Rural Affairs Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Official Report 189KB pdf

---

Petitions

Item 3 is consideration of petitions. Two petitions have been presented for discussion: PE51 from Friends of the Earth, regarding genetically modified crops, and PE138 from Andrew Stuart Wood, regarding quality assurance powers for Scottish beef and lamb. Members should declare any interests that they have in either petition.

The purpose of our discussion on PE51 is to pass any comments on the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is the lead committee on the issue. We discussed this petition on 29 February and agreed to reconsider the matter once the Parliament had had the opportunity to debate the subject of genetic modification. That debate has taken place, so the petition is on the agenda.

Members have received a briefing that outlines the legal advice on the scope for action. In light of that information, does the committee want to offer any advice to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the petition? It should be noted that, if the committee wants to question the Parliament's legal advisers, that should be done in private.

I read the legal advice with interest; it confirms the widespread view that there is limited discretion in these matters for both the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. We must start with the decision that the Parliament arrived at on 23 March, on the motion with which members will be familiar. That motion acknowledged the public concerns over GM foods, supported the Executive's precautionary approach and the regulatory regime that has been put in place, and recognised the excellence of the Scottish biotechnology industry. Those are the key points of the motion on which the Parliament decided.

The situation has changed a little since that debate, because of the revelation that there has been an accidental release of some GM seed across the UK, not just in Scotland, by a north American supplier. We may want to reflect on that when coming to any conclusions. The Friends of the Earth petition is in two parts. Part 1 deals with

"the release of GM crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting".

Given the decision that the Parliament arrived at in March, and the legal advice that we have before us, there is not much to be gained from detailed discussion of that first part. Part 2, which deals with possible ways of monitoring the situation, is probably the part on which our debate should focus.

Are there any other comments?

I am sympathetic towards the petition. We must talk about the recent developments before we address the petition. A field trial has gone ahead, of which we are all aware, and on which there was a debate in Parliament. The fact that there are now crops in Scotland that have been contaminated by GM seeds—albeit accidentally—makes a mockery of that field trial, especially if the crops that have been contaminated continue to exist.

This is a big issue in Scotland. On the one hand, the Executive is saying that we must go ahead with that field trial, to check whether GM crops are safe; on the other hand, fields have already been contaminated by GM seeds. The Parliament should address that, and the committee should also be concerned. The Executive's policy will be left in a mess if the contaminated fields are not destroyed.

As the briefing note indicates, several options are open to the committee. One option is for the Parliament to launch an investigation into GM crops, through the Rural Affairs Committee or through a joint inquiry by two committees of the Parliament. We cannot sweep aside a petition on GM foods, given what has happened.

I commend Lewis Macdonald on his initiative and support the points that he made. The legal advice is clear, and Richard Lochhead has gone off-beam with his comments. The Executive's policies have not been kiboshed at all. The problem lies at Westminster, as this is not a devolved matter. From the legal advice, it is clear that part 1 of the petition is not within the competence of the Parliament. The advice says:

"The Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament must comply with Community law."

Therefore, part 1 of the petition is inappropriate, and we should not respond to it. As Lewis Macdonald suggested, we should focus our debate on part 2 of the petition and not draw it further than the petition that is before us. The agenda item is the petition, not any other issues that Richard Lochhead might want to raise.

As Lewis Macdonald said, there have been developments since the petition was received; we cannot divorce those developments from the petition.

We need to consider the petition that is before us.

The facts must also come into our debate. One of those facts is that the precautions that are being taken are not regarded as adequate. From the experience in Canada, there is now evidence to show that the safety distances that have been outlined are not adequate.

There is also the outstanding issue of liability, which is not mentioned in the petition but which is pertinent. The livelihoods of beekeepers—who have been contacting everybody—and organic farmers are at risk. They do not see the Parliament taking any positive action to safeguard their livelihoods or to give them any guidance about who is ultimately responsible. Should their produce become contaminated and unable to be allowed into the food chain, who is responsible? Where do they stand? Those are issues and questions that it is incumbent on us at least to address in any way that we can.

The Executive has made it quite clear that the precautionary principle is paramount, and there are safeguards for the trials. The one trial that is taking place in Scotland is part of a much wider UK trial and is therefore a UK issue.

