HL Deb 24 June 1993 vol 547 cc532-3

7.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft orders in my name. The five orders before the House today seek your Lordships' approval for emergency orders to ban fishing for, variously, mussels, queens, scallops, razor clams and oysters in defined areas of sea around the Orkney Islands and an area of sea off the Caithness coast. This is due to a build up of the naturally occurring toxin, paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP as it is known.

The decision to make these orders was based on those test results from our PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally-agreed action level of 400 units. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market.

I would like to assure your Lordships that the orders will only remain in force for as long as is necessary and no longer. They will be revoked individually as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so.

I have arranged for copies of maps showing the areas in question to be available for your Lordships. Two of the orders concern Scapa Flow; two cover an area north of the Orkney mainland and the fifth order applies to an area of sea off the Caithness coast. There has been no significant downturn in toxin levels since the orders were made and, regrettably, I submit that the five orders before us today are still necessary for the protection of public health. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I do not intend to muscle in very mach on the act. He has asked me to say that he fully understands and supports the action. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether any representations have been made against the orders? As someone who is very much an observer, but who enjoys seafood very mach, what the Minister and the House seek to do is to protect both the palate and also the livelihood of the people who live in that part of the world. We have no objection to these orders. Can the Minister say whether the actions which these orders take and make cause resentment, hostility or opposition in any quarter? If the Minister is able to say that there is no opposition I shall be happy. Of course, it makes no difference because we welcome the orders and have no objection to them.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is not here. There is always a delicate balance to be struck. As the noble Lord indicated, he likes shellfish and we wish to protect the market and the livelihood of those who fish for shellfish in Scotland. However, we also must have regard to the best interests of the consumer and what is considered on a scientific and medical basis to be an acceptable level in the build-up of this naturally occurring toxin. The levels here are too high.

I do not believe that there is any hostility. What is important, as I sought to indicate, is that as soon as it is safe to do so these orders shall be lifted. I give an undertaking to the noble Lord that that will be done in the best interests of the fishermen.

On Question, Motions agreed to.

Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8 p.m.]