Subordinate Legislation
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) <br />(West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2003 <br />(SSI 2003/244)<br />Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) <br />(West Coast) (No 2) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/245)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-61, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/244) and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No 2) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/245). As there have been requests from Opposition parties for the minister to take interventions to clarify points of detail, I intend to compensate him fully for such interventions in his allocation of time.
Today's debate concerns two emergency orders that ban the harvesting of king scallops in waters off the west coast of Scotland due to the presence of amnesic shellfish poisoning—ASP.
As members are no doubt aware, ASP can be a serious risk to human health. Since monitoring for ASP began in 1998, Scottish waters have been subject to frequent and widespread closures, particularly in the spring and summer months when the algal blooms associated with the toxins occur most frequently. The cause of those blooms is still largely unknown, although a number of factors, including increases in sea temperatures, have been suggested.
However, the impact of the presence of ASP and other toxins that affect shellfish is very clear. The extent of closures in previous years has resulted in considerable disruption to fishing activity, and although fishermen are often able to redirect their activity to areas that remain open, the imposition of closures again this year will be a source of considerable frustration and disappointment to the scallop industry.
Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance that we do all that is required to protect public health. It is equally important that our response is proportionate to the risk and that we continue to work with the industry to develop informed practices that help us to protect the industry's reputation and, wherever possible, minimise the disruption to trade.
We all acknowledge the need to protect public health. However, is the minister aware of a letter from Paul Gallagher—a scallop fisherman—which appeared recently in the Fishing News? That letter pointed out that, over the period during which the current regime has been in force—namely, the past four years—there was a gap of 10 days between the catching of scallops that tested positive for ASP and the closure of the box from whence they came. That means that a huge quantity of scallops that apparently were a risk to public health has been consumed. Is the minister aware that Mr Gallagher has estimated that 9.6 million meals of such scallops have been consumed? Is he also aware that there has not been a single case of ASP, despite 9.6 million meals of apparently bad scallops being eaten over the past four years?
I confirm to Mr Ewing that I was not aware of that letter. However, I am aware—and will mention later in my speech—that there are inspections before the product goes to market. The industry is required to ensure that the product that it takes to the market is safe for human consumption.
I fully appreciate the industry's concern about the actions being taken, but responsible people in the industry—and the vast majority of people in the industry are fully responsible—and responsible politicians will pay heed to the advice that is issued, which raises questions about the potential impact on public health. I do not underestimate for one moment the extent to which these occurrences impact on the industry's capacity to earn the people who work in it a living.
The orders before the Parliament today are a consequence of the sampling and monitoring regime for algal toxins, which is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency Scotland. As an independent, non-ministerial Government department, the agency has the unique legal power to publish the advice that it provides to ministers. Under European Community legislation, all member states are required to have a monitoring programme in place and to close waters affected by algal toxins when certain limits are exceeded. Specifically, in the case of ASP, if monitoring reveals that the maximum toxin level of 20 micrograms per gram has been reached, action must be taken.
The limits are complex: a level of 250 micrograms of domoic acid per gram in the whole animal is stipulated in the European legislation. An interesting point relating to scallops after spawning was made by Doug McLeod during the Rural Development Committee meeting on 8 October last year. Spawning causes the scallops to lose weight, but the amount of domoic acid in scallops in an area affected by algal bloom remains the same. Therefore, although the actual amount of domoic acid remains the same, the concentration rises.
Is the minister aware that the present methods of assessing the risk to the public are based on poor statistics, and that the level of 25 micrograms of domoic acid per gram, which forms the basis for closure, is based purely on research on mussels that was undertaken in Canada 20 years ago and which is increasingly irrelevant to scallops and to the health of the human population that eats them?
I am aware that the Food Standards Agency is involved in a variety of research programmes that are aimed at refining the science. I am also aware that the agency is interested in doing all that it can to minimise the incidence of closures.
I have mentioned some of the obligations under European law. As part of its monitoring programme, the Food Standards Agency regularly monitors 40 coastal sites and a network of offshore boxes around Scotland for algal toxins. That monitoring and surveillance work for marine bio-toxins is carried out by Fisheries Research Services at the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, which is the United Kingdom's national reference laboratory on these matters. The marine laboratory regularly participates in trials with other laboratories throughout the EC to ensure that consistent standards are being applied across Europe in monitoring for the toxins.
As I said, I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has a number of research projects under way on various shellfish issues, including algal toxins. The agency has indicated its support for any industry-led initiatives that are aimed at ensuring a proportionate response to the public health risk.
