Petition
Genetically Modified Crops (PE470)
Item 6 is consideration of petition PE470, which is on genetically modified crops. The relevant papers, which are the letters that we sent to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and his responses, were circulated to members with the papers for previous meetings. We first considered the petition on 27 March, after which we wrote to the minister and he responded to us. We sent copies of the correspondence to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee and we agreed to write to the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission making inquiries about European policy on GM crops.
We considered the issue again on 17 April, following which we wrote to the minister making some specific recommendations about the trials. We received a response from the minister and, as members will be aware, we took evidence from him at last week's meeting. I seek members' views on how the committee should approach the matter.
I do not believe that the committee can take the petition any further. We have had an inquiry into GM crops and we have a full work load, which involves us in regular four-hour meetings. We have had to postpone the consideration of other petitions through lack of time. However, there are still concerns. We await the minister's response to the developments in Belgium and a copy of the site-specific risk assessment for the Munlochy trials. The questions about the effect on human health of the inhalation of GM pollen, which the chair of the British Medical Association's public health committee raised, are still to be answered.
I suggest that the committee end its consideration of the petition at this time and write to the petitioners with the answers that we have received from the minister and any subsequent information that we receive from him. We should also forward the minister's written responses to the Health and Community Care Committee and refer that committee to the minister's verbal responses, which are in the Official Report of last week's meeting. It would then be up to the Health and Community Care Committee to decide whether to pursue the matter further.
I hope that Fiona McLeod will move the motion that is left over from last week, so I will not pre-empt it. I have two short statements.
First, I pay tribute to the exemplary conduct of Anthony Jackson, Linda Martin and Nigel Mullen in pursuing the petition. I am sure that members of all parties share that view.
Secondly, I will read a part of the latest e-mail from Mr Jackson to indicate my absolute belief that the issue is very much alive. The e-mail states:
"Mr Finnie talks about the ‘voluntary' nature of the agreement with SCIMAC. This confuses the whole issue:
1 GMOSR cannot be grown commercially as it does not have a Part C Commercial Consent, only a Part B experimental one.
2 Mr Finnie either has legal powers or he does not. In fact it is the case that he does. EPA 111/10 and EU Directive 90/220/EEC Article 4 provides him with them."
I could not disagree more with Maureen Macmillan. I am sure that members were ready for me to say that. In reviewing the minister's evidence to us last week, I find that we are still waiting for answers on a number of issues. I will highlight the two issues on which I questioned the minister. The first is about the scientific evidence on which he claims he bases his decisions.
As members know, I put forward six different items of scientific evidence—out of a total of 31 that I have—that contradict the minister's statement and demonstrate the scientific consensus on this issue.
Robin Harper has already mentioned the other aspect—the minister's legal position as far as decisions on the trials are concerned—on which I questioned Ross Finnie. Although I asked the minister specifically about the fact that section 111(10) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 clearly gives him the power to stop the trials, he has not yet told us why he has not used that power. As a result, there are still compelling reasons to investigate the issue further.
One compelling reason is that the field has now been damaged three times. The committee has to follow the parliamentary process rigorously and timeously to ensure that people do not lose faith in it and take direct action.
A few meetings ago, I was asked which items I would drop from the committee work timetable. I do not want to drop anything in order to take evidence on the scientific and legal aspects of this issue. However, I should tell the committee that a board member of Aventis has offered to give evidence to the committee. As the competence of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment's decision-making processes is now being questioned by leading scientists, we should also ask its representatives to give evidence. I therefore suggest that we have a meeting either on Thursday 23 May or Monday 10 June. We do not have any meetings scheduled for those days. Indeed, we have already timetabled extra meetings over the three weeks in which the general assembly will be using the chamber. If we schedule a meeting on either of my suggested dates, we could invite witnesses to submit evidence and ensure that we find out whether the minister's decisions are in Scotland's best interests.
I second that proposal.
On a point of clarification, Fiona McLeod mentioned that she had put forward six items of scientific evidence. Did they include the points that the minister had already checked with ACRE?
That is why we have to take further evidence. I did not feel that the minister answered the six points that I put to him. As I said, I could have produced more evidence.
Were those six points of evidence run past ACRE, which then said that it had taken them into account?