The petition's first sentence shows that it has been bypassed by events; it reads:

"We the undersigned declare that there should be no release of GM crops into the Scottish environment".

Although we may want to broaden out our discussion, the petition is no longer relevant.

Genetic modification is a massive issue in the country right now, and at some point the Parliament must bite the bullet. We have had a debate in the Parliament; that is fair enough. However, no comprehensive investigation of the technology has been undertaken by the Parliament.

This is not a devolved issue.

But it is a matter for the Parliament. As the legal briefing indicates, there are options open to the Scottish Parliament. We cannot ignore that. The committee should decide what options are available to it to make progress on the situation. If we recognise that this is a major issue, we should ask for it to be investigated by the Parliament.

It is always difficult to decide how to move forward, when we know in our hearts what should be done. It is fair to say that, through no fault of the Executive, we have moved on. What has happened has happened, and it has been acknowledged that a mistake has been made. Having said that, I think that an inquiry of some kind might make sense. I would be interested to hear what the Minister for Rural Affairs has to say about the matter; we should invite him to discuss it with us.

Richard Lochhead is right to say that people are concerned about, and interested in, the whole issue of GM crops, but it is difficult to consider the first part of the petition when things have moved on. That is the reality of the world that we are living in. As someone who was not in favour of the experiments that took place, my argument has moved on too. In a sense, we have had no control over the accident that has happened.

We want to guard against using every issue that comes up in Parliament as an opportunity to debate the constitution and the devolved settlement. I agree with Mike Rumbles and Lewis Macdonald that the Scottish Parliament's powers are inhibited in relation to the first point of the petition. However, as others have said, an advisory process could be established.

The issue that has just arisen is not to do with the Scottish Executive or the trailing. It is to do with contamination of commercial crops. It appears that some action can be taken, because the GM component is likely to be sterile in any case, so action needs to be taken not now but later in the year, when the seeds that might carry the gene can be destroyed. A lot of good could be done by establishing an advisory body that could cut through the misinformation that surrounds this area. Organic farmers, whose livelihoods might be affected, have every right to produce organic products safe in the knowledge that their crop will not be contaminated, and people have every right to consume food with the knowledge that it does not contain genetically modified organisms. An advisory body could give information to those people and make a valuable contribution to the debate.

Members of the committee seem to be broadly of the opinion that the first point of the petition has in effect become irrelevant.

The petition has been overtaken by events, rather than becoming irrelevant. The Parliament has taken a view of the general point addressed by the first demand of the petition and since then a commercial company has released GMOs into the environment. That means that the need for field trials is, if anything, greater than when Parliament took its decision. Once the technology exists, one cannot set up a boundary somewhere and say, "This shall not pass." We need to know what effect GM crops will have.

The petition has not just been overtaken by events. The legal advice to us is absolutely clear: we have no locus in the first part of the petition. The legal briefing states:

"The release into the environment of GMOs is a field regulated by Community Law . . . Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament must comply with Community law."

We have no locus in the first part of the petition and it is therefore irrelevant in terms of our powers. We could not accept that demand even if we wanted to.

Do we accept that the issue addressed in part 1 of the petition has been overtaken by events and that the committee will not take a position on that point?

I would like to add that the committee's response should be relevant to the whole petition. We should not give separate responses to points 1 and 2.

It is difficult for us to respond to point 1 in the circumstances.

If we are to respond to point 1, we should respond in the terms that we have described.

The legal advice on section 1 says:

"Accordingly the proposed course of action . . . would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament."

We have no locus in this matter; it is as simple as that.

Do we agree not to take a position on item 1 of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Part 2 of the petition leaves us some options to consider. Having listened to the committee's views on part 2 and on the on-going events that have become relevant to the petition, I suggest that we take further advice. I would like to hear the views of the minister and some of his senior advisers on this issue before considering it in greater detail.

I agree. Is there a time constraint on the response that we should make to the Transport and the Environment Committee, or can we take our own evidence first?

At some point, we must bite the bullet. This is a huge scientific, health and moral issue in Scotland, and the Parliament has competence over a number of related matters. We cannot keep avoiding the issue. The only way forward is for the Parliament to undertake an inquiry into GM technology. As part of that inquiry, we could hear evidence from the relevant ministers. I am not saying that the inquiry should be conducted by this committee; it might be a joint inquiry with the Health and Community Care Committee. That is certainly an option that we should explore.

