Petition
Genetically Modified Crops (PE470)
Item 6 is petition PE470, from Anthony Jackson, on behalf of the Munlochy vigil on genetically modified crops.
Members will recall that the committee first considered the petition at its last meeting before the recess. We agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to seek an urgent response to the issues raised by both the petitioners and by members during the meeting, and in particular the purported negative impacts of GM releases on public health and the environment.
As well as writing to the minister, we copied the letter to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee and asked the minister to copy his response to her. That has been done. We also agreed to write to the European Commission environment directorate-general to seek information on the way in which policy towards GM releases is developing at a European level in response to new scientific information.
Both the letter that I sent to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the response that we received from him have been circulated to members. I will invite comments from members in a minute. Before doing so, I will comment that the minister has certainly given a full response to the questions that we raised. We should recognise that the minister has responded promptly, within the requested time scale, and has given a serious and considered response to each of the issues that we raised. I recognise that the response will not be the one that the petitioners were hoping for, but the minister has certainly given us a strong indication that the Executive and its various advisers are considering all current and emerging scientific evidence. I put on record my thanks to the minister for giving a full and comprehensive response in a short time scale.
I now invite members to comment on the minister's response or to make suggestions about further work that the committee should undertake on the issues that the petition raises.
I will raise one or two issues that arise from the minister's letter. We could seek clarification on them, if the committee agrees.
In the first of his answers, on page 2, the minister responds to our request to outline the nature of the crop trial at Munlochy.
I also want to ask the minister to clarify whether a site-specific risk assessment was carried out at Munlochy, bearing in mind the proximity of the village to the trials. The petitioners have told me that a commercial field of non-GM oil-seed rape lies 50m away from the GM field. I notice that the minister says that non-GM rape forms part of the trial. Can we seek clarification that the non-GM rape that the minister mentions is the same field that the petitioners are talking about or whether another commercial field of rape lies very close to the GM crop? If so, what are the implications of cross-pollination and of GMOs entering the food chain? Furthermore, I wonder whether we need to leave the crop to flower and whether we could destroy it before that happens.
Answer 2B on page 4 concerns public health. At the previous meeting, I mentioned that Charles Saunders, the chair of the British Medical Association's public health committee, had voiced concerns that no health monitoring had been carried out. Has there been any testing on pollen inhalation, as the Royal Society has recommended? I believe that such testing has not been carried out. As I do not know whether it is within the committee's competence to ask the minister health-related questions, perhaps we should also consider the Health and Community Care Committee's role in this matter.
I am comfortable about asking the minister questions in the way that you have suggested. As for whether we are required to hand the petition over to the Health and Community Care Committee, that is the very reason why we ensured that the convener of that committee was copied in on all the correspondence. I am pretty sure that she will share the correspondence with members of that committee. I have also discussed the issue with her informally; she was comfortable with the suggestion that, because the petition was referred to this committee, we could put questions to the minister. If the responses raise matters that the Health and Community Care Committee want to take further, it is open to that committee to do so. However, after my discussions with the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, it seems that she is comfortable with our pursuing the issue with the minister at this stage as long as we ensure that that committee is copied in on all relevant correspondence.
Thank you, convener. That seems to be a clear way forward.
Convener, you asked us to look at the letter and consider what the committee could do next. However, the letter almost raises more questions than it answers, and I would like to list some of my particular concerns.
First, the minister mentions that the Scottish Crop Research Institute monitors the Munlochy site. I want more details about how often it carries out such monitoring.
Could you tell us which part of the response you are referring to so that we can follow you? The letter is quite long.
In the second paragraph on page 3, the minister mentions that the SCRI undertakes monitoring "during the growing season". I want more detail about how often the SCRI carries out such monitoring and why it is doing so. Maureen Macmillan has highlighted concerns about potential problems with allergens, and I want to know whether the SCRI is monitoring that situation.
There are also some inconsistencies in the minister's answers in the letter. In the third paragraph on page 3, he says that the SCRI is
"satisfied that there has been no breach of the consent and no … evidence of risk at Munlochy or other Scottish release sites".