Recent experience has demonstrated that it is unfortunately very hard to predict the duration of the toxic events and, consequently, how long any prohibition may have to remain in place. However, the sampling programme is designed to ensure sufficient flexibility to undertake targeted sampling in affected areas. The purpose of that is to ensure that prohibitions remain in place for no longer than is absolutely necessary.
The minister indicated that some research was under way. Could he take a few seconds to outline the specific nature of that research? Can he tell the Parliament whether any of that research relates to the synergy between naturally occurring acids and the acids that lead to scallops being deemed toxic?
I am not in a position to give specific details on the research, but I am happy to write to Mr Lochhead with the information.
It is important to emphasise that, just as toxins take some time to accumulate in the flesh of shellfish, in the case of scallops they also take some time to disappear. Judgment on the frequency of sampling in affected areas must therefore take account of the level of toxin in the animal at the time the last sample was taken.
Another important point when dealing with such potentially dangerous toxins is the rapid and effective communication of up-to-date information on the closure or the reopening of production areas. To support that, the agency issues weekly reports on its sampling activities, which are made available to the industry and other interested parties via its website and through local environmental health offices. The information includes details of all new and existing closures as well as details of those areas that are open to fishing or subject to precautionary advice.
It is in the best interests of the industry to ensure that it is aware of the status of any given production area in which fishing activity is planned. Failure to obtain that information not only puts public health at risk, but carries the risk of enforcement action. It is worth mentioning at this point that even when production areas are unrestricted the industry has an obligation to ensure that the products that it places on the market are safe by carrying out regular end-product testing.
In the days leading up to this debate, I received a considerable number of representations from members whose constituents are directly affected by these orders. I assure members such as Tavish Scott, John Farquhar Munro and Alasdair Morrison—and, indeed, the industry—that the Executive will continue to discuss their concerns with the Food Standards Agency and that we are keen to work with them to develop the most proportionate response possible to these occurrences.
Will the minister give way?
I am about to sum up.
The orders represent measures to protect consumers from amnesic shellfish poisoning as required under European law.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/244) and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.2) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/245) be approved.
I hope that it is in order for me to begin by mentioning Rhoda Grant, who served in the first session of the Scottish Parliament and is not with us today. I know that she made a solid contribution to the Rural Development Committee, particularly in respect of the matter that we are debating. We look forward to seeing who replaces her on the committee, especially as I understand that in Labour MSP circles it is known as the sin bin. Perhaps if Rhoda Grant had come third rather than second in the election she might have aspired to ministerial office. Sadly, that was not to be.
Today's debate concerns an issue that has been debated often in committee. I welcome the opportunity to raise it in the chamber, because at stake here is the future of the scallop industry in Scotland. The Rural Development Committee has had the benefit of advice from fishermen throughout Scotland, from so-called scientific experts, from European officials and from the FSA. It is abundantly clear that unless we reach a fair solution to this problem with all the bodies involved the future of scallop fishing in Scotland will be at risk.
I quoted from a letter from Mr Paul Gallagher, a scallop fisherman who has lobbied the Parliament about this matter. He has demonstrated that between the time when a scallop is caught and removed from the sea and the time when it tests positive for amnesic shellfish poisoning and the box closes there is a gap of about 10 days. During that period, scallops continue to be fished and eaten. Mr Gallagher has worked out that, over the relevant period of approximately four years, if an average of 30 boxes were closed each year, 30 times 50 tonnes—or 1,500 tonnes—of scallops that were supposedly above the limit were consumed. On the basis of a portion size of three scallops per meal, he has computed that 1,500 tonnes represents 9.6 million individual meals of scallops from areas where some scallops have proved to be over the limit. If 9.6 million such meals have been consumed, why has there not been one reported case of amnesic shellfish poisoning?
Like the minister, we all support public health measures and believe that we must take a responsible approach. However, on the basis of the existing evidence and the figure of 9.6 million meals to which I referred, it seems abundantly clear that the statistical likelihood is that someone should have become ill during the four years in which this regime has been in force. That has not been the case. The only logical conclusion is that the existing regime is far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health.
I hope that this Parliament acts on argument rather than assertion—unlike the situation that I observed over the last four years. If the Parliament believes that it should proceed by reasoned argument, the only conclusion will be that the current regime is unnecessary and—what is more—a serious threat to the livelihood of fishermen.
