Plenary, 25 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Official Report 421KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

The next item of business is consideration of seven Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motions S2M-947, S2M-948, S2M-949, S2M-950 and S2M-951, on the designation of a lead committee.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/49).

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/50).

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/51).—[Patricia Ferguson.]

I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motion S2M-946, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2003 Amendment Order 2004 be approved.—[Patricia Ferguson.]

I ask Patricia Ferguson to move motion S2M-945, again on the approval of an SSI.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/21) be approved.—[Patricia Ferguson.]

I understand that Mr Brocklebank wishes to speak against motion S2M-945, which relates to amnesic shellfish poisoning.

As we have indicated previously in the chamber, Conservative members do not accept that SSIs are the right way of dealing with the problem of amnesic shellfish poisoning. We will continue to oppose what we see as unnecessary and irrelevant measures, which directly affect our fishermen, who are trying to scrape a living.

Members are at risk of being bored by the arguments that are exchanged time and again about such orders. However, some of the points are worth repeating.

The SSI that we are debating is predicated on the need to protect public health and consumer safety. There is a fundamental difference between the philosophy of the Conservative party and the demands and expectations of the general public that there should be an independent assessment that reassures people that the food that is presented to them as consumers is safe. The Food Standards Agency is involved in providing that assessment.

We do not want to return to the days when the actions of the Conservatives led to the near destruction of the meat industry in this country. That situation led to the creation of an independent Food Standards Agency that takes on board the best independent scientific advice, without reference to ministers, and makes that publicly available so that the public can make informed decisions about the food that they wish to consume.

That is what we are involved in in this case. What this debate and all the previous debates have told us is that, after 18 years of not caring what happened, the Tories have not learned a thing. We say now what we will say on the next occasion when they raise the issue and on the occasion after that: we learned, we listened and we have acted. That is why we are recommending that the Parliament approve the statutory instrument.