However, on page 6, he says that "no interim results" are available. How can he say that there is "no new evidence" when there are no interim results? I want to question that a bit further.
I do not see that as being inconsistent.
You may not, but I do.
The minister's letter relies heavily on the document from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. I would like to go through that document in more detail. I suggest that we do so following the headings 2A, 2B, 2C and so forth. Under 2A, which is English Nature's report, ACRE is dismissive of the fact that there is only a 50m gap at Munlochy between the GM crop and the non-GM crop although evidence has been found in Canada of cross-pollination across a 2km divide. It is not good enough for ACRE to state that measures were taken to minimise the production of volunteers, when the gap is only 50m as compared to 2km.
Under 2C, which is the environmental issue report from Europe, oil-seed rape was clearly rated as a high-risk crop in terms of gene flow. That is a definite statement and it is therefore inappropriate for ACRE to state that everything is fine and that no new evidence exists.
Under 2D, which is the report from New Zealand, major concerns with regard to transgenic oil-seed rape are identified, which is the issue that is being talked about at Munlochy. Again, ACRE states that there is nothing new about the report and that it was aware of the issues.
I return to 2B and the issue of public health. The report sets out clearly that it is
"recommended that allergenicity is considered as part of the regulatory process."
Dr Saunders, in his BMA role and in his role as a public health consultant in Fife, where oil-seed rape crops are about to be planted, has said that we should examine that recommendation. Is that being done at the moment? From the letter, it would seem not to be happening.
The convener asked us to recommend what the committee should do. A number of questions have arisen from the letter. We should call witnesses to answer more detailed questions, as that would allow us to get answers quickly. We are four weeks closer to the crop in Munlochy flowering, which Maureen Macmillan mentioned. It may be too late if we do things in writing. We could wait for another four weeks for a reply to the questions that the convener is happy to pursue, only to receive a reply that says that the crop should have been ploughed up.
I suggest that we call as witnesses the petitioners and ACRE so that we can question it on some of the reasoning in its research. I would also like to question Dr Saunders to get more information from the BMA. At one point in the letter, the minister says that no interim results are available, and yet we know from an article in The Sunday Times a few months ago that there is talk of interim results being available. I would like to question that journalist. In particular, I would like to have the minister in front of us, so that we can put those questions to him. If we get answers that are similarly unsatisfactory, we could question him further then. To write another letter would cause more delay.
Given what the royal commission in New Zealand and Dr Saunders have said, it is no longer within the competence of the Transport and the Environment Committee to question the need for allergenicity tests on the crops. I suggest that we formally ask the Health and Community Care Committee to take evidence on that matter.
Do you want to move that suggestion formally?
Yes.
I will take comments from other members before we decide, as different courses of action have been suggested. I will seek clarification on one of Fiona McLeod's points, so that I understand fully what she is proposing. What do you wish to drop from the committee's forward work programme to accommodate the piece of work that you are indicating the committee should undertake?
We were supposed to have a minister in front of the committee today, but that was not possible. I understand that, as a result, we are to receive another forward work programme. We have accommodated a minister who was unable to give evidence to us. We should accommodate the needs of the committee to examine a matter that some members of the committee, members of the public and the petitioners believe to be of prime public importance.
If the committee were to adopt your position today, it would be useful for the clerks to understand which items you would want to drop from the work programme.
If the committee accepts my position today, that is a matter that we will consider as a committee, in discussion with the clerks. I understand that we will discuss our work programme later in the meeting. It is not up to an individual member of the committee to decide on the work programme.
You have no suggestions for the clerks.
I think that it is inappropriate for the convener to make those comments.
I think that it is appropriate, because the clerks need guidance before they produce a work programme. As you are proposing a course of action, it is perfectly appropriate to ask you how you would wish to accommodate that work.
Convener, I do not think that it is appropriate to broach that subject at this stage of the discussion. We should hear the full range of views of members before we consider a forward work programme, which will depend on the outcome of the discussion. I would rather that we moved round the table to find out members' views.
I am happy to do that. I was just seeking clarification from Fiona McLeod as to what suggestions she had as the mover of a position. It appears that she has no suggestions.