Many of us doubt the requirement for the existing rule, but that rule is about to be tightened. The regime will be replaced by a regime that the FSA apparently recommended last October and November when it came before the Rural Development Committee. The new regime will impose limits that are four or five times more stringent than the one that has produced no cases of proven illness out of 10 million meals. What will be the effect of that? According to Hugh Allen of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association, the effect will be to close down the scallop industry. The FSA has proposed an exemption from the directive, which would require either tiered testing or whole-product testing. However, the way in which that would operate would require fishing boats to sail every week to every box, sailing 500 miles just to get a sample and incurring massive extra cost and a massive reduction in the profitability of each boat. Under the new regime, boxes will not remain open until it is proven that the scallops there are perhaps lightly affected. They have to be closed unless there is evidence that the scallops are not infected. Fishermen will have to fish all the boxes to bring back scallops for testing. Only if that is done in between one and seven days will the scallop box be allowed to stay open.
It is clear what is required. The minister must meet the Scottish Scallop Fishermen's Association, which met yesterday, I understand. I hope that the minister and his colleagues Mr Finnie or Mr Wilson will meet the industry. I hope that the minister will undertake to do that to find a way forward. The research that the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department said was to be commissioned into the biochemistry of scallops must be commissioned. I understand that that research has been blocked by the FSA or, at least, that the FSA is dragging its feet—despite the fact that it was instructed many months ago and the fact that the need for research was demonstrated last October, at the very latest, in this Parliament.
The methodology on which this ridiculous, more stringent testing regime is based is absurd. It assumes 12 scallops per portion—complete nonsense. It assumes that evidence applies to scallops when the evidence came not from scallops from the west coast of Scotland, but from mussels from the coast of Labrador. What is that about? How on earth can any scientist draw conclusions on whether or not Scottish scallops are safe to eat when all the evidence comes from another species altogether? That species has different biology, different habits—it does not move—and different scientific reactions involving the differing chemicals such as domoic acid.
There needs to be scientific research and there needs to be discussion and debate. Until those things happen, there must be no regime that is more stringent than the current one. I invite the minister to undertake that no more stringent regime will be put in place until all the things that the industry is calling for are put in place.
It was a Dr William Butler, writing in the 16th century, who said of the garden strawberry:
"God could have made a finer berry had he chosen. But doubtless God never did."
I am sure that he would have said exactly the same thing about pecten maximus—the king scallop. I can think of nothing in marine gastronomy that comes anywhere near the flavour of the Scottish scallop. When virtually the entire west coast scallop fishery was closed down in 1999, it was not only a personal culinary tragedy, it was obviously—as scallops represent up to 22 per cent of the total landing value, and 10 per cent of the catching centre jobs, in the Highlands—a very real tragedy for those whose livelihoods were affected by the ban.
No one could defend diseased shellfish reaching the marketplace. Apart from being a public health hazard, they could cause massive damage to Scotland's reputation for quality seafood.
Let us look at the facts. Toxic algal blooms are a worldwide phenomenon that has caused problems in many countries other than Scotland. According to my research, amnesic shellfish poisoning was first detected in United Kingdom waters in 1996, not 1998. Most incidents of poisoning occur in summer and although symptoms are unpleasant, they are rarely fatal. As we have heard, the only recorded case of ASP occurred in Canada and it concerned mussels rather than scallops. No case of ASP has ever been recorded in Scotland.
It is suggested that someone would have to eat more than a dozen affected scallops to suffer any ill effects. I do not come from the part of the country that Mr Ewing comes from, where three scallops constitute a meal; where I come from, we take rather more. I do not wish to sound frivolous, but as scallops cost more than £22 per kg—that is, more than £1 each—any health hazards would appear to be confined to gluttonous millionaires rather than affecting normal scallop eaters.
There are other measures apart from the wholesale closure of scallop fishing grounds that we can use to protect against the possibility of poison. Surely the introduction of end-product testing, which the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed in February 2000, offers a possible solution. Experience shows that processing scallops removes the toxin. End-product testing would not only benefit the industry, but better protect the public health. Surely the commonsense time to test the product is when it enters the market. That would be better than introducing still further crudely defined closures, which the orders propose.
If ASP is detected, an entire arbitrary production area must be shut down and fishing for scallops in that area becomes illegal. However, it has been proven that very high and very low levels of ASP can be found in the same area on the same day. Therefore, the outright ban on scallop fishing is as illogical as it is unnecessary.
Irish scallops taste almost as good as Scottish ones. The Irish, who have also had problems with ASP, have introduced end-product testing. In December 1999, the European Union accepted that end-product testing was compatible with European law. If such a regime is legal under EU rules and is deemed acceptable for the people of the Republic of Ireland, why does it not satisfy the Scottish Executive? After all, on other contentious EU legislation on fisheries, the Executive seems all too keen to jump to Europe's tune.
Until a decision is made about a more sensible way to tackle the problem, we should be able to expect the Food Standards Agency and the Executive to get their act together to provide financial assistance to those who are under the most severe pressure, particularly those on the west coast. Passing the buck on compensation back and forth is simply not acceptable, especially when, as we have heard, communication appears to have broken down between the industry and the Government.