Phrases such as "We cannot keep avoiding the issue" do not do the Parliament any good. I hope that Richard Lochhead recognises that we had a major debate on the whole issue of GM crops not so long ago. I would not call that avoiding the issue.

I think that it is an insult to the Parliament to say that that debate was a proper examination of the issue. One of the arguments used against the Executive motion was the fact that MSPs, and others in Scotland, do not feel fully informed about the issue. That is why the motion was opposed.

It is not proper to argue that we keep avoiding the issue, because the Parliament has just had a full debate on it.

There has been no investigation or proper analysis of the issue.

That is what we are trying to do now. We are not avoiding the issue.

I have concerns and I agree that we need to know more. I suggest that, as Lewis said, we should invite the minister and/or scientific advisers to give evidence. We could launch an inquiry—I do not oppose that idea—but we must be more informed about how to progress.

There would be benefit in moving quickly to invite the minister and relevant scientific advisers to address us on the issues mentioned in part 2 of the petition and on the choices that we could make. We might also want to discuss some of the practical issues raised by more recent events. I assume that those same scientific advisers would be qualified to advise us about that. We could arrange that at the earliest possible opportunity, to inform the continuing debate in this committee, in the Parliament and in the country.

I agree. I was disappointed by Richard Lochhead's comments, which seemed to divide the committee, although we clearly share common concerns. To try to treat this as a party political issue about devolution or independence seems a waste of an opportunity to reach a common view and move forward as a committee.

That is cheeky.

I hate to say it, but this has happened before. It would be useful to take evidence, particularly from the Minister for Rural Affairs, on those aspects of the GM issue that impact on the countryside. The lead minister on GMOs is the Minister for Health and Community Care, but I have heard no evidence that the GMOs in the field trials in Aberdeenshire are in any way doubtful in terms of food safety. I understand that they would not be in the field trials if they had not satisfied that test. We must recognise that health is the lead department, but that there is a rural affairs angle. Before we respond to the Transport and the Environment Committee, it would be useful to invite the minister to address us.

I could be mischievous and say that the Executive parties were ganging up on me by saying that the issue is party political. Although I am happy to accept that we should invite the minister to give evidence, the session should be part of a constitutional inquiry, not for us to find out whether we should have an inquiry. This issue merits a proper parliamentary inquiry.

Hypothetically, the committee could suggest that the Parliament should investigate the issue. However, we should also consider whether there should be an independent inquiry instead. The second section of the petition raises issues on which we are not currently qualified to judge.

What we all need is more information. That is the first step. The convener's suggestion to call the Minister for Rural Affairs to come before us and give us that information before we do anything is sensible.

That is what an inquiry is all about.

This is not an inquiry.

I agree with Mike Rumbles. I do not take a party line on this matter, because I feel very strongly about GM foods. I want to hear the minister first, and then discuss how we move forward.

Furthermore, given the committee's current work load, we are hardly in a position to take on yet another full-scale inquiry. The convener's suggestion would at least give us the opportunity to ask the minister some preliminary questions and then decide whether we wanted to proceed with an inquiry.

Does the committee agree that I should write to the Minister for Rural Affairs, inviting him and appropriate scientific advisers to come before the committee at the earliest possible convenience to discuss the issues raised in part 2 of the petition and other issues that might be raised about recent events concerning GM crops?

Members indicated agreement.

We shall move on to the next petition, PE138, which has been passed on to the committee by the Public Petitions Committee. The petition calls for the Scotch Quality Beef and Lamb Association to be granted independent status under the Agriculture Act 1967. If the committee feels that the question is justified, we could obtain a briefing from the Scottish Executive on the work of SQBLA, which no longer exists under the name in the petition.

I have a practical suggestion. Two weeks ago, Alex Fergusson and I met Andrew Wood, the Scottish Beef Council and the National Sheep Association to discuss a topic that was directly related to the substance of the petition, although we did not discuss the petition itself. Alex Fergusson and I were the only two MSPs who turned up at that open meeting—

Some of us had committee meetings, which is why we were not there.