It is inappropriate to introduce that matter at this stage. We should get back to the subject in hand.
I will make two interim points before commenting more substantively later. It would be useful to go round the table to take a general range of views from members on the reply from the minister and where we should go from here.
Before we come to a vote—I assume that we would have to come to a vote on Fiona McLeod's proposed position—we have to be clear about the implications of a successful vote on our future work timetable. After we have gone round the table, we need to be clear about what we would and would not be removing from our work timetable. The consequence of not doing so is that, whenever we decide whether to take on board specific new pieces of work, we will do so before we have worked out whether it is possible. That is a bad way in which to conduct business.
I will make a second point, although it may not be appropriate at this point. To the extent that I followed all the points that Fiona McLeod made—it is a complex matter so it is not always possible to follow everything clearly—I agree with the first point that she made, about seeking more information on the soil analysis at Munlochy, on what results have been produced and on what areas that analysis is being used to test. I agree with Fiona McLeod that we should ask for more information about that. I did not follow her second point, about risk. I took a little note of which parts of the minister's letter she was referring to. I think that it was paragraph 3 on page 3, which states:
"They"—
I assume that that is the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency—
"are satisfied that there has been no breach of the consent and no new evidence of risk at Munlochy".
However, Fiona McLeod referred to something else later on in the minister's reply, which she thought contradicted that statement. I did not catch which part of the minister's letter she was referring to.
Sorry. Have we moved on?
You may answer Angus MacKay's point.
Right. I had understood that Robin Harper was going to speak before me.
Paragraph 4 on page 6 states:
"In fact no interim results … yet exist"
I must be missing something convener, I just cannot see the read across. I am not trying to be obtuse. I genuinely cannot see the connection between the two statements.
I will make a general point first. After the committee's last short investigation into the implications of farm-scale field trials, there were people on the committee and outside who felt that, in some areas, there was a lack of evidence that we really needed and that, in other areas, there was enough evidence—particularly about cross-pollination—to suggest that we should not proceed to farm-scale evaluations at this point in the science. The repeated references to "no new evidence" in the minister's response do not wash with people who feel that we already have enough evidence.
I will refer to one or two specific elements of the minister's response that give cause for concern. I support Fiona McLeod's call for a new round of evidence, but would like to add Aventis to the list of those who should be called for the simple reason that we must recognise that much of the minister's reasoning is based on Aventis's assessment. The assessments based on which it will be decided whether to proceed with the trials are prepared by the industry itself. I would like to know whether, when Scottish Natural Heritage responded on the validity of the risk assessment, it was made aware of whether it would be possible for pollen from the site to reach much further than 1km from the site. SNH made its assessment based on its knowledge of the area to within 1km of the site, not within 10km of the site. SNH's response was therefore necessarily limited, as it was not given the proper information at the beginning.
SNH said:
"Given the complexity of the issues involved we are concerned that the time allowed for the consultation is insufficient."
The minister said that SNH was content, but it was not. It remarked that
"herbicide management of the crop may be potentially harmful to local features of Scotland's natural heritage."
It said:
"Because SNH does not have eco-toxicological expertise, we recommended that a more detailed assessment of the impacts of the herbicide should be undertaken by SEPA."
We do not have a copy of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's assessment and I would like to see it before we make up our minds.
There are many other issues. I have given members a copy of a report. I remind members that the minister says that he does not think that he has the power to stop the trials. The issue has been gone over and I restate that he has the power, under part B of the European directive. Information relating to the deliberate release consent states:
"The plants will remain in the field for the normal growing season except as specified below
termination prior to flowering with plant destruction by cultivation and/or application of an appropriate herbicide
termination up to seed formation".
In other words, in the consent, there is provision for the minister to order the destruction of the crops before they flower.
In the light of the huge number of doubts that remain in our minds following the minister's supposedly detailed response, I would like to lodge another motion to request that the committee recommends to the minister that the Munlochy site be ploughed in before it flowers. It is clear that some members of the committee are worried about our work load, but I would be extremely worried if we reached a decision that meant that we could not return to the subject for weeks or even months. It is important that the committee recommend that the site at Munlochy be ploughed in and that, if the minister is unwilling to stop the experiment now—an experiment on the Scottish environment—the crop at the new site at Tayport should also be ploughed in before it flowers.