Let us be clear on one thing—if the ban continues for much longer, irreparable damage could well be done to a shellfish industry in the west of Scotland that is worth £10 million a year. It is vital for the economic health of our vulnerable coastal communities that support for those most seriously affected is forthcoming. I urge that the banning orders be lifted as soon as possible.
Food safety measures are essential to protect the public—no one would argue against that. However, they should be used sensitively and in accordance with the potential risk. In the case of scallops, the expertise of people in the industry must be used in the process.
The orders that we are considering will close off great sections of the western seaboard, particularly the Inner and Outer Minch, because of the high levels of toxins that have been found in scallop samples. Debate is likely to revolve around the new tiered testing system that the FSA is introducing. Members will recall that we had a long debate about whether that new system should be implemented. The industry has reluctantly decided that it would prefer the tiered testing system to the system of whole-animal testing that was previously in place. The tiered testing regime may not be perfect, but the alternative is that we comply with yet another European directive by closing a fishery whenever a whole-animal test for ASP toxins reaches 20 micrograms per gram. Such closures seem to happen regularly.
ASP and the closure of areas of sea bed have been the subject of a recurring debate since the start of the Scottish Parliament. The issue is difficult to square. On the one hand, the FSA must work within the legal framework that is set by our European commissioners and must ultimately carry the Government's responsibility for protecting public health. On the other hand, the scallop industry is struggling to survive. The current ASP testing regime creates uncertainty, which in turn affects future investment and viability. It has a particular effect on scallop farmers and divers, who arguably constitute one of the most environmentally sustainable sectors within the seafood industry.
It is generally accepted that we cannot argue against specific orders, but the blanket restrictions that today's orders would put into effect demonstrate clearly that the system is not working. The proposed new two-tiered system, which is supposed to improve matters, is likely to increase costs for both the FSA and the industry. Of the FSA's current budget, which is in the order of £5.7 million, £1.4 million is spent on testing for ASP. The new system is likely to cost a great deal more than that.
Legitimate questions must be asked about the accuracy of the figures. First, the original factor for risk associated with ASP was calculated from an incident of poisoning that occurred in Canada in 1987. That poisoning was traced to mussels from a single estuary off Prince Edward Island. Given that the poisoning did not occur in scallops, it is only right that the Executive should consider new research into the trigger levels for ASP in scallops. Secondly, as we have heard, the trigger level for ASP is calculated from a portion size that is based on 12 scallops. I believe that that is excessively cautious. It may be possible and quite acceptable to consume 12 mussels, but I personally would find it quite difficult to consume 12 scallops.
As I said at the outset, we all want to support the industry. While legislating on food safety measures that are essential to protect the public, we should also consider the plight of the fishermen, who are trying to exist in difficult circumstances. We should support their pleas as well.
We move to open debate. I will call as many as I can of those members who have asked to speak.
I am happy to contribute to this discussion on orders that we will approve later today and which directly affect the fishing grounds immediately adjacent to my constituency of the Western Isles.
I totally agree with everything that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care said about the need to protect public health. I am sure that, as Tom McCabe conscientiously goes about discharging his duties under his portfolio in the Health Department, he will take account of other aspects of the issues that help to inform the decisions that he takes. However, members will appreciate that, as the orders concern waters on the west coast of Scotland, I will obviously take a constituency perspective on the matter.
In the past two years, Western Isles fishermen have caught and landed some 10 million scallops, which have been processed in the Western Isles. Those scallops have been consumed by some of us in this chamber and by people throughout the United Kingdom and across the important markets of the European Union. Since the current testing regime was put in place, not one batch of those 10 million scallops has been recalled. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on the minister.
I appreciate and support the need for in-depth and accredited scientific research into the complex issue of the threat from ASP. I also appreciate that it will take time to come to conclusions on such a complex issue. Some members have not acknowledged that the previous Executive put its money where its mouth was and contributed financially to scientific study. That research is needed and will confirm that the current testing regime safeguards public health—which is the primary concern of the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care—as well as the reputation of our scallop industry.
In the tempestuous international marketplace, the reputation of a food industry sector can be ruined in a moment. We have seen that all too often over the past few years. As responsible politicians, we have a duty to protect not only consumers, but the men and women who fish and earn a living from the scallop industry.
I was pleased to hear Tom McCabe say that he wanted to develop the most proportionate response to the occurrences of ASP. The current regime is proportionate and sensible and it allows the scallop industry to continue to thrive. Like other colleagues, I believe that the European Commission's proposals would have a disastrous effect.
