Rural Affairs Committee, 31 Aug 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999

Official Report 136KB pdf

---

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

The second item on the agenda concerns the statutory instruments that have been laid.

The issue of shellfish poisoning is one on which few members of the committee have specialist knowledge. We hope that we can conduct an appraisal of the situation regarding the shellfish poisoning problem and decide how to proceed.

The statutory instruments concern amnesic shellfish poisoning. We should try to widen our knowledge and decide whether we need to conduct further research. Would anyone like to initiate the discussion?

I should be happy to say a few words.

Thank you, Richard.

I have been keeping a close eye on developments during recent months. This morning, the ban on shellfish was the leading item on BBC Scotland and there has been media coverage of the effect that it is having on some coastal communities.

Nobody can fail to recognise the fact that hundreds of inshore fishermen have been affected by the ban. For health reasons, nobody in the industry opposes the ban. There are concerns, however, about the extent of the ban, the time scales involved, the research that has been undertaken and the Government's response to the question of assistance for those affected by the ban, given the fact that the income of many people in fragile coastal communities has been severely affected.

I have been inundated with paperwork on this subject, and have not had the chance to read the responses that were given to me at the beginning of the meeting. It would be a good idea, however, to discuss the concerns that have been raised by the industry. As the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs is with us, perhaps we could ask him for his view of the situation. He will be more aware than any of us of the opinions that have been expressed by the industry.

I would be happy to comment, if that is all right with you, convener. However, I am here as an observer and without officials.

We are aware of that.

I am happy to offer some comments. Although the rural affairs department has been taking an interest in the matter, I must stress that it is not primarily our responsibility. This is a public health issue and the introduction of the ban is therefore a matter for the Minister for Health and Community Care and her department.

The worst possible scenario would involve somebody being affected by any form of shellfish poisoning. Not only would that person be ill, but it would tarnish the image of a valuable and important industry. We welcome the fact that representatives of the industry have acknowledged that it is in the interests of all concerned that the problem should be kept under control to prevent any incidences of poisoning.

I visited the west coast two or three weeks ago and had an opportunity to meet some of the fishermen, including people who are here today, so I fully understand their problems.

It is worth emphasising that the problem is not new. The toxins are associated with algal blooms, which occur from time to time. I understand that the first record of shellfish poisoning—I do not know whether it was amnesic shellfish poisoning, paralytic shellfish poisoning or some other kind of shellfish poisoning—associated with an algal bloom dates back to 1790. The problem has been around, on and off, for a long time. There has been speculation about algal blooms being caused by global warming, but we do not know for sure.

The scientists at the Marine Laboratory, whom I visited last week, are working round the clock to keep a handle on the matter. Avoiding any risk to human health must be our No 1 priority, and that is how my colleagues in the health department are approaching the problem.

I stress again that the health department is the lead department on such issues. The rural affairs department keeps a watching brief as we are answerable for matters relating to the fishing industry.

I am not qualified to go into more detail on the matter, but I hope that my comments have been helpful to the committee.

We have solicited comments from a number of industry organisations and other interested parties, and all members of the committee should have copies of those. Thanks to the work of the clerks, we also have a summary of those submissions. We can use the industry's concerns as a guide for what we need to achieve today.

Would anybody like to comment on the list of the industry's concerns?

I appreciate the minister's position and I hope that he does not feel that I am putting him on the spot. It will be unfair on the rest of the committee if this turns into a question-and-answer session between a couple of members and the minister. It might be worth taking the papers away and reading them to familiarise ourselves with the issues.

A couple of issues are directly relevant to the rural affairs department. For example, one solution put forward by the fishing industry is the temporary issuing of licences, so that the inshore fishermen can fish for fish other than those affected by the ban. I am sure that the committee would want to examine the department's response to that. We could consider the issue in a three-hour meeting, with people from the department and the industry attending to give evidence. It would also be in our interest for someone from the Marine Laboratory, which is responsible for the research on the issue, to come to the committee.

Like the minister, I visited the Marine Laboratory a couple of weeks ago, and the scientists talked me through the work that they are doing on the west coast shellfish situation. As the minister says, they are working flat out. It is an unusual ban in the sense that it is lifted as suddenly and unexpectedly as it is imposed compared with some of the deep sea fishing prohibitions that have been introduced from time to time. Although the problem has been around for 200 years, this is fairly early-stage science in understanding the causes.