I could say much more, but I must let other members speak.
Thank you. There is just one issue on which I feel that you are not reporting correctly what the minister said. In section 3 on page 5 of his response, the minister explains the powers that he has under the devolution settlement within the confines of overarching European law, and indicates that powers would exist to stop the trials if further evidence emerged and the bodies that advise him gave him advice that there was significant risk. The bodies that I am referring to are ACRE, the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. He says quite clearly that if the conclusions of those advisers were
"that a particular GM release could harm human health or the environment then I would have no hesitation in withdrawing consent for the release."
The minister is clearly saying that powers exist, but he is also saying that he is not being advised by the bodies to use them. He is not saying that no powers exist, but that he has to proceed on the basis of advice.
The minister is quite free to make up his own mind in the light of any other petitioning that he receives. He does not have to act purely on the advice of ACRE. ACRE could say, "We cannot advise you to plough in this crop," but the minister would still have the power to order the ploughing in of the crops tomorrow if he so wished, on the strength of petitioning and applying the precautionary principle. The risk assessment for the area does not say that there is no risk of cross-pollination, but that there is a low risk. In other words, there is a risk of cross-pollination with a host of other wild relatives.
Ministers are well advised to take careful cognisance of the information that they receive from expert advisory bodies.
At the end of the day, the decision by the minister to allow the field trial to go ahead in the first place is a political one. There is no absolute requirement on the minister to allow a field trial to go ahead, and that must be made absolutely plain from the outset. All the evidence, new or old, seems to indicate that there is potential damage to the environment from such trials.
The minister's response points out that the research programme is
"designed to assess the impact on the environment of the agricultural practices used to grow certain GM crops".
To my mind, that is akin to suggesting that the object is to measure the damage that is done by the GM experiment. We have certainly been down that route before in a wide variety of areas and people could be put in harm's way by experimentation of such a nature. The minister's suggestion that there is no new evidence does not convince me that he should not take a decision at this stage to plough the field in. I second Robin Harper's views.
I am uneasy about a lot of things that have been said today. For example, it has been said that the experiment is to measure the damage from the trial crop, but it could be to demonstrate its safety. It has been said that there is risk, but one can never say that there is no risk. A panel of competent, relevant and, in some cases, very eminent scientists are assessing the risk on our behalf. Are we going to second-guess what those extremely expert people are telling us because of something in The Sunday Times?
It worries me that we are departing from expert and well-founded advice, or are taking such advice too lightly. We should not forget that the advice has a sound basis and that the people who provide it know what they are talking about. We could ask some of the questions that have been raised. For example, we could ask about the implications of ploughing in the crop at Munlochy before it flowers and how that would impact on the value of the evidence from the trials. It would also be interesting to read SEPA's assessment of the situation.
I am not so sure about calling witnesses, particularly people from organisations such as ACRE, who are probably very busy. We will probably receive a quicker response in writing than we will if we try to set up panels. There are things that we can do, but we must be careful about overreacting and not giving enough weight to scientific advice from people who know what they are talking about.
Like other members, I think that we need to take more evidence. If we are going to do so, one of the bodies that we need to contact is the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The farmers themselves are not responsible; they would not wish to contaminate crops and make them unsellable.
Fiona McLeod said that we have a month, but I do not believe that we have even that long. The crop is starting to flower now and, with this good weather, it will be coming on very quickly. If the minister is going to decide to stop cross-pollination, he will have to do so pretty soon—not within a month, but within the next week.
The matters boils down to whom you believe, which is where lay people like us are yet again caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. It reminds me of the situation with BSE in the 1990s, with expert Government witnesses telling us that there is no problem. How do we know what call to make? All through the 1990s, the Swann committee and others were telling us that there was no problem with BSE. Then, a fortnight before 20 March 1996, they said, "Hang on a minute. Sorry, but we've got a problem." Up to that point, all the expert advice suggested that there was no such problem. We are in exactly the same position here. Lay people like us cannot judge the situation. Even the minister is probably in no position to make a judgment. For that reason, we have to be incredibly cautious, and I incline towards the view that we should postpone the trial until further evidence is taken and we see how the situation might evolve.