I am certain that, when Tom McCabe was appointed Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, he did not for a moment believe that his first contribution on health matters would be on fishing and fishermen in the Western Isles. I know that he takes seriously the responsibility of protecting the health of Scots and other consumers in the United Kingdom and beyond. I will support the approval of the orders, as should every responsible politician.
I extend an invitation to the minister to come to the Western Isles, with officials from the Food Standards Agency—or any other official who has a locus in such an important area—to see for themselves how fishermen, processors, environmental health officers and other professionals work efficiently and effectively to protect the public from ASP.
We have to be clear on what we are talking about. We are talking about scallops, which are a quality product, particularly when they are harvested by diving—a much more sustainable method than dredging, which is not environmentally sustainable and is much more damaging.
We are talking about a product that is eaten and about the potential effect of toxins in that product. I would be the last person in the world to compromise on food safety, but we need only to test the bit that we are eating. That is why I support end-product testing. If we tested rhubarb in its entirety, the oxalate in the leaves would probably mean that the stems could not be sold as food. We have to be sensible. We are talking about a research project to find out not how much domoic acid is in our shellfish, but whether there is a hazard to health.
We know that amnesic shellfish poisoning is associated with algal blooms, which are a recurring and increasing phenomenon. We should not just roll over and let those blooms continue to occur. I hope that, if it is not already happening, the minister will institute research into why those algal blooms are recurring and whether some of our practices in our marine and offshore environments are contributing to them. Global warming, which has been mentioned, might also be a factor and there might be other factors that we can control. We should not just accept as a fact that our scallop industry will be on such a rollercoaster because of the algal blooms. Will the minister institute a programme of research into the prevention of algal blooms, thereby stopping amnesic shellfish poisoning being an issue in the first place?
I regret that it was not Jamie McGrigor who was entertaining us from the Tory side of the chamber. I hope that that does not indicate—given that the issue relates partly to the gonads of scallops—a permanent emasculation of the former Tory fisheries spokesman. However, I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on his maiden speech. I look forward to many a happy joust with him on the subject of fishing over the next four years, or however long he may last.
In the opinion of the Scottish ministers, the circumstance that gives rise to the orders is that scallops in the designated area may be affected by the toxin that causes shellfish poisoning in human beings and so may create a hazard to human health if they are consumed. That goes straight to the nub of the issue. Indeed, there is considerable ambiguity in the European regulations. The original directive—91/492/EEC—was, interestingly, based on an official's visit to Japan, where he saw a different kind of scallop being used and prepared in an entirely different way.
The later directive—97/79/EC—under which the order is being made, does not seem to require the kind of testing that we are considering for shucked scallops, for example. The directive has, of course, enabled the introduction of a new regime with tiered testing. However, as the then Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Mrs Mary Mulligan, told the Rural Development Committee in a letter of 23 December 2002, that regime is not mandatory. I hope, indeed, that it will not be mandatory and that it will simply not be introduced.
There has been no incidence of any kind of illness from scallops in Scotland. Two illnesses can arise from the consumption of scallops that are contaminated by domoic acid: gastrointestinal difficulties and loss of memory. I think that the latter happens occasionally in the chamber, so perhaps there is a real problem after all—perhaps the minister can tell us whether he eats scallops and from where he got them.
I regret that the minister did not take as many interventions during his opening remarks as might have enabled the large number of outstanding questions to be responded to. I hope that he will view his future contributions in a different light. I will just suggest to him a few of the questions that he might address in his closing remarks.
What timetable is there for research into scallop portions? Reference was made to correspondence between the FSA and various European institutions, but have the European institutions made any substantive response following the meeting of the Rural Development Committee on 19 November 2002, which was some six months ago? It is important that we significantly influence the European approach to the whole issue, which is not so much about health as about the problems created for the industry by an over-rigid, over-regimented approach to risks to human health.
Mr Stevenson, my apologies to you for not giving you notice that you were in your final minute, but you are now over time.
I am obliged. I know that you are always very tolerant towards my contributions, Presiding Officer.
I have one final question that I would like the minister to address. Exactly what research has been going on since the Rural Development Committee's various meetings on the subject last year? How much of the research is being funded by the financial instrument for fisheries guidance? I ask that because I believe that the Europeans, who are inflicting the directive on us, should bear some of the financial burden of the research that we have to undertake.
I congratulate the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care on his appointment and on his first speech in his new role. Over the past 18 months, I have not kept up with the issue with which the orders deal, but before that I had two and a half happy years as a member of the Rural Affairs Committee and then the Rural Development Committee. I certainly never heard it referred to as a sin bin and I had no idea that I was in the sin bin—but I know now, as they say.
