministers come before the committee, they should be encouraged to consider a tracing regime. We should not stop any on-going work on that. At our previous meeting, we received good evidence to suggest that we could have an unbureaucratic regime for tracing scallops. It is important that the Executive does work on that and that our deliberations do not hold up that work. We could write to the ministers, saying that we want to see them but that we also want to encourage them to order further research into a regime for tracing scallops.

I do not disagree with you, but my recollection from the previous meeting is that we heard that the testing scheme would be implemented before the end of the calendar year.

The Executive is working towards the testing scheme. To make it workable, we need an unbureaucratic way of tracing scallops. The processors already have a scheme that would work and which would not put the onus on the scallop fishermen to give notice, for instance of where they are going to fish, which would cause them huge problems. We should say that we want to meet the minister but that, in the interim, he should do further work on a testing scheme and perhaps even draw up one that we could consider.

In a similar vein, I wonder whether it would be possible for Ross Finnie or Malcolm Chisholm to inform us between now and their appearance before the committee what their counterparts in another member state, the Republic of Ireland, are doing. That would be interesting.

I suggest that we still pursue 19 November as a possible date, but that we put all those points to the ministers in our invitation to them and hope that they can come up with the information in time. Is that acceptable?

May I double-check whether the letters that we have received from the ministers have been copied to the industry? I spoke to some members of the industry who had not received them.

The letters are available on the website, but they have not been copied out.

Should we not have sent them out as a matter of courtesy to those who gave evidence?

I appreciate what Richard Lochhead says, but the committee requested the letters and they are available on the website. Perhaps the courtesy would be to steer the previous witnesses towards the website.

I do not consider it a discourtesy not to send the letters to previous witnesses. We have not said that we would send them, so we have not acted discourteously. The letters are available. There is nothing to stop individual members of the committee copying them and sending them out if they wish to do so, but the committee has not undertaken to do that.

It is the same as when we issue a report on any inquiry: we always send it to those who gave evidence.

Our report is not complete.

I know that it is not complete, but what is the difference between sending a completed report and sending correspondence from ministers?

The letters are posted electronically, and anyone can access them.

Apart from anything else, we only got the replies on Thursday.

It is not a big issue; it is just helpful for the Scottish Parliament to do such things.

I suggest that we discuss that at some time under procedure.

I return to what Rhoda Grant said. She is correct that there are two separate issues: amnesic shellfish poisoning and conservation measures. Obviously, they are related, but they are separate issues.

Rhoda Grant asked what we should do about ASP. I welcome the fact that we are urging the minister not to do anything until he has given evidence. Rhoda also said that the FSAS should consider the suggestions that the industry made when we last took evidence. We all agreed that that should be the case. In our letter to the ministers we said:

"The Committee welcomes the undertaking by the FSAS to examine quality assurance and education schemes, and urges the FSAS to consider adapting and utilising existing industry systems."

Point g) of the letter from Malcolm Chisholm says that the FSAS has looked into the proposals that Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association made on a tiered testing system and has ruled it out. That worries me. It worries me that there seems to be no continuing, structured consultation process between the FSAS and the industry. Does the committee agree with my concern that, if we do not make a further, robust recommendation today, the FSAS might just bring in a tiered testing system?

Loth as I am to disagree with the convener, I do not recall any evidence that there is a legal obligation on the FSAS to introduce a specific tiered testing regime this year. It said that it wanted to, but surely if no legal obligation exists, we should be united and say that it is important to get the testing regime right, rather than rush it through, and to ensure that the FSAS and the industry proceed through structured consultation, which will involve preparation and meetings. If that does not happen, we will be sleepwalking into disaster and will possibly see the decimation of an industry.

I hope that the committee will agree that we can strengthen our recommendation and say that no action should be taken on ASP without a full and proper opportunity for structured consultation between the FSAS and the industry.

We are not disagreeing. I have already said that we would put that point in our letters of invitation to the ministers. We will put your, Alasdair Morrison's and Rhoda Grant's points to the ministers.

That is a welcome assurance.

I had already stated it, so I hope that it is doubly welcome. Is the committee content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 17:27.