As far as digging up the current trial is concerned, the minister has made it quite clear that he is allowing the trial to continue on the basis of advice from various bodies. John Scott made the very valid point that the crop is at the point of flowering. It would be misleading to suggest that, even if we called for the crop to be dug up, the minister would change his view. He is working on the basis of the advice of the expert bodies that advise him on such issues. There is little likelihood that the crop will be dug up, and I do not think that the minister will listen to our advice above the advice of those bodies.
Sadly, I am only too well aware of that. Nonetheless, if the minister is minded to do as you say he is—as he seems to be, judging from the tone of his letter—that is his call, but he must accept the liability. His response to our fifth question is very weak. If it turns out that he has caused land crops and people to be damaged because of his decision—and because he and the committee were not prepared to take the matter further and consider other evidence—he and the Executive will be liable and will have to carry the can. That must be clearly understood.
I should point out that the minister is complying with EU directives, so the position is not that the Scottish Executive is acting independently. The minister is acting within a framework that is guided at European level.
Yes, but there is an element of choice in what he does, so he assumes a distinct burden of liability if he exercises that choice in the way that he is apparently doing.
We need to separate out the general issue of GMOs from the specific issues that the Munlochy trials raise. We conducted a fairly substantial inquiry into GMOs, which reached a set of conclusions that it might be worth rehearsing. For example, we argued that there was a scientific gap, particularly in relation to the broader climatological and biodiversity issues associated with GMOs rather than the more specific genetic issues on which there was apparently much scientific information. The purpose of suggesting a precautionary approach to the minister was to ensure that we could identify the benefit to Scotland of allowing particular farm trials. The minister is under no requirement to allow such trials; he has a licensing responsibility to do so. The issue is the basis on which the minister might refuse to allow farm trials, and I would have thought that he might be able to apply a test of benefit. In other words, when the minister comes to interpret or analyse the EU legislation, he might be able to ask about the purpose of a specific farm-scale evaluation in relation to the application that is being introduced.
If we apply the general conclusion of our GMO inquiry to the Munlochy situation, we should focus on the purpose of the test that is apparently under way. On page 3 of the minister's letter, he states that the concern centres on
"whether growing GM crops could be more detrimental to farmland wildlife than conventional agriculture".
The test is not about the safety of GM crops as such, but about its impact on farmland wildlife. In that context, the minister needs to decide whether the benefits of undertaking the farm trial are justified when considered against the scientific issues raised in the petition.
This is the question that we should ask the minister: is the test of the GM crop's impact on farmland wildlife a justified trial given the concerns about the transgenic implications of growing the oil-seed rape? It is a question of balancing scientific advantage against scientific disadvantage. I am not clear from the minister's response how he has applied the precautionary approach in this context. It is not clear what the trial is intended to achieve, given the potential risks that are associated with it. In my view, we should go back to the minister and pursue him on that. Why did he allow the trial to go ahead given the risks? We have to pin him down on that point.
I think that everybody has now had the chance to contribute at least once.
I want to follow up what Des McNulty has said. The matter has intrigued me, too. If no one is going up to a distance of 10km from the site, looking for wild relatives of the crop to find out whether they have been cross-pollinated, there is no point in letting the crop flower—not that I want it to flower in any case—or in proceeding further. If, in fact, all that is being tested is the effect of glufosinate on local wildlife, the field might as well just have been sprayed with glufosinate at regular intervals—the same result would have been obtained. I add my voice to Des's—what exactly is being tested?
It is important that we place all this in context. The particular varieties that are being trialled are licensed by the EU for commercial growth. If there had not been a voluntary moratorium to allow the field-scale trials to proceed, any farmer in the UK could be growing the oil-seed rape varieties concerned, and without telling anyone.