I agree with Richard that we need to examine the issue in more detail, but I want to be clear about our role. We are deciding whether to comment on the statutory instruments. When it deals with them, the Health and Community Care Committee will consider primarily the health aspects.

It would be fair to say, as the minister has pointed out, that it would be inappropriate for us to comment on any of the health aspects of the statutory instruments. This problem affects the fishing industry, which is relevant to the Rural Affairs Committee. It is appropriate for us to consider the issue and to assess how we should progress, and whether we need to investigate the matter further and call evidence from expert witnesses. We are treating it as a fishing issue and as an issue about the rural environment, which again strays into other areas. This committee's primary concern must be the causes and effects on the fishing industry.

In support of what my colleagues have said, although this may have been happening since 1790, it is perhaps more important to the rural economy now than it was then. As well as fishermen, the issue affects the processing of shellfish. Scottish Enterprise and the food sector are trying to achieve growth in that industry. In my constituency, there are two such establishments. The minister was at one of them recently.

That is an important sector and the industry has concerns—I do not know whether they are well founded—about poor communications, the sampling regime and lack of funding. We could usefully examine those issues within our remit.

We are addressing a public health ban that affects the rural environment. It is right that we do so, but it is appropriate to run it in parallel with the other public health ban that affects the rural environment even more deeply—the ban on beef on the bone. I am a little alarmed to hear that it is inappropriate for us to discuss the issue because I do not believe that to be the case.

I call on the committee to deal with those two public issues in a particular way. I will leave the shellfish matter for one moment. These are parallel issues, almost identical. I ask the committee to call before it the chief medical officer for Scotland so that we can question the advice that he is giving to the Minister for Health and Community Care on beef on the bone; we can deal with the shellfish issue at the same time. [Laughter.]

I suggest that we discuss that in a few minutes' time once we have settled the shellfish issue, otherwise we could become rather muddled.

I should apologise to Mike for the fact that one or two of us laughed. It was not what Mike said; it was the way in which he included it. We will definitely discuss the issue that he raised in a moment.

I want to question one of the aspects of the shellfish ban. I understand that the movement of young scallops from one fishing ground into another for maturing has also been banned—but they are not contagious. I wonder whether that ban could be examined and perhaps lifted so that some parts of the industry can continue working.

I had understood that we were not competent to comment on the health aspect of the shellfish poisoning issue and that we have to discuss the rural concerns. Presumably it is the same for beef on the bone, in that it is for another committee—not the Rural Affairs Committee—to comment on the health aspects.

As other members have indicated, there are a number of other issues of rural concern. In the light of the suggestion made by Richard and Lewis that we need more time to discuss those issues in detail, are there people here who are competent to answer some of our concerns on matters such as the testing regime at the Marine Laboratory?

I do not think that any member of this committee is competent to comment on that.

Are not expert witnesses here who could do that today?

No.

I will respond to the point that Elaine made, that it is not for us to comment on the health issue. I do not think that we can leave it like that. It is entirely appropriate that the health issues are examined by the Health and Community Care Committee and that decisions to impose or lift the bans are made by that committee. However, it is also our job, as the Rural Affairs Committee, to consider the impact of the bans. We should be aware of the advice that civil servants are giving to ministers, which impacts upon the rural environment. It is essential that we should be aware of the medical evidence that is being given to ministers and to others because these bans have a major impact on our rural environment.

It is important that we have clarity on the matter. I do not agree with Mike that beef on the bone is more important than scallop fishing. From a west coast perspective, I am sure that people representing that area would disagree.

I did not say that.

We need to be clear about the parameters of our consideration of this issue and of any other parallel issue. I would like the convener to give us a clear idea, today or at an early meeting, of how we relate to other committees when there are unclear boundaries of the responsibilities of different committees.

When there is a dispute over competence, it might be appropriate for joint meetings to take place, but I am not sure whether that would be appropriate in these circumstances. It is important that we recognise that public health is paramount at all times and that the work of this committee relates to the knock-on effects of a health issue. We need to stick closely to that brief. If members would like me to seek a specific ruling, I will do so before the next meeting of this committee. It might be difficult to define the boundaries of the responsibilities of different committees.