Fergus Ewing paid tribute to Rhoda Grant for her tremendous work. She is a former MSP who is sadly missed by Labour members. I was well aware of the work that she and John Farquhar Munro did on the issue.
The minister will be aware from other members' speeches of the concerns about the testing regime. It is necessary and correct that public safety must be paramount and I will support the orders for that reason. However, we know that the toxin tends to be concentrated in parts of the scallop that are not generally consumed. I certainly would not fancy eating the gonads of scallops.
I would be grateful if the minister advised the chamber whether the testing regime has had further consideration in the European Union, what role the Scottish Executive has had in any such discussions and what conclusions have been reached. As we have heard, the concern is that the results do not reflect accurately the toxicity of the edible portion of a scallop. Confidence in the research is necessary.
I echo Eleanor Scott's concern that the primary causes of the toxin and the toxic algae might be environmental factors, such as the by-products of fish farming or fertilisers that are washed in.
Perhaps the member does not know of the research by Dr Kenneth Black of Dunstaffnage marine laboratory. Dr Black produced a paper, funded by the Executive and the Transport and the Environment Committee, that concluded that it was unlikely that fish farming caused ASP.
That is a reassurance, but some environmental factor must be the cause. Until we identify the cause of the problem, the scallop fishing industry will continue to be threatened by its recurrence. It is important to undertake research to ensure that we understand better the root cause.
That caught me short. There is time for a brief speech from Rhona Brankin.
I, too, welcome Mr McCabe in his new role as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. He might not know that we have something in common. I think that my first appearance as deputy minister with responsibility for fishing was on amnesic shellfish poisoning, but I cannot remember—it may have been on paralytic shellfish poisoning. That was a joke, by the way. That experience in front of the Rural Affairs Committee was fascinating.
I will talk about the importance of the shellfish industry to Scotland. This morning, I attended a Sea Fish Industry Authority and Seafood Scotland briefing. The other members who attended will understand the importance of the shellfish sector to the whole Scottish fishing industry. The sector is a major area of growth when the white-fish sector is under extreme pressure.
Fergus Ewing referred to the 9.6 million scallop meals that are eaten. Unlike him, I do not represent a sea-fishing community, but I represent people who eat shellfish. I admit that I, too, contribute in a small way to the 9.6 million scallop meals that are eaten.
Wherever we live, we are all concerned about the future of the Scottish fishing industry. The shellfish sector's development is a vital part of that industry. If just one person died as a result of amnesic shellfish poisoning, that would spell disaster for the scallop sector. If we want to protect the scallop fishery, we must protect the consumer. If consumer confidence in scallops is damaged, the industry will be damaged. We must ensure that continuing, high-quality research informs our regulations and that consumer safety is paramount. I welcome the minister's comments and ask all members to support the orders.
I congratulate Ted Brocklebank on an excellent maiden speech and I thank Stewart Stevenson for his concern about my well-being.
The other day, I was in a restaurant in the west Highlands where an Italian tourist asked me what he should eat from the menu. "Try the Scottish scallops or the local prawns," I said, "You simply cannot beat them." "Oh," he said, "I cannot eat the scallops or I will get the amnesiac poisoning and forget where I am and which lady is my wife." Although that might seem amusing, to many scallop fishermen, farmers and processors it is no laughing matter.
The scallop industry is hugely important in terms of income and employment to our remote communities. The product used to have a reputation that was second to none. Today, after four years of a testing regime and Liberal-Labour, the product lies in tatters. Cheap, inferior, foreign imports are taking over what were once firm Scottish markets. Despite scallop fishermen's efforts to comply with the new rules, they are going down the tubes. The regulations are unfair and unnecessary.
In a members' business debate on the problems of the scallop industry on 10 February 2000, I pressed Susan Deacon, who was the minister with responsibility for health at that time, to allow an end-product test that would
"ensure both public safety and a future for the scallop industry."
Susan Deacon replied that the monitoring of the internal programme was
"a carefully thought out and long-standing programme that meets our EU obligations as well as protecting public health."—[Official Report, 10 February 2000; Vol 4, c 1059 and 1070.]
That shows how, as usual, the Scottish Executive puts EU obligations before the interests of Scottish fishermen.
We have seen that happen throughout every aspect of the fishing industry and despite all its current problems. It is probable that the Scottish Executive is under instructions from Tony Blair. Why else would the Executive blindly follow EU directive 91/492, as amended by EU directives 97/61 and 97/79? Why, when the so-called science is based on an outbreak of ASP in mussels in Canada, will the Executive not stand up for Scottish scallop fishermen and a product that has not harmed anyone in Scotland or anywhere else?