Furthermore, much of the work carried out in small plots and in more controlled experimental conditions has now been done. The point has been reached at which the crops must be tested in the real world, as it were. That is part of what the trials are about. The aim is to examine whether growing the crop in the way that is advocated because of its particular genetic modification has more or less impact on biodiversity, soil, seed banks and so on than does growing a conventional crop. That has to be done in what we might call real circumstances. That is why we are having farm-scale trials. We need to bear that in mind when we consider the issue.
As I said, part of the reason for the trial is the fact that there are non-GM crops next door to the GM field, to find out what happens when the GM crop pollinates. As Robin Harper said, the fact that the pollen may travel a great deal further than the adjoining field has not really been taken into account. On that basis, we should ask the minister whether he will consider stopping the flowering.
I was up at the site on Monday, and the crop is in fact beginning to flower. We do not have time to call for evidence now—doing so would not help the situation at Munlochy. A letter, asking the minister to respond quickly, would be more effective. That is not to say that we will not consider revisiting our work on GM organisms at some point in the future.
I repeat that it is unlikely that the minister would act in that way unless the advice he receives from ACRE, the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and SNH changes.
It is our job to reflect on the issue, to come up with a view based on what we have discussed and to give that view to the minister. It is up to him to make the decision. We should not base our decision on whether he is likely to accept our advice. It is our job to give him the advice and I suggest that we just go ahead and do that.
Committees place themselves in a difficult position when they try to pretend that they are founts of scientific knowledge, especially on such complex matters. The committee did a review of GM crops. Some of us were members of the committee at that time. We heard a lot of scientific evidence and we reached conclusions based on the evidence that we took. We did a reasonably thorough report, although it was not comprehensive and we identified areas where there was not sufficient scientific information.
I would be reluctant to get into a situation in which I recommend that ministers take action based on my limited understanding of a science with which I am not familiar. That is not our place. We are justified in questioning the minister about the procedures that he adopts in the licensing process. In that context, we could return to the issues that we raised when we considered the general issues.
There is a test of benefit associated with GMOs. What is the benefit of holding particular trials in terms of increasing the scientific evidence? The minister should base his decisions on that. The people applying for the licence have to be able to demonstrate the scientific benefit, which must be balanced with any risks that might be associated with an experiment or trial of this type.
The minister must take evidence from the scientific community—or communities, because more than one discipline is involved—and base his judgment on the advice. That is the position that the minister should be in. Neither I nor any member of the committee is in a position to second-guess what that scientific advice might be. However, we have the right to test whether the minister has gone through the proper process in considering and taking the scientific advice that he has been given.
I do not accept the minister's argument that because there is a European Union regulation, he has to license any test that a commercial company wants to do. The minister is not in that position; he should be able to apply a test of benefit in such circumstances. That is my recollection of what we recommended when we first considered the issue.
We can return to the minister and ask about procedures. I am more interested in dealing with that issue than I am in making specific recommendations about the Munlochy situation. I do not know the ins and outs of the evidence and I cannot say what the minister should do about Munlochy. I would like to see the general principles sorted out, based on the evidence that we have.
I do not want to say that the field should be ploughed up. The minister should decide that. If a decision to plough up the field is made, the minister should make it on the basis of the best scientific advice and not on our recommendation as a committee of lay people. Based on our recommendation, the minister should consider how to deal with applications in future.
I want to bring the discussion to a conclusion. Maureen Macmillan and Robin Harper have indicated that they want to say more. After that, we should try to decide how we will proceed.
As Des McNulty says, the minister has the power to stop the trial if he thinks that the evidence is sufficient, but it is obvious that he does not think that it is sufficient. We should write to him to ask him to reconsider the matter. He probably will not reconsider, but in view of the extreme concern in the neighbourhood about the trials, the minister should be asked to reconsider. He should bear in mind that the pollen might not travel only within the trial crop—a distance of 50m—but could travel much further. Sufficient tests have not been carried out on the human health aspect. The allergic properties of the GM pollen have not been assessed.
We should be clear about the nature of the crop. The European peer-reviewed scientific research showed that, of all the crops that are used for genetic engineering experimentation—there is a list of eight crops—oil-seed rape is the most likely to cross-pollinate with wild relatives and with non-GM varieties.