I am just saying that it was an open meeting and that we were not the only MSPs who were invited.

I was invited myself; however, health problems prevented my attendance.

As a result of that meeting, Alex and I wrote to the new body, Quality Meat Scotland, outlining some of the concerns that were expressed about representation on the new body, its title and the levies raised in Scotland by the Meat and Livestock Commission. We also requested a meeting with Ross Finnie, which is scheduled for June. If the committee thought it worth while, we could report back after the meeting, given that it will address the same issue as this petition.

My suggestion was not going to be terribly different. Given our work load, perhaps we should ask for a written response from the minister and the National Farmers Union to the points made in the petition.

We could certainly take this opportunity to invite written responses and take advantage of the meeting that Richard Lochhead mentioned by having committee members report back. We could conveniently fit that report in on 27 June. Would that provide an adequate time scale to solicit responses and consider the matter further?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to appoint Richard Lochhead and Alex Fergusson as reporters on the subject and ask them to report back to us on 27 June?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition is PE113 from the Campaign for the Reinstatement of the Borders Railway. I am delighted to invite Ian Jenkins to the table to speak to the petition.

When we discussed this petition on 2 May, the committee asked me to write to the Presiding Officer to seek a debate in the chamber on this subject. It seems likely that the debate will be held on 1 June and, as we have requested the debate, committee members have to consider how to approach the issue. However, from communication that I have received, I understand that there are concerns that 1 June is too early for the debate to take place. Although I am delighted to take comments from any member of the committee, I am keen to hear what Ian Jenkins has to say as well.

As you know, I am supportive of the campaign to reinstate the Borders railway and am very pleased that the Rural Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee supported the petition. Although I am very happy that we have been given time to have a debate, I am not so happy about the choice of 1 June. First, very little background material is currently available, which puts a lot of pressure on the campaign managers to get paperwork to us in a short period of time. I believe that one of them is out of the country, which makes things even more difficult. Secondly, the petition, which was signed by something like 17,000 people in the Borders, is about a railway between the Borders and Edinburgh. It will be difficult for those people to attend a debate in Glasgow—where the public gallery is rather small—which means that Glasgow is probably not the most appropriate place for the debate. It might be better and more convenient for the campaign if the debate happened later in the year, perhaps after the summer recess.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. The Borders railway will be crucial to the Borders economy and will also benefit Edinburgh and Midlothian with access to a new job market and new residential opportunities. It would be a flagship project for the whole of rural Scotland and it would be tremendous if this committee were to back it. A working party has been set up that includes many interested parties, such as Borders Council, Midlothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. At its most recent meeting, the working party decided to appoint a project manager and set up management procedure to progress the issue. It was also felt that September or early October would be the ideal time to have this debate. Obviously, we want the whole Parliament to endorse the project. If such endorsement is given on 1 June, that is fine, but we would prefer September. Elaine Murray's comments about access to the Parliament are also important.

Unfortunately, I was not at the meeting at which the committee endorsed the petition and, as a result, I am seeking some clarification. According to the briefing note that we have received, the petition was initially brought to the attention of the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and I am slightly surprised that the petition has been offered to this committee for debate. Obviously, as local members, Ian Jenkins and Elaine Murray will welcome that. However, given that this is specifically a transport matter, I wonder whether it is appropriate for this committee to debate the subject. There are a number of campaigns, not least the Campaign for Rail Enhancement Aberdeen to Edinburgh, of which I have been a long-standing supporter.

Is that a vested interest?

I am sure that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be looking at all of those. I am slightly surprised that after we looked at the subject of the petition and said that it was a good idea, the matter did not go back to the Transport and the Environment Committee to be raised in Parliament. I would be interested in your comments.

It would be appropriate to ask Richard Davies to go over the circumstances that resulted in this request being made. It would be fair to say that, having been asked by the Transport and the Environment Committee to give an opinion on the petition, this committee decided that it backed the principles in the petition, and it was suggested that I write to the Presiding Officer suggesting that time be given to debate the issue in the chamber. It has transpired that that time, for whatever reason, has been allocated from committee chamber time.

It is up to whichever committee to take whatever action it feels is appropriate. At our meeting, we felt that we wanted to help progress this matter by raising it in Parliament. That is why we asked the convener to take the action that he did; it was appropriate action for a rural affairs committee to take.