I ask the minister to tell the chamber what the Executive has done to discover the cause of ASP in scallops. What has it done to discover the cause of the algal blooms, which is where the toxins come from? What research has it commissioned into the biochemistry of the scallop to try to ascertain the level at which the synergy of domoic, aspartic and glutonic acids becomes toxic—or, indeed whether there is such a level?
The Executive has had four years to do all that, but all that has happened is that the FSA has used three-quarters of its budget in an ever-more complicated programme to track down a disease that does not occur in Scotland. Meanwhile, the scallop industry is much worse off than it was four years ago. Its income has been slashed without any form of compensation being made.
It is dangerous and expensive to go fishing. If we want a Scottish fishing industry, the Executive should provide it with the encouragement that it needs rather than be concerned in the main with meeting its EU obligations.
I, too, welcome Tom McCabe to his new position. I am sure that, when he saw the topic of his first debate in the chamber, he was brought back down to earth with a bang. The issue is complex. It is one that has taxed the Parliament for the past four years. Indeed, one of the first investigations that was undertaken by the Rural Development Committee in 1999-2000 was on this issue. The committee returned to the issue at the end of the last session and it has also been the subject of members' business debates, other debates and numerous parliamentary questions. Here we are again, at the beginning of a new session, discussing the same issue.
Despite the fact that we have been having this discussion for the past four years, the issues remain virtually the same today. We must resolve the situation, as it is not only a health issue, as some members have referred to it, but an economic issue. The fishing industry is facing difficult times. If we consider where some of the scallop boats are based, we see that they are based in fragile, coastal economies in which the few remaining jobs in the scallop sector could not easily be replaced if they were to go.
Fergus Ewing referred to a letter that was published in Fishing News. It is a fascinating letter, as it contains an analysis of the ludicrous situation that we face in respect of the testing regime for ASP. The fact is that it takes 10 days between the scallop being sent away for testing and the box being closed. Meanwhile,
"28,800,000 scallops with supposedly dangerous levels of ASP have been caught, processed and consumed in the last four years with not one case of any ill effect."
The SNP will send a copy of the letter to Tom McCabe. I hope that he will read it, digest some of the issues that it contains and respond to them in a positive manner.
The fact that we are still talking about undertaking new research in 2003 when we first discussed the issue back in 1999 shows how slowly the wheels of this machine seem to move. We have been waiting for four years for this research to be carried out. Indeed, we are asking the same questions now in May 2003 that we asked four years ago, and only now has a minister stood up and told us that new research is being carried out, even though he does not know its exact nature. However, the research is the crux of the matter. We have to get to the bottom of this problem, because it would be unfair to impose such a ludicrous regime on a small sector of the fishing industry if there might be no justification for it.
At a meeting of the Rural Development Committee in the previous parliamentary session, my colleague Stewart Stevenson unveiled the fact that the majority of the FSA's resources—the vast bulk of its budget of a few million pounds—is spent on dealing with and policing this issue. However, I saw an edition of "Panorama" a few days ago, which investigated what is happening, particularly in Holland, with the importation of frozen chicken fillets to the UK and Scotland. The programme discovered that, after water was injected into chicken fillets, beef and pork protein was also injected to hold that water in order to boost the profits of the massive multinationals. We know that the FSA in Scotland should be turning its attention to many other issues. In fact, I have written to the Minister for Health and Community Care on the matter that I just mentioned, and I hope that ministers will speak to the FSA about its priorities.
This issue is another stark illustration of how European bureaucracy grinds some of our key industries to a halt. Indeed, it has taken us many years to reach even this point because we have to wait so many months between the key meetings in Brussels that examine the issue in a European context. The FSA has to hear back from those committees, after which the matter comes back to ministers. Any other issues that might be raised have to go back and be discussed at reconvened meetings. On it goes, taking years and years. The Rural Development Committee asked ministers to use this matter as an example when setting out how issues should be addressed in Europe. I hope that they will do so.
I also hope that, the next time that Tom McCabe discusses this subject in the chamber, he brings us some good news for a change. I hope that he continues to discuss the issue with Ross Finnie, who also holds views on it. After all, it relates very much to attempts by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to develop our rural economy. We should take that matter into account.
The SNP will support the motion, because that is the responsible approach to take, but we are utterly confident that, once the research that has been called for today has been carried out, the minister will return to the chamber to explain that the existing regime—never mind the proposed regime—is far too stringent and should be lifted.
First, I want to dismiss Mr Ewing's falsehoods about Labour members' views about the membership of the Rural Development Committee. His remarks were inappropriate and I hope that, having had time to consider them, he will think about withdrawing them.