If we recommend to the minister that he order the ploughing in of the crop at Munlochy—which he is entitled to do and which he has the power to do tomorrow if he so wishes—and he is not disposed to order that, he must at least come back to the committee with a clear scientific justification for allowing the crop to flower. We must know why the crop should be allowed to continue to full growth.
I will allow John Scott a brief comment. I want to make progress.
None of us wants to stand in the way of progress. A trial should go ahead, but the question is whether this year's crop should go ahead, given the issues that have been raised. It would be reasonable to adopt a precautionary principle. Instead of allowing the year 2 trial to go ahead—and having years 1, 2 and 3 followed by an evaluation—it might be safer to allow the trial to run in years 1, 3 and 4. That would mean that the trial would take a year longer to complete, but the approach would not be irresponsible because it would give a breathing space in which to arrive at safer scientific conclusions.
We should draw things together. Several approaches have been suggested. I want to comment on whether we should make a recommendation in any correspondence that we have with the minister. It would damage the committee process of the Parliament if we made recommendations to ministers that are not based soundly on evidence. There is a danger that the recommendation would be almost a knee-jerk reaction to the issue, rather than a considered one based on evidence. The committee system has a good record of making recommendations that are based soundly on evidence. It would be unwise for us to make a firm recommendation when we do not have the evidence that is necessary to justify it. Members must form their own views on that.
Three types of approach have been suggested. The first suggestion is that we write to the minister with a series of further questions. I have noted the questions that were put by Maureen Macmillan, Fiona McLeod, Des McNulty, Robin Harper and one or two other members. Those questions could form the basis of a further letter to the minister. I suggest that we write to the minister, irrespective of what other action we agree to take. Is it agreed that we should write to the minister with that series of questions?
Members indicated agreement.
The second suggestion, which Fiona McLeod proposed, is that we should agree to undertake some form of inquiry and take evidence from the various people that have been suggested. The third suggestion, which was initially suggested by Robin Harper but which has also been commented on by other members, is that we should recommend that the minister intervene to stop this year's trial.
Those are the two questions on which we must decide. I propose that the simplest way to do that is to vote on both propositions. Let us first decide whether we agree to Fiona McLeod's proposition, which is that we should take evidence from the range of people that she suggested.
As an inquiry might provide a welcome diversion from the permanent discussion of fish farming and aquaculture in which the committee seems to be lodged, I am not necessarily against Fiona McLeod's suggestion. It would be interesting to take evidence from people from the company with the strange name that is proposing the tests. Is it Aventis? It would be interesting to hear what those people and others have to say, but we should be clear about what the consequences of the committee undertaking an inquiry would be.
Yes, that is important and that is why I asked the question. I am happy to give Fiona McLeod the opportunity to suggest what impact such a course of action would have on our work programme.
From the e-mail I received yesterday, I understood that we would discuss our work programme later this morning. That is when we should discuss the matter.
So you have no firm suggestion at this stage.
The appropriate time to discuss the matter is during our discussion of the work programme.
Members can draw their own conclusions. The clerk informs me that the discussion of the updated work programme will be next week.
The proposition that has been made by Fiona McLeod is that we agree to take further evidence from witnesses on the subject of 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)
Against
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Abstentions
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
The proposition is not agreed to.
Finally, let us decide on the suggestion initially proposed by Robin Harper, which is that the committee should include in its correspondence with the Executive a recommendation on the current year's trial. We need to make a simple decision on whether we should make such a recommendation.
Before we vote, I want to clarify that, among the questions that we will put to the minister, there will be a question on the implications of ploughing up the crop before it flowers. We could perhaps ask the minister to respond to that point quickly so that we could receive the response within a week.
We could certainly ask that question if we decided not to make a recommendation.
Why would we ask that question when at least two members of the committee have told us that the crop is already beginning to flower?
The crop is starting to flower now.
I do not want us to reopen the debate. Members have had time to express their views. The decision is on whether we should make such a recommendation to the minister. 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)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
The recommendation is agreed to.
It would be appropriate to state in the letter to the minister that there was a division in the committee on the issue.
That brings us to the end of consideration of the petition at this stage. We will return to it once we receive a response from the minister.