I do not doubt that.

It is a strange set of circumstances that has led to the Rural Affairs Committee in effect sponsoring the time that is required to debate this matter. By the same token, there is no reason why that should not happen.

The other day in Glasgow, the issue of the Borders rail link was raised at question time. I pointed out that this was an occasion for joined-up thinking. We should not be too uptight about saying, "This is a parcel for the Rural Affairs Committee." I realise that time has to be parcelled, but this subject resonates across the committees of this Parliament. We have an ideal opportunity to debate the matter, and I would not want to miss it, but the ideal time to do so might be in September.

We need first to consider whether it is possible for us to propose this debate for 1 June. To be honest, it would be possible for us to go ahead on 1 June. We have the interested people and parties to sustain the debate. The next consideration is whether it would be appropriate for us to go ahead with the debate on 1 June. We need to consider our position and take an early opportunity to communicate the views of the committee to the Presiding Officer.

I do not want to sound negative, but my concern is that we are supporting the debate, as Lewis mentioned. I did not understand that it would be supported using our committee time. My concern is the one that I expressed about our previous debate. The most important topic that we are working on is our inquiry on unemployment in rural areas. I am a wee bit concerned that, if we have a debate soon, it might prohibit us from having the debate that we want to have on changing employment patterns.

That occurred to me, but my understanding is that the Parliamentary Bureau supplies days for committees, rather than matching the days to requirements. Therefore, any debate that we have will not count in any sort of quota. It would not matter if the debate was initiated by the Rural Affairs Committee. However, is there potential for a jointly sponsored debate? Is that constitutionally acceptable?

The Public Petitions Committee sent this petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee to take the lead role. The Transport and the Environment Committee was awaiting views from other committees. I understand that the Transport and the Environment Committee will not have had a chance to discuss this matter before 1 June, so it would not be able to contribute to the debate.

I was present at the committee of conveners meeting when this was discussed. The process is that bids from committees go to the committee of conveners, because the Parliamentary Bureau liaises with the committee of conveners about which committee's debates should take place. Let me put it this way—there was not an overwhelmingly positive response from the committee of conveners, because the reports from committees are not ready yet. It is too early in the parliamentary process.

I imagine that, when we come back in September, we will have a flood of committees wanting to use the available slots. We should be aware that we can have this debate on the Borders railway while there is no great competition for the slot. In fact, I think that Parliament would be happy to have the debate. However, if we delay until after the recess we have to remember that you pay your money, you take your choice.

Is another slot available between 1 June and 10 July? That would help. I do not want to suggest that we should not support this issue but, as Rhoda said, once we get into September there will be many competing priorities. If we said to the Parliamentary Bureau that we did not want to have the debate on 1 June, but we did want it at a future date, is there any indication what the bureau's response would be?

We would take our chances with other committees.

Mike's point is an important one. It might be difficult to postpone the debate until September if there are likely to be many other committee reports coming out at that time, which would put pressure on the time available for committee business in Parliament. Would the Executive be prepared to swap a slot and bring something else forward on 1 June and let us have its slot the following week?

At this point we must remember that it may be necessary for the debate to go ahead. I should write immediately to the Presiding Officer indicating the reservations that have been expressed by a number of members over the proposed timing of the debate and expressing the desire of a number of members to have the debate take place later in the year.

And that the debate should take place in Edinburgh.

Yes.

But we would not want to miss getting the endorsement of Parliament.

Are there any other comments?

Could the debate take place before the recess, rather than later in the year? I am worried because we have a priority, which we should be debating after the recess. I do not want to be petty, but I feel strongly about it.

I cannot be certain, but my understanding is that a slot is available on 1 June for committee-led business. I do not believe that any slots are available after that date but before the summer recess. If that is the case, the debate would have to wait until September.

Who dictates when these debates happen?

The Parliamentary Bureau.

Is the Parliamentary Bureau so inflexible that it would not rearrange the programme?

The decision is made on the advice of the committee of conveners, although the final decision is made by the Parliamentary Bureau.

At the moment there is little that we can do, other than write to the Presiding Officer on the basis that I described a moment ago, and prepare ourselves for a debate at short notice if necessary.