If that is the case, the powers of this committee are extremely limited. If what the convener is saying is that we may not comment on issues that impact on rural education, as that is the remit of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, does that mean that we may not comment on social, education, transportation, environment or public health issues? This issue is no different from any of those. All those issues impact heavily on the rural community and we will go down the wrong track if we are barred from this approach.

I will try to shed a little light on the situation. There are two related issues. First, there is research, which might be a matter for the Health and Community Care Committee, and secondly, there is assistance for industries that have been affected by the ban, which has been implemented for health reasons. The second issue is of direct concern to this committee, but there is an overlap. We could conduct a short investigation and invite people to give evidence to the committee—we should hear what the Marine Laboratory has to say. That might be more relevant to the health remit, but we have to understand the whole issue to understand part of it. The Health and Community Care Committee could come to that committee meeting.

I accept that research comes under the health department, but the science comes under the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, which lends weight to Mike Rumbles's argument that we have competence on that issue.

I do not think that we should be putting parameters on what we try to do. If somebody has to haul us into line at some stage, let that happen. I would rather expand as far as we feel it necessary and then let somebody haul us back rather than our placing unnecessary restrictions on our discussions. The issue would arise only if another committee were doing precisely the same thing as us at almost the same time. That would be a waste of manpower, given our large work load, but I am not aware that any other committee is pursuing this issue at the moment.

If that is the case, we set a good precedent this morning by selecting two members to go to another committee to keep a watch on its discussion.

The parallel between the beef-on-the-bone issue and the shellfish issue might not be as close as Mike suggested because, as Alex said, shellfish research is funded by the rural affairs department. It is within our remit to supervise that research, so that is slightly different from the beef-on-the-bone issue. I might be wrong on that and it would be useful to have some clarification. I support the view that we have a clear input on the application of the science.

The view that I expressed was meant to be an acknowledgement of the priority of public health over all other issues when it comes to matters that are primarily public health issues. On issues such as amnesic shellfish poisoning and beef on the bone, where public health is involved, we must accept that decisions are made on that basis and that we should concern ourselves with the area of responsibility that falls within our remit. I would not criticise the view expressed by Alasdair Morgan that we should ensure that we push outwards as widely as possible within the remit of this committee. We will probably have to accept that at times limits cannot be defined as clearly as we would like.

In terms of research, there are two different issues. The results of the research and the way in which they are interpreted by the chief medical officer might well be within the remit of the Health and Community Care Committee. However, the methodology and the time it takes for people to get the results impact on the industry, so the way in which the research is done is within the remit of this committee. Is the research appropriate? Is the research having a bad effect because industry is not getting the results on time?

We have all made a number of comments and we are coming to the point where we can decide on how to proceed. Is it fair to suggest that this committee believes it appropriate to add the problem of shellfish poisoning to the list of priorities that we identified before this meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Is it then appropriate to suggest that, at some point in the future, we should hold a meeting with the primary purpose of calling witnesses to go into the detail of this matter, allowing us to explore the concerns surrounding it?

Is not a little more urgency required than you suggested, convener? "Some point in the future" is perhaps a bit far off.

Yes, I am coming to dates. We all know from our diaries that finding available dates can often be difficult. First, however, I would like to ask members which organisations or individuals they want to invite to speak to the committee or to be questioned by it?

We should invite at least one representative from each sector. We should have someone from the Marine Laboratory so that we can familiarise ourselves with its work. We should certainly have someone from the industry—perhaps a representative from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. John MacAllister, who is in the room as we speak, is in fact the appropriate representative of the SFF. Moreover, on whichever date we choose, we should have someone along from the department.

We should also consider someone from the processing side.

Finally, I am sure that everyone would agree that we should invite the other appropriate committees to send representatives to hear the evidence.

It is important that the committee is clear about whom it is inviting. Without any disrespect to Mr MacAllister, the suggested representative of the industry, do any members have a different view on whom we should invite to represent the industry?

If we are to look at the wider implications of this issue, we should consider inviting a representative from one of the local authorities in the affected area—Highland or Western Isles or Argyll and Bute.

I agree.

We should certainly write to all the people who have made submissions to the committee and ask them whether they wish to amplify their points, which presumably were made at fairly short notice.

Because the scientific evidence from the Marine Laboratory will be important, and a lot of our decisions will depend on it—and on its interpretation—would it be useful to have an independent assessment of that evidence?