Mr Ewing asked us how we will proceed with this matter. I assure him and the chamber that we firmly intend to proceed through a reasoned and objective consideration of scientific advice. Indeed, that is the only responsible way of proceeding. The matter has been treated that way before, and we will continue to take that approach.
It is important to point out that the industry is working closely with the FSA to develop appropriate measures. I cannot stress that too strongly. We should all encourage such developments. It is irresponsible to suggest that ministers could under any circumstances ignore scientific advice from the FSA. The public would be right to be concerned by such behaviour; indeed, all responsible politicians in the chamber would be concerned if ministers ignored such objective scientific advice from the FSA.
I do not think that any member has argued any of the premises that the minister has outlined. Scientific advice must be accepted, but what is the scientific advice that underlies the current regime? If more research proves that the 20 micrograms per gram test is overprotective, will the Scottish Executive and the FSA argue that the level should be raised?
Perhaps Mr Ewing is a victim of his own rhetoric. It certainly sounded to me that he was advocating that we should reject firm scientific advice, and I am sure that a number of members interpreted his comments in the same way.
Obviously, we have received advice that it would be dangerous for the public to consume the product in question when it contains such levels of toxins. We, and no doubt the FSA, would be happy if scientific developments led to a view that the acceptable level of toxins could be raised and the food would still be safe for human consumption. I am sure that if the continuing scientific work produces such a view, ministers and the FSA would be only too happy to endorse it.
Does the minister accept that 90 per cent of the toxins that are found in scallops are in the gut and the mantle of the scallop, which are the pieces that are thrown away, and that if one bought a fish from a fishmonger in the round, with its guts still in it, one would hardly cook the fish with its guts inside? Is not this an example of the nanny state? Are we really discussing something that is designed to help the industry?
A member has just appropriately mentioned that we were not protected from BSE by a nanny state. Even if the figure that the member mentioned is correct, we should concern ourselves with the other 10 per cent of toxins that would damage human health. It is not responsible for the member simply to try to ignore that issue.
It is safe to say that there will always be disagreements about where lines should be drawn in respect of how precautionary it is necessary to be in protecting public health, but there is no doubt that public health should and must be protected.
In addition to ensuring that we meet our obligations under European Union law, the two orders that are before us introduce measures that are intended to protect the public from the risk of amnesic shellfish poisoning. ASP has the potential to cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, short-term memory loss, hallucinations, confusion and seizures. Members have referred to an incident in Canada that tragically resulted in an individual's death.
Mr Brocklebank raised a number of points, specifically on end-product testing. When I spoke earlier, I said that end-product testing is in place, but I do not think that we have received any advice that it would be safe simply to rely on it as the sole measure of protecting public health. I am not sure whether Mr Brocklebank is advocating an end to pre-harvest testing. If he is, he will understand that our view is that that would be highly irresponsible; if he is not, I am happy to restate that the aim is to minimise the need for it.
Perhaps the minister could address the point that I made—that if end-product testing is compatible with European law and is acceptable in Ireland, which also has a scallop industry, why have we in Scotland uniquely decided that we do not want it?
My information is that, in Scotland, we do all that is required to try to ensure a consistent approach to the problem across the EU and to comply with our obligations under European law.
A number of points have been raised that require clarification. The FSA has not blocked the proposed toxicological study, but wishes to liaise further with SEERAD and the scientists to ensure that the study reaches its intended objectives.
There was a question about portion sizes. A portion size study has been passed to the Commission for consideration by the industry itself, and that move is supported by the FSA.
Mr Morrison made a number of points. Like Mr Ewing, he would like me to speak to the industry and perhaps visit the Western Isles. I would be more than happy to consider taking up that invitation.
Eleanor Scott and Elaine Murray mentioned research. Research into the causes of the phenomenon is on-going. The phenomenon occurs throughout large parts of the world and we play a part in worldwide research.
Mr Stevenson made a number of detailed points and I will be happy to write to him with information on them. I mentioned that a possible side effect of ASP is memory loss. Perhaps Mr Stevenson has over-indulged in a certain kind of scallop, as he said that I did not take a number of interventions. That was not my impression of my opening remarks. Apart from one proposed and inappropriate intervention when I was winding up, I think that I took all the suggested interventions.
Jamie McGrigor made a number of points. I have to say that many of them were ill informed. He painted a depressing picture of the industry. Information indicates that the value of the industry is increasing year on year, so the picture of doom and gloom that Mr McGrigor painted this afternoon is, according to the information that I have available to me, inappropriate and inaccurate.
In summary, this is a consumer safety measure that is intended to prevent the harvesting of king scallops, which could pose a serious risk to public health. Although the industry will clearly be disappointed, protecting consumers must be our priority, which is why I have today recommended the adoption of the two orders.