Official Report 211KB pdf
I welcome members, the press and members of the public to this meeting of the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I remind everyone in the room to switch off their mobile phones, instead of just putting them on mute. We have received apologies from Alasdair Morrison, who is in his constituency today. I welcome Eleanor Scott, who is the committee substitute for the Scottish Green Party.
Good morning. The issue of economic liability that I am tackling in the proposed bill is complex. We know that because of the experience of the commercialisation of GM crops in the United States and Canada. That is why I wanted at the outset of the bill's development to hold a meaningful consultation on how the bill might work, what the pitfalls might be and whether the approach that I am proposing is sensible.
In the 10 months that have elapsed since the consultation was concluded, has the issue developed in any way that would necessitate further consultation, or has the situation not changed radically? If new ideas or information were to come forward, could they be covered adequately during the bill process?
I do not believe that the issue has developed in a way that would necessitate further consultation. Much of the discussion of coexistence and liability in the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which has informed the thinking of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how to tackle those issues, took place before I launched the consultation. The European Union regulatory framework was also set up prior to the consultation. That remains in place and will be part of the context of the bill. I do not think that there have been any significant developments since the consultation was concluded.
I have another question, which the convener may wish to rule out of order at this stage. When reading through the information that you have provided and the details of the consultation, it occurred to me that, because of the issues of liability that the bill raises, the Environment and Rural Development Committee may not be the ideal body to consider it. Do you think that your proposed bill should be dealt with as a justice matter, rather than as an environment and rural development matter?
That is not an issue for the committee to discuss, in that we do not decide which bills come to us; the Parliamentary Bureau makes those decisions. A number of committees could end up considering the bill; it is just that the bureau has allocated to us the job of deciding whether Mark Ruskell should be allowed to introduce his bill without conducting further consultation.
Would it be in order for Mark Ruskell to express an opinion on that?
Mark Ruskell may have views on that; whether the bureau will be at all interested in them is another matter. He may or may not want to put his views on the record.
I might leave that to my business manager, who sits on the bureau. That is a decision for the bureau. It is clear that the bill deals with strong justice issues, from economic damage and liability to the legal system. However, it also tackles environmental and rural development issues. It would not be appropriate for me to pass judgment on which committee should consider the bill. I will present the bill to whichever committee is eventually chosen to do so and I will have answers for it. The question of which committee considers the bill is irrelevant. What is important is that it gets adequate scrutiny.
You mentioned that your new proposal contains a slight change on economic liability. Of the 35 responses that you received, how many address that issue specifically and in what kind of detail?
At this stage, I do not want to get into the specific policy issues that are associated with the bill or individual consultees' responses. I would be happy to do that at stage 1, if this committee is chosen to consider the bill. However, I can tell Karen Gillon that economic liability was a theme that ran through the consultation responses. The change in the bill proposal was a tweaking. The original proposal talked about "liability". We have added the word "economic", because economic liability was highlighted in the consultation. In light of our analysis of the responses that we received, we agreed that it was necessary for that word to be inserted in the proposal to make it clearer to which aspect of liability the bill was referring. That change was made as a result of the consultation. I will be willing to discuss individual responses at the appropriate time, which I believe is stage 1.
I am not asking to discuss the detail of individual responses. I have an important point about the consultation; I want to know whether it dealt in detail with what is a new proposal. The bill proposal has been changed to refer to economic damages. I want to know whether the consultation that took place dealt with that issue in enough detail to militate against the necessity for further consultation.
The answer to that is yes. The consultation paper deals with economic liability and economic damage in some detail. Indeed, many of the responses that I received reflected on those issues, so they have been considered fully in the consultation.
Do you have an idea of how many of the 35 responses dealt with economic liability?
Not off the top of my head. As I said, I will be willing to discuss the detail of individual responses at stage 1. I would expect this committee or a justice committee to examine the responses in some detail. If you read the consultation document, you will see that it deals fully with economic damage. Many of the responses discussed that issue.
Do you want to follow up on that answer, Karen, or are you happy with it?
I am and I am not. I would be interested to know what other committee members think. A specific change has been made and I want to be confident that the consultation that has taken place has dealt with that change in enough detail. That is what I am interested in. I am keen that the consultation process that goes before any bill is adequate, because members sign up to bills on the basis of a summary of the consultation process. I want to be sure that, at that point, members have the right information.
Three members want to come in on the same issue.
You say in your statement of reasons that the consultation paper made it clear that the bill would focus on the economic aspect of liability and would not address environmental or personal injury. I take it from what you are saying that you have put in the word "economic" only to clarify what the original intention was and that the responses that you received made you think that that clarification would be helpful.
Absolutely. That is why we have refined the proposal. Part of the consultation process was to test whether we were on the right lines. That has been done, so the issue is now about tweaking the wording of the proposal. However, it was explicit in the consultation from the outset that we wanted to focus on economic liability. Clearly, the consultation had to ask whether that was the right approach. That is what we did and, as a result, we are proceeding with the proposal and making it explicit that it refers to economic liability.
The follow-up question is whether people mentioned environmental or personal injury or whether the responses indicated that they assumed that that was part of the whole thing. I presume that you did not get enough response on the two other types of liability to make you consider that they should also be included.
I am reluctant to stray into policy issues at the moment, but I will push the boat out and say that it is our view, as a result of the consultation, that environmental damage and personal damage—for example, in terms of health—are already covered through other aspects of legislation. That has informed our position and we have reflected it fully in the proposal.
I do not think that we are testing whether you have made the right judgment call. We are testing whether that issue was raised through the consultation, whether the changes that you have made to the proposed bill are a result of that consultation and whether that has been flagged up. I think that that is what we are meant to be testing.
I do not think that I was asking about policy.
No, that is why I did not rule you out of order, Nora. I think that it is entirely relevant to test that and Mark Ruskell has given us an answer.
I just want to clarify that Mark Ruskell feels that his proposal falls entirely within the range of the original consultation, although it perhaps does not reflect the consultation's full breadth. Would it be fair to say that there is nothing new in the proposal that falls outside the consultation?
We have refined the proposal in line with the responses that we received. That is the short answer.
I notice that a large section of the consultation document deals with the situation in the United States and Canada and that another large section deals with financial and insurance difficulties. It seems to me that the major elements of those are related to financial damage one way or another and that that, indeed, makes up the bulk of the document. I think that members, having read the document, would recognise just how much more directly relevant economic impacts are in terms of ease of litigation. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why it is proper to concentrate on that. I understand that. Therefore, I was merely going to ask whether Mark Ruskell can confirm that his experience of the North American situation, in terms of insurance and so on, formed the bulk of the matters that were dealt with in the consultation.
Yes.
Okay. I think that we have exhausted questions from members; following the questions that Mark Ruskell has answered, I do not have any further questions. It is my job now to ask whether members are satisfied with the reasons given by Mark Ruskell for not consulting on his draft proposal. Are members so satisfied?
Do you mean for not consulting again?
Yes, the question is whether members are satisfied with the reasons given for not consulting a further time on the draft proposal. Are members satisfied?
I thank members for that and I also thank Mark Ruskell.