No. None of the six points was among the four pieces of evidence that we previously questioned the minister about.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Do any other members wish to speak?
Yes.
Before I let Robin Harper back in, I want to make a few comments myself. I agree with Maureen Macmillan's suggested course of action. The committee conducted a fairly significant inquiry into genetically modified organisms and produced its report only a year ago. Given the range of issues that fall within the committee's remit, we cannot afford to embark on further inquiries on subjects that we already inquired into a short time ago, unless we are convinced that significant new evidence has emerged. I am not convinced that such evidence has emerged since the committee produced its report last year. Many of the organisations that we would likely take evidence from gave evidence to the committee towards the end of 2000 and therefore have had an input into our consideration of the issue.
Maureen Macmillan noted the fact that concerns about health have been raised. I am not convinced that there is significant evidence that health is an issue. As it is not within the remit of the Transport and the Environment Committee to deal specifically with health issues, I am comfortable with the suggestion that we refer the relevant matters and the answers that the minister has given to the Health and Community Care Committee, so that it can decide whether to take further evidence or action.
Committee members should acknowledge that conducting any further inquiry would affect not only the work load of committee members, but that of the committee's clerks, which is already extensive. In the latter part of this year, the committee will be involved in consideration of at least one major bill and perhaps in other significant pieces of work. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If we embarked on such a major piece of work, I suspect that it would take more than just one meeting and that the work load of the clerks might reach intolerable levels. We should take cognisance of that fact before we reach a decision.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that further meetings might be required if we held an inquiry on GMOs and took more evidence on the subject. Science has not stopped—more evidence has come to light and the argument is whether it is significant. There is plenty of new evidence and many new questions need to be asked. We did not exhaust the questioning by a long chalk in the original investigation into GMOs. It is clear that many questions are still to be answered.
Although I sympathise utterly with the clerks for the work load that they would have, Fiona McLeod expressed a wider concern about whether we are doing our job in relation to GMOs. I would have thought that holding at least one meeting to interview two of the leading protagonists in the affair would be the least that we could do. Maureen Macmillan's proposal is not mutually exclusive. We can send the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee, but we can also hold a meeting on the subject. I would argue strongly for holding the meeting on 23 May or 10 June; 10 June would be preferable.
I believe that we must take the line that Fiona McLeod suggests. The fact that new evidence is emerging all the time means that, at the very least, our report needs to be updated. I accept that the burden on the clerks might well become intolerable, but that is not a reason for us not to discharge our duty to Scotland. The issue is important.
I was unhappy with the response that the minister gave on liability last week. If he is as certain that there are no problems as he claims to be, he ought to be fully prepared to pick up the tab for any damage that the experiment might cause. It is intolerable for people to be forced to go through the courts to prove negligence by the Government if damage has occurred as a result of the trials, given the high-profile nature of the protests.
We should extend the ultra-precautionary principle and it is therefore incumbent on us to take further evidence to update our report. We might come to the same conclusions that we reached before, but if we do not at least update our report we will not have discharged our duty adequately.
One day's evidence taking will not solve the problem of assessing the new science.
I am a member of more than one committee and the dates that were mentioned are already filled with evidence-taking sessions on the prison estates review for the Justice 1 Committee. I do not have space in my parliamentary life to contemplate fitting in extra meetings for an inquiry. I do not think that there is a great urgency to take evidence—the issue is not one that we have to deal with next week—because the committee has already said that the trials at Munlochy should be halted. Perhaps we could make a decision about it at a later date, when we look at our forward work programme.
With respect, Maureen, substitutes can be involved in committees now. Therefore, the fact that, much to the regret of everyone on the committee, you cannot attend—
I would like to hear people's comments in the order in which I indicated they would be called, John. I will let you come back in later, if you want, but I will let Nora Radcliffe in now, if Maureen Macmillan has finished.
I do not think that it is our role to evaluate new scientific evidence. It is our role to satisfy ourselves that new scientific evidence is taken into account as it emerges and that the body that evaluates that evidence is credible and properly constituted and has the right credentials. The work that we did on our original report on GMOs satisfied me that ACRE fitted the bill. The minister's answer to previous questions about new evidence was that ACRE takes new evidence on board. I do not think that it is necessary for us to hold meetings to take evidence on the new science, because I am satisfied that that issue is being dealt with adequately.
