§ 7.45 p.m.
§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghornerose to move, That the order laid before the House on 20th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order bans fishing for velvet and green crabs in all areas of sea around the Orkney islands. It was made pm 20th December following test results from samples of velvet crabs which showed levels of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxin above the accepted safety level.
Our aim in making the order is to ensure effective protection of the public from this naturally occurring PSP toxin with minimum disruption of the shellfish market. Continued monitoring of velvet crab samples from the affected area has shown that toxin levels are now falling. As a result it has been possible to lift the restrictions from a large part of the area, where the PSP toxin has subsided to a safe level. This was done by the making of a partial revocation order on 22nd January.
The No. 13 order as partially revoked still applies, however, to the area of sea north of the mainland surrounding the Islands of Eday, Sanday, North Ronaldsay and the north part of Stronsay as defined in the schedule to the partial revocation order. I wish to assure your Lordships that the remaining ban will remain in force only for as long as is necessary and no 1245 longer. The position is being closely monitored. As with previous closures, the No. 13 order will be fully revoked as soon as test results from the closed area and scientific and medical advice indicate that it is safe to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 20th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for having explained the purpose of the order. It is unfortunate that shellfish appear to absorb materials from the sea that are injurious to human health. It is therefore important that the authorities keep such shellfish under close observation. For that reason I welcome this order.
I believe from what the Minister has said that a partial revocation order was made on 22nd January of this year. However, the order still applies in a certain area. I believe the position is rather confusing. Would it not have been better to wait until restrictions on the whole area could have been lifted? The present situation could cause ordinary members of the public some bewilderment. It is bewildering when an order may be partially revoked for a mere fortnight. That said, I have no basic objection to the order. I believe the authorities do a good job in this matter, but that a little more consistency could improve the situation.
§ The Earl of Strathmore and KinghorneMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for those words. The answer to the point he raised is that the protection of public health must remain of the utmost importance.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I accept that it is an important matter and I agree that the authorities have acted correctly. However, my question relates to why the prohibition was removed for a very short time and then reinstated. Was there any dispute among the inspectors and the medical authorities as to whether the prohibition should have been removed? I am trying to be helpful in suggesting that the public might have been less confused had the order been maintained until a more permanent decision could be made covering a wider area than the area outlined in the order.
§ The Earl of Strathmore and KinghorneMy Lords, the area was closed fully on 20th December. We are relaxing the ban because the situation is improving. Perhaps after the debate I can help the noble Lord by showing him a map.
On Question, Motion agreed to.