I think that that is purely a health issue.

No, the issue is the interpretation of the scientific evidence, on which everything hinges.

I suggest that that is what we would get from the Marine Laboratory and from representatives of the rural affairs department.

I have had no indication of an alternative scientific view. There are questions about how the science is delivered, but I have heard no suggestion that the science is fundamentally flawed.

Your point is valid, Irene. Do you have anybody to suggest, because it may be difficult to find an alternative? If we rely on the rural affairs department and the Marine Laboratory to analyse the science, people there will, I hope, be able to give us varying interpretations of the results.

We have had a suggestion for a representative from the industry—the gentleman who is here. Would any members like to nominate people from the other sectors that we have mentioned, or should we simply ask those sectors to send an appropriate representative?

The latter.

Yes, we should ask them to send an appropriate representative, because that would allow them to get together to discuss the matter.

We also added local authorities to our list of sectors. Is it appropriate to ask which local authority we should approach? We all have a map in front of us that shows the areas that are affected by the problem.

Going by the map, the greatest restrictions by far are around the Western Isles. Would it be appropriate to ask somebody from that authority to come? Richard will know better than I do.

Two or three local authorities are affected.

Yes, there are a number. It might be an idea to speak to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which has a co-ordinating role.

Would that be as an alternative to approaching any individual local authorities?

We may get into difficulties by approaching just one local authority.

All right. We have a list of organisations that we will ask to give evidence. The next thing that we need to do is to establish a date on which we would like to proceed. I would like to ask the clerk's advice on how long it would take to set up arrangements.

I am told by officials from the rural affairs department that, if the scientific evidence exists, and if this is just a question of calling people to a committee, the only problem is one of organisation. However, they say that if a meeting is called in four weeks, there should not be a problem. We have a meeting booked for 21 September—

Which is three weeks from today. Would there be any administrative reason why we could not set things up for that date?

Convener, may I make an observation? This may not be entirely accurate, but last week I saw the work that the scientists that specialise in this field are doing at the Marine Laboratory—they are phenomenally busy dealing with this job. I am not sure that the committee should take someone away from that task for half a day or more to attend a meeting. However, within the time scale mentioned, I hope that the outbreak will be over and that we can devote more time to the job. This is a material consideration—the committee is considering inviting people who are very busy dealing with the problem that we are talking about.

The next opportunity after 21 September is 5 October.

We have scheduled meetings on 21 September and 5 October. Given the urgency of the situation, would it be appropriate to set things up for the first of those dates?

Members indicated agreement.

I believe that the investigation on which we are embarking remains relevant even if, as the minister says, the problem ceases to be a problem before our meeting. As we have learned, from reports and from members' contributions, the problem can come and go very quickly. It remains, however, on-going and we must address it.

Now that we have agreed on what I think is a sensible approach, I return to the point that I made earlier about a subject that is not going to disappear and that is extremely important to many of my constituents in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. I would like the committee to support my call to invite the chief medical officer for Scotland to appear before the committee at the next meeting. His presence need not be required for long, but I want to know the latest medical advice that he is giving to the Executive on beef on the bone. It is important that we discuss that issue.

I would back up that call. It is important to get such a perspective, because not enough information on the issue is in the public domain.

I support that completely. The issue is vital for all rural Scotland and we should address it.

Convener, the importance of the problem is not at issue; we all understand its importance. What concerns me is the way in which we are determining what to do next. We have, as is appropriate, decided that the shellfish issue must be addressed urgently. However, rather than rushing into this—

Rushing?

I recognise the merit in what Mike is proposing but, when we met before the recess, we had a detailed look at a range of issues and we attempted to set our priorities.

And this is one of them.

Yes, this is one of the issues that we identified—there is no doubt about that—but I would prefer that we looked at what we should be doing in a more structured way, rather than simply jump at this one issue. We may conclude that the next thing that we ought to do is to consider beef. However, given that beef is not on the agenda, that would not be a very structured way of establishing our priorities.

This comment is similar to Lewis's. We had identified as a priority the problems in the beef industry—problems that are slightly wider than the beef-on-the-bone issue and include, for example, export problems as well. If we are now putting in bids for things to be discussed, I suggest that we consider the major problems in the sheep industry.

Convener, can we stick with the point?