Liability is emerging as an issue, but it may be premature for the committee to start to consider that issue, as work is being done on it at the European level. It would be more appropriate for the committee to wait until there is greater clarity about the proposals that will be made at the European level in the coming months. It would be a better use of our time to assess those proposals at that stage.
I would like to have another session on the minister's powers. I find it unsatisfactory that, even though we have had several meetings at which we have asked the minister to say precisely what powers he has, we still have not had a definitive answer. The minister has a particular view, but ministers in other parts of the European Union appear to have a different view. We must get a definitive answer to that question, and I do not think that we should drop the matter until we receive such an answer.
Did you want to come back in, John?
No.
The discussion has raised some interesting issues. To be fair to Fiona McLeod, I was one of those—[Interruption.] I cannot speak into the microphone and turn to speak to Fiona at the same time because she is sitting behind me.
Speak into the microphone, or I will not be able to hear you.
All right. When it was suggested that we should have another inquiry into GM crops, I said that we should first take a close look at our timetable, because we would have to decide what work to take out in order to fit that work in. To be fair to Fiona, I note that she tried to be imaginative by suggesting that we should schedule in some additional time, rather than swapping work. If we have a vote on the matter, I will vote against scheduling additional committee time on the dates that have been suggested, but that is not because I think that we should not consider the issue further.
Interesting questions have been raised, such as those raised by Adam Ingram about the minister's powers. It seems to me that we keep asking the minister the same question, to which we keep getting the same answer. Although some members are satisfied with that answer, others are not. Perhaps we should put that question to someone else. If the issue is covered by European legislation, and another European country seems to be taking a different view, perhaps we should seek information from a different source on why that country—I believe that it is Belgium—is taking a different position. We do not have to schedule time for an inquiry to do that, as there other ways in which that information could be elicited and brought to the attention of the committee.
As I was not a member of the committee at the time, I cannot say when the previous reporters were appointed or when the previous inquiry was carried out.
I take the point about new scientific evidence emerging continually on both sides of the argument, but that in itself does not determine that we should revisit the matter with a second inquiry. I am not sure whether we ought to take a decision on what we must do now. What has been proposed today does not seem to be germane to the issue of whether the crop is flowering; it seems to be about the broader context of the Munlochy protest. It seems to me that we need not rush to judgment about whether to schedule committee time for those particular dates.
Could we take a little more time to consider how important the issue is in the broader context of the issues that we are considering? If we want to consider the issue again, perhaps we should revisit it one, two or three years on from when we reported last time, rather than making a snap judgment today. If I were forced to make a snap judgment, I would say that we should not schedule meetings on those dates, not least because not everyone would be able to attend then. However, we should not kill the possibility of reconsidering the issue.
My preference is that we come to a decision today on how to proceed, because the issue has been on the agenda for a number of weeks. I note that there will be a debate in Parliament on the issue when we are in Aberdeen. I understand that one of the Opposition parties will use its time to bring the issue before Parliament so that everyone will be able to express a view. We do not know the exact terms of the motions and amendments that will be debated, but Parliament will be able to take a general view on the issue.
Can I ask a brief question?
Fiona McLeod wants to come back in. I would prefer not to let you back in for a third time, Robin, but I will let you in if the question is very brief.
You said that the committee had conducted a report on GMOs and that there had been no significant new evidence since then. Over the past few weeks, we have learned that there has been significant new scientific and legal evidence. Our report was not set in stone at that time; it should be a growing organic report, which takes cognisance of significant changes.
Nora Radcliffe said that, after taking evidence, we said in our report that ACRE was a credible body. ACRE is now being questioned and it has admitted that it ignored evidence that it should have considered on chickens being fed with genetically modified maize. We need to review the position on ACRE.
I remind the committee that the petition was not just on the GM crop trial at Munlochy; it was on trials throughout Scotland. Sadly, the crop at Munlochy is flowering, but another crop will be sown there at the end of the year and other crops are being grown throughout Scotland.
