Plenary, 10 Mar 2004
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Official Report
425KB pdf
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of three Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motion S2M-1025, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 be approved.—[Patricia Ferguson.]
I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motion S2M-1026, on the approval of an SSI.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No. 2) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/43) be approved.—[Patricia Ferguson.]
I wish to speak against the motion, not because the Scottish Conservatives take food safety lightly, but because, as we have stated regularly in the past, the operation of what is a blanket ban unnecessarily disadvantages our fishing communities. According to evidence that a member of the Food Standards Agency gave at a meeting of the Health Committee, the Irish end-product testing scheme is perfectly acceptable to the European Parliament. Scallops from Ireland that have been the subject of end-product testing can be sold here in Edinburgh, yet our own fishermen cannot collect or sell their product in Scotland.
The Executive's approach of not adopting end-product testing is denying our valuable industry access to markets. If the balance of control activity for monitoring were moved on to processors, it would be possible to improve public safety, protect the industry and reduce the amount of Government expenditure that is necessary to manage the problem. I ask the minister to explain why the Executive will not move to end-product testing.
We are in danger of repeating ourselves. I must say again that our approach is predicated on the need to ensure public safety and public health.
Mr Davidson raises the specific issue of end-product testing, but he does not say—and we do not know—how many scallops were ruined when, through end-product testing, they were found to be contaminated. They had to be destroyed, with all the consequential impact that that had on stocks.
Of course, end-product testing is an option, but the approach that we have adopted in Scotland is to close boxes. After a period of time, the toxins dissipate and the stocks can be fished again. There is no loss. If we fish the stocks while the toxins are present and, through end-product testing, those toxins are discovered, the stocks are automatically lost—there is no use for them.
There is no universal view in the industry on whether end-product testing is a better option. In addition to concerns about public health and public safety, legitimate concerns arise about the overall conservation of stocks. The Executive is anxious to avoid the unnecessary destruction of fish stocks through adherence to end-product testing; we would rather use the existing regime. We recognise that a lot of time and money is spent on the matter. The FSA is always active in its consideration of alternatives.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motion S2M-1027, on the approval of an SSI.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 be approved.—[Patricia Ferguson.]
The question on that motion will be put at decision time, too.