I know that a number of members of the committee have recently had pressure put on them by people from the sheep industry. I have taken the liberty of adding the issue to my agenda to be addressed before the end of the meeting.

The specific point of inviting the chief medical officer to give the latest health evidence on beef on the bone falls outwith any operating structure that we currently have. However, my opinion is that there may be a place for allotting a relatively short period within a meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee to address this specific part of the problem facing the beef industry. I have recently spoken to sheep farmers and—although they believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Rural Affairs Committee have something to offer—they are greatly concerned that the system that has been set up will make it difficult for quick action to be taken. I am concerned that we work in this committee to ensure that issues can, if necessary, be raised and dealt with in a very short time scale. I therefore propose that—in the near future, at any one of our meetings—we invite the chief medical officer to come before the committee with the specific purpose of giving us the latest evidence.

I would like a specific date to be chosen. If an invitation for 21 September is too difficult to organise, I would be happy if the issue were addressed on 5 October.

Would you like to comment on that, Lewis?

Like Dr Murray, I remain concerned at the developments in the sheep industry over the past few weeks. I am not clear about what has changed about the beef-on-the-bone ban that makes its priority different, but I would be glad to hear if I have missed something.

There have been major changes during the Parliament's recess. The partnership agreement between the Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats contained an agreement to postpone any decision on lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban until the latest medical advice became available. I have been told that that advice will be available in the next week or two—I think that the committee is duty-bound to be made aware of it, which is why I want the issue to be addressed at the next meeting.

We were told to wait until the export ban was lifted before we moved on the matter. Even though only tiny amounts of beef are being exported, I am delighted that progress on that has been made—we should now make progress on the beef-on-the-bone ban. As the issue is extremely important for farmers, especially those in north-east Scotland, I feel duty-bound to raise it at a specific meeting. I would prefer it if that were done on 21 September, but I understand if it cannot happen until the meeting on 5 October.

I imagine that the presentation of such evidence to the committee would be a relatively short agenda item.

Indeed.

Given that this is not the primary committee for considering public health issues, I do not think that we would want to go into detailed questioning on that evidence. Are we simply proposing a presentation of the latest available evidence so that we can include it in subsequent considerations?

I do not want just a presentation from the chief medical officer; I want him to come before this committee. Our job is to examine his evidence and to ask him appropriate questions. I do not believe that it will be a long agenda item.

I want to say a few words about our approach to investigations. Other committees in the Parliament have spent whole days over the recess taking evidence from outside organisations. Although the Parliament has been sitting for a few months, we will be taking our first evidence from such organisations on 21 September. I do not see why we cannot fit in both issues over the coming weeks. We should meet for a whole day if we have to because, in many respects, this committee has got a lot of catching up to do—we should not be afraid of having two or three short investigations over the next couple of weeks.

I want to back up your point, convener. Although we have set ourselves a programme of work, we need to be seen to respond quickly to urgent matters. I do not think it beyond the bounds of our resources to do that.

I agree with that but, instead of setting the date today, I would prefer to return to your initial suggestion, convener. The two things that we do not know about the latest medical evidence are the date of its publication and what its substance will be. We might find that any date that we set just now will be inappropriate—it could be either too early or too late. I would be more inclined to allow the convener to use his discretion. If the medical evidence suggests that the ban should continue, we should consider that information at an available date. However, if the medical evidence suggests an end to the ban, a discussion of the matter with the chief medical officer may not have so high a priority. We certainly do not want to have such a meeting before the chief medical officer publishes his recommendations.

I want to know what the latest medical advice is; I have been told that the latest research on the issue is due now. I am quite willing to address the issue not on 21 September, but at the meeting at the beginning of October. I think that it would be most appropriate to have a specific slot with a specific time when we can ask the chief medical officer to give us a presentation on his advice to ministers and when we can question him on that advice.

Should we set a specific date for this item now? Two opinions have been expressed and I would be interested to hear everyone else's views.

I would be happy to leave the matter in your hands, convener, but perhaps we could compromise by setting a date no later than 5 October.

That was exactly what I was going to say—we should have a no-later-than date.

Should we set a date that is no later than 5 October and, indeed, that is as early as possible?

I think that the coalition parties will agree to support that.

We are agreed. Does any member wish to make any other comment about shellfish?

Are we still talking about shellfish?

Mike was champing at the bit to raise the beef-on-the-bone ban.