As John Scott said, we have identified two days on which we can meet. We are not taking away from items of business and we are able to use substitutes on the committee to ensure that the work gets done. I would be very disappointed, as would the majority of the population of Scotland, if the committee were to say that this is the end of the story and that we should just let the trials happen.
When I was flying down from Kirkwall, I saw more than 300 fields of oil-seed rape in the Peterhead area. I do not think that they were of genetically modified oil-seed rape—at least I hope that they were not. I would like us to go to a motion, but we should consider Angus MacKay's sensible proposal for seeking further clarification on the legal position, perhaps by referring to the European Court of Justice.
I want to consider the two proposals that have been made. I do not know whether you are trying to make a third proposal, Robin.
That is a suggestion. I am not making a proposal.
Two proposals have been put forward. Maureen Macmillan suggests that we conclude consideration of the petition by corresponding with the petitioners on all the evidence that we have taken, the information that we have gained and the correspondence between us and the minister. In addition, we should refer the issue to the Health and Community Care Committee for consideration of some of the health matters that have been raised. The other proposal, which Fiona McLeod has made, is that we schedule at least one meeting in which to take evidence from the bodies that she mentioned. I cannot remember them all off the top of my head, but I am sure that they will be in the Official Report.
I do not think that anyone has opposed Maureen Macmillan's suggestion that the issue should be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee. If that is not opposed, we can agree that that part of Maureen's proposal should proceed. Am I correct in understanding that members are not opposed to that suggestion?
Can I clarify that we will say to the Health and Community Care Committee that it should examine the public health aspects of the GM crop trials?
We will highlight the fact that questions have been raised on the issue, that we have corresponded with the minister on it and that the minister has responded. We should state that we do not think that it is in our remit to come to conclusions on the public health aspects and that the Health and Community Care Committee should consider whether it wants to investigate the matter. We will not be telling it to carry out work on the matter. We will draw the matter to that committee's attention and allow it to make its own decision. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We are left with two proposals. The first proposal is that we conclude our consideration of the petition by writing to the petitioners to inform them of the work that we have carried out on the issue, which includes referring the health aspects to the Health and Community Care Committee.
The other proposal is that we conduct a further evidence-taking session, as specified by Fiona McLeod. I suggest that we take a straightforward yes/no vote on each of the proposals. Given that Maureen Macmillan's proposal was raised first, we shall consider it first. If Maureen Macmillan's proposal is passed, that would preclude Fiona McLeod's proposal from being passed. If members want to support Fiona's proposal, they will have to vote against Maureen's.
I suggest that, procedurally, the proposal that suggests that we proceed to do something should be taken before the one that suggests that we call a halt on the matter today.
There is not necessarily any procedural consideration that suggests that we should do that, but I am not worried either way, so I am happy to accede to that suggestion.
There will be a simple yes/no vote. If Fiona McLeod's proposal is passed, that would preclude Maureen Macmillan's one from being considered. The question is, that the committee should take oral evidence on other issues raised by the petition. Is that agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. I will use the casting vote against our taking further oral evidence. On that basis, the proposal is defeated by five votes to four.
The second proposal, put forward by Maureen Macmillan, is that we conclude consideration of the petition and correspond with the petitioners. We have already agreed that we will refer the health aspects to the Health and Community Care Committee.
Could I add to that the suggestion that we follow through on our questions about the legal powers of the ministers?
I do not want to amend the proposal at this stage.
Could we not continue correspondence on that matter?
We have already debated the issue. Clear proposals have been put forward. Members are by all means entitled to press the issues. We still await a response from the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission. That response will be made available to members and we will advise petitioners of that response once it has been received.
We will now vote on Maureen Macmillan's proposal. The question is, that the committee should conclude its consideration of the petition. Is that agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. I will use the casting vote in favour of the proposal that we conclude consideration of the petition. On that basis, the proposal is agreed to by five votes to four.
Can I check that it will be recorded in the Official Report who voted which way, so that I do not have to say at this moment that I want it recorded in the Official Report that I think that we have taken the wrong decision?
That is recorded.
That brings us to the end of the agenda and the end of the meeting. I thank members for their attendance. I hope that as many members as possible can stay for the briefing that Dr Kenneth Black will now give us.
Meeting closed at 13:05.